1 From the same people who brought us Ebonics and "Post Slavery Traumatic Stress Disorder" for inner city black kids who were failing class.

Psychology is a joke.

2

I can't agree with Gabriel about psychology being  joke. It's like any other kind of  tools, or sciences. It can be misused, or abused by those who have an agenda. It's like a car, or a chainsaw, handy/helpful when used correctly, but dangerous if used maliciously and aggressively!

What we see here is more of the left's desire to defame mainstream values, by associating them with activities we know AREN'T mainstream. I did like the Libertarian "Iron Shrink"! He ripped 'The Study' apart pretty easily. I added him to my favorites.

I hate when psychology gets twisted by leftists. I still have my college psychology textbooks, and its interesting to see how much the 'pop-psychology' of the left has changed things since then.  It's nice to know they don't have a monopoly though.

USA, all the way!

3 Wrong.  Everybody knows Liberalism is a mental disorder.

4 I don't believe conservatives suffer from mental illness, and I agree that much of the methodology of this study is hopelessly flawed due to an obviously liberal agenda among the authors.

However, that doesn't mean all the authors findings should be completely disregarded. Their psych profile does indeed describe a lot of people in this world. I think their problem is the misuse of the concept of conservatism.

If the focus is Americans, the authors should instead have focused on Bush and his few remaining supporters. Similarily, if the focus were Afghanis, they should have focused on the Taliban and its supporters. Among these groups, one can observe "dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and
closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative
complexity." These are the primary characteristics of Bush supporters and Taliban supporters (and ex-Apartheid supporters and so on), and most of them wear these labels with pride.

The fact is, Bush's supporters are not conservative. Conservatism doesn't demand its leaders hold omnipotent control over his subjects, as Bush has consistently sought to do. Conservatism takes a realistic look at what is true, as opposed to what one would like to be true; we haven't seen any of that in the Bush Administration. Conservatism spends public money frugally and wisely; a quick look at BushCo's balance sheet will show the lack of conservatism there.

Bush and his supporters can be more accurately described as authoritarians, not conservatives. The authors of this study should have made that their focus, and they would have been working with a more solid methodology. Still, I wouldn't suggest that Bush supporters are resistant to change. Bush wants to abolish much of our constitutional protections and revert the republic to an authoritarian dictatorship where the president is all powerful and above the law. This is, arguably, the most radical change that has been proposed in this country in its entire history. And that's one bit of change that I intend to resist to the very end.

5 Bush wants to abolish much of our constitutional protections and revert
the republic to an authoritarian dictatorship where the president is
all powerful and above the law.

Like I said, Liberalism is a mental disorder.

And Paul, buddy, there isn't a more dogmatic type of American than the contemporary "Liberal."  The examples are endless.  Of course, they aren't really Liberals in the traditional sense of the word, but warmed over Leftists, i.e., stalinists lite, totalitalians without guns.  They are collectivists.  For since when does Liberalism equal collectivism?  It doesn't.  Never has.  That's what makes you the warmed over Leftists you really are.  You're a very vocal, activist minority who seek to impose your ever changing "truths" on the rest of us through the courts and the Leftwing controlled media.

Dogmatism, thy name is "Liberal".

6 Paul:
 
"Bush want ot abolish much of our constitutional protections"
 
YOU ARE NOT ONLY A COWARD BUT A LIAR.

7 Conservatives suffer from mental illness? I just heard on the news that Nancy Pelosi, Hillery (the bitch) Clinton and Byrd are against the presidents plan to increase troop numbers in Bagdad.
 
 Now these are the same assholes who were screaming that we needed more troops some months ago.
 
 
If any group has a mental illness it has to be the friggin liberals.

8 Dr Jeff's assessment of subject Pule's mental health. (subject identifies self by schizophrenal psuedonym # 24 as "Paul.")


Subject is a Marxist asshole with sociopathic tendencies. IQ is well below average, and subject probably has issues with his daddy, who he feels didn't love him enough. Subject is most likely a momma's boy and a bed wetter. Subject sucks his thumb in his sleep, and has Freudian dreams about his mommy. Subject indulges in frequent power fantasies resulting from low self esteem. subject needs to feel morally superior to others in a vain attempt to assuage his fragile ego, but his failed attempts usually lead to overeating, chronic masturbation, and bouts of suicidal depression. The constant pain from his ass herpes causes irritability and feelings of persecution. Hermaphroditic sexual organs a cause for confusion over which way to bend over, resulting in multiple physical contusions and emotional pain. Subject's pathological delusion focuses on vast, right-wing conspiracies, and manifests in rabid, irrational BDS. 


PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION: Immediate euthenasia.  Hopeless case with no friends or family willing to pay for treatment.

9 Search your feelings and tell me if this is true about you.

“a clear tendency for conservatives to score higher on measures of
dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and
closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative
complexity” (Jost, 2006, p. 662).

Sounds like he hit the nail on the head.

10 “a clear tendency for conservatives to score higher on measures of
dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and
closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative
complexity” (Jost, 2006, p. 662).

Translated:  conservatives have strong beliefs (almost as strong as Liberals), they seek clarity, they are organized, responsible, and seek to finish things they start, and don't buy into political correctness and Leftwing social engineering.

11 replace 'responsible' with 'efficient' (structure).

12 Carlos, you're not too good at formulating your thoughts into coherent statements, are you? I explain a lot about conservatism versus authoritarianism. You come back with the most hollow piece of claptrap, prattling on about "warmed over liberals" as if the last novel thought to enter your brain squeaked in back in 1955.

If you want to debate issues, then focus on what I wrote and reply. If you want to advertise your lack of maturity, then take Jeff's example and go off the hook. But this in between shit has to go.

13 I just heard on the news that Nancy Pelosi, Hillery (the bitch) Clinton
and Byrd are against the presidents plan to increase troop numbers in
Bagdad.

Greyrooster, I've got some shocking news for you. In addition to Pelosi, Hillary and Byrd, a large majority of republican lawmakers, military experts, and the American public at large are against the president's plan to increase troop numbers in Baghdad.

For the latest example, here are 3 retired generals (people who you had the utmost of respect for up until this moment) who strongly oppose the plan and have come up with alternatives:

Gen. Barry McCaffrey:
"First, we must commit publicly to provide $10 billion a year in
economic support to the Iraqis over the next five years. In the
military arena, it would be feasible to equip and increase the Iraqi
armed forces on a crash basis over the next 24 months (but not the
police or the Facilities Protection Service). The goal would be 250,000
troops, provided with the material and training necessary to maintain
internal order. Within the first 12 months we should draw down the U.S.
military presence from 15 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), of 5,000 troops
each, to 10. Within the next 12 months, Centcom forces should further
draw down to seven BCTs and withdraw from urban areas to isolated U.S.
operating bases -- where we could continue to provide oversight and
intervention when required to rescue our embedded U.S. training teams,
protect the population from violence or save the legal government.
Finally, we have to design and empower a regional diplomatic peace
dialogue in which the Iraqis can take the lead, engaging their regional
neighbors as well as their own alienated and fractured internal
population."

Gen. Joseph Hoar:
"I urge this committee to insist that an alternative plan be developed
and briefed to the relevant committees in the Congress. It should
include diplomatic engagement with Syria and Iran. It should also
include a significant role for the Gulf Cooperation Council countries,
plus Egypt and Jordan ... It's time we took our friends in the region
into our confidence. The goal of the plan should be to prevent the
Middle East from falling into chaos should Iraq become a failed state.
Victory in the conventional sense is no longer possible. Our goal today
in Iraq should be to achieve a paradigm shift that will enable
political changes sufficient to give the people of Iraq an assured
degree of stability and justice. "

Lt. Gen. William Odom:
"Several critics of the administration show an appreciation of the
requirement to regain our allies' and others' support, but they do not
recognize that withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq is the sine qua non
for achieving their cooperation. It will be forthcoming once that
withdrawal begins and looks irreversible. They will then realize that
they can no longer sit on the sidelines. The aftermath will be worse
for them than for the United States, and they know that without U.S.
participation and leadership, they alone cannot restore regional
stability. Until we understand this critical point, we cannot design a
strategy that can achieve what we can legitimately call a victory."

I guess you probably think all these generals hate America, right?

14 I explain a lot about conservatism versus authoritarianism.

LOL.

Yes, you compared "Bush supporters" to the Taliban.  Brilliant!

And Paul, buddy, it helps to read.  I didn't say you are a warmed over Liberal.  I said you're a warmed over LEFTIST.   They are two different things.  I explained why.  It doesn't have to be a "novel" thought, only a logical and true one.

15 Yes, you compared "Bush supporters" to the Taliban.  Brilliant!

It is a very apt comparison that has been made in many places. In fact, both the Islamic movement and the neocon movement started at about the same time (late 40s) and addressed the exact same problem (the unintended negative consequences of unbridled individuality made possible through democracy and consumerism). Now, completely disregarding your utterly uninformed but completely standard "won't dignify that with an answer" response, you really ought to look more into this more. Read up on the origins of both. Or if you don't like to read, there's an excellent BBC documentary called The Power of Nightmares that goes into the whole story in a very non-partisan manner.

As for your "warmed-over leftist" comment, I can't take it  very seriously as it's wildly inaccurate about me, reflecting your own lack of insight about me. Perhaps, instead of resorting to stereotypes you've been taught to regurgitate, you could instead respond directly to what I have actually written. I know, that's much harder than destroying strawmen, but I hope you can understand, I have no response to arguments directed at other, imaginary people.

16 It is a very apt comparison that has been made in many places.

Places like NYU where Leftards are paid tax money to do "studies" on how conservatism is a mental illness.  Why, then it must be true!  I'm convinced.

17 Carlos, the comparison has been made at many government agencies and think tanks. To understand the comparison requires a deeper understanding of the origins, philosophies and motivations of both movements, something you clearly lack. Honestly, when you state your conclusions about something you know nothing about, it does tend to prove this conclusion about the study mentioned at the top of this thread:

"dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and
closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative
complexity."

You exhibit these characteristics quite blatantly. I would think that, in a thread dedicated to ridiculing this study, that you could hold off on completely validating its conclusions until you got to a different thread, no? Otherwise, you allow this thread to actually prove the opposite point you've been all been trying to make.

18 many government agencies and think tanks.

Many government agencies are saying Bush followers are like the Taliban?  How bout you show me!  (this is going to be good).

As far as what "characteristics" I blatantly show, I'm not the one on the opposing team's website insulting the locals.

19 Many government agencies are saying Bush followers are like the Taliban?  How bout you show me!  (this is going to be good).

I could spend some time putting together the argument online, but I know you won't read it. Plus, the argument is carried the most clearly in The Power of Nightmares. It's readily available. Here's a synopsis:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

As far as what "characteristics" I blatantly show, I'm not the one on the opposing team's website insulting the locals.

There, that shows it again. To regard me as "the other team" ignores the fact that I'm American just like you, and I also want to find a good solution to our country's problems. To regard me as your enemy first and foremost, shows how you actually view this conflict.

Moreover, how does my presence here on a right wing site have any relevance whatsoever to your personal characteristics? Isn't  that just an incredibly lame attempt at misdirection?

20 I could spend some time putting together the argument online, but I know you won't read it.

Paul,

of course I'd read it.  That's why I asked for it.  Very telling, however, that you wouldn't deliver on what I actually asked for because I "won't read it" anyway, but you did find the time to link to a Leftard conspiracy movie called The Power of Nightmares. Oooooooh.  Scary stuff!

Paul, buddy.  I'm waiting for all those "government agencies" that have compared Bush followers to the Taliban.  I'm waiting.  Put up, or stfu.

There, that shows it again. To regard me as "the other team" ignores the fact that I'm American just like you,

And then this little bit of hypocrisy, where us "Bush followers" can simultaneously be a Taliban but also Americans "just like you" depending on when it's conveeeenient!  You make me feel so warm and cuddly.

21 a Leftard conspiracy movie called The Power of Nightmares. Oooooooh.  Scary stuff!

Again, this comment broadcasts your ignorance. The Power of Nightmares is not a conspiracy movie. Your knee-jerk rejection of it, based on what you perceive the conclusions to be, underscores the derogatory comments the authors had regarding conservatives (inappropriate misapplied in that case, but not in yours).

Again, I could spend time putting together all the resources they access in that film, but it would be time consuming, and sorry, I don't believe you would read it, based on the closed-mindedness you've already exhibited here already. As for the numerous government agencies, they're all in the documentary, which is made up of interviews of all the main neocons, CIA chiefs, foreign policy experts, etc. Watch it and make up your own mind.

And then this little bit of hypocrisy, where us "Bush followers" can
simultaneously be a Taliban but also Americans "just like you"
depending on when it's conveeeenient!

That's just it, Carlos. We're all on the same team: you, me, Bush's followers, the Taliban, all of us. Once you discover the motivations and the founding principles of both neoconservatism and Islamicism (as well as many other philosophies that many people find repugnant), you often discover that you share some of the same concerns that those founders did. For example, with neoconservatism and Islamicism, they were both an answer to the many problems we see in modern society: how to keep society together when the driving force sof consumerism and modern liberal government tends to make society less coherent. This is a contention with which most of can agree to some extent. Except on the tactics used  to address this problem, there we all disagree sharply. But if you can draw back to the original issue, and trace the beginning of the disagreement, it really brings into clarity the underlying causes and motivations behind the current conflict.

With that clarity, you can then forcefully oppose what you think is wrong with various approaches and philosophies, and have a clear understanding of why you are opposing it. You clearly lack this understanding, Carlos, which explains why you've been flailing this whole time.

If you have the least bit of curiosity regarding the true nature of this conflict, Wikipedia is a good jumping off point to read more. Read the large sections on Islamic Fundamentalism and Neoconservatism, and then follow the links. It can surely help you look like less of a fool next time.

22 Dogmatic, resistant to change, willing to criminalize dissenting speech, desire to classify citizens by incidents of birth rather than merit, disdain for the electoral process and in favor of rule by an elite unelected oligarchy....
Sounds like 90% of college professors to me!

Regarding Paul, I at least give him points for recognizing that Bush is not 'conservative' in the sense of 'resistance to change' as Bush most certainly seeks to impose significant radical changes all over the world.  We can disagree about the wisdom and merits of Bush's plans, but it's quite telling that the study's authors want to lump together the likes of Bush, Hitler, and Stalin, all as 'conservatives,' despite wildly divergent political goals (republican democracy, fascism, communism) which they sought to spread and radically change the world into a form and with governments never before seen.  None sought to return the world to some idealized past.

23 Paul,

so your answer is "it's all in the movie!".  LOL.  Then it must be true!

If you look at the record, i.e., what people ACTUALLY say, instead of the hidden motivations of people, you'll find that the rhetoric about America and "Bush" spoken by Leftists and islamic terrorists is remarkably similar.  Sometimes when placed side by side you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.  Is that in the movie?

I tried.  I really did try having an intelligent exchange with you.   But you're far too slippery for that.  Take for instance how you'd like to come here and call everybody Taliban, yet feign a tolerant Liberal "offense" when I insinuate we play on different teams.  See!  You're the good guy!  I'm the divider.  A dogmatic taliban!  You proved it!  LOL.

How bout I tell the truth for both of us then.  You aren't on anybody's team who is a Taliban (and neither am I), and I'm on nobody's team who calls me Taliban.  See, it's not that hard telling the truth.  Plus, it's conducive to a semi-coherent conversation. 

24 Pule:


You keep trying to control the course of debate with your warmed over left-wing inanities, and you keep failing. Even as a troll, you're a failure.


"Subject's pathological delusion focuses on vast, right-wing conspiracies, and manifests in rabid, irrational BDS."


Seek treatment before it's too late. I see Dr Carlos has started your Therapy, but you have a long way to go on the road to mental health. Your neocon psychosis can be treated once you admit that dem Jooos do not control the world from behind the scenes and that President Bush is neither Jewish nor a neocon.


Your BDS is untreatable. You have a terminal case. You are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, and will die in an asylum raving that BusHitlerBurton is the source of all evil and suffering in the world. 


You can take a pill for the ass herpes.

25 you'll find that the rhetoric about America and "Bush" spoken by Leftists and islamic terrorists is remarkably similar.

Examples?

I really did try having an intelligent exchange with you.

You did?? Damn, I'd hate to see what it's like if you weren't trying!

But you're far too slippery for that.

You mean, you can't just roll out meaningless statements and expect me to accept that as a compelling argument. True.

Take for instance how you'd like to come here and call everybody Taliban

I didn't call anyone here "the Taliban." Rather, I pointed out that Bush's supporters have things in common with the Taliban's supporters. This was never refuted. If I have to explain to you the difference between calling you something, and saying you have something in common with that something, then it's clear why you've had such a hard time understanding my arguments. You have a problem with language.

yet feign a tolerant Liberal "offense" when I insinuate we play on different teams

No, I wasn't offended at all. There's nothing any of you could say that would offend me. I was simply pointing out how you're misframing the argument.

26 You did?? Damn, I'd hate to see what it's like if you weren't trying!

Hmm, that was original.  You came up with that all your own?  You're not nearly as clever as you are slippery.

I didn't call anyone here "the Taliban." Rather, I pointed out that
Bush's supporters have things in common with the Taliban's supporters.

As for meaningless statements, I declare you the hands down winner.

Examples?

I see how that works.  You don't have to give examples, but I do.  LOL. OK, fine.  Let's play a game.  It's called "Who Said It: Bin Laden, or a Liberal College Professor?"1. "Reality testifies that the war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq."

2. "In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources."

3. "There is no defect in this solution other than preventing the
flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war
merchants in America, who supported Bush's election campaign with
billions of dollars."

4. "In fact, reports indicate that the defeat and devastating
failure of the ill-omened plan of the four - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
and Wolfowitz - and the announcement of this defeat and working it out,
is only a matter of time, which is to some extent linked to the
awareness of the American people of the magnitude of this tragedy."

The answers:

http://aredphishhead.blogspot.com/2006/01/game.html
ps. I'm not calling you a terrorist, I'm just saying you sound a hell of a lot like one ;-)

27 As for meaningless statements, I declare you the hands down winner.

Damn, Carlos, you're thicker than I thought.

If I say "I'm sick as a dog," that doesn't mean that I've changed species. If I say you have things in common with the Taliban, it doesn't mean you are the Taliban. Hell, I've got things in common with the Taliban; we all have. Arms, legs, eyes, nose, etc. That doesn't mean we're one and the same, but that we have things in common. And in your case, those commonalities are pretty significant. I hope you can discover the meaning of this. Let me know if you missed it, and I'll dumb it down a bit more.

I see how that works.  You don't have to give examples, but I do.

I've given plenty of examples. But the fact is, I can't address your claim until I know exactly what you're talking about. Thanks for indulging me. Now let's look at those quotes:

"Reality testifies that the war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq."

This is a pretty non-controversial fact, and as such could have been said by anyone. Are you contesting the truth of it?

"In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources."

I'm not sure who said those exact words, but this precise point was made in a recent NIE published by our own government.

"There is no defect in this solution other than preventing the
flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war
merchants in America, who supported Bush's election campaign with
billions of dollars."

The meaning of this statement is impossible to determine, since I don't know what they mean by "this solution." However, I'd guess this was made by someone in Al Qaeda, since they talk about America in a remote sense.

Okay, I skipped to the end and looked at the answers. I get it. They were all made by bin Laden.

Good. I can provide some quotes by bin Laden too if you like. However, you completely failed to show that liberals make the same points as bin Laden. I mean, sure, there is a commonly recognized truth that most people will agree on. If you ask bin Laden if the sun is hot or cold, I expect his answer would be about the same as yours. Des that make you a terrorist? By your own reasoning, apparently it does.

28 Okay, I skipped to the end and looked at the answers.

That's ok.  I couldn't tell the difference either.  See?  Now we can make a movie too about how much Leftists and Al Qaida terrorists have in common, and we can give it a real scary name too!  Then we can quote it as proof you Leftists are scary terrorist types!  Sounds like a plan.

29 Post slavery traumatic stress disorder. Ha, ha. Now I know what Paul suffers from.

30 Paul: You dork. You liberals asses always miss the point. The point was that these individuals have turned 180 degrees in two months. But being a lefturd with post slavery traumatic stress disorder I understand your inability to focus on anything but your leftist bullshit.

31 That's ok.  I couldn't tell the difference either.

Okay, Carlos, since you couldn't understand my earlier comment, I'm going to dumb it waaaay down for you.

Your first 2 quotes were simply statements of fact. It so happens that the speaker in this case was bin Laden. However, it doesn't change the facts that he states. For example, no one would contest the fact the war on terror is not restricted to Iraq. Not you, me, Bush: nobody. Similarly, the first time I heard that Iraq was serving as an effective recruitment tool for Al Qaeda was not from bin Laden but from the US government in its most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Since you cannot contest either of these facts, I assume that means that you also agree with bin Laden. I'm not sure what you were hoping to prove there, but your failure at doing so doesn't seem have slowed you down any.

Are you attempting some sort of "defeat with dignity" thing here? You get your hat handed to you repeatedly and then declare victory? I'm sure that will be fine for the idiots who peruse these pages, but one must assume there are intelligent people here too, to whom you look like a moron. Just sayin'.

32 Greyrooster, you know in Sanford and Son when Fred would get all het up, and start thrusting his fists up and down and in all directions, while Lamont would try to smooth things over?

Well, you do a hell of an impression.

33 Paul,

let's play some more.  Who said this, a Leftist? or an islamic terrorist:

"It never occurred to us that he, the commander in chief of
the country, would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face
those horrors alone, because he thought listening to a child discussing
her goats was more important."

I know, it's hard to tell!!!  Or this:

Despite entering the fourth year after
September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from
you, and therefore the reasons are still there for a repeat of what happened."

and this:

"He [Bush] adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab
rulers and called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating
terrorism. . . ."

Osama?  Michael Moore? 

"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the
American forces would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face
those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he
thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was
more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers.

LOL. The similarities are remarkable!!!

34 Pule:


You continue to post meaningless gibberish without backing up a single asinine claim you've made. Your juvenile attempts at misdirection would be pitiable, if you were a member of the human race deserving of charity.


Thank you for proving to us all that moonbats do indeed suffer fom a mental illness.


Meanwhile, your elected President has sent more troops to Iraq to cunduct door to door terrorist liquidation sweeps. The extermination of terrorists in Iraq is climbing to a new level, and there's not a God damned thing you leftists can do about it.


How do you feel about that, little man?


You can run, but you cant hide. No matter how many times you try to derail an adult converstaion at this blog, I will expose your sophomoric contumacy and empty rhetoric. You hate your country and you're deathly afraid of me. You cant handle the humiliation I make you feel, and you try in vain hide in a corner.


Guess what bitch? I have a flashlight that exposes cockroaches like you. It's called the truth, and vermin like you cant abide it. Your tinfoil hat wont protect you, and I wont allow you to mouth off with impunity. I'm the equivalent of a Coalition bullet in your jihadi loving head. Bang, bang, you're plagiarized ideas are dead.

35 Mother fucker.

36 I'm sorry I mised this, but life happened, and I neded to deal with it. Still I don't see where I was needed. it still would have ben fun                    USA, all the way!

37 I'm sorry I mised this,

I think after he reads post #33 he'll not want to play anymore and pretend he never saw it.  Game over.

38 It appears that nothing is left of Pule except the skidmark he left in his skivvies when he fled in terror.


Poor little leftist bitch.

39 Nobody wants my comments read it seems. BAAAAAHHHHH!!! Bleat on sheeple...

40 What comments? I'll read them.

41 Any sign of political affiliation is a mental disorder. Simply reading the comments of any political webspace will tell you that. Thinking for yourself is what sane people do.

42 I just popped by to see if any of you had fought to have the last word, fully expecting that you had. But when I read these threads, I had an insight about the Iraq war I'd like to share with you.

The reason why the Americans cannot be victorious over the insurgency in Iraq is because the Iraqi insurgency are at home, whereas the Americans are in a foreign country. Eventually, the Americans will leave (even if it's after 100 years), and the insurgency will remain.

To illustrate this point, let's look at this blog. I'm like the Americans, and you lot are like the Iraqi insurgency. While I have won pretty much all the battles I have engaged in here, adequately defending my own point while dismantling others (as well as doing so with a level of maturity you guys can't even get your heads around), you folks will always have the last word. Because, while you guys reside here (for whatever reason I can only imagine), I don't.

Therefore, regardless of how I dismantle your points with superior arguments, and make some of you like poor Jeff look incredibly immature, in the end, you guys will be standing here beating your chests like Baghdad Bob, claiming the Mother of All Victories in jawdropping defiance of a page full of facts directly above. At that point, just like the Iraqis, you will be left with nothing but your own bad ideas.

You don't believe me? Watch the next few posts. I predict they will be entirely devoid of substance, rely wholly on ad hominems, and communicated in a way that most kids over the age of 14 would find embarrassing.

Compare this to what's likely to happen the day after the last US troops leave Iraq.

43 xwvi yjrgeocb hayiwek dsyz jylfpbg bxcpgk zoqn

44 qiysu gnqc cehianbr wtaj namxz xwzbke povjuqh