Subscribe By Email

Worthy Causes


October 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« The chickens are coming home to roost | Main | Lifelock.Com: An answer for the next time? »

Tuesday, April 29, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Hmmm, so being an ass while not answering questions or providing support for one's answers while just continuing to tell lies on top of reality is now "articulate". Cute.


Being an ass Zossima? I'd venture to say that you're an expert of late pal...

The fact is that he nailed the question, forcefully, articulately, passionately and with conviction... and this is what upsets you BDS sufferers... when he defies your caricatures...

What specific lies has he told here Zos?

Morgan K Freeberg


Well done.


Freakin’ outstanding! I just wonder where this type of passion has been for the last 7 years.

This assclowns are now questioning whether or not Afghanistan is a worthy cause? Unbelievably disturbing.

Maybe Sen. Obama could go over and test his theory of hope/change dialogue on the Taliban to prove his theory before he hoodwinks and bamboozles this country come Nov.


After 8 years of lie after lie, I just assume the man is lying. Why bother checking? He lives in an alternate universe, one you apparently find charming.


Sorry Zoss... that crap answer doesn't fly over here man... you made the claim that he lied, you've been making that claim... you ought to back it up... unless you care less about your lack of integrity... if you're going to question the integrity of others, don't put your own at risk...

What lies did he tell in the video here? Be specific... for freakin' once.


Oh jesus, Rick, what fantasy world do you live in? I've been specific over here numerous times. You choose to ignore it. It's not worth the effort. The lies the man and his administration have told about the war, the economy, domestic policy, etc., are very well documented. You willingly participate in the subversion of the very foundations of this country. My integrity is intact with people who don't willingly have their heads up their asses. I'm not too worried.


"when he defies your caricatures..."

The exception that proves the rule... And you know it. But hey, one thing about you head-up-ass, nation-subverting shills is that you never give up hope.

DJ Drummond

'Where's he been'?

Actually, President Bush never wavered. A LOT of other folks got distracted, and paid way too much attention to the Media, to Democrats, and to a bunch of politicians who had personal agendae they put ahead of the country and our people.

President Bush never wavered, he never quit, he never made excuses, he never gave up.

You might want to think about what we are getting to lead us, once he's left. We will miss President Bush, we shall miss him sorely.

Thank you, Mister President. For all you have done, and all you are doing. I'm a proud member of the 'never cut & ran' few, and we will never forget the work you did, and how little gratitude you received. But some of us saw, paid attention, and are thankful.


DJ, have you been paying attention to the deficits, the economy, the price of oil and who is pocketing the money, the failure in the war in Iraq, the lies leading up to it, the failure to plan and execute, the creep from 60 days to 100 years, the failure in New Orleans? I don't know what's more scary, that you've entirely missed those things or that you really do pay attention and just ignore or rationalize them. Things ain't so hot these days.

I keep saying it, if Bush was a CEO, any sane person would've voted him out a long time ago. We don't accept excuses like "It's the Democrats fault" or "It's the terrorists fault" for long when our money is on the line. We don't indulge the failure to accomplish stated objectives--and there is no way you can honestly say that Bush has accomplished those in Iraq or for the economy. A good leader is supposed to do those things. This guy is the biggest failure as a president that this country has ever seen. Just a colossal loser.

But for some reason, ideology (GOP good, Dems bad) trumps money and reason. I have no idea why...

Morgan K Freeberg

Waitaminnit, I'm confused.

Do I know Bush is a "colossal loser" and that he lies all the time, because the only people defending him are "head-up-ass, nation-subverting shills"? Or do I know they are nation-subverting shills with their heads up their asses, because this guy they're defending lies all the time?

I mean, I suppose the answer could be both. But if that's the case then you've got an argument that basically depends on itself for support, right?

I have never seen Bill Clinton take charge of a situation like this. And I think by now I've seen President Bush do it four or five times. Hmm.


Yeah, I'm not surprised your confused. Well, let me clarify for you:
* Many things Bush and company says are lies because they are untrue
* You are a "head-up-ass, nation-subverting shill" because you continue to support him and his policies

And to my point about ideology, it always comes back to Clinton for you BDS suffers. (I'm stealing your term, Rick, for only those who support Bush are deranged.) If there is any way in hell that Bush is better than that man (and there most certainly are some single ways), then your logic follows that everything Bush does is just grand.

See, it comes back to the Constitution, honesty, principles of logic, and economic growth for me. I know you've turned on those things. But you can still come back.

Morgan K Freeberg

Oh, excuse me Zossima, someone else wants to borrow the keyboard. Just a sec, I'll be right back.


Okay, now it's back to me and we get someone who will evaluate your statements for the logical content therein.

Em...remember Blutarsky's gradepoint average in Animal House?

DJ Drummond

OK, let's look at that list.

"the deficits" - Yes, Mr. Z, and you can thank the Democrat and Republican Congress for most of that. Riddle me this; what new spending programs has Bush proposed that have caused these deficits? And against that, what programs were already in place when Bush took office, which misuse has caused 95% of the deficits from 2001 to now? What's more, who opposed earmarks in 2003, 2005, and 2007, but was ignored by the Congress? Can you be honest there? Not likely.

Next? "the economy". Ah yes, let's see, GOP in control of Congress we have record GDP growth and inflation below 2% and unemployment at below 5%. Less than 2 years after the Donks take over that "change" they promised has happened. You should be proud of your team, Z, they worked hard to get where we are.

Next up, "the price of oil". Do make up your mind, I thought you guys were saying Dubs was in Iraq to keep oil down? You seem to have confused your conspiracy theories again, that happens when you have so many and so few facts.

"who is pocketing the money". Ahhhh. class warfare again. Well, let's see, who owns Exxon and Shell and all of those guys. Well waddaya know, turns out the overwhelming majority of their shareholders are mutual funds and 401K management services. so in English that means a lot of regular people. In fact, if you have a 401k YOU probably are a part owner of those "greedy" oil companies. Wonder how you can look in the mirror, LOL.

What's next? Ahhh yes, "the failure in the war in Iraq". I guess to you, freeing 50 million people from a dictator and protecting them from the death wish of the jihadists is "failure". If you really believe that, then you truly have learned nothing from History, and cannot possibly understand the honor and valor of our fighting men. And that would make you such a pathetic and bitter person, that I cannot help but pity you your misery.

And next, the predictable myth of "the lies leading up to it". There were no lies, at least from our side. Funny though, how so many Democrats who voted for the war when they knew what it meant, now want to lie about how they voted and why. The dishonesty is yours, sir, all of it.

As to "the failure to plan and execute", again you show an utter inability to learn from History. Look at the battles of El Alamein, the multiple battles at Guadalcanal, or even the Normany invasion or Iwo Jima in World War 2. Look at Cho Sin ridge in Korea, or even Bunker Hill during the Revoluntionary War, or either of the battles at Bull Run in the Civil War. Look at countless battles in American History where the plan failed, yet we won, or we lost the battle but learned from it and prevailed in the war. Every casualty in a war is a tragedy, but you refuse to accept that we have lost more men in a day of battle in some of our wars, than we have lost in more than five years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your pitiful and spiteful attempts to criticize the effectiveness of our military campaigns, and to cast the President as either incompetent or callous to the cost is a foul and putrid lie, which only displays how little you know of war and history.

Next, you tried to claim a "creep from 60 days to 100 years". At best this is a deliberate twisting of what was said, by different men in different places in different contexts. We still have troops in Europe, you know, and we keep bases worldwide to protect Americans and our interests. Don't like it? Then reject your US citizenship and go off to Cuba or some place more suited to your pathetic worldview.

As to "the failure in New Orleans", you seem unaware that the federal response in 2005 was three times faster and effective than the federal response to Andrew in 1995. But BDS overrules any sense of balance to you guys.

President Bush has done a fantastic job. It's your own basic dishonesty and bitter hatred that keeps you from admitting it, even as your Democrats would drive the economy and federal policy over the cliff.


Mr. Drummond,

A most excellent response sir.


Amen tim... so excellent that I've decided to put Mr. Drummond's blog on the BH blogroll...


"Riddle me this; what new spending programs has Bush proposed that have caused these deficits?" Well, hmmm. The war? No child left behind? Tax cuts (a form of spending, though very different multiplier--you wouldn't know about that)? The prescription drugs bill? Lemme ask you this: What spending program has he vetoed? How convenient to blame it on Congress, you stupid shill. How ignorant, too.

Clinton managed to balance the budget with a Republican Congress. Why couldn't Bush come anywhere near keeping it balanced with the same?

Actually, the current economy and the financial position of the dollar and US trade is an easily predictable response of deficit spending and loose financial regulations. I have a masters in economics. You don't want to go there, but please try. I appreciate all the "facts" you cited, but you're ignoring the facts about real income and purchasing power, debt, etc. The simple Reagan question, "Are you better off?" is resoundingly answer "NO" for most Americans.

"There were no lies." So stupid, it's not even worth responding to. I'd at least have some respect for you if you'd acknowledge the lies and say they were necessary to save America from the jihadists. Instead, you shame yourself by denying what is self-evident.

I've never heard any Democrat say Dubya was in Iraq to keep the price of oil down. I, who am no Democrat (but you wouldn't know that because you only know some third grade classification for people), have never said such a thing. 41, however, did go into Iraq to keep the price of oil down. Dubya's father was a man who valued America above his own cronies wallets. Follow the money. It never lies.

"Class warfare"? Is that what it's called now when I look out for my own finances? Are you from the 1950s? Do you still think communists and labor unions are a real threat in this country? How corny. You've been so conditioned to think that any opposition to policies benefiting business is "class warfare" that you look the other way while your own wallet is being stolen. You've been trained well, grasshoppah.

And finally, the inevitable invitation to leave the country. How unoriginal. Thanks, though. Honestly, there may come a day when I leave you and your kids to pay for Bush's mistakes and move to another country--probably with many of your wealthier GOP brethren, the ones who are taking your money right now while you defend them against people like me.

Welcome to Rick's blog roll. I think you've boosted the collective IQ to 43.


"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --John Stuart Mill

DJ Drummond

Z-boy tries again, I see.

"The war? No child left behind? Tax cuts (a form of spending, though very different multiplier--you wouldn't know about that)?"

Wrong again, z-lad. First off, all budgets get voted on by Congress, so blaming a deficit on any President is a bit silly. Next, as I pointed out and you ducked, 19 out of every 20 dollars of deficit was the result of entitlement spending from programs in place the day Dubs took office. What's more, there NEVER was a surplus from any of the Clinton years. What happened was that Clinton's people put together a non-GAAP presentation (GAAP being Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the cornerstone of all valid budgeting and financial reporting procedures in the United States) which PROJECTED a surplus would begin in 2002 IF EVERYTHING WENT RIGHT, which did not happen. That is, Clinton's budget assumed no recession in 2001, no increases in spending - something his own budgets invalidated, because he back-ended capital expenditures until after his term, a little surprise gift for Al Gore if he'd gotten to be President and just one of many non-GAAP-sanctioned actions - and so on. You also failed to note that the Bush tax cuts resulted in an INCREASE in federal revenues. Do you know why that happens? Economics is not a hard science, z-kid, it's a human behavioral matrix. When stores have sales, they make more money even at a lower margin than they would by not having sales. It's the same philosophy by which Wal-Mart dominates retailing. You clearly do not understand demand curves and revenue projections, so I will not worry your grade-school brain with the implications of regression analysis on short-to-medium term revenue analysis, but in short you are proving yourself woefully wrong on both facts and concept.

If by some perverse freak of fate you managed to get a Masters in ANYTHING, let alone Economics, get your money back and buy some books by Milton Friedman. I found them interesting reading, and it gave me a sound foundation for my MBA studies.

"So stupid, it's not even worth responding to."

In English, you got caught lying and have no effective response.

"I've never heard any Democrat say Dubya was in Iraq to keep the price of oil down."

D-Underground has said it for years, Howard Dean suggested it on "Face the Nation" in 2004, and Huffington repeats it at least twice a year, like some bizarre ritual.

And I am highly amused by your attempt to compress the entire Oil industry in one weak swat at GHW Bush. I am surprised to hear that the sovereign governments of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States of Dubai and Kuwait and Bahrain, and even Saddam's Iraq and the mullah-infested Iran all supposedly kowtowed to the elder Bush. BDS, again, is truly a sad condition to see in its pronounced stages ...

"Class warfare"? Yes, when you blame someone for their legal and honest success, and presume that your condition is their fault on no grounds besides their success, it is a form of class warfare. Grow up, earn your money, and stop getting mad at people who did well, especially when so many regular people make up the companies you are trying to cast as some kind of boogeymen. BTW, people who genuinely hold advanced degrees do not generally subscribe to conspiracy theories and paranoid delusions.

"And finally, the inevitable invitation to leave the country."

Well, your team was selling that claim not so long ago. Alec Baldwin and Kim basinger both swore they'd leave the US if Bush won re-election. So did Sean Penn. It was another common refrain from your side, so naturally it came to mind when you started riffing your little hate anthem because we are doing the job in Iraq.

"Welcome to Rick's blog roll. I think you've boosted the collective IQ to 43."

While I see you are proud of your IQ, I think the collective IQ of the rest of us is much higher than your quoted accomplishment. I don't go into boasting, but my educational and professional accomplishments seem to be satisfactory to my readers, clients, and colleagues. And by the way, good luck when you get to Middle School, watch out you don't get wedgied when one of the 9th-graders hears you spout off that dreck you posted here.



Lunch. Handed.

Eat. Slowly.


Morgan K Freeberg


The only things you leave unmentioned, of which I can think, were covered in Slander quite nicely:

"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have "racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple them." -- Ann Coulter, P. 121

"This is how six-year-olds argue: They call everything "stupid." The left's primary argument is the angry reaction of a helpless child deprived of the ability to mount logical counterarguments. -- P. 121

I've come to think of those as the "Zossima snippets." You can probably imagine why.

Nice job.


Ah, good ol' Ann Coulter. A liar's liar. You're known by the company you keep.


Drummond, I'm a fiscal conservative. I'll join you in demanding GAAP accounting by the gov't. Non-GAAP accounting started long before Clinton. We'll just have to roll back tax cuts. And all presidents make the rosy economic assumptions. But there you go again making Clinton out to be satan instead of working to change the root of the problem.

Spare me the lecture on fiscal process. My point holds true. Bush introduced the war spending proposals. He introduced no child left behind legislation. Etc. Bush's budget office worked on those proposals with members of Congress. Bush had veto power and didn't use it. These are Bush's deficits, plain and simple. The GOP rank and file were merely the patsies for his incompetence. (As you are.) For all your blather about gov't, you really don't get some very basic stuff.

For some curious reason, you don't expect your great leader to actually lead. You've devoted your sorry life to making excuses for him when he doesn't. Did you volunteer for that lobotomy? What a shill.

Supply side economics. Wow, you are hardcore. It is a discredited, silly notion, by those of us who bothered to get an education. If you learned that in your MBA program, go get your money back.

You're forgetting that the ultimate promise of supply side economics was not merely increased revenue but a balanced budget. That hasn't happened under Reagan or the Bushes. In fact, deficits were colossal under each. See, what people who research these issues instead of believe Rush ("going to the Caribbean with my case of Viagra") Limbaugh have found is that the revenue increases due to tax cuts were actually lower than would have happened if the tax cuts had not occurred.

But it doesn't even take research to see right through supply-side theory, because simple logic (which you clearly didn't get in your MBA program) breaks it: If the tax rate were zero could tax revenues be positive? If tax rates were infinitesimally different from zero, would tax revenues be infinite? Just silly stuff. Of course not. That's why the elder Bush rightly called it "voodoo economics". And it's why you seem to be just as dumb as Dubya.

Milton Friedman? His ideas on monetary theory were important stepping stones but ultimately significantly wrong. If you're still reading his economics, you're in the dark. His monetary theories were sound but not at all practical. The credit markets have evolved way beyond anything he could have ever comprehended.

If you're reading his politics, believe it or not, I'm largely in agreement. Friedman wanted to abolish the Fed. Your boy wants to give them more power over the financial system. Friedman wouldn't believe in no-bid contracts and things that subvert the idea of a free market. See, you think I'm engaging in "class warfare", but I think the playing field has been slanted so that the markets aren't free, by both excessive regulation, courtesy of the Dems, and cronyism, currently courtesy of the GOP.

"Human behavioral matrix"? What does that even mean? Oh, wait, I'm looking at my behavioral matrix. Lessee, under the column "Bush" and the row "leader", it says, BWAAAHHAAAAHAAAAAA! and other the column "Bush" and "loyalist" it says "Notable for the crayons jambed up their noses!" Good. Thanks for reminding me of the best part of economic theory.

And finally, "Weak swat at GHW"? Can you even read? I was giving the man his props for truly building a coalition and maintaining the price of oil at a reasonable level. Unlike your joke of a leader, he actually managed that war in a way that helped the economy.

Okay, more "Zossima snippets". It's a pleasure as always. Hammer away.

Morgan K Freeberg

But there you go again making Clinton out to be satan instead of working to change the root of the problem.

Starting with Clinton, when we catch the President lying to us -- provably, undeniably, caught in the act red-handed -- we need to have a debate about whether it was any of our business to begin with. Seems like a "root" to me.

Good ol' Clinton. A liar's liar. You're known by the company you keep.


Morgan, as is well known on this blog, if you'd bother to read before you blather, I'm no fan of the Clintons, though I won't deny his successes as you dipsh*ts do. Honestly, since you guys like rendition, torture, and wiretapping, you would be better off with Hillary than McCain. Some of what we see in broad daylight now started under Bill.

But you have no credibility if you call out Clinton's lies and ignore Bush's. You're just a shill for the worst president ever.



Let's make the attempt to keep the personal attacks against my regulars to a minimum... you seem to be quite adept at it...

And I'd also appreciate you keeping the cussing down... I cuss, at times like a sailor, but I recognize it as vice not virtue...


I will provide that courtesy as much as it is extended to me.

Morgan K Freeberg

Morgan, as is well known on this blog, if you'd bother to read before you blather, I'm no fan of the Clintons, though I won't deny his successes as you dipsh*ts do.

Actually, I didn't accuse you of being a fan.

You belittled me with a one-liner about Ann Coulter, something to do with being known "by the company you keep."

I belittled you back in exactly the same tone about Bill Clinton.

Now, if I'm challenged to write a 150-word thesis about why a self-respecting thinking individual should be more anxious to be associated with Ann Coulter than with Bill Clinton, I'll deliver. I'll make it iron-hard and compelling.

If you're challenged to write a 150-word thesis about why such an individual should be more anxious to be associated with Bill Clinton than with Ann Coulter, you'll just say what you feel, and call people a bunch of "dipsh*ts" if they disagree. You'll deliver nothing else. Because you can't.

There's no more to it than that.


Morgan, clearly you have no problem calling names, so honestly, quit whining that I do it. I've delivered plenty of fact, even in just this thread. I'm dealing with people who apparently can't even digest Schoolhouse Rock about how a bill becomes a law. Or possibly it's just that you deny that elementary lesson because god forbid anyone criticize the sainted Bush. Instead, the best I get back is to quote Ann Coulter, a known and proven liar. Seriously, dude, I know you can do better than that.

Morgan K Freeberg

Known and proven liar.

You're defending Bill nevermind, that one's too easy.

You know, say whatever else you want to say about Ann Coulter. What she said, that I quoted, is a hundred percent true.

Even Bill Clinton's most ardent supporters can't say that about him. Only the stuff that is vague by design, like "there is nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what is right with America." The specifics, like Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell...or authorizing use of military force in Iraq...even the Clintons themselves aren't going to defend. And the "did not have sex with that woman" -- it's going to be his legacy. It already is.

Ann Coulter never inspired an eight-year-old to ask what oral sex is. AND she's more of a real man than Bill Clinton, on his best day. I'd rather be associated with her anytime.


I haven't defended any of Clinton's ethical or moral lapses. If I recall correctly, I stated he balanced the budget. Only someone with Clinton Derangement Syndrome would have a hissy fit over that statement. He did some other things well, like the welfare reform. I've also recently posted that some of the things I find most vile, like rendition, started under him.

Again, read before you blather.

And what you quoted from Coulter is an opinion by definition. Therefore, it cannot, by definition, be "true" or "false". But that is one of the fundamental flaws of the Ann Coulter-CDS set: You actually think that the venom she spews is fact and therefore "true". Opinion masquerading as fact is right wing politics these days. It's just jello wrestling. Spectacle. And pathetic.

You are right, though, that Coulter is more of a man than Clinton. Check out that adam's apple!

Morgan K Freeberg

So when you call people "dipsh*ts" for supporting someone you feel is unworthy of support...that's fact or opinion?

Ann's opinionated observations speak for me. Given that, then, what would you have me do? Plagiarize her? I know I could...I'm just a guy commenting on a blog, not a college student hoping his professor doesn't know how to use Google. But I went the honesty route anyway.

You saw her name, and saw an "out". A red herring. A straw to grasp. You know, you could have just wrestled with the substance of what I was saying and crediting to her. Obviously, judging by your actions, you don't think you would have come out ahead going that route. I agree with you: Calling people stupid is the last refuge of six-year-olds, and grown-ups who choose to marshal all the forensic prowess of six-year-olds. Which means liberals.

I think you need to take your own advice. Read before you blather.


You're entirely right, Ann Coulter is a red herring and an easy out of any situation. She's an easy target because she is intentionally flamboyant in a way that strains credibility in order to get attention and dollars. She's a sideshow freak. And it works for her, because that's what the media wants these days, a he-said, she-said cage match.

She's also a documented fabricator of evidence in her books. So, if you throw her up as someone credible on any subject other than black cocktail dresses and bulimia, I'm gonna jump all over it.

Finally, you use Clinton the same way. I say Clinton balanced the budget (honestly, I'm not sure what I said), and suddenly I'm Clinton's speech writer. So, kinda the pot calling the kettle black.

Morgan K Freeberg

So when someone who is intentionally flamboyant to get attention and dollars, is a sideshow freak, and -- let's grant you the benefit of the doubt on this, even though you're wrong -- a documented fabricator of evidence in her books -- says something that happens to be true, how do we react to the substance of what she said, when we know it to be true.

I know Bill Clinton is a liar, but if it's raining and Bill Clinton says it's raining, does it suddenly start to be a sun-shiney day? Not in my world. I know when a known liar says something that happens to be true, it happens to be true. I stay focused that way.

For you, personalities mean everything. Truth is decided by who did the speaking. So you hear the name "Coulter" -- and therefore, any other name on your long, long, LONG list of dipsh*ts -- suddenly, you're all distracted and can't concentrate on the matter at hand.

That's okay. The matter-at-hand is that you call people stupid because that's the only weapon in your arsenal. I understand why you'd work so hard to try to avoid it.

DJ Drummond

Sorry, I've been out and missed bit. Did z-baby actually throw out the "worst president ever" card? OK, not only is he definitely no holder of a Masters degree from an accreddited university, that statement rules out that he even passed grade school History (do they still teach that?).

Leaving off modern candidates from the Donk Party, most historians still tab James Buchanan as the worst. Seems there were a number of things he could have done to avoid the Civil War, but he did nothing instead. Not 'civil war' as the liberals toss it around in their bombast, but the real thing, the hundreds of thousands dead in a devastating war that ruined the economy and wrecked the infrastructure for a generation kind of war. Runner-ups include Herbert Hoover, Andrew Johnson, and Woodrow Wilson.

Once again, z insists on proving his limits.

Morgan K Freeberg

No, he's using the "you're stupid" argument because he's got nothing else.

In recent memory, the person who has done the most articulate job of pointing out how this works is Ann Coulter, so not wanting to plagiarize I went ahead and quoter her. Our resident friend saw an "out" and started pursuing the "known by the company you keep"...while trying to prop up Billy-Jeff's tarnished, STAINED legacy.

I pointed out what a reversal and self-contradiction this is. Billy-Jeff lies by saying, of course I lied, and that's OKAY. You shouldn't care whether I lie or not -- you shouldn't even ask the question to begin with.

Ann Coulter printed up one or two editions of her book with the statement that Evan Thomas is the son of Socialist candidate Norman Thomas...when he is actually his grandson. (By the third edition of her book, she had it corrected.) And so in World Z, that counts as a "lie." Not only that, but it counts so much as a lie, to render insignificant the lies of Billy-Jeff. Who lies by arguing that it ought to be okay for him to lie. Whenever he wants.

Either he can't see the difference between those, or he can, and he's decided it doesn't service his argument to dwell upon that. Form whatever opinion you wish as far as which one it is. I've formed mine.


Zossima seems to be the actual chicken whose head has been neatly lopped off, but whose body insists on running around the chicken yard squirting blood all over the place.

Mr. Drummond, my hat is off to you - that was BEAUTIFUL!

Morgan K Freeberg

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Tip Jar

Plainly Offsetting Costs

Search Brutally Honest

  • Google




Creative Commons License

Plainly Quotable