Within the first three days of the Taliban occupation, women who ran organizations aimed at helping women had their homes and offices looted, their computers stolen, their furniture, televisions and appliances smashed. Then, the Taliban left messages on their phones, or with relatives or neighbors, saying, “Return and you will be killed.”
Among the organizations destroyed by the Taliban were three radio stations run by women: One was burned, the other two looted. The Fatima Zahra girls’ high school and the Women’s Empowerment Center, which held social and political awareness sessions and taught women to sew, were also looted....
१४ ऑक्टोबर, २०१५
"Hassina Sarwari herself is an immoral slut and if we had captured her, she would be hanged in the main circle in Kunduz city."
Said Abdul Wali Raghi, a Taliban commander in Kunduz. "Before we managed to take control of the shelter, Hassina Sarwari, the head of the shelter house along with all the runaway sluts and immoral girls, had already left Kunduz city."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७७ टिप्पण्या:
Now THAT"S slut shaming.
This is what a real "war on women" looks like.
To their utter shame, American feminists are ignoring it.
There's no nudes in the Taliban issue of Playboy, either.
Evil exists.
@Althouse, you voted for Obama in 2008 in part because you wanted Democrats to own the foreign policy. They own it all right, but there's a piece of that with you own. If Hassina Sarwari ever shows up in Madison, you need to grovel at her feet.
"To their utter shame, American feminists are ignoring it."
That's not even close to being true.
...Women’s Empowerment Center, which ... taught women to sew, w[as] also looted...
Those damn subversives, teaching women to sew!
What's next, teaching them to make sammiches?
"To their utter shame, American feminists are ignoring it."
mrs.e said...
That's not even close to being true.
Yeah. American feminists have no shame.
Gahrie,
I don't disagree with you at all, but, sadly, this dynamic is not confined only to the liberal side. For example, the contemporary experience of the Assyrians and Chaldeans in Iraq and Syria exemplify what a real "war on Christians" looks like -- yet that didn't stop conservatives from using that phrase to describe what happened (and is happening) with Kim Davis.
Culture of Barbarians.
@Bobby, ever wonder why liberals want to take guns away from Christians? Ben Carson worked it out.
That's not even close to being true.
A link would bolster your assertion. That you make the claim is pretty underwhelming in and of itself.
Why do the Taliban so fear women?
All this would have been okay if only they had issued the appropriate trigger warnings first.
Clearly, after the Afghanistan surge and seven years of an Obama presidency, Bush is to blame.
Amirite, libtards?
Bobby said...
I don't disagree with you at all, but, sadly, this dynamic is not confined only to the liberal side. For example, the contemporary experience of the Assyrians and Chaldeans in Iraq and Syria exemplify what a real "war on Christians" looks like -- yet that didn't stop conservatives from using that phrase to describe what happened (and is happening) with Kim Davis.
I don't remember anyone calling Democrats or the political left the American ISIS, do you?
Another Obama-Clinton foreign policy victory.
Rick,
No, but I did see people use the term "Gaystapo"-- on the scale of evil-things-to-call-your-opponent, not sure if Taliban trumps Nazis or vice versa.
In any case, if you're saying the difference is that "liberals are total hypocrites" versus "conservatives are not-quite-total hypocrites because they at least stop short of calling the other side terrorists," well, the distinction is minimal enough to someone (like me) who is neither liberal nor conservative. From where I sit, they're all hypocrites. I get it if you disagree.
"I don't disagree with you at all, but, sadly, this dynamic is not confined only to the liberal side. For example, the contemporary experience of the Assyrians and Chaldeans in Iraq and Syria exemplify what a real "war on Christians" looks like -- yet that didn't stop conservatives from using that phrase to describe what happened (and is happening) with Kim Davis."
There is no "war on Christians" in America--even if you think your religion is slighted when someone says "happy holidays" or as county clerk you're required to approve gay marriages, calling it a "war" is just nonsense. There are Christians around the world who actually are being driven from homes and attacked.
Likewise, there is no "war on women" in America--even if you think it sucks that the government can't make someone else pay for your birth control. Sorry, but a real "war on women" is what we're seeing in Afghanistan.
Let's keep our perspective. And the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of your political opponents does not make your own hypocrisy or ridiculousness more reasonable.
What Brando said -- he makes my point more eloquently than did I.
And silence from the LibCong female social justice warriors.
Our allies chain little boys to their bed to facilitate raping them. Our enemies do things like this. There's not much moral clarity in Awholestan........It's very confusing. If we stay, things will get worse. If we leave, things will get really, really worse, but there will be no reporters around to report on the atrocities.
I agree with Brando - but there is a difference, in that the feminists and the terrorist/Taliban sympathizers are both part of the same Democrat/Lefty coalition in America, which is what makes it extra hypocritcal/weird.
Nobody on the right has any sympathy or liking for ISIS. We might point out that they are eating Obama's lunch but that's not any affinity for the scum - it's just pointing out how ineffective is the President and his "policies".
Not important. We have real issues to deal with like manspreading.
All this would have been okay if only they had issued the appropriate trigger warnings first.
Actually, "Return and we will kill you" is a trigger warning. Or a noose warning. Or a knife-across-the-throat warning. Take your pick.
"liberals are total hypocrites"
It's more about hatefulness, but I suppose the hatefulness coming from people who brand themselves tolerant is especially galling.
But while individuals on the right have used Gaystapo it doesn't have the widespread use American Taliban does. Julian Bond, The Newsroom (which while fictional depicts the upper class coastal elitism of its writer), a book by Markos Moulitsas (praised by Rachel Maddow and John Aravosis), high level media figures like Howard Fineman, and leftish but mainstream sites like Alternet and Salon have all used it. Democratic politicos have used it also - I forget whether it was Harry Reid or Debbie Wasserman Schultz - along with Alan Grayson.
Isn't Islam great.
All cultures are equally valid.
The slut walk was cancelled.
Coexist!
If feminists and Gays were serious, there'd be protests outside of mosques 24/7. Instead of the groveling and apologies.
Rick,
Yeah, I mean, to sum where we are: Taliban carry out their "war on women" in Konduz. Gahrie (rightly) points out the hypocrisy of American feminists, who describe a political battle over insurance mandates on birth control as a "war on woman." I point out that this hypocrisy is not exclusive to the liberals, as conservatives use the phrase "war on Christians" to describe bakers and Kim Davis, whereas a real "war on Christians" is ongoing with the Assyrians and Chaldeans in Syria and Iraq. Brando points the lack of perspective in these debates. You point out that the liberals are still worse about it in terms of quantity and intensity.
I don't necessarily disagree that liberals are worse about this (honestly, I don't follow American politics closely enough to form an informed opinion). But again to someone who is on neither the conservative nor the liberal side, that distinction you cite does not appear to be very great. I mean, to me, both sides are hypocritical in both their tactic and in their inclination to recognize only the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of the other side. That, to me, is ridiculous and hypocritical.
Ladies are fortunate to be half a planet away from the rapists at our universities here.
We need a strongly worded twitter response to show we care. And maybe, if we really care, a concert like free Tibet or a song like We Are The World.
Gahrie said...
This is what a real "war on women" looks like.
To their utter shame, American feminists are ignoring it.
For years, we've been told that all cultures are equally valid, except that ours is the worst because of patriarchy, homophobia, and not giving liberals everything they want for free. We've been told that "Islam is a religion of peace" despite a decided lack of evidence to back up that assertion, at least for a certain percentage of them.
Few American feminists have anything to say about atrocities against women in places like Afghanistan because it doesn't advance their narrative. Real women being suppressed or murdered elsewhere in the world aren't as important as American women getting the vapors about microaggressions and trigger warnings.
"For years, we've been told that all cultures are equally valid...."
Who has been telling us this? Where can I find such assertions?
Remember the "responsibility to protect" doctrine? R2P? Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Samantha Power--anyone? I mean, obviously the U.S. needs to lower its profile, take a backseat, quit throwing its weight around, be fundamentally transformed into a humbler, less imperialistic nation, but exactly who is going to do what's necessary to live up to the R2P rhetoric?
Deploy the hastags, I say!
Cook,
I believe that cultural relativism dates back to Franz Boas in the late-19th century, but his students Alfred Kroeber and (especially) Robert Lowie did more to advance the principle into mainstream anthropology. True cultural relativists would not have subscribed to Larry's second point about "except that ours is the worst," but lesser minds with a mutated agenda undoubtedly did say such things, which birngs us to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Lesser minds also conflate Nietzsche's perspectivism into relativism- it's not, but I can understand how they lack the brainpower to recognize that kind of nuance and I'm secretly jealous that I do not live in such a black-and-white world where I don't have to think so much.
Don't you hate it when Christians (or their equivalents - militant Muslims) do this?
Robert Cook said...Who has been telling us this? Where can I find such assertions?
Robert you're not really arguing that moral relativism (and "cultural relativism" as the term is commonly used) hasn't been the default pose of the academic and pop-culture Left (which is to say, most of the credentialed elites our culture listens to) since at least the 1970s?
Have you really never heard weak moral relativism claims applied to foreign policy issues? Come now.
Maybe if the Texas coeds go to Kunduz with their dildos and protest ...
Bobby said...I mean, to me, both sides are hypocritical in both their tactic and in their inclination to recognize only the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of the other side.
I don't think you have a very complete summary. Both sides are made up of 50 million people or so, and it's not possible to control everyone. But to compare your examples one is an actual political campaign advanced by the most empowered Democratic politicians in the country and their allies. It is 'respectable' enough that dozens of millions of people vote for President because of it. The other is something a small number of people say in response to specific social agenda triggers and its pushers are automatically treated as cranks.
To to summarize: one results in being elected President and the other results in mockery and you're not sure there's a difference.
Rick,
Well, I think there might possibly be a few other factors beyond liberal opinion-makers using the "war on women" meme that results in who gets elected President. Maybe. Possibly. And I get what you're saying- it does seem to me like more mainstream American liberal leaders use the "war on women" meme ridiculously than do mainstream American conservative leaders ridiculously using "war on Christians."
But regardless of that (which is a matter of scope), hypocrites are hypocrites- the likelihood that liberals are better able to use the strategy to gain votes and win elections or that liberals are more hypocritical than conservatives doesn't change the fact that American conservatives are nonethelss also hypocrites.
One woman sleeps with 10 men for $10 each; another woman sleeps with just 2 men for $100 each. You could certainly argue that the first one is more of a whore than the second. I would probably even agree with that. But I mean, they're both whores. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, Laslo)
So Bobby and Brando are in agreement; there is no war on Christians in the United States. I'm sure that comes as a relief to the nine Christians gunned down in Umpqua. They can quit play-acting and get up now. Oh, wait.
Not that Harper-Mercer was part of an organized plot to kill Christians, but why would he single out Christians to murder if there wasn't an undercurrent of anti-Christian sentiment in the media?
Robert Cook said...
"For years, we've been told that all cultures are equally valid...."
"Who has been telling us this? Where can I find such assertions?"
You blame everything that is wrong in the middle east on our presence there.
Funny how it really goes bad after we leave. Still our fault amrite?
Bobby,
But regardless of that (which is a matter of scope), hypocrites are hypocrites.
If your analysis always concludes that unlike things are in fact the same maybe you should be using a different basis of analysis.
No American Feminists were available for comment.
Big Mike,
In fact, I've never actually said there is not a "war on Christians" going on in America. If you re-read my comments, you will see that I said that conservatives applying the "war on Christian" label to Kim Davis and bakers when a real "war on Chsirtians" is going on with the Assyrians and Chaldeans in Syria/Iraq is as ridiculous and hypocritical as feminists claiming there's a "war on women" over insurance mandates on birth control when the Taliban are conducting a real "war on women" in Konduz (and really all of Afghanistan and Pakistan).
But as it happens, no, I do not believe that there's a "war on Christians" going on in America. And your "evidence" to the contrary is quite laughable. There's been FAR more than 9 black men gunned down by police this year. Would you say that American police have a "war on black men" going on? If there was a real "war on Christians" going on- i.e., something like what we're seeig in Syria/Iraq- the evidence would be far, far, FAR greater than Umpqua (for which, we don't even have all the facts yet).
Rick,
"If your analysis always concludes that unlike things are in fact the same maybe you should be using a different basis of analysis."
That's not at all what I've said - and my prostitution analogy demonstrates that: they're both whores, regardless of scope. I'm not dumbing it down any further for you. Keep chanting "four legs good, two legs bad!" while thinking only the other side are sheep.
Bobby, everything happening here is first world problems to be sure. However, people losing their jobs, being put in jail, being shot in massacres, seems to be a substantial difference from the silly notion of a war on women consisting of not giving them special privileges and other treats. It would be like Christians demanding free communion wine and the sole rights to kill non Christians (i.e., abortion) and calling the hopefully inevitable refusal a war on Christians.. I guess it would be a lot like Islam.
Pick up on Aisle Crazy.
"So Bobby and Brando are in agreement; there is no war on Christians in the United States. I'm sure that comes as a relief to the nine Christians gunned down in Umpqua. They can quit play-acting and get up now. Oh, wait."
What is your minimum number of deadly incidents to make something a "war on [fill in the victims' group]"? Was Dylan Roof proof of a war on black Americans?
That's not to belittle the victims of horrible crimes that take place in this country. But this is a large country, and a lot of horrible crimes and outrages take place here. A few isolated atrocities don't a "war" make.
Besides, you're missing the point--when people complain of a "war on Christianity" here in America, they point to things like towns taking down their manger scenes and petitions from nutty leftists to boycott Chick-fil-a (which last I checked was hilariously unsuccessful). THOSE examples are not a "war on Christianity". Killings of Christians for the crime of practicing their Christianity--in this country or elsewhere--is far more indicative of a "war" on Christians.
Likewise, women being murdered here because they're women falls far more into a "war on women" category than Republicans voting against the Lilly Ledbetter law.
The problem with third-world people, is they are stupid. That's why their third-world and will always be third world.
The reason we lost the war in Afghanistan, is we bombed the wrong country. If Pakistan were a smoking hole today, Afghanistan could get back to their opium trade.
@Bobby, no, you never said that there's a "war on Christians." It's the Christians who are saying that they are being pushed into second class status in the US. Wasn't any "war on Negroes" according to the white supremacists back in Jim Crow days.
@Brando, how about the three bombs in churches in Las Cruces, NM? (One didn't explode.) That was just two months ago.
Me, I'm an atheist. But I remember what Niemöller wrote, and I'll stand with the Christians.
Well, maybe we just have totally different interpretations of what the definition of "war" is? Perhaps I spent way too much time in Iraq and Afghanistan to understand how we just throw that term around in America... Won't be the first or last time I don't really understand my fellow Americans- c'est la vie... Good to see someone fighting for what they believe in instead of "doing something" by just commenting about it on a blog, though!
Bobby, let's not be the prisoner of words. Technically, you're not at war either, because Congress has not issued a declaration of war, only the AUMF. So, you know, there are wars and wars. I agree, the war on poverty, war on drugs, all that jazz is a bit of hype, but frankly martial metaphors are so imbedded in our language that it's tough to accommodate you. Certainly not without getting into some kind of horrible Newspeak,which I resist. If you mean that Baptists are not being shelled with white phosphorus, fine.
Nichevo,
Fair enough, but let's not forget that this entire discussion originated from Gahrie noting that what happened in Konduz is what a "real war on women" looks like. My point is that you'd have to practice quite a bit of mental gymnastics to condemn that while allowing the conservative meme that America faces a "war on Christians" to stand without noticing the irony... I feel like if you're going to allow either one to pass, then you should probably allow the other to pass as well -- after all, they are closer to each other than either is to what Brando and I have articulated that "real" "war on women" and "war on Christians" look like. I feel like one should be consistent with application of one's labeling, and not just I support this because it's my tribe and I oppose that because that's the other guy's tribe, which is what a lot of liberals and conservatives alike seem to do.
Nichevo,
Oh, also, note that war is defined as "a state of armed conlict between societies." It doesn't actually require a declaration of war to have that, as we've seen numerous times since World War II (and, indeed, before that). That seems to be a common misunderstanding, but just thought I'd point that out. So, yes, technically, we are at war.
@Bobby, the war I was drafted for was in Southeast Asia. I think I know what real war looks like.
Big Mike,
And that looked like what's happening to Kim Davis and the bakers? Really?
A decade-and-a-half of US military intervention and $1,000,000,000,000. Now that's what I call value for money.,
Bakers, photographers, florists and now county clerks. What new professions will be...unwise...for a believing Christian to practice next?
"@Brando, how about the three bombs in churches in Las Cruces, NM? (One didn't explode.) That was just two months ago."
Again, I'm drawing a distinction between trivial matters (like Kim Davis' "martyrdom" or "happy holidays") and serious cases of violence.
@Brando, so let me toss your question back at you. How many serious cases of violence does it take to make a trend that one should be concerned about?
@Bobby, let's go back to what I wrote earlier. I see trends that I find disturbing and these trends go all one way: against practicing Christians. When a local official (guess which party -- hint, not the Republicans) brags about her efforts to prevent a congregation from buying land to build a church here in Fairfax County, I am concerned. I am not very concerned about Kim Davis. I am very, very concerned about bakers dragged through court and made to pay exorbitant fines for basically saying "take your business elsewhere." I don't like to read about churches being bombed. As I wrote earlier, why would Harris-Mercer have singled out Christians if he didn't sense that they were fair game?
Bobby, assuming you aren't yet another case of stolen valor, I appreciate your service. But not every war is fought at gun point, not initially.
J. Farmer said...
"A decade-and-a-half of US military intervention and $1,000,000,000,000. Now that's what I call value for money."
Yeah. The poverty in the US is overwhelming. Our poor people are too fat and they have too many Tv's in their HUD rentals. And old people aren't getting enough money to not work. And if you leave cereal in milk too long it still gets soggy. Our first world problems need solving. We have to take care of our own.
Bobby,
Thanks for participating. A welcome perspective(s), reasonably presented and defended.
@Achilles: Thank you for you service. To quote George Patton, "Such eloquence must be encouraged."
Big Mike,
"I am very, very concerned about bakers dragged through court and made to pay exorbitant fines for basically saying "take your business elsewhere.""
Nothing in my previous comments should be construed to indicate that I'm not also concerned about the bakers and the florists. As a live-and-let-live libertarianesque independent, I would greatly prefer that Americans be allowed freedom of association, which I see as a natural right (and because strict constructionists Heisman the 9th Amendment and believe that we only have the rights that were clearly enumerated, I'm not friends with them on this one).
Again, my objection is that (1) it's ridiculous hyperbole to describe what's happening to Christian clerks/bakers/etc. or women in America as being a "war on Christians" or a "war on women" when Assyrians and Chaldeans are being slaughtered in Syria/Iraq and Afghan women are being terrorized by the Taliban; and- more important to the origination of this discussion- (2) it's not logically consistent to describe the situation in America as having a "war on Christians/women" while mocking the other side for using mirror-image hyperbole. At the very least, it's ironic and, to me, smells of rank partisan hypocrisy. On the other hand, perhaps because I lived so long in tribal societies, I get that most American liberals and conservatives subscribe to some version of "it's different because my tribe does this one and not the other," don't really care about logical consistency and don't even recognize their hypocrisy.
Well, Bobby, if the "war on Christians" is overblown hyperbole, nevertheless I assert that whatever you choose to call it, they're losing. And if the "war on women" is overblown hyperbole, it's because they're winning hands down. When a co-ed can assert that she was raped months after an instance of consensual sex, and have her partner expelled from college with a rapist label despite all evidence to the contrary, then Millennial women have become more equal than men and they are winning whatever you choose to call it.
Ah, well, that is something I'm not really qualified to opine about. I'm just ~50 miles south of you, but it's the longest stint I have spent in the US in 11 years and a lot of people around here will tell you that it doesn't count! But as I said at 10:58, I don't follow American politics very closely- and I follow American social/cultural trends even less (sports and South Park being the exceptions).
Just to be clear, this is what Prof. Althouse voted for. Maybe she had good reasons, maybe it was for the best, maybe she is still proud of her vote for Obama, but it would be an admirable--and highly unlikely--display of moral integrity if she stepped up and said, "Yes, this is what I voted for."
This thread started about women in Afghanistan and the obvious parallels of the failures of feminists in the US. Got it I think anti-war feminists who say nothing about the sex slave markets and celebrate our troops being pulled out are sub-human. But someone brought up the war on Christianity so here goes.
Sorry to the defenders of Christianity here. But if you open your doors for business, you open your doors for business to everyone. I understand the freedom of association argument. That works in your free time. But a business that advertises openly to all needs to serve reasonable requests. If you deliver pizza you deliver pizza. You aren't going to hell if you deliver a pizza to a gay wedding.
Now I go to church. I may not be by definition christian, but my wife is. She reminds me that I am going to hell because I don't fully accept a 3rd hand account from 2000 years ago as a reason to believe in something that out of the ordinary. I believe based on the preponderance of the evidence that the bible is probably somewhat accurate as it is the best story so far and certainly better than the idea DNA formed in a puddle a billion years ago. But I am still going to hell for obvious reasons. I am still requesting kindly and humbly that Jesus takes a brief moment to remove my doubts. I would change my name to Thomas if need be.
That said I can't remember a time hearing any pastor saying don't serve cakes to gay people. My wife says that there is nothing about not helping or serving gay people or their weddings. In fact all I hear at church or from the community is that we need to bring them in and be friendly to them. If nothing else they may hear the word of god and help them that way. I don't know where this garbage comes from that good Christians should be denying any service to gay people. Note Doctors performing abortions changes the tenor of the conversation drastically.
Protestant Christianity is by far the most modern of religions that still actually performs the natural historic function of religion which is to civilize society. But all protestants need to leave the judging on this to God. Like I said I have been to over a dozen churches in my life and I have never heard the kind of shit I see on these boards. Seriously start looking inward for a bit and think about why you think you need to refuse to bake a cake or deliver a pizza. Jesus sure didn't seem give a shit about gay people and from everything I have read he certainly wouldn't be antagonizing them or driving them from the church like this.
Being ostracized for refusing service is not a war on Christianity.
@Achilles:
"Yeah. The poverty in the US is overwhelming. Our poor people are too fat and they have too many Tv's in their HUD rentals. And old people aren't getting enough money to not work. And if you leave cereal in milk too long it still gets soggy. Our first world problems need solving. We have to take care of our own."
Who's talking about poverty? The trillion dollars I was referring to is the money spent uselessly on a fruitless endeavor in Afghanistan. Is it your position that US forces remain in Afghanistan for the purpose of securing civil and political rights for women? Ostensibly, our role is to provide military support for the Kabul government, which is otherwise incapable of exercising legitimate political authority over the entire territory of Afghanistan. The primary reason for this is that the government possess very little legitimacy among large segments of the population. No amount of US military action will fundamentally change that dynamic. The US is a total sideshow to the forces unfolding in Afghanistan.
"@Brando, so let me toss your question back at you. How many serious cases of violence does it take to make a trend that one should be concerned about?"
That's a good question and there's no clear answer. Obviously we should be concerned about any act of violence, but at what point does it become a "war"? It's like asking whether the U.S. is at war when we bomb another country--arguably we are if the bombing is sustained over months with thousands of sorties, but perhaps a single bombing run does not make a war. Any act of violence against Christians (or anyone else) should be taken seriously, and at a certain point enough acts within a certain period of time it becomes an epidemic. So there's not really a bright line rule.
But my point isn't to suggest acts of violence against Christians are no big deal, or even that there isn't a "trend"--my point was that when people complain of minor stuff (like the perennial "no more Christmas" stories or complaining about boycotts of Duck Dynasty that result in Phil Robertson becoming more popular than before) and call this a "war on Christians" I say it is just as absurd as "feminists" complaining that government not subsidizing people's birth control is a "war on women". I'm not belittling women actually being subject to violence simply for being women--overseas or in the U.S.--either.
Achilles said...
J. Farmer said...
"A decade-and-a-half of US military intervention and $1,000,000,000,000. Now that's what I call value for money."
Yeah. The poverty in the US is overwhelming. Our poor people are too fat and they have too many Tv's in their HUD rentals. And old people aren't getting enough money to not work. And if you leave cereal in milk too long it still gets soggy. Our first world problems need solving. We have to take care of our own.
What farmer is objecting to is that money could have gone to providing people with more free stuff. We have absolutely no moral obligation to intervene in the plight of other nations when there are so many here-and more every day-desperately in need of the free stuff our benevolent government can provide. We have no more higher moral duty to the world than to be left alone to tax those who work to provide free stuff to those who prefer not to. It's our patriotic duty.
The Taliban, ISIS, Iran, N Kor., Pose absolutely no threat to our way of life. Either now or in the future and we must not let our unreasoning fear of these obviously benign terror groups prevent us from providing the maximum amount of free stuff to our non-working citizens.
America = Free Stuff
@Rusty:
"What farmer is objecting to is that money could have gone to providing people with more free stuff."
Uh, no. Find anything I have ever written where I advocate "providing people with more free stuff."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा