OK Then, How About TWAT - The War About Terms?

And you know how I feel about President Bush and conservatives, but you may not fully grasp my regard (really lack of same) for liberals. I mean, I know I say things like "they're more dangerous than jihadists," but that doesn't exactly convey my true sentiments. See, we understand that you can't negotiate with jihadists, you have to kill 'em.

Now no, I'm not advocating the wanton slaughter of liberals, I'm advocating a carefully targeted euthanasia or even more preferable, designed disease. Or simply do some gene therapy (no, not the Kiss guy) on their asses. Maybe give liberal women blonde hair and big breasts, and make liberal men less gay and more football addicted.

Although aren't most liberal women already top-heavy blondes?

I'll leave it to the scientists since...

Didn't most mad scientists used to be conservative before all this environment and warming nonsense? This one issue could help regain their primacy, and it would do a lot for the environmental-warmers at the same time if you consider that doing it TO them is also doing it FOR them.

Think about it, I've got time.

Say what I will about Republicans, they understand that it's better for three thousand of our guys die over a period of years while at the same time killing many more thousands of their guys than it is for three thousand of our guys to die en masse at the office while only a super-baker's dozen of theirs perish at the same time.

If you're still with me, you're probably wondering what prompted this, and it's actually two specific headlines I read in which the stories that followed were superfluous.

The first headline was yesterday: "Bush Success vs. al Qaeda Breeds Long-Term Worries." The second was this morning: "No more GWOT, House committee decrees."

I confess that at first I thought GWOT was some sort of hallucinogen proprietary to the ruling class, but as I read I see that the House Armed Services Committee has outlawed the phrase, "global war on terror," though I'm certain it's not the work of the entire committee.

Whether due to shortsightedness or political correctness, it's indicative of America approaching the end of its reign atop the world heap. And all you and I are doing is what we're always doing, wringing our hands at each new signpost.

Speaking of which, the first headline I cited leads into a story about how we've been so successful at stymieing al Qaeda, that we've actually brought ourselves closer to more devastation: "we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11," the article's idiot byte said. I immediately thought of these weather imbeciles who are saying again that this hurricane season will be more active than usual.

Since we can't eliminate hurricanes, sooner or later, these fools will be right, but we can continue to thwart al Qaeda. However, since they are ceaselessly trying to destroy us, unless and until we eliminate the last one, there is always the possibility of another attack on our soil.

And since time, by it's very nature, adds a new day almost every day, we are absolutely closer to another attack than at any time since the towers fell, and tomorrow, we'll probably be closer still. Even more amazingly, Baghdad is closer now than it was even just moments ago to another suicide bombing.

A month back, I got into an argument with Miami John, MiJo, who so typifies what were dealing with that for one brief hideous moment, this very blog became a microcosm of our entire society.

John was not unintelligent. He was in fact just the opposite, possibly too smart for his own good, because he couldn't see the conclusion for the premises (that's logic talk for "the forest for the trees).

John didn't want to begin at the beginning, and he wanted his version of reality to be the official version. It took me a bit to realize this because he's rather good at what he does, and he's no doubt been bolstered by "successes" in liberal circles.

But my experience with John differed significantly from those I have with people arguing religious beliefs who can be infinitely less rational than John - my feeling is that religious advocates mean well, whereas John just wanted what he wanted regardless of consequences.

So John got all upset when I wouldn't "debate" him, and he naturally argued that it was because I couldn't. And he was right; you can't debate someone who has already formed his own immutable conclusions. Where I may differ from the William F. Buckleys of this world though is that rather than just admit we can't continue a discussion, I enjoy name-calling and ridiculing, under my All Insults All The Time program.

But John did prove something - he proved that anyone, regardless of his level of intelligence, can be an idiot. And no doubt John feels the same about me - or worse.

So what's the point? With the world getting dumber and dumber in the reasoning department as evidenced by those headlines I cited, not to mention that Rosie O'Donnell not only still has a prominent network job, but she can actually get applause for her comments and even go out in public without fear of being torn limb from limb... well...

I don't know what you think, but I know that you're not going to win a debate with liberals, and I know that were closer now to our demise than we were at any time since 9/11. In fact, liberals use your belief in freedom of speech to undermine you - in the media, in schools, in government, and even on blogs. They are quite bold about it and each success emboldens them even more.

You see what I'm sayin'? It's like my friend Mz. Simpson says, "In other words, believe their threats."

God be with you...

And with your ammunition.