billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,226
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 3, 2015 15:39:29 GMT -5
... Also, who cares if it's hitting closer and closer to home! Bah, there is no way the next time could be in my backyard. NIMBY, no way! NIMBY! I think that if it is found to be poorly planned and executed by a couple of wan-a-be terrorists that it is no less a problem for the general population than if it was an attack planned and orchestrated by ISIL headquarters. It is in the response by authorities that it matters which it is.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 3, 2015 15:56:25 GMT -5
The honourable thing to do would have been to premeditate the attack. Alternatively, the premeditated thing to do would have been to honour the attack. So as not to besmirch the quality of the attack, we must honourably define the categories of mass-casualty attacks in premeditated ways, letting the past participle demonstrate the quality of planning in the attack (or lack thereof) and granting us liberty to deduce the relevance of Islam to specific targets. In other news, 6 posters were reported killed and another 13 wounded Wednesday afternoon when a definition war erupted on an Internet message board... times one million. Also, who cares if it's hitting closer and closer to home! Bah, there is no way the next time could be in my backyard. NIMBY, no way! NIMBY! Technically that's an abuse of NIMBY, whose definition is roughly: the tendency to oppose the stationing of dangerous, obtrusive, or otherwise undesirable things in close proximity to one's community. You'll have to settle for CHIMBY: Can't Happen In My Back Yard.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,479
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2015 15:58:23 GMT -5
times one million. Also, who cares if it's hitting closer and closer to home! Bah, there is no way the next time could be in my backyard. NIMBY, no way! NIMBY! Technically that's an abuse of NIMBY, whose definition is roughly: the tendency to oppose the stationing of dangerous, obtrusive, or otherwise undesirable things in close proximity to one's community. You'll have to settle for CHIMBY: Can't Happen In My Back Yard. who here has said that (or even vaguely implied it)?
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Dec 3, 2015 16:45:56 GMT -5
The only one trying to tie this with Christianity is you. On multiple boards.
Yes. I have a consistent opinion. Not sure why what I say on others boards has any relevance?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 3, 2015 16:47:35 GMT -5
Technically that's an abuse of NIMBY, whose definition is roughly: the tendency to oppose the stationing of dangerous, obtrusive, or otherwise undesirable things in close proximity to one's community. You'll have to settle for CHIMBY: Can't Happen In My Back Yard. who here has said that (or even vaguely implied it)? I believe Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger is insinuating that Americans who support the influx of Syrian immigrants are neglectful of the possibility that their own office parties could be lying in a pool of blood at this same time next year. That's just speculation. Ham can correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, don't shoot the messenger. ...or interpreter, in this case.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Dec 3, 2015 16:53:15 GMT -5
Some planning went into this 1,600 rounds of ammo were at the suspects disposal. Wounded total up to 21 today. Car did have Utah plates, rented four days ago with a return date of yesterday My issue isn't with whether it had some planning. My issue is with: This was a very well planned organized attack. I am thinking that I will wait for more details before deciding on the quality of the attack. Well, there were some police on the news reviewing this and that is what was said. That it is clear that this was well planned and executed with the fact that they had a plan of exit and so forth. They were well armed and prepared.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Dec 3, 2015 16:54:44 GMT -5
Well, I guess Obama can't assure us there are no imminent threats. Maybe not to him in the White House . When you have a President who won't even name the enemy or face reality, how many more innocent lives are going to be lost in the name of political correctness?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,479
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2015 17:01:08 GMT -5
who here has said that (or even vaguely implied it)? I believe Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger is insinuating that Americans who support the influx of Syrian immigrants are neglectful of the possibility that their own office parties could be lying in a pool of blood at this same time next year. That's just speculation. Ham can correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, don't shoot the messenger. ...or interpreter, in this case. cool, but since we are on the subject, please point out where "Americans that support the influx of Syrian immigrants" claimed that terrorism can't happen here either because of that influx, or otherwise. having failed to do that, how about you both stop with that accusation? is that asking too much? tyia.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,226
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 3, 2015 17:03:09 GMT -5
... they had a plan of exit and so forth. ... They are dead.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,226
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 3, 2015 17:05:31 GMT -5
... They were well armed and prepared. They were heavily armed granted. Considering that their bombs didn't go off, I question that they were "well" armed. Not sure what they were prepared for.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Dec 3, 2015 17:05:25 GMT -5
... they had a plan of exit and so forth. ... They are dead. And, your point is what exactly? A lot of the terrorists die while killing. There are 14 or more dead. So yeah.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,479
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2015 17:06:17 GMT -5
... They were well armed and prepared. They were heavily armed granted. Considering that their bombs didn't go off, I question that they were "well" armed. Not sure what they were prepared for. it is not even clear that they were prepared to die.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,234
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Dec 3, 2015 17:07:10 GMT -5
Obama has named the enemy many times. "Islamic State jihadis"
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 3, 2015 17:08:41 GMT -5
Well, I guess Obama can't assure us there are no imminent threats. Maybe not to him in the White House . When you have a President who won't even name the enemy or face reality, how many more innocent lives are going to be lost in the name of political correctness? Just be thankful he's not blaming the attacks on the NRA, or deriding the public for "tweeting" their thoughts and prayers over social media. Because apparently no small number of people are. Wait for the facts to come out. Will it kill us to wait just a few days while authority puts the pieces of the puzzle together? No.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 3, 2015 17:10:03 GMT -5
I believe Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger is insinuating that Americans who support the influx of Syrian immigrants are neglectful of the possibility that their own office parties could be lying in a pool of blood at this same time next year. That's just speculation. Ham can correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, don't shoot the messenger. ...or interpreter, in this case. cool, but since we are on the subject, please point out where "Americans that support the influx of Syrian immigrants" claimed that terrorism can't happen here either because of that influx, or otherwise. having failed to do that, how about you both stop with that accusation? is that asking too much? tyia. I've never made that accusation. So... no.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Dec 3, 2015 17:09:51 GMT -5
Obama has named the enemy many times. "Islamic State jihadis" Try saying "Radical Islam".
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,226
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 3, 2015 17:12:44 GMT -5
And, your point is what exactly? A lot of the terrorists die while killing. There are 14 or more dead. So yeah. You indicate that "they had a plan of exit". They had a lot more material on hand to kill with. It was clearly not to be a suicide mission. They ended up dead shortly after the first attack. I would consider that not great planning and/or execution.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,485
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 3, 2015 17:14:34 GMT -5
Obama has named the enemy many times. "Islamic State jihadis" Try saying "Radical Islam". Obama Explains Why He Doesn't Use The Term 'Radical Islam' For Islamic State, Al QaedaWASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he refuses to describe the Islamic State and al Qaeda as groups fueled by "radical Islam" because the term grants them a religious legitimacy they don't deserve. "They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists," Obama said during remarks at a White House event on countering violent extremism. "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam." Obama said the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is "desperate" to portray itself as a group of holy warriors defending Islam. It counts on that legitimacy, he said, to propagate the idea that Western countries are at war with Islam, which is how it recruits and radicalizes young people. "We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie," he said. The president said the Islamic State and al Qaeda do draw selectively from Islamic texts to try to justify that they are in a religious war. But, he added, that doesn't mean they speak for the more than 1 billion Muslims who reject the group's hateful ideology and violence. "They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism," he said. "No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism." linkAs you like to say, "Tough taters" if you don't like his reason.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,226
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 3, 2015 17:16:57 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,479
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2015 17:21:04 GMT -5
Try saying "Radical Islam". Obama Explains Why He Doesn't Use The Term 'Radical Islam' For Islamic State, Al QaedaWASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he refuses to describe the Islamic State and al Qaeda as groups fueled by "radical Islam" because the term grants them a religious legitimacy they don't deserve. "They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists," Obama said during remarks at a White House event on countering violent extremism. "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam." Obama said the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is "desperate" to portray itself as a group of holy warriors defending Islam. It counts on that legitimacy, he said, to propagate the idea that Western countries are at war with Islam, which is how it recruits and radicalizes young people. "We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie," he said. The president said the Islamic State and al Qaeda do draw selectively from Islamic texts to try to justify that they are in a religious war. But, he added, that doesn't mean they speak for the more than 1 billion Muslims who reject the group's hateful ideology and violence. "They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism," he said. "No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism." linkAs you like to say, "Tough taters" if you don't like his reason. language is an important part of the battle, and W played right into their hands.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Dec 3, 2015 17:25:19 GMT -5
who here has said that (or even vaguely implied it)? I believe Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger is insinuating that Americans who support the influx of Syrian immigrants are neglectful of the possibility that their own office parties could be lying in a pool of blood at this same time next year. That's just speculation. Ham can correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, don't shoot the messenger. ...or interpreter, in this case. First, touché on the NIMBY point.. You got half of it my friend, the other half being; Gulf Arab Monarchs aren't really taking in refugees, why? They fear terrorists Right, must be why the are essentially giving the I.S. air support in Yemen; because they "fear" the I.S.. This fear is also probably why the house of Saud offered to build 200 mosques in Germany too..
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,485
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 3, 2015 17:26:03 GMT -5
Obama Explains Why He Doesn't Use The Term 'Radical Islam' For Islamic State, Al QaedaWASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he refuses to describe the Islamic State and al Qaeda as groups fueled by "radical Islam" because the term grants them a religious legitimacy they don't deserve. "They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists," Obama said during remarks at a White House event on countering violent extremism. "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam." Obama said the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is "desperate" to portray itself as a group of holy warriors defending Islam. It counts on that legitimacy, he said, to propagate the idea that Western countries are at war with Islam, which is how it recruits and radicalizes young people. "We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie," he said. The president said the Islamic State and al Qaeda do draw selectively from Islamic texts to try to justify that they are in a religious war. But, he added, that doesn't mean they speak for the more than 1 billion Muslims who reject the group's hateful ideology and violence. "They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism," he said. "No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism." linkAs you like to say, "Tough taters" if you don't like his reason. language is an important part of the battle, and W played right into their hands. Like, "Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.""? link
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,479
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2015 17:28:46 GMT -5
language is an important part of the battle, and W played right into their hands. Like, "Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.""? linkIslamofascist is the term that i was thinking of. very popular term during the Bush Era. edit: but yeah, this too.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 3, 2015 18:23:48 GMT -5
The only one trying to tie this with Christianity is you. On multiple boards.
Yes. I have a consistent opinion. Not sure why what I say on others boards has any relevance? The fact remains that the only one to tie this with Christianity is YOU. Nobody else.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Dec 3, 2015 18:44:13 GMT -5
Try saying "Radical Islam". Obama Explains Why He Doesn't Use The Term 'Radical Islam' For Islamic State, Al Qaeda WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he refuses to describe the Islamic State and al Qaeda as groups fueled by "radical Islam" because the term grants them a religious legitimacy they don't deserve. "They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists," Obama said during remarks at a White House event on countering violent extremism. "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam."
Obama said the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is "desperate" to portray itself as a group of holy warriors defending Islam. It counts on that legitimacy, he said, to propagate the idea that Western countries are at war with Islam, which is how it recruits and radicalizes young people. "We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie," he said. The president said the Islamic State and al Qaeda do draw selectively from Islamic texts to try to justify that they are in a religious war. But, he added, that doesn't mean they speak for the more than 1 billion Muslims who reject the group's hateful ideology and violence. "They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism," he said. "No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism." linkAs you like to say, "Tough taters" if you don't like his reason. So then we should call them Islamic perverts?
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 3, 2015 18:51:38 GMT -5
I am anticipating it time to change the thread title. I really tried to think it was not terrorism, but was work place madness, but alas, my mind is accepting the premise of extreme Islamic terrorism. . I am thinking something like this for the title: "Two Muslim Islamic extremist terrorists shoot holes in President Obama's arguments on bringing widows and orphans into the country and are brutally assassinated by over exasperated police with military weapons and personnel carriers who attacked the extremists with extreme prejudice because theextremists were upset Christians invited one of them to a Christmas party and they went ballistic". Remember, the wife came in on a Visa with an ok because she was a fiancee. After widows and orphans come in they bring their brothers and sons in a few years later. And now we know the adult male was originally from Illinois. Does he have ties with the White House? Can I get that all in on the header? Virgil can you do your magic and fit it in? What does everyone think? Any considerate suggestions will be considered as a possibility. Thank you for your consideration (Virgil, please hold off from installing my title, in case we get a better proposed title from someone)
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 3, 2015 18:55:18 GMT -5
Well, I guess Obama can't assure us there are no imminent threats. Maybe not to him in the White House . When you have a President who won't even name the enemy or face reality, how many more innocent lives are going to be lost in the name of political correctness? Just be thankful he's not blaming the attacks on the NRA, or deriding the public for "tweeting" their thoughts and prayers over social media. Because apparently no small number of people are. Wait for the facts to come out. Will it kill us to wait just a few days while authority puts the pieces of the puzzle together? No. The President's early assertion during the attack and immediate response, we need more gun legislation before he knew the details (if in deed he didn't actually already know) is absurd.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Dec 3, 2015 19:31:37 GMT -5
VB - You can change it to Asshole Terrorists in San Bernardino California.
I'm not sure if this was said already but I have to say that the cops, etc. were really on the ball and wasted no time in getting these disgusting murderers. Bravo San Bernardino, CA Police Force (and other divisions involved)! Taking two out completely on the first day was also commendable. No sense in wasting more time and money on these despicable people.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 3, 2015 19:35:41 GMT -5
Obama Explains Why He Doesn't Use The Term 'Radical Islam' For Islamic State, Al Qaeda WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he refuses to describe the Islamic State and al Qaeda as groups fueled by "radical Islam" because the term grants them a religious legitimacy they don't deserve. "They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists," Obama said during remarks at a White House event on countering violent extremism. "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam."
Obama said the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is "desperate" to portray itself as a group of holy warriors defending Islam. It counts on that legitimacy, he said, to propagate the idea that Western countries are at war with Islam, which is how it recruits and radicalizes young people. "We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie," he said. The president said the Islamic State and al Qaeda do draw selectively from Islamic texts to try to justify that they are in a religious war. But, he added, that doesn't mean they speak for the more than 1 billion Muslims who reject the group's hateful ideology and violence. "They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills in the name of Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism," he said. "No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism." linkAs you like to say, "Tough taters" if you don't like his reason. So then we should call them Islamic perverts?
I think the preference is that "Islamic" be omitted. Although (and I hate to admit this), it's the academics, atheists, and anti-religious types that have it right this time: there's no doubt that IS is the group whose actions comport most closely with what Qur'anic doctrine literally instructs Muslims to do, and whose goals are most closely aligned with what the Qur'an clearly states is the goal of Islam and God's will for mankind. Now... arguments of the type "well, you have to interpret this in this way", "this doesn't really mean this, it means that", "this section doesn't really make much sense", etc. as they pertain to literally hundreds of damning passages (and whose context makes them even more damning) are, I suppose, a legitimate refuge for the vast majority of Muslims. Heaven knows, Christian churches love to do it too, and it looks like western Islamic authorities are giving them a real run for their money. Hence if we embrace the notion that either Islam isn't defined by the Qur'an, or that the correct interpretation of the Qur'an is more or less the exact opposite of its literal interpretation on several major points of doctrine, then yes, I suppose it makes sense to omit "Islamic" from the discussion. I have no doubt that Pres. Obama sees "Islamic" as "whatever pro-western individuals who identify as Muslims happen to believe" (which isn't how the Qur'an defines 'Muslim', but screw the Qur'an), and hence in this sense also he's justified in lawyering his words when speaking about terrorism. Personally I think he's a fool for doing it, since all he's doing is demonstrating that he either doesn't have a clue or else simply doesn't care what Islam as defined by the Qur'an is, but I will grant you that his intentions are probably noble. He no doubt considers himself to be the calm voice holding back the tides of the ocean.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 3, 2015 19:38:42 GMT -5
Just be thankful he's not blaming the attacks on the NRA, or deriding the public for "tweeting" their thoughts and prayers over social media. Because apparently no small number of people are. Wait for the facts to come out. Will it kill us to wait just a few days while authority puts the pieces of the puzzle together? No. The President's early assertion during the attack and immediate response, we need more gun legislation before he knew the details (if in deed he didn't actually already know) is absurd. I know. But just because career politicians can't help their pre-fact knee-jerk responses doesn't mean that we have to play too.
|
|