Replies

*Yawn*...

Preach it, bro.

BTW, I think I can preach it too. Only problem is I’ve got a conscience, so, I am unable to preach on command. But, I do admire those who can take a script and run with it, regardless of what it says.

Dang, I guess you can tell I just made that up. I’d make a lousy liar^H^H^H^H^H lawyer, woont I.

Oh, well.

PS: If it’s any consolation, it looks like you’re right after all. It seems I *am* the only one who thinks there’s a good chance that this was indeed a terrorist event. Greg “Breck Girl” Kelli on Fox Snooz just reported that NO ONE thinks there’s a possibility of terrorist involvment.

So there. To the victor belong the spoils. Enjoy your vindication.

And yes, I *am* a sarcastic SOB.

(Mentioned only because I suspect that otherwise you’d likely smirk and tell yourself that you won, you won, you showed *me* a thing or two!)

Now, for those who *don’t* feel compelled to take the Official Party Line and ram it down every throat within spittin’ distance, I noticed that already the recent history is being Orwellized, bigtime.

Yesterday, ALL reports, from multiple unrelated sources (I archived some of them) were unanimous in declaring unambiguously that the bridge was structurally sound as of all inspections, including the most recent one (fairly recent, as these things go), and, that the ONLY work being performed at the time leading up to the catastrophe was COSMETIC repair, with NO affect upon ANY structural elements of the bridge.

This fine morning, that’s old history — old, in the Orwellian sense, as in “those statements have been declared inoperative” — suddenly, it’s all up for grabs, with plenty of evidence that the bridge was a shambles, AND, the workers were indeed working on structural elements.

How’d ol’ Orwell put it? Ah, right:

“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”

Welcome to the future.