Secret no-fly list causes Bangkok holiday nightmare

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

The issue that is paradoxical about being on a danger no fly list is why was he allowed to wander around the terminal for 4 days and then have some US representatives dispatched to help him?

It really makes no sense unless you assume big brother USA is wildly incompetent.

[SteeleJoe]

The issue that is paradoxical about being on a danger no fly list is why was he allowed to wander around the terminal for 4 days and then have some US representatives dispatched to help him?

It really makes no sense unless you assume big brother USA is wildly incompetent.

Just suppose...

There's a guy you suspect or know might be involved with some people you want to know more about. You don't really have anything concrete on him, no probable cause or justification to question him. Besides, you don't think he will help without you having some leverage.

You find out he's flying overseas and you keep an eye on him. You know (because of standard airport security and perhaps some extra scrutiny) he's not armed and not carrying explosives so he's not an imminent threat and now you have a way to keep him for a while (thanks to the fact that he is transiting through a country that will cooperate with you in such things), in an environment with some suspension of his normal rights, in a situation where he will potentially feel less secure (as opposed to his home country with easy access to family and legal representation) and where he needs some assistance from you...that might be something you'd want to exploit.

And that's just one hypothesis among a few others that are not so improbable.

[Credo]

My guess is that he was added to the no fly list after he had departed the US. It could be due to contacts or activities while he was overseas that made him a potential risk. I doubt that they would get much information from questioning him in Bangkok.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

The issue that is paradoxical about being on a danger no fly list is why was he allowed to wander around the terminal for 4 days and then have some US representatives dispatched to help him?

It really makes no sense unless you assume big brother USA is wildly incompetent.

Just suppose...

There's a guy you suspect or know might be involved with some people you want to know more about. You don't really have anything concrete on him, no probable cause or justification to question him. Besides, you don't think he will help without you having some leverage.

You find out he's flying overseas and you keep an eye on him. You know (because of standard airport security and perhaps some extra scrutiny) he's not armed and not carrying explosives so he's not an imminent threat and now you have a way to keep him for a while (thanks to the fact that he is transiting through a country that will cooperate with you in such things), in an environment with some suspension of his normal rights, in a situation where he will potentially feel less secure (as opposed to his home country with easy access to family and legal representation) and where he needs some assistance from you...that might be something you'd want to exploit.

And that's just one hypothesis among a few others that are not so improbable.

okay but if your tailing a guy what kind of golden opportunity is going to occur while in an airport terminal?

Are they supposedly messing with him to bust a fuse?

Why not just watch where he is going in California?

[SteeleJoe]

My guess is that he was added to the no fly list after he had departed the US. It could be due to contacts or activities while he was overseas that made him a potential risk. I doubt that they would get much information from questioning him in Bangkok.

Makes perfect sense. Except the last part, in my opinion: I see the slight possibility of Bangkok being a potentially BETTER place to question him, and no reason why it would be worse.

[SteeleJoe]

The issue that is paradoxical about being on a danger no fly list is why was he allowed to wander around the terminal for 4 days and then have some US representatives dispatched to help him?

It really makes no sense unless you assume big brother USA is wildly incompetent.

Just suppose...

There's a guy you suspect or know might be involved with some people you want to know more about. You don't really have anything concrete on him, no probable cause or justification to question him. Besides, you don't think he will help without you having some leverage.

You find out he's flying overseas and you keep an eye on him. You know (because of standard airport security and perhaps some extra scrutiny) he's not armed and not carrying explosives so he's not an imminent threat and now you have a way to keep him for a while (thanks to the fact that he is transiting through a country that will cooperate with you in such things), in an environment with some suspension of his normal rights, in a situation where he will potentially feel less secure (as opposed to his home country with easy access to family and legal representation) and where he needs some assistance from you...that might be something you'd want to exploit.

And that's just one hypothesis among a few others that are not so improbable.

okay but if your tailing a guy what kind of golden opportunity is going to occur while in an airport terminal?

Are they supposedly messing with him to bust a fuse?

Why not just watch where he is going in California?

You've missed my point: first of all, it's possible that the only tailing being done was of the electronic kind.

Secondly, I tried to make that clear: he does not necessarily have the same rights and resources as at home and he is potentially mentally at a disadvantage being at the whim of security apparatus in a foreign country with only you to intervene.

Who says they didn't watch him in California and won't continue to? And is it not possible that the people he meets abroad might be of equal or more interest?

[FDog]

He refused to speak to anyone without a lawyer.

So after not giving the US govt any information, what made them change their mind and allow him to fly? What circumstance had changed?

Edited July 2, 2013 by FDog

[SteeleJoe]

He refused to speak to anyone without a lawyer.

So after not giving the US govt any information, what made them change their mind and allow him to fly? What circumstance had changed?

Indeed.

Is it not possible that 1) he did decide to speak with them and/or 2) they saw there was nothing to be gained by dragging it out any further or 3) they had done what they intended to do already...

[SteeleJoe]

Yes, the part you added afterwards obviously could be the case: it was a complete mistake and that was discovered.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

Like other have said I think he is definitely on some list now and worth some attention.

If TSA/FBI/INTERPOL is not watching this guy now then they are perhaps incompetent.

Who knows maybe this is new decoy ploy. Send in someone from central casting and make a bunch of fuss at the airport and slide the real guys by when they are distracted.

The Narco world does this all the time.

[SteeleJoe]

Like other have said I think he is definitely on some list now and worth some attention.

If TSA/FBI/INTERPOL is not watching this guy now then they are perhaps incompetent.

Who knows maybe this is new decoy ploy. Send in someone from central casting and make a bunch of fuss at the airport and slide the real guys by when they are distracted.

The Narco world does this all the time.

And law enforcement or intelligence agencies do something similar for different reasons...I mean, if we are going to speculate...think about it.

[Donnie Brasco]

There's some sickening opinions on here.

Muslims may be responsible for most of the Western-reported terrorism but the terrorism that goes on every day in the name of freedom - of which this is an example - is not acceptable.

You need to take a look at yourselves and ask whether you are part of the problem.

Are you trying to suggest that the posters on TV are even remotely personally responsible for human atrocities that occur all over the world and have occured throughout history? By this logic, it would make sense for each individual German to apologize for what happens in Palestine, each Russian to apologize for what happens in post-Soviet satellite states like Turkmenistan, each denizen of Japan to personally apologize for what happened in China, each American to apologize for every Iraqi casualty, and all Europeans and Americans to apologize for the state of Africa today. Not only would that be absurd, but it would simultaneously suggest that only Americans are responsible for Islamic terrorism, as though Muslims themselves never should have to bear any responsibility for the state of affairs in their respective countries. I think most people around the world would like to go about their days taking care of business and family without worrying about whether a bunch of crazed-zealots are going to murder their husbands, wives, and children. Do TV posters strap on explosives and murder women and children? Your point makes a lot of sense (depending on perspective), but everything is relative, and if you go back far enough, we would all be criminals and murderers at some point. The question is, relatively speaking, who is more morally culpable for modern atrocities? You can make the argument that Linda in Kentucky is as culpable as Zacarias Moussaoui for violence and evil, but I wouldn't buy it, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I support more awareness of how certain countries foreign policies affect people around the world. I don't think that every American is personally responsible for what happens in Syria today.

Yeah Ok, Unkomoncents

PI Sek did not say that at all and you very well know that he did not say that.

But here you are, redacting his brief statement and then extrapolating the nonsensical argumentum ad logicum straw men UTTERLY of your own creation. How fun it must be to placidly rework an honest response into such an egregious bolus of verbal excrement and then to serve it to unsuspecting members of this forum as foie gras.

You know that you're being dishonest and that you're defending hate and haters with your own disgusting crimes against logic but you do it anyway.

You knew that when you wrote that silly rant up there but you posted it any way.

To have done so, to have posted such an openly craven misrepresentation of Pi Sek's original post and to ascribe your rant to "WE" as if you spoke for some perceived majority was to insult the education, intelligence and the thought processes of the majority of this forum.

Your purpose was simply to fan dance and to pander to the lowest elements of human nature.

Ignorance (of the facts)

Hatred (of an American of Islamic origin)

Fear mongering

Prejudice

Exclusionary ritual and incantation

and much much more.

You and your lying, smearing hate-mongering antics are merely sharpening your opponents wit and strengthening their resolve.

Love

Donnie

[chrisinth]

Beside the obvious reason this story is ridiculous is that when terrorists infiltrate cultures and wish to blow up things or kill, they dress like everyone else.

I myself made the point much earlier in the thread that terrorists on operations in the west don't appear like this guy. I also couldn't agree more that his appearance is not even close to evidence or indication that he is dangerous (not only is that obvious to anyone with some logic and a bit of knowledge but I happen to live among people who look like that).

However, I think some people are making a false dichotomy on this thread and or confusing causality and correlation and that you have here: he may be on a watch list because of suspected terrorist links or jihadist sympathies. He may be dressed as he is because of his beliefs. The fact that he was dressed like that indicates strongly that he was not on an operation at the time even IF he is an Islamist extremist. It does not however mean he is not an Islamist extremist or that he will never be on an operation and this there is no reason for him to be on a list...

Perfect reply to a logical statement from MacChine

I'm not clear on this part.. thus might be the term needed, but I would disagree. Seems this logic would have us locking up all men as they might rape.

It does not however mean he is not an Islamist extremist or that he will never be on an operation and this there [?] is no reason for him to be on a list...

It would be a logical viewpoint for a terrorist to dress normally, I assumed (possible mistake there?) that was where you were coming from.

As for your second line, not being a scholar I find it natural to change this for that as I have no grammar rules to follow reading a thread on a forum.............

[I Like Thai]

The issue that is paradoxical about being on a danger no fly list is why was he allowed to wander around the terminal for 4 days and then have some US representatives dispatched to help him?

It really makes no sense unless you assume big brother USA is wildly incompetent.

Just suppose...

There's a guy you suspect or know might be involved with some people you want to know more about. You don't really have anything concrete on him, no probable cause or justification to question him. Besides, you don't think he will help without you having some leverage.

You find out he's flying overseas and you keep an eye on him. You know (because of standard airport security and perhaps some extra scrutiny) he's not armed and not carrying explosives so he's not an imminent threat and now you have a way to keep him for a while (thanks to the fact that he is transiting through a country that will cooperate with you in such things), in an environment with some suspension of his normal rights, in a situation where he will potentially feel less secure (as opposed to his home country with easy access to family and legal representation) and where he needs some assistance from you...that might be something you'd want to exploit.

And that's just one hypothesis among a few others that are not so improbable.

If this guy is a terrorist, then the authorities have only succeeded in letting him know that they are suspicious of him. If this is the case, he will vanish off the radar and will not be seen again until he commits a crime, which could be many years in the future

[Thaddeus]

He refused to speak to anyone without a lawyer.

So after not giving the US govt any information, what made them change their mind and allow him to fly? What circumstance had changed?

They managed to work out he was nothing more than a fashion victim.

[Thai at Heart]

Vis a Vis the Boston bombers.

Does anyone really believe they really did it?

[Donnie Brasco]

Vis a Vis the Boston bombers.

Does anyone really believe they really did it?

Only the numpties and the astroturfers.

[hawker9000]

I'm sure Richard Reid would have agreed wholeheartedly with that line of logic.

Well don't know the rest of the story. Muslims fly with little to no problem to and from many western countries.

I don't think he got singled out for no other reason than his religion.

He might have gotten uppity when he was denied. Keep in mind also he was allowed to roam around the terminal for 4've heard that term before, but I can't remember where. Do you know the origins ?

I'd be suspicious if any man wanted to babysit my child.

The Citizen should have been allowed to return to his country and sort out any issues there.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Richard Reid was stopped because he was attempting to board a plane with explosives and was intent on blowing up a plane. It didn't have anything to do with the right of a Citizen to return to his country.

Did he or did he not return to his country?

He was sentenced to life imprisonment for attempting to blow up an american airline, when it was diverted to an American Airline. He was imprisoned for his crimes in that country. The subject of the OP has not committed any crime and should have been allowed to return to his home country. The two incidents are completely unrelated.

No one really questions his right of return. What's being questioned is whether it should be on an airliner with a few hundred innocent & unsuspecting people... (Until some inquiries have been accomplished anyway.) Sorry, but this is what the muslim world has done to us, and to itself. All those bemoaning this individual's inconvenience and loss of liberty, should stop and consider the inconvenience and loss of liberty all the millions of the rest of us have suffered and will continue to suffer for the rest of our lives. Thanks to Islam.

[MaxYakov]

I'd feel scared if he just boarded the plane looking like that.

Racial profiling?, sure.

Ditto. We are only human.

And subject to error. I call this incompetent profiling similar to that performed by the TSA who claim they don't, of course. TSA's strategy seems to be random selection and will get random (and ridiculous) subjects and results.

The Israelis and the Russians know how to do profiling, IMHO. I've been interrogated at Moscow International by a Russian official who seemed to be highly-trained and he wasn't focusing on what I was wearing. It was my eye movements he was particularly interested in as he asked me if I was departing with national artifacts in my luggage.

1) I'm not sure you know what "profiling" means.

2) You have contradicted yourself by saying TSA employs it and then say their strategy seems to be random selection.

3) All customs agents look at things like demeanor (eye movements etc). That's not profiling.

1) I'd say it depends on the profiler's definition of it, so I can't know what it means in all cases. We all know the general definition of looking for certain characteristics such as race, clothing, etc.

2) TSA has publicly has a policy of non-profiling that is based on a Screening of Passengers by Observation Technique (SPOT) program (circa 2003). The Wiki has quite an entry on the TSA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration

However, racial profiling has been reported (this has been reported in the above, Wiki TSA entry as well):

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/06/report_tsa_behavior_detection.html

According to their website, TSA employs both 'random and predictable screening':

http://www.tsa.gov/tsa-precheck/tsa-precheck-faqs

3) There's that all word, again. In my case, I had declared DVDs on my customs declaration and I was questioned as to whether or not I was importing porno DVDs in large quantity for resale, among other things. I was not profiled by behavior observation.

I suppose they thought a mass porno importer would have declared them and actually brought in the physical DVDs which would been totally unnecessary and impractical. I had two laptops which could have been carrying files that could have been used to generate thousands of DVDs, although they were not searched.

They lectured me about knowing what was legal to return with and gave me a 'Before You Leave' booklet which documents legal/illegal items. They were incorrect in telling me that it was illegal to bring in pornography (it is not according to the booklet). It IS illegal to bring in child pornography and copyright-violated (counterfeit) material.

I'll let the readers form their own conclusions about the competency of TSA and US Customs and how what they actually do conforms to what they say they are doing (as with any government entity - just look at recent news events). This assumes that responsible government officials don't take 5th amendment, non-self-incriminating-testimony protection. of course). Got this, NSA?

Edited July 2, 2013 by MaxYakov

[SteeleJoe]

Beside the obvious reason this story is ridiculous is that when terrorists infiltrate cultures and wish to blow up things or kill, they dress like everyone else.

I myself made the point much earlier in the thread that terrorists on operations in the west don't appear like this guy. I also couldn't agree more that his appearance is not even close to evidence or indication that he is dangerous (not only is that obvious to anyone with some logic and a bit of knowledge but I happen to live among people who look like that).

However, I think some people are making a false dichotomy on this thread and or confusing causality and correlation and that you have here: he may be on a watch list because of suspected terrorist links or jihadist sympathies. He may be dressed as he is because of his beliefs. The fact that he was dressed like that indicates strongly that he was not on an operation at the time even IF he is an Islamist extremist. It does not however mean he is not an Islamist extremist or that he will never be on an operation and this there is no reason for him to be on a list...

Perfect reply to a logical statement from MacChine

I'm not clear on this part.. thus might be the term needed, but I would disagree. Seems this logic would have us locking up all men as they might rape.

It does not however mean he is not an Islamist extremist or that he will never be on an operation and this there [?] is no reason for him to be on a list...

It would be a logical viewpoint for a terrorist to dress normally, I assumed (possible mistake there?) that was where you were coming from.

As for your second line, not being a scholar I find it natural to change this for that as I have no grammar rules to follow reading a thread on a forum.............

You assumed correctly. Sorry I was apparently so unclear.

And THAT is all I have to say about THIS.

[SteeleJoe]

The issue that is paradoxical about being on a danger no fly list is why was he allowed to wander around the terminal for 4 days and then have some US representatives dispatched to help him?

It really makes no sense unless you assume big brother USA is wildly incompetent.

Just suppose...

There's a guy you suspect or know might be involved with some people you want to know more about. You don't really have anything concrete on him, no probable cause or justification to question him. Besides, you don't think he will help without you having some leverage.

You find out he's flying overseas and you keep an eye on him. You know (because of standard airport security and perhaps some extra scrutiny) he's not armed and not carrying explosives so he's not an imminent threat and now you have a way to keep him for a while (thanks to the fact that he is transiting through a country that will cooperate with you in such things), in an environment with some suspension of his normal rights, in a situation where he will potentially feel less secure (as opposed to his home country with easy access to family and legal representation) and where he needs some assistance from you...that might be something you'd want to exploit.

And that's just one hypothesis among a few others that are not so improbable.

If this guy is a terrorist, then the authorities have only succeeded in letting him know that they are suspicious of him. If this is the case, he will vanish off the radar and will not be seen again until he commits a crime, which could be many years in the future

I have no idea what this guy is or isn't. It is simply not the case that if he is a terrorist - or affiliated with any of that sort - he is guaranteed to be able to disappear from the radar and never seen again. Some people have been tracked for years.

Law enforcement and security services sometime deliberately let people know they or people they are affiliated with are under suspicion, or indicate that they know more than they in fact do, for tactical and strategic reasons.

[jackspratt]

.

I have no idea what this guy is or isn't. It is simply not the case that if he is a terrorist - or affiliated with any of that sort - he is guaranteed to be able to disappear from the radar and never seen again. Some people have been tracked for years.

Law enforcement and security services sometime deliberately let people know they or people they are affiliated with are under suspicion, or indicate that they know more than they in fact do, for tactical and strategic reasons.

Smart move letting him back into the US.

Now they can easily track him, and everyone within a 20,000 kilometre radius of him.

[mic59]

I think the whole world is very lucky that you don't have the qualifications to be in charge! Why does it matter what someone LOOKS like people are still people and deserve respect from others!!

Nah......someone who dresses and looks like a terrorist deserves suspicion before respect.

Terrorists don't consider you to be a person, so why would you say people are still people?

Suspicion before respect.

This attitude is the very reason why terrorists are winning. Terrorists are not first and foremost about killing. They are about sowng unrest and suspicion among other people.

[retell]

off course terrorists do not like like this fellow, that's why they make a check on everybody wearing "normal" clothes also

[DocN]

Looks perfectly American to me.

His name too.

So...who looks (and is named) "perfectly American" to you?

Billy Bob Thornton in a cowboy- hat?

[nottocus]

I think the whole world is very lucky that you don't have the qualifications to be in charge! Why does it matter what someone LOOKS like people are still people and deserve respect from others!!

Nah......someone who dresses and looks like a terrorist deserves suspicion before respect.

Terrorists don't consider you to be a person, so why would you say people are still people?

Suspicion before respect.

This attitude is the very reason why terrorists are winning. Terrorists are not first and foremost about killing. They are about sowng unrest and suspicion among other people.

OK ....from now on I will not treat any muslim looking fella with suspicion and I'll see where that gets me.

[blabla1]

I think he was a diversion from some thing more sinister being conjured up, or used as a CIA marketing ploy to scare the shit out of us, or, he was a CIA former informer who decided not to inform, or they cant find Snowdon, so lets drag attention away from our billion dollar surveillance that cant find anyone.. or..or...or.... fact is, we dont know shit and never will... let the sheep be silent...

[jaidam]

I think the whole world is very lucky that you don't have the qualifications to be in charge! Why does it matter what someone LOOKS like people are still people and deserve respect from others!!

Nah......someone who dresses and looks like a terrorist deserves suspicion before respect.

Terrorists don't consider you to be a person, so why would you say people are still people?

Suspicion before respect.

This attitude is the very reason why terrorists are winning. Terrorists are not first and foremost about killing. They are about sowng unrest and suspicion among other people.

The Islamic terrorists will not consider themselves as having "won" until they get their dream of a mildly radioactive lake from somewhere near Greece to the Indian border. Then they can finally say "See, I told you the western world was bullying us". Fools.

[jamhar]

One thing bothers me about this story, (yes only one).

How did he end up wandering the airport for first 4 days!?

I think he became indignant when informed that he could not catch his final connection to the US.

and voiced is opinion to the Thai staff in an very "UnThai" like manor.

At which point he lost the assistance of the Thai staff, and he was on his own.

Given that he was a med student, with parents living in California, and had the means to take a year off to go find himself

I'm thinking that his parents are doing well enough to have put him in a bangkok hotel if necessary.

And get him council to help resolve the issues. That seem the prudent way of resolving the issue.

At least that's what i would have done, if it was my son in that situation.

But that didnt happen. He ended up wandering the airport for 4 days.

So the wandering seems to have been self inflicted.

He CHOSE to self wander, instead of getting temporary visa, and a cheap hotel

that's the way I see it.

Then when the State Department official came to help him or ask questions,

he chose again to not answer any questions. (if you want council, get one dammit)

So, at that point what can the state department official do,

other than to go back and see if he could figure out what the xxxx was going on.

And with the US being a half a day time zones away,

any correspondence asking for clarification would have a 24 hour reply cycle at the quickest.

And this uncooperative numbnutt didnt seem to be a priority, nor the only responsibility for the US officials in bkk

And so what happened, happened.

I did notice when questioned by the customs officials once finally arriving in the US,

There was no note made whether he had a council present during the questioning or not.

Is this guy a threat? After the fiasco he unleashed on himself, probably not. He's too visible now, for anything other than a decoy.

At least the Boston brothers had the smarts to blend into the surroundings.

OK a second thing puzzles me,

How did a numbnut like this get into a US medschool?

Edited July 3, 2013 by metisdead

[Unkomoncents]

There's some sickening opinions on here.

Muslims may be responsible for most of the Western-reported terrorism but the terrorism that goes on every day in the name of freedom - of which this is an example - is not acceptable.

You need to take a look at yourselves and ask whether you are part of the problem.

Are you trying to suggest that the posters on TV are even remotely personally responsible for human atrocities that occur all over the world and have occured throughout history? By this logic, it would make sense for each individual German to apologize for what happens in Palestine, each Russian to apologize for what happens in post-Soviet satellite states like Turkmenistan, each denizen of Japan to personally apologize for what happened in China, each American to apologize for every Iraqi casualty, and all Europeans and Americans to apologize for the state of Africa today. Not only would that be absurd, but it would simultaneously suggest that only Americans are responsible for Islamic terrorism, as though Muslims themselves never should have to bear any responsibility for the state of affairs in their respective countries. I think most people around the world would like to go about their days taking care of business and family without worrying about whether a bunch of crazed-zealots are going to murder their husbands, wives, and children. Do TV posters strap on explosives and murder women and children? Your point makes a lot of sense (depending on perspective), but everything is relative, and if you go back far enough, we would all be criminals and murderers at some point. The question is, relatively speaking, who is more morally culpable for modern atrocities? You can make the argument that Linda in Kentucky is as culpable as Zacarias Moussaoui for violence and evil, but I wouldn't buy it, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I support more awareness of how certain countries foreign policies affect people around the world. I don't think that every American is personally responsible for what happens in Syria today.

Yeah Ok, Unkomoncents

PI Sek did not say that at all and you very well know that he did not say that.

But here you are, redacting his brief statement and then extrapolating the nonsensical argumentum ad logicum straw men UTTERLY of your own creation. How fun it must be to placidly rework an honest response into such an egregious bolus of verbal excrement and then to serve it to unsuspecting members of this forum as foie gras.

You know that you're being dishonest and that you're defending hate and haters with your own disgusting crimes against logic but you do it anyway.

You knew that when you wrote that silly rant up there but you posted it any way.

To have done so, to have posted such an openly craven misrepresentation of Pi Sek's original post and to ascribe your rant to "WE" as if you spoke for some perceived majority was to insult the education, intelligence and the thought processes of the majority of this forum.

Your purpose was simply to fan dance and to pander to the lowest elements of human nature.

Ignorance (of the facts)

Hatred (of an American of Islamic origin)

Fear mongering

Prejudice

Exclusionary ritual and incantation

and much much more.

You and your lying, smearing hate-mongering antics are merely sharpening your opponents wit and strengthening their resolve.

Love

Donnie

Dear Love Donnie:

People like you and Pi Sek don't run countries. In fact, you charming firebrands couldn't run any organization bigger than a Dunkin Donuts franchise. You couldn't recognize an aggregate perspective if it gave you prostate exam. You can try to smear my thinking with creative accusations of racism all day long. The fact is that your concept of the collective good is as deficient as a contingency plan for a Ponzi scheme.

Tenderly,

Unkomoncents

Edited July 3, 2013 by Unkomoncents