This is Pierre Legrand's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Pierre Legrand's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Pierre Legrand
Recent Activity
They stopped teaching that in school, along with much else. Deliberately stopped teaching that in school. None of this is accidental and no it doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be coordinated... I am much more pessimistic about all of this than most. I believe we had a window to fight back some years ago. At this point we are on the highway to hell and there isn't much we can do about it. Even many conservatives buy into the left's definitions and premises of life.
"molon labe" Indeed...a fitting nom de guerre. I agree let them come and get them!
Toggle Commented Nov 8, 2008 on I Recommend Relaxed Vigilance at ShrinkWrapped
1 reply
Whereas George W. Bush, the decider, came off as a harmless bumbling clown, and look at the fix we're in now Ah yea the fix we are in...came about by adopting some of the same policies that Obama promises times ten. Oooh Goody. But hey truth is if he really was just a leftist like Carter he would be harmless. But he isn't Obama is a true believer. He doesn't want to fix America...he wants to break AmeriKKKa. He wants payback.
Toggle Commented Nov 8, 2008 on I Recommend Relaxed Vigilance at ShrinkWrapped
1 reply
I recommend buying weapons, food and stuff to barter with in the coming disaster. Let's see...B. Hussein's mentor was a communist author, his grandfather was a communist sympathizer, B.Hussein befriended Marxists in college, he worked with Marxists as a community organizer, he taught communist tactics to Acorn...but folks are imagining that he is gonna rule as a moderate? Or that even if he rules as a far leftist we will get another chance? I fear not. Biden gave away the strategy. There will be a crisis, there always is under a fascist communist ruler, and that crisis will demand a solution that we won't like. Gee I wonder what that might be? Here let me make a list... 1. Use the justice department to frighten folks into silence...yea I know we won't stand for that. 2. It will become hate speech to disagree with Obama...it will racist. And we all know how bad it is to be racist. 3. Fairness doctrine will be applied as a payback to the MSM. 4. IRS will be used to investigate those who are bothersome. 5. FBI, CIA, JUSTICE Departments will be cleaned out of folks who actually take the law seriously. 6. Some sort of manufactured crisis will drive the price of oil up up up... 7. Civilian defense force will be called up. Funded by 25% cut in military. 8. Iran will supply nuclear weapons to a gang of terrorists and various cities along the east coast will glow...leading to absolute martial law. To catch the bad guys don't you know. 9. Elections will be suspended Yea I know far fetched...just about as farfetched as some Marxist with friends like Ayers, Wright, Rezko, Pflegar and Khalidi being elected in the first place. More immediate concerns. If I had the money I would hire body guards for the conservative Supreme Court justices...you know to prevent any "accidents" from happening to them. None of them are showing any signs of retirement and they present a formidable wall of last resort to some of O's crazier schemes. That isn't going to suit Obamamessiah's minions. Sorry but I think those who believe Obama is not extremely dangerous are delusional. And yes I know how crazy it is to imagine this sort of speculation in the United States. Thanks Republicans for losing to this clown...
Toggle Commented Nov 8, 2008 on I Recommend Relaxed Vigilance at ShrinkWrapped
1 reply
What do y'all make of the report out of the Asian Times regarding Fallujah? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JG23Ak02.html Fallujah braces for another assault By Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail FALLUJAH - United States and Iraqi forces are preparing another siege of Fallujah under the pretext of combating "terror", residents and officials say. Located 69 kilometers west of Baghdad, the city that suffered two devastating US attacks in 2004 has watched security degrade over recent months. "Ruling powers in the city fighting to gain full control seem willing to use the security collapse to accuse each other of either conspiracy [in lawlessness] or incapability of control," said Sufian Ahmed, a lawyer and human-rights activist in Fallujah
Toggle Commented Jul 23, 2008 on TIME: The War Cannot Be Lost! at BlackFive
1 reply
Deebow for President and Uncle Jimbo for Sec of Defense...Blackfive for CIA Director...Michelle Malkin for Vice President. Democrats playing lets see who can mess up the Country faster...Democrats or the Muslim Headchoppers. I am putting my money on the Democrats. What is pitifully ironic is just about the time the French are finally maybe growing a set of balls, Obama will be cutting ours off. Great just Great.... Goddamit Republicans get off your ass and fight. How can we be losing to these stacks of shit called Democrats?
Toggle Commented Feb 27, 2008 on A surrender monkey says what??? at BlackFive
1 reply
No, he is a hero. My interest in the linkage ended once I realized that the Bush Administration was not going to make the case. We were perfectly justified in going to war with Iraq. For that matter Iran is fairly high up on my to do list...and Saudi Arabia.
Toggle Commented Feb 26, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
That spam filter is working overtime on me...
Toggle Commented Feb 26, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
Ahh, that was Uncle Jimbo. Sorry for the confusion, Grimmy. Wonder if he did verify it... or not. Yea I wonder...you are such a clown. Tell you what I own a stainless GI .45 1911...see if you can go to my blog and find a story about it. I absolutely own the subject of the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda...what have you done? Are you simply a simpleton spewing pro administration nonsense because you think it supports the troops? How about this clown...I will post on my blog about your idiocy. Here is your 15 minutes of fame that Warhol promised you. Twit Alert Grimmy I have a major problem with taking sides with any politician, I don't respect them. I may agree with them on certain issues but I know that down deep they are just waiting to screw me. I keep that in mind and it keeps me honest when dealing with folks like Bush. Sure he had done a much better job than any of the Democrats that might have won in 2000 or 2004 but that doesn't mean I want take long walks and trade spit. The point I made gently enough at first was we need to be increasing our defense spending pretty radically. We are the worlds policeman whether we want the job or not. The fucking Europeans are a bunch of losers who cannot even protect their women much less the rest of the world. If we decide that we don't want the job the Islamic Fuckwits will simply say thank you very much. We live in very very dangerous times. Fairly soon we will be faced at best with another war in Europe as they struggle to get out from underneath Sharia. At worst they will all simply fold like the children they are and we will be faced with a modern army of Islamic fuckwits...armed with the best and with nukes. Oh fun. We should be preparing for this war...it is not even the end of the beginning much less near the end. I fully resent Bush for inviting those terrorists from CAIR into our White House...I absolutely detest that he insists on calling Islam the religion of peace. And no holding hands with the fucking Saudi king doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy towards that buffoon. Sorry, yea he has done better than Gore but that bar was soooo fucking low...a fucking amoeba could have done better.
Toggle Commented Feb 26, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
Grimmy I notice though that you don't say we didn't need the increases.
Toggle Commented Feb 25, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
Just because some POTUS once put a "Buck Stops Here" sign on his desk as a publicity stunt, does NOT mean the POTUS has the power or legal authority to accomplish what he wills, whenever he wills, simply because he wills. Until then, you're just another simpleton infested with the worms created by those who feed off frustrations and anxiety the idiots and nitwits. Did the little birdies come and eat your breadcrumbs and now you cannot find mummy? Follow the stench. Now on to the meat of the matter. Lets see Bush had majorities in Congress for much of his term. He had a blatant attack against this country. He had civilians throwing themselves out of buildings on worldwide television. Those same buildings collapsing on worldwide television. Civilians taking up the slack of the government and preventing aircraft from destroying the White House. Flags everywhere. Patiotism evident on the lapels of everyone...and you say he didn't have the political power to up defense spending? Maybe he didn't try hard enough?
Toggle Commented Feb 25, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
Whether its because you couldn't bother to keep up, or because you are playing the usual trendy betrayer games, don't matter Do you leave breadcrumbs behind you when you go to the head so you can find your way back to the highchair? Betrayer? For wanting the military to be funded at a level we can well afford? We have sustained over 6 percent of GDP for a lot longer of our country's history than we have been below 4 percent. Hey maybe you are the traitor for wanting to starve our country's defenses? Now crawl back to your moma so she can change your diapers...go ahead follow the breadcrumbs.
Toggle Commented Feb 25, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
Sheesh is there a word count limit?
Toggle Commented Feb 25, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
Ok lets talk slow so some of you can keep up. Yes I am Pierre Legrand from Baton Rouge and yes I am part of the PJ Media Network. The Pink Flamingo Bar is my blog. Been a big fan of Bush until I understood this isn't a football game and I can scream at both sides when they get it wrong. Oh tell your Marine buddy he got it right on the first try. That third option is you projecting. Oh, so now President Bush is supposed to be prescient? He is supposed to have known that we'd need more troops in Iraq, when in the First Gulf War we rolled over Iraq with so little resistance that it was almost a walk in the park? Are you on drugs? Bush HIMSELF declared the military was a mess after 8 years of Clinton. Course he might have also blamed his dad but sheesh that would be expecting too much. Bush HIMSELF said that the military needed to be rebuilt. So did he starting trying to raise the amount of money this country dedicates to the Military...NO. Deal with it. Does that mean I would have voted for Gore...please. Gore was a disaster...Clinton was a disaster...but the fact that both of them were assholes does not let Bush off the hook for doing the right thing, especially AFTER HE HIMSELF DECLARED AS A CANDIDATE THAT THE MILITARY NEEDED TO BE REBUILT. For the helplessly stupid, just because the other guys set the bar low doesnt mean you shouldn't set the bar where it is supposed to be. And then 8 months after he takes office...with goddam buildings smoking and ragheaded fanatics dancing in the streets AND HE STILL DOESN'T DO THE RIGHT THING. And y'all take another toke off the joint and think wow cool. Not me. Doesn't make me a leftist. Makes me the same rightwinger I have been since Reagan. And as far as the idiocy of declaring that he COULDN'T know he would need more troops...WTF is that crap? Did we all watch the same speeches that declared: We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Hmm...sounds like he might be needing a bigger Armed Forces than the one he inherited. Maybe eh, unless he had plans to hire the Girl Scouts to carry out what I believe were perfectly legitimate threats, never mind that he isn't keeping them.
Toggle Commented Feb 25, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
Hmmm
Toggle Commented Feb 25, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
The President does not, I say again, does not have the power to arbitrarily set defense funding at whatever level he wishes. He has to get it through Congress. And the Senate has this neat rule about "cloture" where you need 60 votes to stop a filibuster. In effect, this means you need 60 votes to get to the point of voting on any controversial bill (like defense appropriations usually are), because the odds are high that someone is gonna try and filibuster it. hehe..Try again youngster. We had just been attacked and both the Senate and House would have fallen all over themselves to do the President's bidding. He bid us to go back shopping. Then he had lunch with some terrorists...here he is meeting with Nihad Awad September 17, 2001 in the Islamic Center Nihad is from CAIR! Who said such lovely things as this: Nihad Awad Executive Director CAIR “I am in support of the Hamas movement.” “Our administration has the burden of proving otherwise.” (Awad’s response to muslim accusations that federal raids were a War against Islam and Muslims)”If you love Israel, you’re OK … If that is the litmus test, no American Muslim and no freedom-loving person is going to pass that test.” Hamas is such a fun loving group of maniacs. And your knowledge of what might have happened in the Congress as NYC was smoldering shows a distinct lack of political acumen. President Bush had the opportunity to fulfill what he said prior to his election as President and prior to 9/11 was a priority, rebuilding the military. Reagan was faced with a very hostile House of Representatives who as I am sure someone as "smart" as you is where all spending bills start. And since you seem to have a child like grasp of numbers here try these on. The House was comprised of 244 Democrats and 191 Republicans. The Senate was in Republican hands 53 to 46 with one independent who by the way caucased with the Democrats. Reagan without the benefit of New York City and Washington DC in flames forced through the largest expansion of the military in modern history. Perhaps we might have asked Reagan to cancel the eclipse since according to you he had that sort of power. Perhaps you're just upset because I happened to destroy your beautiful theory that It's All Bush's Fault with a few ugly facts? Legend in your own mind eh? Democrats like to declare victory and hope the other guy believes you. Too bad for you. It is not uncommon for those hampered with a sub juvenile understanding of the world to confuse the office of our POTUS with that of an emperor. Of course, these same intellectual inbreeds tend to work toward mutating the office of our POTUS into a despotic tyrant type governance. Careful now you might hurt my feelings. Or maybe I just spit my morning coke all over my screen at your runt like idiocy. Notice that I post under my real name and that I live in Baton Rouge. I am easy to find if you are feeling like you need to talk. Why the one poster just keeps slamming with the BDS mantras escapes me. It is a fact that we wasted the peacetime dividends for sensitivity training and the like instead of looking forward and seeing the bigger picture. Once you spoil something, it takes a long time to shore it back up...so Reagan, Bush built it back up, and Clinton tore it down. Bush Senior started taking the military apart. But it was certainly Clinton who did the most damage. We have gone from 18 divisions to 10. We have gone from nearly a 600 ship navy to less than 300. Our air superiority fighter the F15 is falling apart. We havent built a new M1A1 since 1993. And now with the pace of operations we are wearing out equipment that was already worn out according to candidate Bush. We are spending more money on Defense than we ever have...correct. But the reason that folks use GDP to gauge how much we are spending and it was Republicans who started that metric is that gives us a true measure of the burden on our country. We are fantastically rich...we can afford the best. BDS? Me? Are you kidding? I sent more money to Bush than anyone I know. But he is an employee in my eye and I don't cut any employees slack just because I hired them. My friends come under more scrutiny than my enemies. I assume my enemies are screwing me...
Toggle Commented Feb 24, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
The long and short of it is I don't consider the Republicans and Democrats as football teams where I am rooting for one and laughing at the other. Both of them are different sides of the same coin and deserve our close attention.
Toggle Commented Feb 24, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
The first is, by adopting the strategies of General Petraeus (not just the surge, but the entire strategy of which the surge was only a part), we have largely pacified Iraq without needing to increase funding. We are also doing very well in Afghanistan, again, without increasing funding. It makes no sense to increase military funding just for the sake of increasing funding. Yes it makes perfect sense to increase defense spending because getting by is not good enough. The worlds most powerful nation is fighting two wars against two 3rd world nations filled with uneducated religious maniacs and is stretched. Our fighters are falling apart in the air, F-15's, F-16's, A-10's are all stretched. Lets hope that China doesn't get antsy. Our air transport is stretched and falling apart and the rest of the forces are very much in the same condition. Our soldiers are going back for tour after tour because our forces have been stretched by the minimizing of the ground forces by Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. We should have been building up our ground forces all this time. Rumsfeld was deliberately shrinking the ground forces. Additionally we all knew that the Armed Forces were in bad shape when Bush took office because candidate Bush told us so. So faced with a war and a falling apart ground force and a close to a majority in the Congress we should have been building up the forces not winding them down. Second, since 2006 we've had a Congress dominated by the MoveOn-funded Democratic Party, and even before that, the GOP majority was so slim in the Senate (especially with liberal Republicans like Sen. Specter) that any large increase in military spending would have been well-nigh impossible to get passed. In effect, you are blaming Bush for not doing the impossible... one might as well blame him for not stopping the recent lunar eclipse. First off Bush took office in 2001. Bush TOLD us in 2000 that the military was in bad shape. In 2001 a bunch of towel headed maniacs took us to war. The weeks after 9/11 Bush could have drastically raised spending for DOD and he failed to do it. Any Democrat or Republican opposing him would have been dragged out of town on a rail. All along he has dedicated more money to butter than to guns. I am willing to amuse politicians with my money when there isn't a war but when there is a war I expect them to spend my money to achieve their primary purpose, defending my country. Lets not even go to the fact of all the money we dumped into our "intelligence" agencies and we got snookered by a bunch of fanatics with box cutters. And no excuses about not having a majority in the Congress...neither did Reagan and he did exceptionally fine raising defense spending. Clinton did pretty good lowering it with a Republican Majority. It is amazing what you can do when you put your shoulder into it. It matters not a whit to me whether you're coming at this from the left or the right, just throwing figures around without considering the background only gives half the story... and opens you to rebuttals like the ones I just made. Please consider this the next time you insert yourself into a debate. Hehe...you are a funny guy. Matters not one whit eh? Yea sure after I showed that you were assuming I was coming from the left and I didn't happen to be, sure you are going to claim that...go ahead its amusing. You sound young...I am not. I know the backround on Reagan and Carter better than you might guess. As far as opening myself to rebuttals I will let you know when I see one. Finally someone has got to keep you cheerleaders for the Government honest, that is why I insert myself into Debates. The Government is not here to help. I don't assume it so, just because it is being run by someone I voted for. The Government is to be watched very carefully and skeptically by us all. They have pissed untold fortunes down the pisshole and we got 2 buildings dropped in Manhattan, the Pentagon attacked and the Capital saved only by the herioc efforts of, not our super secret agents, but a bunch of civilians who rose up to the challenge after all branches of our Government tasked with stopping that kind of shit had failed. I don't cut anyone in the Bureaucracy of the Government any breaks...thank God for the military and watch the Bureaucrats is my motto. Politicians qualify as Bureaucrats.
Toggle Commented Feb 24, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
Pierre, since you seem to have the figures at your fingertips, how much did defense spending increase or decrease under President Clinton? Background is important, you know, so let's compare this administration with the one immediately preceding it (which is reasonable and logical--not, as some might claim, driven by hatred of Mr. or Mrs. Clinton). Why do you ask? I provided all the figures from Senior Bush to Junior Bush. All the information is there to see. And the fact it that Bush did not increase Defense Spending as a percentage of our nations wealth compared to Clinton. You may argue that defense spending was raised and I would agree but then you would have to explain why in a time of war we are not in a situation where Defense Spending as a percentage of our nations wealth has not increased dramatically. Are we NOT in a long war? Do we not need more divisions of men and women ready to fight? Is our equipment wearing out or not? You may think I am approaching this from the left and you would be dead wrong. I am approaching this from the right. From the right that saw Reagan decry the offensive defense disestablishment of Jimmy Carter. From the right that saw Reagan get into office and immediately increase spending to cure the ailments Carter had brought on. Bush complained about Clinton but did nothing about it.
Toggle Commented Feb 24, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
I would submit that President Bush didn't start two wars. The Islamofacists headed by OBL started them by bombing the USS Cole and murdering nearly 3000 Americans on 9-11. President Bush merely finished what the previous administration failed to adequately persue. Jim C Sorry, yes you are exactly right. But as soon as he finished meeting with the Muslim Leaders in the White House after 9/11 he should have immediately went to emergency war funding and ramped up our military. We all knew this was going to be a "Long War". Bush repeatedly made the point. Well then ramp up the spending on EVERYTHING so that we don't go looking anything and the cupboards are bare. I realize that no one else that might have run for President in 2000 would have done any better and most would have done much worse. But it doesnt hurt to know what should have been done.
Toggle Commented Feb 23, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
Oh and Obama/Osama is not going to fix that he is going to make it worse by an order of magnitude.
Toggle Commented Feb 23, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
Still, it is a misrepresentation to insist that a percent of GDP, one way or the other, matters more than the actual total GDP in dollars. Now, if you want to compare that in 1977 to right now, sure, we'd have an argument about how much was being spent on defense. Otherwise, its a bad argument. GDP is the common way to gauge how much money we CAN spend on Defense Compared to what we HAVE spent on defense. Given the problems we have seen so far with equipment, force levels, and re-supply we can confidently say that we should have been spending a great deal more on Defense than we have. If you want to argue, as some have tried, that we need to simply cut certain weapons systems to afford other items. I will respond that given this country's wealth we shouldn't be cutting anything in the military. Furthermore that is exactly the same point that President Bush made as a candidate, then he went on to start two wars with the Forces he declared were worn out as a candidate. Here is Bush the candidate in a debate with Gore: BUSH: First let me just say one comment about what the vice president said. I think one of the lessons in between World War I and World War II is we let our military atrophy. And we can’t do that. We’ve got to rebuild our military. But one of the problems we have in the military is we’re in alot of places around the world. Then he becomes President 9/11 happens and he doesnt respond by drastically upping our defense budget. Why not? Why are we making choices among projects when we can afford them all? Why aren't our Vet Hospitals the very best, why aren't our death benefits to vets the best they can be...why are we not as a people dedicating the same resources to our military as they are dedicating to us?
Toggle Commented Feb 23, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
Those figures are from this article... Democracy a fool’s errand or our only way out? Jeane Kirkpatrick responds
Toggle Commented Feb 23, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
If Osama/Obama was advocating upping the Defense Budget his use of this story would play in the fly over states a bit. But he isn't. He is merely talking about taking meager resources and spreading them around differently. How about this... How about we call flag on the play against the Republicans who should have raised the Defense Budget from the measly 3.6% of GDP it was when they took office. That was near the lowest point of the Clinton Administration and it stayed right there...matter of fact it has not gone over 4% the entire time that Bush has been in office. (1990=5.6, 1991=5.0, 1992=5.2, 1993=4.8, 1994=4.3, 1995=4.0, 1996=3.7, 1997=3.5, 1998=3.3, 1999= 3.3)Defense spending in 2006 remained at 3.7% Against the Democrats I call for ejection from the game since Obama is likely is hiding a major agenda.
Toggle Commented Feb 23, 2008 on Twweeeetttt!!!! Flag on the Play!! at BlackFive
1 reply
Thank you for injecting some rational thought into the process. In the end, it is my contention that regardless what some folks believe inside of the respecttive European political parties, the best way to avoid the worst folks from controlling them is to engage. By leaving in disgust we are merely allowing the Nazis to control the agendas of the only remaining political parties able to fight the Islamic infiltration. Fjordman is one of my heros.
Toggle Commented Nov 14, 2007 on Family Squabbles at ShrinkWrapped
1 reply