Wag the Dog?

[easyt65]

Nice attempted gotcha, but there is a difference between a contracted commitment and a "We sell cakes" commitment.

Not really... They promised to do something and tried to back out of it.

Unlike Bowe Bergdahl, who was probably mentally ill and never should have been in that situation to start with.

Prove it. He actually should have been shot.

Bergdahl was an ignorant left-wing liberal, who like Obama, felt sympathy with our enemy.

Liberals believe all we have to do is play nice with the terrorists, to not offend them, and they will like us, we will all be friends, and we will sit around singing Kumbaya.

Bergdahl abandon his post, went to join them, and was picked up by terrorists who did not agree with this philosophy and instead kidnapped him and used him for ransom, a ransom which Obama paid for his release

Bergdahl is a lesson to all left-wingers that the terrorist are not our friends and want to cut off our heads simply because we do not believe in Allah and we are still breathing. It is a lesson leftist still reject and refuse to learn.

Bergdahl should have been tried for treason and could have faced the death penalty during wartime; however, Barack Obama made him a decorated 'hero'.

Once that happened, we could not courts-martial and judicially try our new 'hero' as a traitor and punish him as such. It would have made Obama further look like a fool.

 

[martybegan]

Nice attempted gotcha, but there is a difference between a contracted commitment and a "We sell cakes" commitment.

Not really... They promised to do something and tried to back out of it.

Unlike Bowe Bergdahl, who was probably mentally ill and never should have been in that situation to start with.

And so they should be ruined.... Great response you fucktard hack.

Excuses Excuses.

hack.

 

[JoeB131]

Nice attempt to distract...actually it WASN'T. Actually your comment was immature and stupid as hell. When the strategy of two people are the same it is reasonable and appropriate to mention both people.

Except that maybe that strategy might have made sense 8 years ago, but now, not so much.

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting a different result.

If it is the same strategy, how is it going to succeed now if it failed in the past?

Snowflakes want to complain about Trump's Afghan strategy but don't want anyone to bring up the fact that Trumps strategy IS in essence Barack Obama's Afghan strategy.

So when you ignorant snowflakes are bashing Donald Trump's Afghan strategy you are bashing Barack Obama's Afghan.

Well, there's a major difference. When it was Obama's strategy, it had the virtue of not being tried yet, and on paper, it looked a lot better than Bush's strategy of "hoping nobody noticed we ignored the whole thing to get bogged down in Iraq".

Of course, now we know that Obama's strategy didn't work. The Afghan Government is not accepted by their people, who pine for the Taliban as the good old days when they had almost a decade without any war.

So if the strategy sucked when it was Obama's strategy, why does it become better when it's Trump's strategy? Because he put his name on it in big letters?

Prove it. He actually should have been shot.

Okay. He was discharged from the Coast Guard on a psych condition.

And the army took him anyway.

You actually think that there is a between Billy, Georgie, and Obambi? How stupid can you be ? Rhetorical.

If you wrote a sentence that made any grammatical sense, we might be able to talk.

 

[JoeB131]

And so they should be ruined.... Great response you fucktard hack.

Excuses Excuses.

hack.

Hey, when you are an asshole like he was, yup, you deserve to be ruined more than a psychologically damaged kid who was put in a situation he wasn't capable of coping with.

Bergdahl was an ignorant left-wing liberal, who like Obama, felt sympathy with our enemy.

Liberals believe all we have to do is play nice with the terrorists, to not offend them, and they will like us, we will all be friends, and we will sit around singing Kumbaya.

Bergdahl abandon his post, went to join them, and was picked up by terrorists who did not agree with this philosophy and instead kidnapped him and used him for ransom, a ransom which Obama paid for his release

So what makes you angry about Bergdahl's case isn't really anything to do with Bergdahl, it's that Obama got him released. Because a lot of the same right wing phonies who are bitching about it now, are the ones who bitched about Obama not getting him back.

Here's the thing, the five guys we swapped him for we would have had to have let go, anyway, because we had no actual legal basis to hold them. They hadn't committed any crimes in the US, and anything they did in Afghanistan was legal because they were officials of the former government. In fact, the Karzai government ASKED for these five to be released in hopes of using them to parlay with the Taliban as part of a larger peace settlement.

Bergdahl is a lesson to all left-wingers that the terrorist are not our friends and want to cut off our heads simply because we do not believe in Allah and we are still breathing. It is a lesson leftist still reject and refuse to learn.

Okay, except that the Taliban didn't cut off his head. And they don't care if we believe in Allah or not, they just want us out of their country, just like they wanted the Russians out of their country 30 years ago.

Bergdahl should have been tried for treason and could have faced the death penalty during wartime; however, Barack Obama made him a decorated 'hero'.

Once that happened, we could not courts-martial and judicially try our new 'hero' as a traitor and punish him as such. It would have made Obama further look like a fool.

Okay, here's the problem with this argument, besides the fact Obama let UCMJ proceeding go forward.

If anyone misrepresented the facts about Bergdahl, it was the Army.

The Army listed him as a POW, and not a deserter.

The Army continued to promote him while he was in captivity, which is why he's a Sergeant and not a PFC like he was when he was captured.

The Army told a misleading story that he was captured while he was on patrol, not that he had walked off of a base.

And the Army is the organization that ignored the findings of their own investigator and is insisting on going forward with charges.

So Obama was told that this brave soldier who was captured on patrol was being held, and we had to get him back, the poor guy. And Obama did that.

 

[martybegan]

And so they should be ruined.... Great response you fucktard hack.

Excuses Excuses.

hack.

Hey, when you are an asshole like he was, yup, you deserve to be ruined more than a psychologically damaged kid who was put in a situation he wasn't capable of coping with.

Bergdahl was an ignorant left-wing liberal, who like Obama, felt sympathy with our enemy.

Liberals believe all we have to do is play nice with the terrorists, to not offend them, and they will like us, we will all be friends, and we will sit around singing Kumbaya.

Bergdahl abandon his post, went to join them, and was picked up by terrorists who did not agree with this philosophy and instead kidnapped him and used him for ransom, a ransom which Obama paid for his release

So what makes you angry about Bergdahl's case isn't really anything to do with Bergdahl, it's that Obama got him released. Because a lot of the same right wing phonies who are bitching about it now, are the ones who bitched about Obama not getting him back.

Here's the thing, the five guys we swapped him for we would have had to have let go, anyway, because we had no actual legal basis to hold them. They hadn't committed any crimes in the US, and anything they did in Afghanistan was legal because they were officials of the former government. In fact, the Karzai government ASKED for these five to be released in hopes of using them to parlay with the Taliban as part of a larger peace settlement.

Bergdahl is a lesson to all left-wingers that the terrorist are not our friends and want to cut off our heads simply because we do not believe in Allah and we are still breathing. It is a lesson leftist still reject and refuse to learn.

Okay, except that the Taliban didn't cut off his head. And they don't care if we believe in Allah or not, they just want us out of their country, just like they wanted the Russians out of their country 30 years ago.

Bergdahl should have been tried for treason and could have faced the death penalty during wartime; however, Barack Obama made him a decorated 'hero'.

Once that happened, we could not courts-martial and judicially try our new 'hero' as a traitor and punish him as such. It would have made Obama further look like a fool.

Okay, here's the problem with this argument, besides the fact Obama let UCMJ proceeding go forward.

If anyone misrepresented the facts about Bergdahl, it was the Army.

The Army listed him as a POW, and not a deserter.

The Army continued to promote him while he was in captivity, which is why he's a Sergeant and not a PFC like he was when he was captured.

The Army told a misleading story that he was captured while he was on patrol, not that he had walked off of a base.

And the Army is the organization that ignored the findings of their own investigator and is insisting on going forward with charges.

So Obama was told that this brave soldier who was captured on patrol was being held, and we had to get him back, the poor guy. And Obama did that.

God you are so ******* lazy and disgraceful.

 

[Kosh]

They are saying he actually listened to the Generals. Maybe thats why MAttis was praising him the other day.
Im kinda torn on this.
Do we want another Iraq? Of course not.
Do we want troops there? Of course not.
What do you do?

Demand that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and African nation states engage the Taliban, ISIS and Goko Haram, kill, arrest or incarcerate its members or let them continue to kill without any aid from our country.

See why the far left should never be in charge of anything?

Saudi Arabia offers to contribute troops to ISIS fight

See that far left has to run debunked religious narratives in order to push their debunked religious agenda!

 

[iceberg]

Last night President Trump flipped one more time. Anyone who listened last night heard once again the same rhetoric we heard from Nixon and G. W. Bush before they sent our troops into harms way, and too many died or were seriously injured in a war of attrition.

HIS strategy is his alone, he tired to have the Generals take responsibility and they in mass made it his decision. Thus he is now responsible for the 16 year war in Afghanistan. Trump will have no one to blame now, but himself (something he will never do)!

the work and bullshit some people will go through in order to pin 8+ years of bullshit from their side on trump.

**** that noise. the days of "we said so so it is" are over. you can't pin it all on trump and you know damn well he's turned this over to the military - as he should. you just can't handle trump doing something right so you twist it to your tastes.

and then wonder where fake news came from.

 

[JoeB131]

God you are so ******* lazy and disgraceful.

Naw, dude, I just not giving your ego the pleasure of having a whole response to yourself.... you don't add enough to a conversation to merit it. When you add something creative and new, you get your own post. The same tired Libertarian Narcissism will be mixed in with other responses.

the work and bullshit some people will go through in order to pin 8+ years of bullshit from their side on trump.

**** that noise. the days of "we said so so it is" are over. you can't pin it all on trump and you know damn well he's turned this over to the military - as he should. you just can't handle trump doing something right so you twist it to your tastes.

Here's the problem. During the Campaign, Trump told us that he (a guy who never served in the military in his life) knew more about how to win the war than the generals. So his deferring to the generals to just continue the same bad policies IS on him.

Now, let's concede for the moment that the Bush/Obama strategy in Afghanistan of hoping that the Afghans will pretty please stand up and fight the Taliban on their own is a flawed one. You will get no argument from me that it is.

So why in the name of Dread C'Thulhu is Trump continuing the SAME failed policy, which probably has less of a chance of working now than it did 8 years ago?

when Obama proposed it in 2008, it was probably plausible. That was before Karzai stole the 2009 election and the government we supported lost all credibility.

Now it really makes not a lick of sense to be throwing good money after bad.

 

[martybegan]

God you are so ******* lazy and disgraceful.

Naw, dude, I just not giving your ego the pleasure of having a whole response to yourself.... you don't add enough to a conversation to merit it. When you add something creative and new, you get your own post. The same tired Libertarian Narcissism will be mixed in with other responses.

the work and bullshit some people will go through in order to pin 8+ years of bullshit from their side on trump.

**** that noise. the days of "we said so so it is" are over. you can't pin it all on trump and you know damn well he's turned this over to the military - as he should. you just can't handle trump doing something right so you twist it to your tastes.

Here's the problem. During the Campaign, Trump told us that he (a guy who never served in the military in his life) knew more about how to win the war than the generals. So his deferring to the generals to just continue the same bad policies IS on him.

Now, let's concede for the moment that the Bush/Obama strategy in Afghanistan of hoping that the Afghans will pretty please stand up and fight the Taliban on their own is a flawed one. You will get no argument from me that it is.

So why in the name of Dread C'Thulhu is Trump continuing the SAME failed policy, which probably has less of a chance of working now than it did 8 years ago?

when Obama proposed it in 2008, it was probably plausible. That was before Karzai stole the 2009 election and the government we supported lost all credibility.

Now it really makes not a lick of sense to be throwing good money after bad.

And yet you keep responding like a moron dog salivating over the dinner bell.

 

[iceberg]

God you are so ******* lazy and disgraceful.

Naw, dude, I just not giving your ego the pleasure of having a whole response to yourself.... you don't add enough to a conversation to merit it. When you add something creative and new, you get your own post. The same tired Libertarian Narcissism will be mixed in with other responses.

the work and bullshit some people will go through in order to pin 8+ years of bullshit from their side on trump.

**** that noise. the days of "we said so so it is" are over. you can't pin it all on trump and you know damn well he's turned this over to the military - as he should. you just can't handle trump doing something right so you twist it to your tastes.

Here's the problem. During the Campaign, Trump told us that he (a guy who never served in the military in his life) knew more about how to win the war than the generals. So his deferring to the generals to just continue the same bad policies IS on him.

Now, let's concede for the moment that the Bush/Obama strategy in Afghanistan of hoping that the Afghans will pretty please stand up and fight the Taliban on their own is a flawed one. You will get no argument from me that it is.

So why in the name of Dread C'Thulhu is Trump continuing the SAME failed policy, which probably has less of a chance of working now than it did 8 years ago?

when Obama proposed it in 2008, it was probably plausible. That was before Karzai stole the 2009 election and the government we supported lost all credibility.

Now it really makes not a lick of sense to be throwing good money after bad.

here's the problem -

people who don't like trump already will demonize all he does and in turn, those who don't join in. they've created a **** YOU mentality around the POTUS for no other reason than they hate the guy, so in their mind, all actions to remove him are justified.

that simply means the next democrat who takes office will be subject to all the left is today doing to trump.

you sure you're ok with this continuing to escalate like it is? you validate pushing someone out of office due to your hate that only means all others can now do this cause you've set precedence.

you REALLY think this would go anywhere good for the country long term? and if you really believe that outcome is better than putting up with trump in office you're a bigger fool than i could have ever imagined. that puts one sides wishes over the others in a **** YOU manner.

you'd not put up with that, why do you think the right will?

 

[JoeB131]

And yet you keep responding like a moron dog salivating over the dinner bell.

And you don't? Because I've really gotten to the point where I know how to push your buttons.

here's the problem -

people who don't like trump already will demonize all he does and in turn, those who don't join in. they've created a **** YOU mentality around the POTUS for no other reason than they hate the guy, so in their mind, all actions to remove him are justified.

Okay, you see, heres the problem with that. Obama had to deal with the same problem, you know, all the birther bullshit and all that. So did Bush. So did the poor guy who got impeached over a blow job. Pretty much, we've been finding reasons to not consider the guy we don't like to not be legitimate.

Except in Trump's case, he's largely done this to himself.

that simply means the next democrat who takes office will be subject to all the left is today doing to trump.

Probably. But that's going to be the case, regardless.

To put it in perspective, the reason why Hillary didn't get the 2008 nomination is a lot of Democrats didn't want to relive the Clinton Drama from the GOP. But we just got totally different drama from Obama, who half the country lost their shit over when they realized he was black.

you sure you're ok with this continuing to escalate like it is? you validate pushing someone out of office due to your hate that only means all others can now do this cause you've set precedence.

No, I validate pushing Trump out of office because he lacks the intellect, morals, and temperament to be president. And even Republicans know this. The country shit the bed electing him.

Case in point, do you ever remember George W. Bush abusing Frist or Lott the way Trump is abusing McConnell? Do you ever remember Obama abusing Harry Reid like that? you can't elect a shit flinging monkey and then complain about the lack of decorum, but that's pretty much what your side did because Hillary was such a mean *****.

you REALLY think this would go anywhere good for the country long term? and if you really believe that outcome is better than putting up with trump in office you're a bigger fool than i could have ever imagined. that puts one sides wishes over the others in a **** YOU manner.

you'd not put up with that, why do you think the right will?

What's bad for the country is that Trump is in the White House. Period. Would Cruz or Kasich be putting up with some shit from the Democrats if they had been elected? Probably?

But do you think we would have the insanity we have now if Hillary or Cruz or Kasich were president right now.

you see, the real problem is that Americans have given up on Democracy. Half the Republicans voted for this Nazi Game Show Host, and half the Democrats voted for Commie Bernie.

My biggest worry is that after Trump FAILS (and he will), the Democrats will put up someone far off to the left, like Bernie, and that person will fail as well.

Used to be when one major party shit the bed and nominated a nutbag, enough voters said, "Hey, that guy's nuts, I'm crossing party lines." Which is what Republicans did with Goldwater in 64 and Democrats did with McGovern in 1972. LBJ and Tricky Dick were far worse than Hillary, but they weren't crazy.

Today, it's not the crazies that are putting these people on the ballots, it's the people who should know better who are going along with it.

 

[martybegan]

And yet you keep responding like a moron dog salivating over the dinner bell.

And you don't? Because I've really gotten to the point where I know how to push your buttons.

here's the problem -

people who don't like trump already will demonize all he does and in turn, those who don't join in. they've created a **** YOU mentality around the POTUS for no other reason than they hate the guy, so in their mind, all actions to remove him are justified.

Okay, you see, heres the problem with that. Obama had to deal with the same problem, you know, all the birther bullshit and all that. So did Bush. So did the poor guy who got impeached over a blow job. Pretty much, we've been finding reasons to not consider the guy we don't like to not be legitimate.

Except in Trump's case, he's largely done this to himself.

that simply means the next democrat who takes office will be subject to all the left is today doing to trump.

Probably. But that's going to be the case, regardless.

To put it in perspective, the reason why Hillary didn't get the 2008 nomination is a lot of Democrats didn't want to relive the Clinton Drama from the GOP. But we just got totally different drama from Obama, who half the country lost their shit over when they realized he was black.

you sure you're ok with this continuing to escalate like it is? you validate pushing someone out of office due to your hate that only means all others can now do this cause you've set precedence.

No, I validate pushing Trump out of office because he lacks the intellect, morals, and temperament to be president. And even Republicans know this. The country shit the bed electing him.

Case in point, do you ever remember George W. Bush abusing Frist or Lott the way Trump is abusing McConnell? Do you ever remember Obama abusing Harry Reid like that? you can't elect a shit flinging monkey and then complain about the lack of decorum, but that's pretty much what your side did because Hillary was such a mean *****.

you REALLY think this would go anywhere good for the country long term? and if you really believe that outcome is better than putting up with trump in office you're a bigger fool than i could have ever imagined. that puts one sides wishes over the others in a **** YOU manner.

you'd not put up with that, why do you think the right will?

What's bad for the country is that Trump is in the White House. Period. Would Cruz or Kasich be putting up with some shit from the Democrats if they had been elected? Probably?

But do you think we would have the insanity we have now if Hillary or Cruz or Kasich were president right now.

you see, the real problem is that Americans have given up on Democracy. Half the Republicans voted for this Nazi Game Show Host, and half the Democrats voted for Commie Bernie.

My biggest worry is that after Trump FAILS (and he will), the Democrats will put up someone far off to the left, like Bernie, and that person will fail as well.

Used to be when one major party shit the bed and nominated a nutbag, enough voters said, "Hey, that guy's nuts, I'm crossing party lines." Which is what Republicans did with Goldwater in 64 and Democrats did with McGovern in 1972. LBJ and Tricky Dick were far worse than Hillary, but they weren't crazy.

Today, it's not the crazies that are putting these people on the ballots, it's the people who should know better who are going along with it.

Its the same buttons, I just refuse to allow a moron like you to post without refutation.

 

[iceberg]

And yet you keep responding like a moron dog salivating over the dinner bell.

And you don't? Because I've really gotten to the point where I know how to push your buttons.

here's the problem -

people who don't like trump already will demonize all he does and in turn, those who don't join in. they've created a **** YOU mentality around the POTUS for no other reason than they hate the guy, so in their mind, all actions to remove him are justified.

Okay, you see, heres the problem with that. Obama had to deal with the same problem,

i'm going to stop here for no other reason than i don't want to get lost in the tons of FACTS bantered about for the sake of bantering.

obama didn't have it much worse than any other president coming in. i would say however, it was worse, but that trend was already underway. it wasn't dusted off and lobbed on obama just because. it's the trend *we the people* are forcing to push 1 view over another and the resistance that in turn causes, which in turn, turns into hate and a "get even" mentality.

of which we are in now.

OH YEA - SEE WHAT WE DO TO YOUR GUY! and since you state this as a tactic you use, then it invalidates your criticism as hurt feelings in search of payback, not what is the right course of action we all need to find and try to get back to.

if it got worse for obama, it's gotten 10 times worse or more for trump. this "payback". if you expect it to come back to you then it likely will in some form but then i ask you - is it right?

where will this "payback" mentality take us? nowhere good from my view but we're headed there in a hurry.

 

[Doc1]

JoeB131

"Doc1 said: ↑
Prove it. He actually should have been shot.
Click to expand...
Okay. He was discharged from the Coast Guard on a psych condition.

And the army took him anyway.

↑
You actually think that there is a between Billy, Georgie, and Obambi? How stupid can you be ? Rhetorical.
Click to expand...
If you wrote a sentence that made any grammatical sense, we might be able to talk.

Poor Joe, trying to pass of unsubstantiated rumors as fact. You the worst kind of liar. Intellectually limited folks like yourself jump on typos to try and safe face. It won't work pop.

 

[JoeB131]

Its the same buttons, I just refuse to allow a moron like you to post without refutation.

so you throw little hissies when I mock you? That's awesome... Moving right along.

i'm going to stop here for no other reason than i don't want to get lost in the tons of FACTS bantered about for the sake of bantering.

I know, you can't refute the points I'm making, I get that. So let's just shoot down this idiocy.

obama didn't have it much worse than any other president coming in. i would say however, it was worse, but that trend was already underway. it wasn't dusted off and lobbed on obama just because. it's the trend *we the people* are forcing to push 1 view over another and the resistance that in turn causes, which in turn, turns into hate and a "get even" mentality.

I don't recall any other president being subjected to REPEATED false claims that he wasn't born in this country and that his presidency was therefore illegitimate. Or any other president having any attempt they make to comprimise on an issue rejected out of hand because they were the ones proposing it.

Republicans had no problem with "RomneyCare" until they started calling it "ObamaCare".

Yes, what we saw with Obama was truly unprecedented, because of racism.

if it got worse for obama, it's gotten 10 times worse or more for trump. this "payback". if you expect it to come back to you then it likely will in some form but then i ask you - is it right?

It's 10 times worse for Trump because he is a racist, a fascist, a misogynist and he stole an election with the help of our enemies. That's why it's 10 times worse for Trump.

I do expect that when we return to sanity in 2020 and elect a Democrat without letting someone steal the election on a technicality, the Republicans won't change their bad behavior.

which is too bad, because we really do need a healthy two party system.

 

[JoeB131]

Poor Joe, trying to pass of unsubstantiated rumors as fact. You the worst kind of liar. Intellectually limited folks like yourself jump on typos to try and safe face. It won't work pop.

It wasn't unsubstantiated.

The Significance of Bergdahl’s 'Washing Out' of the Coast Guard

Friends of Bergdahl told the Washington Postthat the Coast Guard discharged him for psychological reasons, but neither the Coast Guard nor the Army has specified why Bergdahl left the Coast Guard's boot camp in Cape May, N.J., in early 2006. The Coast Guard described the action as an "uncharacterized discharge," which is typical for someone who leaves the service without completing basic training.

Generally such an event is a red flag that would have required a waiver from the Army before allowing such a prospective recruit to enlist. A wide variety of bars to enlistment—including legal problems and health concerns—require waivers because the Pentagon believes such recruits won’t do as well in uniform as those without such warning signs.

 

[martybegan]

Its the same buttons, I just refuse to allow a moron like you to post without refutation.

so you throw little hissies when I mock you? That's awesome... Moving right along.

i'm going to stop here for no other reason than i don't want to get lost in the tons of FACTS bantered about for the sake of bantering.

I know, you can't refute the points I'm making, I get that. So let's just shoot down this idiocy.

obama didn't have it much worse than any other president coming in. i would say however, it was worse, but that trend was already underway. it wasn't dusted off and lobbed on obama just because. it's the trend *we the people* are forcing to push 1 view over another and the resistance that in turn causes, which in turn, turns into hate and a "get even" mentality.

I don't recall any other president being subjected to REPEATED false claims that he wasn't born in this country and that his presidency was therefore illegitimate. Or any other president having any attempt they make to comprimise on an issue rejected out of hand because they were the ones proposing it.

Republicans had no problem with "RomneyCare" until they started calling it "ObamaCare".

Yes, what we saw with Obama was truly unprecedented, because of racism.

if it got worse for obama, it's gotten 10 times worse or more for trump. this "payback". if you expect it to come back to you then it likely will in some form but then i ask you - is it right?

It's 10 times worse for Trump because he is a racist, a fascist, a misogynist and he stole an election with the help of our enemies. That's why it's 10 times worse for Trump.

I do expect that when we return to sanity in 2020 and elect a Democrat without letting someone steal the election on a technicality, the Republicans won't change their bad behavior.

which is too bad, because we really do need a healthy two party system.

Call it what you want, I call it not allowing to spread your bullshit without a counter.

 

[JoeB131]

Call it what you want, I call it not allowing to spread your bullshit without a counter.

 

[martybegan]

Call it what you want, I call it not allowing to spread your bullshit without a counter.

Considering most of your bullshit only requires one line to refute, it's not much of an effort.

 

[JoeB131]

Considering most of your bullshit only requires one line to refute, it's not much of an effort.

Yet you keep losing your shit.