Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: The Gore Watch - Page 7







Post#151 at 02-14-2006 03:29 PM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
02-14-2006, 03:29 PM #151
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

Re: Sheikh al-Gore

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Sheikh al-Gore travels the the home of the 9/11 terrorists and delivers a speech, in part sponsored by the family of Osama bin Laden, saying the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. Then adding that the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

Any comments from the Gore is the future "Gray Champion" folks, here?
Well, you've got to win over the Saudis if you want to be president.

"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.

"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.

1979 - Generation Perdu







Post#152 at 02-14-2006 09:51 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
02-14-2006, 09:51 PM #152
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by The Roadrunner
SSDD -- speak out against the Cult of Bush and get called a traitor for your trouble.

Nothing new.
What trouble are you talkin' 'bout?

I'm proud to be called a warmongering "chicken-hawk," a homophobic "shill and a toad" woman-hating, stealin' the kiddies school lunches and wishin' old folks eat dog food, racist bigot by you liberals all the time. Heck, Saari just called me one the other day. I think it's great! Is being called a "traitor" somehow worse than all that?

p.s. How else are liberal Democrats supposed to "get their message out," if they get mad everytime somebody quotes 'em, eh?







Post#153 at 02-14-2006 10:29 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
02-14-2006, 10:29 PM #153
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I'm proud to be called a warmongering "chicken-hawk," a homophobic "shill and a toad" woman-hating, stealin' the kiddies school lunches and wishin' old folks eat dog food, racist bigot by you liberals all the time. Heck, Saari just called me one the other day. I think it's great!
Well, isn't that special.



Is being called a "traitor" somehow worse than all that?
The difference is that Gore isn't a traitor, and he would dispute being called one. You're more interested in whining about how abused you are when you act like a jerk and get called on it. Then you try to turn it around on people by pretending like you enjoy it. How sweet is that? You've got it made. Nobody can get through to you. You've got all the bases covered.

p.s. How else are liberal Democrats supposed to "get their message out," if they get mad everytime somebody quotes 'em, eh?
Got a link to Gore's whole speech? I Googled and mostly found links to a pile of Bushbot whinging, but not the actual text of the speech.







Post#154 at 02-14-2006 10:41 PM by cbailey [at B. 1950 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,559]
---
02-14-2006, 10:41 PM #154
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
B. 1950
Posts
1,559

Re: Sheikh al-Gore

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Sheikh al-Gore travels the the home of the 9/11 terrorists and delivers a speech, in part sponsored by the family of Osama bin Laden, saying the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. Then adding that the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

Any comments from the Gore is the future "Gray Champion" folks, here?
Uh, more Abu Ghraib photos released, DA.
Proceed with caution.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/14/183059/640
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt







Post#155 at 02-14-2006 10:50 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
02-14-2006, 10:50 PM #155
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by The Roadrunner
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I'm proud to be called a warmongering "chicken-hawk," a homophobic "shill and a toad" woman-hating, stealin' the kiddies school lunches and wishin' old folks eat dog food, racist bigot by you liberals all the time. Heck, Saari just called me one the other day. I think it's great!
The difference is that Gore isn't a traitor, and he would dispute being called one.
Oh, yeah, and add torturer of Arabs to that list. 8)







Post#156 at 02-14-2006 11:05 PM by cbailey [at B. 1950 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,559]
---
02-14-2006, 11:05 PM #156
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
B. 1950
Posts
1,559

Re: Sheikh al-Gore

Quote Originally Posted by cbailey
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Sheikh al-Gore travels the the home of the 9/11 terrorists and delivers a speech, in part sponsored by the family of Osama bin Laden, saying the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. Then adding that the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

Any comments from the Gore is the future "Gray Champion" folks, here?
Uh, more Abu Ghraib photos released, DA.
Proceed with caution.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/14/183059/640

Check it out, DA.
Not 8) .
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt







Post#157 at 02-15-2006 06:03 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
02-15-2006, 06:03 AM #157
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

Re: Sheikh al-Gore

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Sheikh al-Gore travels the the home of the 9/11 terrorists and delivers a speech, in part sponsored by the family of Osama bin Laden, saying the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. Then adding that the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

Any comments from the Gore is the future "Gray Champion" folks, here?

It would have been a far more brilliant career move for Gore to have advocated legalizing marriages between humans and animals.

Which Olympics are we watching now - the 2006 Winter Games or the 1972 Summer Games? It seems as if many Democrats feel it's the latter.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#158 at 02-15-2006 10:10 AM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
02-15-2006, 10:10 AM #158
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

Re: Sheikh al-Gore

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
It would have been a far more brilliant career move for Gore to have advocated legalizing marriages between humans and animals.

Which Olympics are we watching now - the 2006 Winter Games or the 1972 Summer Games? It seems as if many Democrats feel it's the latter.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.

"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.

1979 - Generation Perdu







Post#159 at 02-15-2006 10:12 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
02-15-2006, 10:12 AM #159
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Sheikh al-Gore

Quote Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas
Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
It would have been a far more brilliant career move for Gore to have advocated legalizing marriages between humans and animals.

Which Olympics are we watching now - the 2006 Winter Games or the 1972 Summer Games? It seems as if many Democrats feel it's the latter.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I have no idea which Democrats he's talking about. This is a tired argument with no purpose behind it.







Post#160 at 02-15-2006 11:00 AM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
02-15-2006, 11:00 AM #160
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

Re: Sheikh al-Gore

Quote Originally Posted by The Roadrunner
Quote Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas
Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
It would have been a far more brilliant career move for Gore to have advocated legalizing marriages between humans and animals.

Which Olympics are we watching now - the 2006 Winter Games or the 1972 Summer Games? It seems as if many Democrats feel it's the latter.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I have no idea which Democrats he's talking about. This is a tired argument with no purpose behind it.
He lives in San Francisco. His mayor is Gavin Newsom. When I was in San Francisco last year they had big billboards with photos of recently-married lesbian couples [one dressed as the 'groom' the other as the 'bride,' ironically].

But he is exposed to a whole different Democratic universe than you may be in Wisconsin or I am even here in New York. Their state party is much more caught up in those wedge social issues than yours or mine might be.

For example, even here in gay New York, gay marriage is not the hot button issue of the day.

The guy with momentum is our next governor, Elliot Spitzer, who's basically a "good government" "by-the-book", "pragmatic leadership" type. The Dems in my district have consistently won over the past 6 years on an anti-corruption platform. My senators are cheesy populists that coast to enormous victories over a divided New York GOP - Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

So his idea of what the Dems are like might be a little different from what our concept of the party is like.
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.

"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.

1979 - Generation Perdu







Post#161 at 02-15-2006 09:17 PM by Linus [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 1,731]
---
02-15-2006, 09:17 PM #161
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
1,731

The trouble with Anthony's subtextual suggestion that Democrats would run better by pandering to the lesser angels of the white working class (which is to say their fear and loathing of gays, abortion, etc) is that 1) these voters would not be in play for Democrats unless they were to not only embrace a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (costing them potentially many thousands of gay and lesbian votes, and gays make up more than 5% of the Democratic base) but also embrace restrictions on abortion (and this would cost Democrats the votes of many, many single women who make up a much larger percentage of the Democratic base) 2) there is a broad if largely unstated consensus in the country that social issues should ultimately be left to the states, and that is likely to be one of the outcomes of this crisis period and 3) every credible anaylsis of the 2004 election postmortem suggests quite strongly that the persuadable voters (who might have voted for Kerry but didn't [most of these people were educated, white collar suburbanites]) swung to Bush on the basis of national security and foreign policy rather than social issues.
"Jan, cut the crap."

"It's just a donut."







Post#162 at 02-15-2006 10:09 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
02-15-2006, 10:09 PM #162
Guest

Here's one for Kifflie Scott, from deep in the Wisconsin backwoods, a 30-year old pin that reads:
  • "Proud to be an American liberal."
He fashioned it as a regular accessory during last year's election, but something odd happened: Numerous peopled sneered at him, and those who didn't would only whisper that they liked it.







Post#163 at 02-15-2006 10:16 PM by Biddy5637 [at Washington, DC joined Apr 2005 #posts 582]
---
02-15-2006, 10:16 PM #163
Join Date
Apr 2005
Location
Washington, DC
Posts
582

I'd sneer because I hate unbridled partisanship, for the record.







Post#164 at 02-15-2006 10:44 PM by Linus [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 1,731]
---
02-15-2006, 10:44 PM #164
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
1,731

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Here's one for Kifflie Scott, from deep in the Wisconsin backwoods, a 30-year old pin that reads:
  • "Proud to be an American liberal."
He fashioned it as a regular accessory during last year's election, but something odd happened: Numerous peopled sneered at him, and those who didn't would only whisper that they liked it.
And I thought middle aged white conservative men were the persecuted minority.
"Jan, cut the crap."

"It's just a donut."







Post#165 at 02-16-2006 05:22 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
02-16-2006, 05:22 AM #165
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

Quote Originally Posted by Linus
The trouble with Anthony's subtextual suggestion that Democrats would run better by pandering to the lesser angels of the white working class (which is to say their fear and loathing of gays, abortion, etc) is that 1) these voters would not be in play for Democrats unless they were to not only embrace a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (costing them potentially many thousands of gay and lesbian votes, and gays make up more than 5% of the Democratic base) but also embrace restrictions on abortion (and this would cost Democrats the votes of many, many single women who make up a much larger percentage of the Democratic base) 2) there is a broad if largely unstated consensus in the country that social issues should ultimately be left to the states, and that is likely to be one of the outcomes of this crisis period and 3) every credible anaylsis of the 2004 election postmortem suggests quite strongly that the persuadable voters (who might have voted for Kerry but didn't [most of these people were educated, white collar suburbanites]) swung to Bush on the basis of national security and foreign policy rather than social issues.

My point was just the opposite: That pacifism is an even bigger vote-loser for the Democrats than the liberal social agenda! It proves that they have learned nothing since the McGovern debacle (hence my 1972 reference); and worse yet, in this case their wimpiness is also illogical because the Islamists stand for everything they themselves loathe (misogyny, homophobia, etc.).

I wonder if Brokeback Mountain is playing in Tehran?

If the Democrats loyally supported the Administration in its war against an enemy the liberals should logically hate anyway, they could actually claim that the evangelicals are "soulmates" of the Islamic extremists, just like the conservatives tried to claim that liberals were the "soulmates" of the Communists during the Cold War.

They could literally hijack the entire "patriotism" issue.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#166 at 02-16-2006 09:54 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
02-16-2006, 09:54 AM #166
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Here's one for Kifflie Scott, from deep in the Wisconsin backwoods, a 30-year old pin that reads:
  • "Proud to be an American liberal."
He fashioned it as a regular accessory during last year's election, but something odd happened: Numerous peopled sneered at him, and those who didn't would only whisper that they liked it.
I still have my Feingold and Kerry bumper stickers in place. ;-)

I noticed that Mr. Bruch didn't appear to have anything negative to say about the good doctor from Vermont, so Mr. Ramsey made it up for him. This pretend wedge between rank-and-file liberals and Dr. Dean seems to be a common arguing tool for Bushbots.

Too bad it's not real. The true divide is between ordinary Democrats and the establishment DINOs.







Post#167 at 02-16-2006 10:05 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
02-16-2006, 10:05 AM #167
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
My point was just the opposite: That pacifism is an even bigger vote-loser for the Democrats than the liberal social agenda! It proves that they have learned nothing since the McGovern debacle (hence my 1972 reference); and worse yet, in this case their wimpiness is also illogical because the Islamists stand for everything they themselves loathe (misogyny, homophobia, etc.).
We also loathe torture, murder, racism, economic slavery, and the deliberate destruction of people's lives in the name of "saving face." It isn't wimpy to demand that Americans behave decently toward other people. Your characterization of today's liberals is plain wrong. Knock it off.

If the Democrats loyally supported the Administration in its war against an enemy the liberals should logically hate anyway, they could actually claim that the evangelicals are "soulmates" of the Islamic extremists, just like the conservatives tried to claim that liberals were the "soulmates" of the Communists during the Cold War.

They could literally hijack the entire "patriotism" issue.
NO, NO, NO.

You don't get it. Your strategy aggravates the problem. If Americans are behaving like thugs, they should be called on it. "Patriotism" is a shallow concept. Simple human decency goes deeper. Liberals need to maintain the moral high ground here. We need to rise above our fear and have the courage to do the right thing, even if we're dealing with thugs on the other side. DO NOT LOWER OURSELVES TO THEIR LEVEL.







Post#168 at 02-16-2006 10:09 AM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
02-16-2006, 10:09 AM #168
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
My point was just the opposite: That pacifism is an even bigger vote-loser for the Democrats than the liberal social agenda! It proves that they have learned nothing since the McGovern debacle (hence my 1972 reference); and worse yet, in this case their wimpiness is also illogical because the Islamists stand for everything they themselves loathe (misogyny, homophobia, etc.).

I wonder if Brokeback Mountain is playing in Tehran?

If the Democrats loyally supported the Administration in its war against an enemy the liberals should logically hate anyway, they could actually claim that the evangelicals are "soulmates" of the Islamic extremists, just like the conservatives tried to claim that liberals were the "soulmates" of the Communists during the Cold War.

They could literally hijack the entire "patriotism" issue.
Unfortunately, a belief that America has no right to defend itself under any circumstances whatsoever, which dates back to Vietnam, appears to trump all other considerations, including the ones mentioned above, which would otherwise be @!&* good ones.







Post#169 at 02-16-2006 10:17 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
02-16-2006, 10:17 AM #169
Guest

I think it would be safe to say that Anthony likes thuggery, and is probably, by liberal definition, himself a thug.

Me, too. 8)







Post#170 at 02-16-2006 10:23 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
02-16-2006, 10:23 AM #170
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518
Unfortunately, a belief that America has no right to defend itself under any circumstances whatsoever, which dates back to Vietnam, appears to trump all other considerations, including the ones mentioned above, which would otherwise be @!&* good ones.
Oh, I'm so glad to see you haven't changed a bit, Titus.

Seems to me that if anyone's stuck in the seventies, it isn't me. :lol: :lol:







Post#171 at 02-16-2006 10:33 AM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
02-16-2006, 10:33 AM #171
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
If the Democrats loyally supported the Administration in its war against an enemy the liberals should logically hate anyway, they could actually claim that the evangelicals are "soulmates" of the Islamic extremists, just like the conservatives tried to claim that liberals were the "soulmates" of the Communists during the Cold War.

They could literally hijack the entire "patriotism" issue.

We do want to win this war. We have got more Iraq War vets running for office in our party than the Republicans do in theirs. We are angry that the guy who killed 3,000 of our relatives and friends and co-workers in one day is still sitting pretty in Pakistan.

Why can't you get this - wanting to defeat them doesn't mean that we have to support every decision the Idiot-in-Chief is told to make. We though going to Iraq was a bad idea. That it was a distraction cooked up by some people in Washington that had been obsessed with the idea of invading for a long time before 9/11. We still think it was a bad idea, but it happened, and we support our efforts there and we are looking for a good way to define victory so we can bring our troops home.

Why is that so hard to understand? Why are you so stuck in the events that happened 35 years ago? Boys that were born the day McGovern lost are now men Anthony. They have children, wives, lives, careers, bald spots, and they don't know/care about this stuff. Life marches on.
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.

"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.

1979 - Generation Perdu







Post#172 at 02-16-2006 10:36 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
02-16-2006, 10:36 AM #172
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I think it would be safe to say that Anthony likes thuggery, and is probably, by liberal definition, himself a thug.
I haven't come to that conclusion about Anthony. I'm asking him to re-think his position.

Me, too. 8)
There's more evidence in your particular case. Like this gem from a few years back.

Still feel that way, Marc? Want to gun down anyone who disagrees with you? How would Jesus view that?







Post#173 at 02-16-2006 10:46 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
02-16-2006, 10:46 AM #173
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
They could literally hijack the entire "patriotism" issue.
No they couldn't. You are arguing that the Democrats try to outmaneuver the Republicans on the right. National defense is a euphenism for making war. Think about it. The Department of Defense did not defend the nation on September 11. They did not because defending the nation isn't the purpose for the Depeartment of Defense. A new Department of Defense had to be established, to which they gave another name to because DOD was taken. The DOD is really the War Department. Their job is to wage overseas wars. Some Americans think the US waged too many overseas wars in the past and don't want the US to wage more of them. Other Americans don't think the US waged enough overseas wars in the past and wants more wars in the future.

The GOP represents this latter group and the Democrats the former. If the Democrats want to up the rhetoric on what level of force to use in the WOT and the GOP percieves this to be a winning issue, they will rise to the occassion and ALWAYS come out more bellicose. They will always be more willing to cut social programs that benefit Democratic constituencies and spend more on weapons programs which benefit GOP constituencies. They will always be willing to advocate more extreme force than the Democrats.

The only way the Dems could outflank the Reps would be if they first advocated a maximally bellicose strategy for the WOT that cannot be trumped by the other side. We could, after all, simply nuke all the population centers in the Islamic world right now and do to the Muslims in this country what Hitler did to the Jews. Do you want the Dems to suggest this?

If not, then the GOP will always "be tougher" (i.e. more bellicose) than the Dems. And they will always play better to the pro-war folks.







Post#174 at 02-16-2006 11:10 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
02-16-2006, 11:10 AM #174
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

GOP Gunners

Quote Originally Posted by The Roadrunner
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I think it would be safe to say that Anthony likes thuggery, and is probably, by liberal definition, himself a thug.
I haven't come to that conclusion about Anthony. I'm asking him to re-think his position.

Me, too. 8)
There's more evidence in your particular case. Like this gem from a few years back.

Still feel that way, Marc? Want to gun down anyone who disagrees with you? How would Jesus view that?
Be very careful Ms. Scott. As we have seen most GOP "tough guys" are usually in their pyjamas at keyboard. But, once in a while they will take up a very minor gauge shotgun of Italian make (with metro-sexual engravings of little birds, bunnies and flora on the receiver) and put "one in the hat" of someone downrange.







Post#175 at 02-16-2006 11:27 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
02-16-2006, 11:27 AM #175
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Mr. Saari:

Please refer to your signature line, courtesy of Mr. Samuel Johnson. Could there be a more proper response? :wink:
-----------------------------------------