[quote]
On 2002-07-09 15:56, Agent 24601984 wrote:
[quote]
On 2002-07-09 15:16, justmom wrote:
[quote]
As a liberal I agree with most of what you said except for that last part:
[quote]
Liberals hate free speach
[quote]
Actually I prefer the marketplace of ideas that comes with free speech and the ensuing diversity of expression

and love to empose hate crime legislation.

I'm fairly undecided on that issue... while I feel that the motivation of the crime is nearly as important as the crime itself (should a guy who lost control while driving be considered the same as a cold-blooded murderer?) I think that race does not necessarily equal motivation

Well, one example is invoultary manslaughter and the other is murder one.
And murder one should carry a harsh sentence regardless. If the murderer says, " I love you bitch" or " die nigger". The punishment should be the same, harsh and long.

But I really ment,liberals would like to completely irradicate certain words from our vocabulary. Rather than let the fool speak and reveal himself for what he is.

Liberals hate guns and love criminals.

I'm for responsible gun control (think Sweden or Switzerland); if someone can't hit 7 out of 10 targets they shouldn't be trusted with a gun (maybe that counts as 'hating guns' to some conservatives...) - and I don't exactly 'love' criminals more than anyone else; they should be punished to the extent that they're criminal but also rehabilitated to the extent that they're human

The simple truth is guns Prevent more crime than they are a cause for injury. Argue all you want, thems the facts.

(Liberals hate 'religion' and love personal expression.

I agree with Thomas Jefferson on religion (that it's a personal matter between man and God) but I DO admit to loving personal expression - what's so unamerican about that?

We can't have Christmas time displays of even the word, "Merry Christmas". But, we can have human feces and menstrual blood on canvas and call it "art".

Liberals hate fatherhood.

I love and respect my father; while I don't believe a mom-dad parenting is necessary, it IS important to grow up with a parent/parents who love you and allow you to grow into a responsible, mature adult

Well, thanks for saying so. But, there have been many 'studies' showing men aren't needed in the home, or , even beneficial.

Liberals hate farmers and love field mice.

Huh?

I was refering to a Farmer in No. California who while plowing his field one day ran over a mouse of some sort. He was jailed and his property confinscated.

Liberals hate sovernty and love mass illegal immigration.

Not really... I prefer immigration laws to be loosened but to have more careful screenings (for obvious reasons)

LOOSENED???? There are today 10 million undocumented illegal people in America today.

JFK,...

On 2002-07-09 15:16, justmom wrote:
It refers to "bleeding heart liberal".

Okay. Got it. :smile:

Let's see....If you mean the dirt you stand on, I can agree with that. If you mean the principles upon which America was founded and makes us so unique, yes, liberals Hate America.
Liberals hate free speach and love to empose hate crime legislation. Liberals hate guns and love criminals. Liberals hate 'religion' and love personal expression.
Liberals hate fatherhood.Liberals hate farmers and love field mice.Liberals hate sovernty and love mass illegal immigration. Liberals hate
SUV's and love to burn weed.

You know, I could try to refute each of these points but right now I don't have the time.

In any case, by making these broad statements about "liberals" (and they don't resemble anyone I know), you seem to be closing yourself off to any open debate. Name-calling and personal attacks just don't cut it here.

but those people are *IL*legal... loosening the laws AND more strictly enforcing the ones that remain would bring the number way down (and do more to protect people IMHO!)

In any case, by making these broad statements about "liberals" (and they don't resemble anyone I know), you seem to be closing yourself off to any open debate. Name-calling and personal attacks just don't cut it here.


Please point specifically to where I was responsible for name-calling.

If I am wrong about liberals, my ignorance shows and speaks for itself. If I am right,it's calling a duck, a duck.


On the other hand, if there is a whole movement of X'rs divorceing themselves from the status quo of present day liberalism ( as defined by laws and policy presently being enacted) than thank God for it. I would LOVE to hear your ideas.Perhaps I need to stay around a little longer and read more.

I like 'thugocracies', too.

Liberals hate free speach and love to empose hate crime legislation.

Woah! So the only infringement of free speech is made by those who want to impose hate crime legislation?

People who commit hate crimes are not engaging in free speech. They are committing threats of violence. I think there is a case to be made that punishing violence against certain groups more severely than other kinds of violence is punishing a "thought crime," but this is freedom of thought, not freedom of speech!

It is liberals, but also some conservatives, who are standing up to the suppression of civil liberties today. It is they who support the ACLU. Liberals love free speech.

Liberals hate guns and love criminals.

We love to see people treated fairly, even if they are "alleged" to be criminals. Proving them so by proper constitutional procedures is what makes America America. So it is the liberals who love America. But true, many of us hate guns. Their only use is to kill other living beings.

Liberals hate 'religion' and love personal expression.

Probably true for some liberals. Personally, I like some kinds of both.

Liberals hate fatherhood.

True. But most liberals love fathers. They are not enamoured of any hierachical doctrine that oppresses people. That includes "patriarchy"

Liberals hate farmers and love field mice.

Farmers live in the red zone. However, it is liberals like Jesse Jackson who stand up for the family farmer, and conservatives who defend "free enterprise" which translates into corporate takeovers. Meanwhile, field mice rule! :grin:

Liberals hate sovernty and love mass illegal immigration.

I'm not a big fan personally of the latter. I think some slowness has to exist or immigration can overwhelm a culture and an environment. But that is politically incorrect to say among the far left.

We are not fans of nationalism and promote peace; however I think most of us also love freedom rather than domination by distant and impersonal forces.

Liberals hate SUV's and love to burn weed.

You got that right. Again though, for me personally, I tolerate rather than love the latter.

Liberals love to clear up prejudices!

Liberals speak up about what they want changed about America, or wherever they live. But just for a change, let me, as a liberal, say some things I like about America.



Things work well here. There's a lot of efficiency.

There are protections for freedom built into our constitution, which has inspired other nations. You can complain here without getting shot.

Many diverse groups live here relatively peacefully.

The land is beautiful and spacious.

We have made progress toward greater freedom for everyone.

Our culture is less affected than those who have a long history of class structure.

Our literary tradition is rich.

So there! :grin:

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-07-09 18:47 ]</font>

And ain't it funny how nowadays it's the thugocracies and their ultra-leftist academic apologists who are the most prone to harp on the so-called collective, hereditary guilt of the American people? Hmmm... :grin:

On 2002-07-09 17:38, justmom wrote:

Please point specifically to where I was responsible for name-calling.

I may have hinted at such, but technically you didn't. I apologize. However, if you do stick around here long enough, be prepared to read a great deal that you don't agree with.

Personally, I'm tired of the Culture Wars. I'm also a little tired of debating them here at T4T. (I'm glad that I'll be going on an extended vacation later this month; I'm sure the break will be good for my mental health).

At some point I want to find common ground between the Red and the Blue. Is there anything we can agree on? And if so, how are we going to get there?

I have already had some of my assumptions changed about conservatives and libertarians since I've been here. I think it's healthy to listen to another point of view and try to digest it.

I want to compliment two individuals here, Hopeful Cynic and Stonewall Patton. I don't agree with them a huge percentage of the time, but I have learned so much from both of them; not only the content of what they have to say, but how they say it.

You couldn't see the Arabic nations then claiming they needed to be handed nukes since they were "everyone's property"?
Perhaps you would trust Saddam with nukes, but I wouldn't. He has been all too happy to whack his own people when it suited his purposes, do you think he wouldn't happily do the same to us?

Sure. But the idea was that NO nation would be handed nuclear weapons; they would be under international control.

Would it work? I don't know. You are right that there is a danger that some cabal of nations could take over the institution and use it to crush others. There would have to be safeguards against a thugocracy gaining control of a world government. I'd have to think more about what those would be.

On the other hand, we are well on our way already to eliminating nuclear weapons as a means of conducting diplomacy. Given that, some kind of global security system can be worked out within 1 or 2 turnings, I think. But I could be wrong.

This depends, of course, on a successful resolution of the coming (or oncoming) 4T, in which challenges of mass starvation could stir up conflicts.

We already had in 1991 the world pooling its energies in a coalition to defeat Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. The only difference between this and a world government was a matter of which documents it was done under. We've come a long way already.

I don't see corporations giving away the store. I see them getting whatever they can for themselves.

They give away the prosperity of America by shipping all our jobs and factories overseas to get cheaper labor. They do it by free trade policies that allow them to sell these cheaper goods back to us and compete with companies that stay American, and by the WTO, which seeks to keep wages and environmental, consumer and labor protections low, and outlaw attempts to regulate them as interference with free trade.

By the cultural relativism standpoint, we have no right to judge another culture no matter what it does to it's people. If we are all children of God and citizens of the world as you suggest, then yes, we do have the right to judge, and possibly a responsibility to help, our brothers and sisters being oppressed. Do you disagree?

No. I am not a cultural relativist. Ethics is ethics and right is right.

Why do liberals hate America? What they really hate is the idea of the nation-state because this conflicts with their one-world fantasy. In the case of Eric Meese this fantasy is so strong that he will gloss over cultural differences-even when the members of a foreign culture have values that are diametrically opposed to his. Of course, people are bad guys if they aren't one big happy family-with people they have nothing in common with.

More vehement than usual from you Tim.

I think most of the world is coming to see the validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was propounded by our "world government" (the UN) more than 50 years ago. It is a basis for fundamental agreement.

There are cultural differences, and I appreciate them and want them respected. This does not extend to "cultural differences" that allow violations of human or species rights. There is much that as human beings we share in common too.

My point to Tim has been that we are IN FACT one world civilization and culture already. The only challenge is how to develop this new civilization in ways that promote diversity and harmony at the same time.

Nation states as ultimate sovereigns are out of date. As part of a "world federation" (and perhaps soon a "galactic federation"), they have their place, just like states of the USA. Local control is best for many matters, and global integration and coordination is best for some matters.

Nations and ethnic groups competing for empire and domination have no place in our new world civilization at all.

I realize that I have been stereotyping people-thank you Jenny Genser and Eric Meece for speaking up. It has just occurred to me-someone who seems "politically correct" encourages stereotyping! Because you don't see the whole person-some of their actual views are obscurred. And if people are treated as a stereotype they may act defensively.

On 2002-07-09 15:16, justmom wrote:
Liberals hate sovernty and love mass illegal immigration.

Actually, liberals are undecided about immigration.

There is one camp that supports it because of diversity, multiculturalism, and the like. Also some liberals that I know personally have done studies claiming that immigrants create more economic growth and income than they cost in social services.

The other camp believes that large numbers of unskilled immigrants (both legal and illegal) have depressed wages and made it harder for native born Americans (particularly African Americans) to find work. There are also environmentalists who feel that immigration causes excessive population growth, which is bad, and that immigration should be restricted on those grounds.

Conservatives are just as split. One camp dislikes them because they dilute American culture, require social services at higher rates than the native-born, and cost the tax payers dollars.

On the other hand, others like them because they provide a steady supply of low-wage workers. Our President falls into this camp.

And me? I see all sides of the argument. All I can say is that restaurants have sure become much more interesting thanks to immigration! :smile:

On 2002-07-09 15:16, justmom wrote:
Liberals hate free speach and love to empose hate crime legislation.

Some liberals, such as those who support the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) strongly support free speech and go around suing other liberals who want to impose "politically correct" rules on free speech. Go figure. You sure can't generalize. :grin:

"Personally, I'm tired of the Culture Wars. I'm also a little tired of debating them here at T4T. (I'm glad that I'll be going on an extended vacation later this month; I'm sure the break will be good for my mental health)."

:lol: Well, you just have too much fun and forget all about this arguin' and such!

And, btw, I think Kifflie is just about the cutiest name I've ever heard of. :smile:

At some point I want to find common ground between the Red and the Blue. Is there anything we can agree on? And if so, how are we going to get there?

To me, the relavant question is, how are we going to break the deadlocked process of social and political change in this country?

More people in the blue zone understand the changes that need to be made, and speak out and vote for them.

Now, when if ever will the people in the red zone see the common interest that they have in these changes coming to pass, instead of defending the status quo reflexively because this change supposedly threatens their idea of their "way of life" that needs to be preserved?

It is not up to people in the blue zone to cease seeking change. But perhaps some recognition can come regarding what changes are needed, that both sides can support and accept.

I posted 7 shibboleths that need to be transcended. I think it is these outdated ideas that keep us apart. We need to move away from some of these. For example, can people in the red zone look upon people who believe differently than they, as real Americans? If red zoners really "love America," they should be able to do this, should they not?

If more blue zoners begin to see the value in a rich and spiritual culture, not merely in defending "free expression and diversity" as the only values, but also the cultivation of virtues and traditions, and in genuinely creative expressions that stand the test of time, this might be more appealing to the red zone than the "pop culture" that is really the creation of the corporate media and promoted by it.

I think if people in the red zone begin to see that, it is not liberals who threaten them and their "way of life," but the rich elite who control and shape our lives and our media who threaten them, more agreement will result. If more Christians become less concerned over deviant lifestyles, and more concerned over the dangers of greed that are stated in the Bible, more agreement will result.

The "culture wars" are not really that important. The important cultural issue for us is not whether our culture is permissive or traditional, but whether we in America are going to have a genuine culture at all. Both zones are lacking in this about equally, it seems to me. It is a project both could embrace.

Though perhaps painful, I really believe that the only way to "reconcile" the two zones is to push forward. We will have to work out our differences through finding what is really true and what really works for our country. The "cultural creatives" are showing the way forward.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-07-09 18:45 ]</font>

On 2002-07-09 18:37, Marc Lamb wrote:


"Personally, I'm tired of the Culture Wars. I'm also a little tired of debating them here at T4T. (I'm glad that I'll be going on an extended vacation later this month; I'm sure the break will be good for my mental health)."

:lol: Well, you just have too much fun and forget all about this arguin' and such!

And, btw, I think Kifflie is just about the cutiest name I've ever heard of. :smile:

If only the Culture Wars out there could be "fought" with as much civility as they are here at T4T, there would be no 4T! Even our most argumentative posters aren't that bad. Though I can think of at least one exception. Anyone remember Eddie Howard?

Have a good vacation, Kiff. *sniff*
I'll miss your posts.

On 2002-07-09 15:16, justmom wrote:
Know what? I haven't read the 4T in about 5 years or so. And something was bothering me about the posts here. Specifically they all so liberal boarderline Socialist/Communist.

Just out of curiousity, I took the 25 most frequent posters and tried to identify where they are on the political spectrum. Your perception is correct, in that I counted more liberals than conservatives. However, its not overwhelming. Here is how I see everyone. Please feel free to correct me if I've misread your politics.

• Stonewall Jackson -- libertarian
• Madscientist (Robert Reed) -- economically left of center, but supports right to bear arms
• Marc Lamb -- Christian Conservative
• Virgil Saari -- very conservative
• Webmaster -- no politics that I can discern
• Hopefully Cynic -- conservative
• Brian Rush -- liberal
• Kiff '61 -- liberal, but not knee jerk
• Heliotrope aka Susan Brombacher -- liberal
• JayN -- moderate
• Tim Walker -- I think liberal, but unsure
• Barbara, '31 Silent from Pleasantville -- a Republican but in the mold of Olympia Snowe or Senator Chaffee, not conservative
• Jenny Genser -- liberal
• Eric Meece -- very liberal
• Justin '79 -- disaffected
• Neisha -- liberal
• Agentwhatever aka mmailliw (William Meyerson) -- liberal
• jds1958xg -- moderate
• Tristan Jones -- odd to place because he's Australian. Sides with American conservatives on international policy.
• Angeli -- liberal
• Mike Alexander -- economically liberal but culturally moderate
• Kevin Parker -- moderate, culturally conservative in many ways
• JCarson -- libertarian
  
  The count is 5 conservatives (including the libertarians), 5 moderates, 1 disaffected, 1 unknown (Webmaster), 1 hard to classify (Tristan), and 12 left of center but in a variety of flavors. that's among the top 25 posters.
  

_________________
Living begins not on the day you are born
but on the day you recognize your consciousness -- Prem Rawat

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-07-09 18:55 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-07-09 18:56 ]</font>

On 2002-07-09 18:54, Jenny Genser wrote:

On 2002-07-09 15:16, justmom wrote:
Know what? I haven't read the 4T in about 5 years or so. And something was bothering me about the posts here. Specifically they all so liberal boarderline Socialist/Communist.

Just out of curiousity, I took the 25 most frequent posters and tried to identify where they are on the political spectrum. Your perception is correct, in that I counted more liberals than conservatives. However, its not overwhelming. Here is how I see everyone. Please feel free to correct me if I've misread your politics.

• Stonewall Jackson -- libertarian
• Madscientist (Robert Reed) -- economically left of center, but supports right to bear arms
• Marc Lamb -- Christian Conservative
• Virgil Saari -- very conservative
• Webmaster -- no politics that I can discern
• Hopefully Cynic -- conservative
• Brian Rush -- liberal
• Kiff '61 -- liberal, but not knee jerk
• Heliotrope aka Susan Brombacher -- liberal
• JayN -- moderate
• Tim Walker -- I think liberal, but unsure
• Barbara, '31 Silent from Pleasantville -- a Republican but in the mold of Olympia Snowe or Senator Chaffee, not conservative
• Jenny Genser -- liberal
• Eric Meece -- very liberal
• Justin '79 -- disaffected
• Neisha -- liberal
• Agentwhatever aka mmailliw (William Meyerson) -- liberal
• jds1958xg -- moderate
• Tristan Jones -- odd to place because he's Australian. Sides with American conservatives on international policy.
• Angeli -- liberal
• Mike Alexander -- economically liberal but culturally moderate
• Kevin Parker -- moderate, culturally conservative in many ways
• JCarson -- libertarian
  
  The count is 5 conservatives (including the libertarians), 5 moderates, 1 disaffected, 1 unknown (Webmaster), 1 hard to classify (Tristan), and 12 left of center but in a variety of flavors. that's among the top 25 posters.
  

_________________
Living begins not on the day you are born
but on the day you recognize your consciousness -- Prem Rawat

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-07-09 18:55 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-07-09 18:56 ]</font>

Great work Jenny. I think you're mainly right. It's hard to classify Tristan because he's Australian but I'd guess he'd be a conservative, though sometimes he can throw you for a loop and make you think he's really liberal. I have been suspecting from recent posts that Tim Walker is somewhat right of center, though not extremely so. Justin '79 is not really disaffected though he comes off that way. He's an anarchist with radical politics. I've become slightly more conservative on cultural issues, but am more liberal, even socialist, on economic issues. I'd say Eric Meece comes the closest to having classic 1960s radical politics.

The political spectrum here is well-represented, and it's interesting there are so many liberals on a website created by two men who are essentially conservative.

_________________
When a man is living, he is soft and supple. When he is dead, he is hard and rigid.
--Lao Tzu

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-07-09 19:07 ]</font>

On 2002-07-09 18:37, Marc Lamb wrote:

:lol: Well, you just have too much fun and forget all about this arguin' and such!

I plan on it. :smile:

And, hey, I'll still be here until July 19th or so. Plenty of time yet for fussin' and fightin.' :wink:

And, btw, I think Kifflie is just about the cutiest name I've ever heard of. :smile:

AWWWW....:oops:

Shucks, that was sweet. :smile:

On 2002-07-09 18:49, Heliotrope wrote:
If only the Culture Wars out there could be "fought" with as much civility as they are here at T4T, there would be no 4T! Even our most argumentative posters aren't that bad. Though I can think of at least one exception. Anyone remember Eddie Howard?

Yes, unfortunately. :sad:

But I agree with you, Susan. The vast majority of people who come here to post have either read the Strauss and Howe books or have a good background in history, sociology, or economics.

Either way, this group is extremely well-educated, well-informed, and as politically diverse as any online community I've ever been involved with. Which I think leads to the generally high quality of discussion we have here.

Have a good vacation, Kiff. *sniff*
I'll miss your posts.

Well, as I told Marc, I'll still be here for a bit before I leave. I am looking forward to a break, and to my first real vacation (i.e., something that's not a funeral, business trip, or reunion) in three years.

_________________
"Your joy is your sorrow unmasked....The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain." -- Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kiff '61 on 2002-07-09 19:20 ]</font>

BUSH, IN TOUGH WALL STREET SPEECH, VOWS TO MAKE MORE TOUGH WALL STREET SPEECHES from the Borowitz Report http://www.borowitzreport.com of 9 July 2002 quoted for discussion use only:


Democrats, In Strongly-Worded Reply, Challenge President To Back Up His Words With Additional Words


President Bush excoriated the wrongdoers of the business world today, leaving little doubt that he intends to make even tougher speeches in the future.


"I warn all those in the executive suite who believe that it's 'business as usual': I am prepared to make really, really angry speeches," Bush told his Wall Street audience.


"I am not just spittin' mad," Mr. Bush said. "I am spittin'for-distance mad."
Mr. Bush intends to put his plan for a series of extremely tough speeches, gradually escalating in toughness, into effect immediately.


To that end, he is asking Congress for $50 million to hire a team of writers who will work around the clock pumping out really angry speeches.


"Some will be short speeches, and some will be long speeches," Mr. Bush said. "They will all be angry speeches."


Democrats applauded the President for his tough stand, but remained skeptical about his proposed onslaught of angry speeches.
"President Bush said all the right words," Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO) told reporters. "The question is, is he prepared to back up those words with more words?"


The President's angry Wall Street speech came just moments after the SEC's startling revelation that 85% of the companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange do not really exist.


Many Wall Street insiders were shocked by the news, in particular, that AOL-Time Warner was a fictitious "dummy" corporation run out of the Evanston, Illinois basement of a convicted scam artist named Bud Hobey.
Longtime customers of AOL were stunned to discover that their Internet service provider was merely an accounting fabrication and did not actually exist.

"I just can't believe it," said Lynn Carlson, 32, a Manhattan hair stylist. "On the other hand, it really explains why no one ever seems to get my email."

Eric "very liberal" and Virgil "very conservative" seem to agree more often than not these days....

(actually, I did not plan my post to follow one of Virgil's; it's just a coincidence that he snuck one in there :smile: )

It may also be true that the most frequent posters are more liberal; there are plenty of conservatives around like monaghan who are new or don't post as much.

I wonder if Brian might be jealous of the label I've been given; or whether he is glad that I have been stuck with it and not him, and thinks I deserve it...

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-07-09 19:32 ]</font>

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks, Virgil. I needed that one!

On 2002-07-09 17:58, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-07-09 17:38, justmom wrote:

Please point specifically to where I was responsible for name-calling.

I may have hinted at such, but technically you didn't. I apologize. However, if you do stick around here long enough, be prepared to read a great deal that you don't agree with.

Personally, I'm tired of the Culture Wars. I'm also a little tired of debating them here at T4T. (I'm glad that I'll be going on an extended vacation later this month; I'm sure the break will be good for my mental health).

At some point I want to find common ground between the Red and the Blue. Is there anything we can agree on? And if so, how are we going to get there?

I have already had some of my assumptions changed about conservatives and libertarians since I've been here. I think it's healthy to listen to another point of view and try to digest it.

I want to compliment two individuals here, Hopeful Cynic and Stonewall Patton. I don't agree with them a huge percentage of the time, but I have learned so much from both of them; not only the content of what they have to say, but how they say it.

I think you may have hit on something Kiff. What if we start a new forum on solving some of these problems? ( Someone else will have to do that, I am not sure how. )What if we took an issue and discussed it, tried to hammer it out and 'solve' it? Not the way the senate or House of Reps. is doing, but, the way that makes the most sense to us. After all, the powers that be, won't "be" in a decade or two. Hopefully sooner. Let's not look at Bush, or Gore, but, the cause and effect and solution. How does that sound?

On 2002-07-09 19:29, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

BUSH, IN TOUGH WALL STREET SPEECH, VOWS TO MAKE MORE TOUGH WALL STREET SPEECHES

:lol: :lol: :lol: I wonder if he will throw in a few "evil-doers?"

On 2002-07-09 18:54, Jenny Genser wrote:

On 2002-07-09 15:16, justmom wrote:
Know what? I haven't read the 4T in about 5 years or so. And something was bothering me about the posts here. Specifically they all so liberal boarderline Socialist/Communist.

Just out of curiousity, I took the 25 most frequent posters and tried to identify where they are on the political spectrum. Your perception is correct, in that I counted more liberals than conservatives. However, its not overwhelming.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-07-09 18:55 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-07-09 18:56 ]</font>

Wow, Jenny, I am most impressed. I humbly bow in respect.