| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"CyberDroog" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2004 08:35:28 PM |
| Object: |
Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1027042harris1.html
Katherine Harris's Car Trouble
Cops: Florida man tried to run down controversial Republican
OCTOBER 27--A Florida man has been charged with attempting to run over
controversial Republican congresswoman Katherine Harris with his Cadillac.
According to the below Sarasota Police Department report, Barry Seltzer,
46, told cops that he was simply exercising his "political expression" when
he drove his car at Harris and several supporters, who were campaigning
last night at a Sarasota intersection. Seltzer--pictured at right in a
booking photo--allegedly drove up on a sidewalk and headed directly for
Harris before swerving "at the last minute." Harris told officers that "she
was afraid for her life and could not move as the vehicle approached her,"
according to the report. For his part, Seltzer--who's a registered
Democrat--told cops, "I intimidated them with the car. They were standing
in the street." He added, "I did not run them down, I scared them a
little!" That explanation did not stop investigators from arresting Seltzer
for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a felony. Harris, Florida's
former secretary of state, is best known for her role in the aftermath of
the state's disastrous 2000 presidential election.
--
RATIONAL, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those of observation,
experience and reflection.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
27 Oct 2004 08:58:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:35:28 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1027042harris1.html
Katherine Harris's Car Trouble
Cops: Florida man tried to run down controversial Republican
OCTOBER 27--A Florida man has been charged with attempting to run over
controversial Republican congresswoman Katherine Harris with his Cadillac.
According to the below Sarasota Police Department report, Barry Seltzer,
46, told cops that he was simply exercising his "political expression" when
he drove his car at Harris and several supporters, who were campaigning
last night at a Sarasota intersection. Seltzer--pictured at right in a
booking photo--allegedly drove up on a sidewalk and headed directly for
Harris before swerving "at the last minute." Harris told officers that "she
was afraid for her life and could not move as the vehicle approached her,"
according to the report. For his part, Seltzer--who's a registered
Democrat--told cops, "I intimidated them with the car. They were standing
in the street." He added, "I did not run them down, I scared them a
little!" That explanation did not stop investigators from arresting Seltzer
for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a felony. Harris, Florida's
former secretary of state, is best known for her role in the aftermath of
the state's disastrous 2000 presidential election.
yeah. Play chicken with someone's life. What if she'd jumped to the
side that he'd intended to swerve into? She'd have been dead.
free speech my *****.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Siddhartha Vicious" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
27 Oct 2004 11:06:28 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
"wombn" <wombnhearmeroar@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:agk0o0trjk6b0av7tjd0jdih1q5aa05ttm@4ax.com...
yeah. Play chicken with someone's life. What if she'd jumped to the
side that he'd intended to swerve into? She'd have been dead.
free speech my *****.
http://tinyurl.com/6gy9a
Right-wing thuggery has been practically rampant this election cycle.
--
Proud member of the reality-based community
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
28 Oct 2004 12:11:11 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:06:28 -0500, "Dr. Siddhartha Vicious"
<bokonon@ptsi.net> wrote:
"wombn" <wombnhearmeroar@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:agk0o0trjk6b0av7tjd0jdih1q5aa05ttm@4ax.com...
yeah. Play chicken with someone's life. What if she'd jumped to the
side that he'd intended to swerve into? She'd have been dead.
free speech my *****.
http://tinyurl.com/6gy9a
Right-wing thuggery has been practically rampant this election cycle.
You must have driven your mother nuts. I can just see it, every time you
were caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you'd immediately break out a
list of every time your siblings did something wrong.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of
thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible,
because there will be no words in which to express it."
- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
27 Oct 2004 11:13:45 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Dr. Siddhartha Vicious wrote:
x-no-archive:yes
"wombn" <wombnhearmeroar@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:agk0o0trjk6b0av7tjd0jdih1q5aa05ttm@4ax.com...
yeah. Play chicken with someone's life. What if she'd jumped to the
side that he'd intended to swerve into? She'd have been dead.
free speech my *****.
http://tinyurl.com/6gy9a
Right-wing thuggery has been practically rampant this election cycle.
2 wrongs make a right? Isn't bad behavior bad behavior, regardless who
commits it? If people on the Right are committing genuine thuggery,
then they should be rightly condemned. If people on the left are
committing genuine thuggery, then they should be leftly condemned, no?
Responding to this criminal act by saying "You guys do it too" doesn't
really help build your case. You'd build a much stronger case for your
side by a simple acknowledgement that this was just a tad over the line,
and condemn it. THEN add in, "and there are other incidents too, such
as..." As it stands, it looks like your condeming an act based on who
commits it, rather than on the act itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Siddhartha Vicious" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
27 Oct 2004 11:25:40 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:418071FE.7050309@comcast.net...
x-no-archive: yes
Dr. Siddhartha Vicious wrote:
x-no-archive:yes
"wombn" <wombnhearmeroar@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:agk0o0trjk6b0av7tjd0jdih1q5aa05ttm@4ax.com...
yeah. Play chicken with someone's life. What if she'd jumped to the
side that he'd intended to swerve into? She'd have been dead.
free speech my *****.
http://tinyurl.com/6gy9a
Right-wing thuggery has been practically rampant this election cycle.
2 wrongs make a right? Isn't bad behavior bad behavior, regardless who
commits it? If people on the Right are committing genuine thuggery, then
they should be rightly condemned. If people on the left are committing
genuine thuggery, then they should be leftly condemned, no?
Responding to this criminal act by saying "You guys do it too" doesn't
really help build your case. You'd build a much stronger case for your
side by a simple acknowledgement that this was just a tad over the line,
and condemn it. THEN add in, "and there are other incidents too, such
as..." As it stands, it looks like your condeming an act based on who
commits it, rather than on the act itself.
Oh. for *****'s sake. It's messed up regardless of who does it. But just for
the sake of some semblance of balance, here's what David Neiwert has to say:
"I am fairly confident, however, that if we were to catalog all of these
acts, both big and small, over the past four years, the list on the right
side of the aisle would be considerably longer, and considerably nastier,
than that on the left. And there's a reason for that: Unlike the nastiness
on the left -- which is often reactive -- the impetus for that on the right
is being encouraged (and in some cases directly fomented) by people in
positions of national leadership of the conservative movement.
This ranges from figures like Rush Limbaugh (who fantasizes about killing
all liberals except for a few to be kept in museums) and Ann Coulter (who
argues in favor of "a little local fascism" and thinks Tim McVeigh should
have targeted the New York Times Building) to ***** Cheney, who tells a
senator on the floor of the Senate to go ***** himself -- and then not only
refuses to apologize, but recommends such discourse as a feel-good measure."
This in no way excuses someone's actions, but it does explain one important
difference. We really don't have folks on my side of the aisle encouraging
violence against Republicans, especially not prominent folks. The leaders on
your side, on the other hand, have had absolutely no qualms about using
violence-laden rhetoric against folks like me. If you want to know why I've
been so edgy these last few years, that's pretty much it, period. I've had
enough. I've especially had enough of the rare isolated incident like the
one Cyberdroog drudged up being made the equivalent of the many acts of
right-wing thugs.
--
Proud member of the reality-based community
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
28 Oct 2004 12:14:04 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:25:40 -0500, "Dr. Siddhartha Vicious"
<bokonon@ptsi.net> wrote:
This in no way excuses someone's actions, but it does explain one important
difference. We really don't have folks on my side of the aisle encouraging
violence against Republicans, especially not prominent folks. The leaders on
your side, on the other hand, have had absolutely no qualms about using
violence-laden rhetoric against folks like me. If you want to know why I've
been so edgy these last few years, that's pretty much it, period. I've had
enough. I've especially had enough of the rare isolated incident like the
one Cyberdroog drudged up being made the equivalent of the many acts of
right-wing thugs.
Just more of the same. "Oh yeah?! Well, the other side does it too and
they are worse!"
--
We are here on earth to do good to others. What the others are here for
I don't know.
- W. H. Auden (1907-1973)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
27 Oct 2004 11:39:54 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Dr. Siddhartha Vicious wrote:
Oh. for *****'s sake. It's messed up regardless of who does it.
Right, that wasn't your initial response. Not everyone reading your
posts is a true believer. If you want to win people over, you're not
going to do it this way. If you don't care about winning people over,
then hey, whatever floats your boat.
But just for
the sake of some semblance of balance, here's what David Neiwert has to say:
"I am fairly confident, however, that if we were to catalog all of these
acts, both big and small, over the past four years, the list on the right
side of the aisle would be considerably longer, and considerably nastier,
than that on the left. And there's a reason for that: Unlike the nastiness
on the left -- which is often reactive -- the impetus for that on the right
is being encouraged (and in some cases directly fomented) by people in
positions of national leadership of the conservative movement.
This ranges from figures like Rush Limbaugh (who fantasizes about killing
all liberals except for a few to be kept in museums)
This is complete horseshit. Where has he advocated killing liberals?
That's news to me, and I have listened to his show and and off since 1990.
and Ann Coulter (who
argues in favor of "a little local fascism" and thinks Tim McVeigh should
have targeted the New York Times Building)
You realize I tap my toes every time you guys post about her? I had
never heard of her until asd.
to ***** Cheney, who tells a
senator on the floor of the Senate to go ***** himself -- and then not only
refuses to apologize, but recommends such discourse as a feel-good measure."
And that was wrong.
This in no way excuses someone's actions, but it does explain one important
difference. We really don't have folks on my side of the aisle encouraging
violence against Republicans, especially not prominent folks. The leaders on
your side, on the other hand, have had absolutely no qualms about using
violence-laden rhetoric against folks like me. If you want to know why I've
been so edgy these last few years, that's pretty much it, period. I've had
enough. I've especially had enough of the rare isolated incident like the
one Cyberdroog drudged up being made the equivalent of the many acts of
right-wing thugs.
I haven't heard very many people from the left or the right genuinely
advocating violence. That could get criminal. I don't think Cheney
telling someone to ***** himself is violent. Rude, obnoxious,
hypocritical, and beneath the dignity of his office, yes, but not
violent. You're smoking the wrong cigs if you're going to tell me
Limbaugh is advocating killing liberals. I'm sure you can drudge up
some sentence he's uttered, so don't waste your time. He does not
advocate killing liberals, period. Take a deep breath, we went through
a very violent and massive civil war over 100 years ago, this is nothing
compared to that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noon Cat Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
28 Oct 2004 12:50:31 AM |
|
|
Janithor wrote:
Dr. Siddhartha Vicious wrote:
Oh. for *****'s sake. It's messed up regardless of who does it.
Right, that wasn't your initial response. Not everyone reading your
posts is a true believer. If you want to win people over, you're not
going to do it this way. If you don't care about winning people over,
then hey, whatever floats your boat.
A lot of times it's not about winning people over. It's about making
sure your voice is out there, nothing more.
But just for
the sake of some semblance of balance, here's what David Neiwert has to say:
"I am fairly confident, however, that if we were to catalog all of these
acts, both big and small, over the past four years, the list on the right
side of the aisle would be considerably longer, and considerably nastier,
than that on the left. And there's a reason for that: Unlike the nastiness
on the left -- which is often reactive -- the impetus for that on the right
is being encouraged (and in some cases directly fomented) by people in
positions of national leadership of the conservative movement.
This ranges from figures like Rush Limbaugh (who fantasizes about killing
all liberals except for a few to be kept in museums)
This is complete horseshit. Where has he advocated killing liberals?
That's news to me, and I have listened to his show and and off since 1990.
"I tell people, don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have
two on every campus--living fossils--so we will never forget what these
people stood for."
--Rush Limbaugh, according to Bill Tammeus in his article "The year of
talking dangerously: Next time, folks, consider silence" in _The Denver
Post_, December 29, 1995, "Denver & The West" section, page B-07
(N.B.: Not having read the article directly, I have no idea where
Tammeus got that quote. The _Post_ sells copies of articles from its
archives, but I'm not gung-ho to make such a purchase. I'm only citing
the source of the information, not vouching for either its veracity or
lack of same.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
28 Oct 2004 01:08:44 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Noon Cat Nick wrote:
Janithor wrote:
Dr. Siddhartha Vicious wrote:
Oh. for *****'s sake. It's messed up regardless of who does it.
Right, that wasn't your initial response. Not everyone reading your
posts is a true believer. If you want to win people over, you're not
going to do it this way. If you don't care about winning people over,
then hey, whatever floats your boat.
A lot of times it's not about winning people over. It's about making
sure your voice is out there, nothing more.
But just for
the sake of some semblance of balance, here's what David Neiwert has to say:
"I am fairly confident, however, that if we were to catalog all of these
acts, both big and small, over the past four years, the list on the right
side of the aisle would be considerably longer, and considerably nastier,
than that on the left. And there's a reason for that: Unlike the nastiness
on the left -- which is often reactive -- the impetus for that on the right
is being encouraged (and in some cases directly fomented) by people in
positions of national leadership of the conservative movement.
This ranges from figures like Rush Limbaugh (who fantasizes about killing
all liberals except for a few to be kept in museums)
This is complete horseshit. Where has he advocated killing liberals?
That's news to me, and I have listened to his show and and off since 1990.
"I tell people, don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have
two on every campus--living fossils--so we will never forget what these
people stood for."
--Rush Limbaugh, according to Bill Tammeus in his article "The year of
talking dangerously: Next time, folks, consider silence" in _The Denver
Post_, December 29, 1995, "Denver & The West" section, page B-07
(N.B.: Not having read the article directly, I have no idea where
Tammeus got that quote. The _Post_ sells copies of articles from its
archives, but I'm not gung-ho to make such a purchase. I'm only citing
the source of the information, not vouching for either its veracity or
lack of same.)
He says something to this effect all the time, it's one of his trademark
phrases. I don't recall ever hearing him use the word "kill". In fact,
what he usually says is something to the effect that he's not going to
stop his radio show until everyone in the country agrees with him.
Nothing there about killing the ones who don't - rather, he's saying
he's going to change people's minds through his words, "the arena of
ideas" as he frequently says.
So, if that quote is real, I really don't care, like I said, I'm sure
you can find one or two. Listen to his show for 10 years, then tell me
that this is what he's about and what he's advocating. He's not.
And for those who think I'm this rabid knee-jerk right-winger, I don't
listen to Rush much anymore because he's boring and predictable. He's a
shill for the GOP. Republicans good, Democrats bad. That, and bash
Clinton. So no, I'm not a huge ditto head. See, it's not one or zero,
black or white, yes or no. That's my whole point about X-bashing. It
applies to the Right too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
28 Oct 2004 12:32:56 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:39:54 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
I haven't heard very many people from the left or the right genuinely
advocating violence. That could get criminal. I don't think Cheney
telling someone to ***** himself is violent. Rude, obnoxious,
hypocritical, and beneath the dignity of his office, yes, but not
violent. You're smoking the wrong cigs if you're going to tell me
Limbaugh is advocating killing liberals. I'm sure you can drudge up
some sentence he's uttered, so don't waste your time. He does not
advocate killing liberals, period. Take a deep breath, we went through
a very violent and massive civil war over 100 years ago, this is nothing
compared to that.
I had always been under the impression that Democrats just loved the old
adage about words being just words. But I guess that is only considered a
truth when it suits them.
Everyone says things that they regret. That's inherent in how emotional
politics has become. Ann Coulter is no different, and some of the things
she has said can strike a nerve, even if she is a satirist. (Yet I still
laugh at P.J. O'Rourke's suggestion of a senior citizen hunting season to
solve the social security mess. But then he did say that the seniors can
shoot back, and might even relish taking out a Sinead O'Conner fan or two.)
How is that any different than more obtuse ways of inciting violence, such
as some Democrat's secret, and sometimes even openly voiced, belief that
America deserved 9/11?
That was really my point in posting the article. This election has made
people nuts - especially people who have for so long smugly claimed
intellectual and moral superiority.
But maybe reality offers some saving grace. Some ad man did a poll on the
effects of all of this vitriol and came to some comforting findings.
Something like 23% of people polled said that the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 had
convinced them to vote for *Bush*. Less than 10% said they had been
convinced to vote for Kerry.
Luckily it seems as if nobody is really falling for the worst rhetoric from
either side.
--
PREHISTORIC, adj. Belonging to an early period and a museum. Antedating
the art and practice of perpetuating falsehood.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deminimii" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
28 Oct 2004 12:54:34 AM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out
From: CyberDroog
Date: 10/27/2004 10:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <t701o0d3lj7v6ao6e4ncn03s9jhocec5gi@4ax.com>
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:39:54 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
I haven't heard very many people from the left or the right genuinely
advocating violence. That could get criminal. I don't think Cheney
telling someone to ***** himself is violent. Rude, obnoxious,
hypocritical, and beneath the dignity of his office, yes, but not
violent. You're smoking the wrong cigs if you're going to tell me
Limbaugh is advocating killing liberals. I'm sure you can drudge up
some sentence he's uttered, so don't waste your time. He does not
advocate killing liberals, period. Take a deep breath, we went through
a very violent and massive civil war over 100 years ago, this is nothing
compared to that.
I had always been under the impression that Democrats just loved the old
adage about words being just words. But I guess that is only considered a
truth when it suits them.
Everyone says things that they regret. That's inherent in how emotional
politics has become. Ann Coulter is no different, and some of the things
she has said can strike a nerve, even if she is a satirist. (Yet I still
laugh at P.J. O'Rourke's suggestion of a senior citizen hunting season to
solve the social security mess. But then he did say that the seniors can
shoot back, and might even relish taking out a Sinead O'Conner fan or two.)
How is that any different than more obtuse ways of inciting violence, such
as some Democrat's secret, and sometimes even openly voiced, belief that
America deserved 9/11?
That was really my point in posting the article. This election has made
people nuts - especially people who have for so long smugly claimed
intellectual and moral superiority.
But maybe reality offers some saving grace. Some ad man did a poll on the
effects of all of this vitriol and came to some comforting findings.
Something like 23% of people polled said that the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 had
convinced them to vote for *Bush*. Less than 10% said they had been
convinced to vote for Kerry.
Luckily it seems as if nobody is really falling for the worst rhetoric from
either side.
Uh, Elizabeth Edwards was caught on tape saying if the dems lose the election
there will be riots. Is that merely a comment or tacit approval of violence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
28 Oct 2004 04:02:01 PM |
|
|
On 28 Oct 2004 05:54:34 GMT, (Deminimii) wrote:
Luckily it seems as if nobody is really falling for the worst rhetoric from
either side.
Uh, Elizabeth Edwards was caught on tape saying if the dems lose the election
there will be riots. Is that merely a comment or tacit approval of violence?
or perhaps a suggestion....
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
28 Oct 2004 04:38:01 AM |
|
|
On 28 Oct 2004 05:54:34 GMT, (Deminimii) wrote:
Uh, Elizabeth Edwards was caught on tape saying if the dems lose the election
there will be riots. Is that merely a comment or tacit approval of violence?
Some would say it's inciting violence. The most clever agent provocateurs
don't come right out and tell people to riot. They simply suggest that
it's going to happen anyway.
--
REPORTER, n. A writer who guesses his way to the truth and dispels it
with a tempest of words.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
28 Oct 2004 04:01:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:32:56 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Luckily it seems as if nobody is really falling for the worst rhetoric from
either side.
whew!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Siddhartha Vicious" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
28 Oct 2004 12:26:26 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41807815.7070201@comcast.net...
I'm sure you can drudge up
some sentence he's [RUSH] uttered, so don't waste your time.
Which means you've already conceded my point, merely by acknowledging that
indeed I can drudge up some sentences he's uttered. But for your sake, I'll
refrain. Not like you'd bother to read 'em any way.
--
Proud member of the reality-based community
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Tolerant Democrat Speaks Out |
28 Oct 2004 12:56:50 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Dr. Siddhartha Vicious wrote:
x-no-archive:yes
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:41807815.7070201@comcast.net...
I'm sure you can drudge up
some sentence he's [RUSH] uttered, so don't waste your time.
Which means you've already conceded my point, merely by acknowledging that
indeed I can drudge up some sentences he's uttered.
No, I'm not conceding your point. GlennT and one of the other guys here
openly called for someone to shoot Bush. I don't think Glenn really
wants to kill Bush, I think he was caught up in the heat of the moment
and expressing a lot of frustration.
There's a big big difference between someone like Glenn vs. John
Hinckley. The way you write it, you're making it sound like he's
constantly hyping for people to physically bash and kill liberals, and
he's not doing anything of the sort, even if you can find one or two
hyperbolic quotes to "prove" your point. I understand hyperbole for
what it is. If he was frequently and seriously calling for people to
kill liberals, then I'd be all over his ***** just like you. Like I
conceded the point that what Cheney did was wrong - did I not? He's not
doing that though. I'm sure I can pull 100 quotes that contradict your
assertion. So if he says one or two hyperbolic things, so the *****
what? Like you haven't done it? Like I haven't done it? It's called
"context" Sid. You need to place what people say in the total context
of everything they say and everything they do. I highly doubt Rush is
funnelling money to death squads that are going out and shooting
liberals. It's not happening. Just like I don't think Glenn is sending
money to assassins to try to get Bush killed. He said a stupid thing in
the heat of the moment, big f'in deal. Put in the context of the rest
of what I know about him from *everything* he's said, I'm not going to
get too worked up about it.
But for your sake, I'll
refrain. Not like you'd bother to read 'em any way.
Have you bothered to listen to KGO to see what the difference is between
a harsh critic of Bush vs. a Bush-basher?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
