Liberal, Liberal, Liberal
Tweet
Smile when they call you that
111 Responses to “Liberal, Liberal, Liberal”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Smile… unless your being called that by a narrator with a deep smoky voice, and ominous music is playing, and said narrator claims youll vote to have all babies aborted, and you’ll raise taxes 1000%, and youve tried to send terrorists into therapy. But its not like they try to make “liberal” a bad thing.
On a technical note: I was conned into downloading an “upgrade” of Quick TIme and I Tunes that wreaked havoc with my spyware blockers.
But, I digress:
{Aside to johnnyprogressive: when are you going to change your ID?}
My favorite was: “Liberals gave us Social Security, which lifted millions out of poverty.” As with nearly all liberal programs, that’s not what it was intended to do — it was intended to see to it that people whose retirement plans were ruined by the Stock Market crash would have some sort of meager pension.
Now, nearly every retired person in the country, whether they have employee plans, union plans, stock plans, or mutual funds, gets Social Security, too. So do people with every kind of disability, and people who never worked!
And, like so many other liberal programs, it’s bankrupting the country.
And don’t forget these “gifts”:
Legalized abortions, on demand, throughout pregnancy, up until delivery, even for teens.
No 10 Commandments or Prayer in schools
No smoking — almost everywhere — except for “medical marijuana”
The question you have to ask yourself is “Do I feel liberal today?”
“Well, do ya, liberal?”
Conservatives are loyal to each other. That’s really all they have is their demented unity and the ‘Bunker’ mentality. Soon the less hard core will be running away from THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE TO LEARN, and start donning the lighter name, ‘independent’.
Chris Matthews: 58 percent of the American people say they don’t trust President Bush. A staggering new number in the new Washington Post poll…
The New Republic’s Michelle Cottle: It’s a huge problem for him because that’s what he built his presidency over, and I think that people are finally realizing that just because you’re likable and affable doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re trustworthy. I mean, here’s a guy who’s…they’ve been running amok in secrecy, and people have been kind of giving him the benefit of the doubt because they think he’s kind of clueless. But now they’re seeing the response to this…
Matthews: Sam, you were [around during] Watergate, I want you to talk about this. They’ve got kind of a gangrene setting in here. They’ve got the vice president being touched by this, clearly, because of the indictment language. We’ve got Scooter Libby gone, basically. Karl Rove still under investigation. Can the president amputate now or has it already gotten to him? Can he separate himself from all this mess by just a couple firings and then move on?
ABC News’s Sam Donaldson: No. Because Michelle put her finger on it. The damage to him is that the American people don’t trust him anymore. It’s a personal character thing. It’s not, `This policy doesn’t work’ or `Gosh, we’re going to have high heating oil bills; that’s terrible, I don’t like that.’ It’s, `I don’t trust you.’ You can’t repair that by getting rid of X, Y or Z. He’s the problem in the minds of a majority of the American people.
Newsweek’s Howard Fineman: But he doesn’t want to repair it. He doesn’t want to repair it.
Matthews: Why?
Fineman: Because George W. Bush is the guy who’s going to stick with these people. These are the people he came with…
Matthews: But he’d like to be more trusted, wouldn’t he?
Fineman: He’s gonna try to fight his way out…
BBC’s Katty Kaye: What Republicans are particularly worried about is not the “trust” numbers, but the numbers which show that Americans are starting to feel that he doesn’t care about their issues; that he’s not somebody who realizes what they hold important. It’s the exact problem that happened to [George H.W.] Bush, Sr. And that is not just this whole [leak] investigation—this is [hurricane] Katrina [response] as well. This is that he’s not looking at the things that are important to the American people.
Chris Matthews, a New Republic reporter, a Newsweek reporter, and a New Republic and BBC reporter — “conservatives all”, eh?
“And, like so many other liberal programs, it s bankrupting the country.”
Social Security is not bankrupting the country. Borrowing from the Social Security trust fund to pay for tax cuts is bankrupting the country.
“Legalized abortions, on demand, throughout pregnancy, up until delivery, even for teens.”
Abortions are not legal througout pregancy up until delivery.
“No 10 Commandments or Prayer in schools.”
I believe we have the liberal who wrote the Bill of Rights for this one. Got a problem with them?
‘No smoking almost everywhere except for medical marijuana ‘
Frank, I suggest you exercise your opposition to liberalism by smoking a carton a day, maybe two.
And, like so many other liberal programs, it s bankrupting the country.
Uh, no…that would be the War in Iraq. Without that, and by eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthy, we’d have no problem maintaining the Social Security program, minus some slight adjustments.
You aren’t doing yourself any justice by simply spewing out erroneous talking points.
My favorite was: Liberals gave us Social Security, which lifted millions out of poverty. As with nearly all liberal programs, that s not what it was intended to do…
Only someone like you would see that as a *negative* side-effect. Oops! Our program accidentally lifted millions out of poverty! Damn. Seems like Liberalism has a TON of these type of side-effects. Caution: May cause balanced budgets, or national surplus; may leave one with the freedom to control one’s own body; allow privacy in the bedroom; may honor the separation between church and state; may constitute a general expansion of civil rights; General side-effects may include: less fear-mongering, more corporate regulation, cleaner environments, and more personal freedoms. EXTREME side-effect may be the winning of World Wars.
If any of these effects are found to be undesirable, please consult Conservatism and/or consult Dr. Kavorkian.
I DEFINITELY feel like a Liberal today! Wouldn’t want it any other way.
Dkel;
Thoughtful post. Sometimes we let our emotions get the best of us. Your reasonableness cools the destructive fires.
If you are “willing to at least look at something from other people s perspective whether [you] agree with them or not,” then why don’t you try it?
Want your kids to pray in school? Nope, they can pray somewhere else.
Want the 10 Commandments in a public building? Sorry, no can do.
Want to smoke? Go right ahead — but not here, or there, or… over there, either.
How do I feel today? I feel like I’m a heck of a lot less free than I used to be, in this wonderfully liberal society of ours.
There was a great newspaper cartoon back in the late ’60′s (it had two panels)
Panel 1: If the plane is about to crash, you can pray, but you can’t smoke…
Panel 2: (A schoolyard) You can smoke, but you can’t pray…
Dkel;
I give you your antithesis
@ Frank_D
I am a centrist with a slight lean to the left, according to some people I am a liberal, and I don’t necessarily grimace when I am labeled as such. Your and I don’t favor abortion as contraception. Abortion is not something that I would condone if it personally affected me. I believe in spousal consent for abortion as well, as angry as that makes some people.
The idea that all liberals are fiscally irresponsible, lily-livered in regard to militarism, and atheistic in behavior is ridiculous. Conversely, the notion that all conservatives are racist, religous fanatics, that want to cut any program that benefits the poor is equally as ridiculous.
I am against prayer in public schools because an organized prayer will not adequately suit the needs of people of different denominations and religions. I fail to see how that is such a difficult subject. If you want your kids to be prayerul, take them to your place of worship on a regular basis. Pray together as a family, but don’t assume that your method/maneer of prayer is suitable for my children as well. I am Catholic, so I choose to send my kids to Catholic School…no harm, no foul.
I don’t find a big problem with the 10 Commandments, but Governments in the United States, to include public school boards are required to remain neutral on religous matters. The 10 commandments, in my opinion, clearly promote the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. While I don’t believe these to be threatening to other religions, and if read in the context of today’s society and virtue I don’t believe that denigrate the rights of women, children or anybody else, but I think it is a little sticky to contend with in a, yes I am going to say it, multi-cultural society.
I do acknowledge that this is a society/country that is based heavily in European tradition, and is one one of the marquis evolutionary products of Western Civilization, and I am proud to live here. I think we ought to respect other cultures, but not to the extent that we harm our own. Neutrality in the public sector is the best way to ensure that. However, some people find that this neutrality is an all out attack on Western Civilization. While there are some questionably things that go on occassionally, I think that many of the FAR right and FAR left basically have a case of the “chicken little” syndrome.
No smoking? I don’t have a problem with that, smoke as you like at home, but if a place doesn’t allow for smoking, go somewhere that it is allowed. Conversely, if smoke bothers you, don’t go.
I do feel liberal today, and every day because I am willing to at least look at something from other people’s perspective whether I agree with them or not. The question is, how do YOU feel today?
Well, it *is* a ballot initiative…and this is a democracy. If smokers in Seattle think it’s unfair, then they’ve got their work cut out for them. If they lose, tough luck, they can still smoke, they just have to be 25-ft from building openings.
It’s not “prohibition” as one chicken-little in the article says, but it is restrictive. However, I still think the public has a right to regulate was goes on in it’s own shared space via voting for ballot initiatives. I, personally, wouldn’t advocate a ban on smoking in one’s own home, but I sure as hell enjoy being able to go out to the bar, dinner, movie, bowling, etc. and not smelling like an ashtray the next day.
How do I feel today? I feel like I m a heck of a lot less free than I used to be, in this wonderfully liberal society of ours.
How so? Don’t act like public buildings were flooded with religious iconography, and giant 4-ton 10 Commandment sculptures, prior to the advent of mean ole’ Liberalism. Because they weren’t.
Furthermore, the smoking analogy is just stupid. You are still free to smoke (outside), and now others are free to BREATH (inside) public places.
Lastly, if that’s the best example of how you feel *less free*, then I’d say we’re not doing too bad, given your “Compassionate Conservative” counterparts in Washington have crafted and implemented the Patriot Act and drafted documents on how to subvert the Geneva Conventions, whereas you can be held indefinitely, without legal counsel, and most likely tortured.
Seems to me, whether or not you can smoke inside a bar should be the least of your worries. But hey, don’t let me stop you from tossing our those beautiful Red Herrings.
I also think that if Christians truly had enough faith in their ‘faith’, they’d be comfortable with this notion too.
Addendum: When I talk of public spaces and religious iconography, I’m talking post Age of Enlightenment. I mean, I guess you can argue that the Greeks and Romans had plenty of Religious iconography mixed into their public spaces, but I don’t suppose you’d argue that our society regress back that fare, would you?
All or nothing, I say.
I’d support that, although my first inclination is to keep religion in religious schools and prayer out of public schools. But, even as an Atheist, I could go for an ‘all or nothing’ approach. I can’t simply will away the fact that religious dogma exists, so it only seems logical to embrace the idea of informing youths about the many different belief-systems people choose to help explain away the chaos of existence. Including Atheism, etc.
Your kids can pray in school. Just not a public school. Because public schools are supported and run by our constitutionally secular government, and anyone who supports the US Constitution and its principles would want to keep it that way.
Why don’t wealthy religious conservatives put up money or start private programs for to let poor Christians into the rich people’s private prayer-allowing schools? Seems to me the obvious solution for fans of privatization and school prayer. Finance it yourselves.
Or, failing that, conservatives can just go back to pressuring for the general abolishment of public education (or “voucher programs” as conservatives like to call it).
But keep prayer out of our secular government’s public schools for as long as we have them.
That said, the Land Ordinance of 1787, which began funding for public education in America, does support the move with “religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” So maybe we should keep religion in the school. All religion. Each student, regardless of heritage or parentage, should be required to be educated equally about all religions and their history in shaping the world.
All or nothing, I say.
Mr. C:
“Furthermore, the smoking analogy is just stupid. You are still free to smoke (outside), and now others are free to BREATH (inside) public places.”
Well, maybe not in Seattle after today.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-smoke6nov06,1,7284070.story?coll=la-news-a_section
Your kids can pray in school, public or private. The First Amendment protects their right to do so.
The government, through its teachers and administrators, can’t force your kids to pray or even ask them to do so.
Why is this just a difficult distinction?
Anyhow, I’m breaking my own rule of never arguing religion. It’s the only thing worse than politics.
But if the argument is “no one faith over another”, how is that having one’s own faith legislated away? To me, that seems like an affirmation of faith, albeit ALL faiths.
To somehow divine that the establishment of a doctrine which honors ALL FAITHS somehow constitutes a dilution of one’s own faith just seems overly selfish and reeks of petty victimization. Furthermore, as it seems entirely silly to pack our public spaces with the knick-knacks of a dozen religions, the reasonable thing to do, seem to be to keep them devoid of such.
Noone, NOONE, is arguing for the abolishment of Churches, nor seeking to reglulate the sale of religious iconography, etc. There is, however, a concerted effort to keep public spaces free of the religious dominion. That’s not the same as abolishing faith.
Mr. C:
I don’t think it is necessarily a problem with, as you put it, “faith in their faith”. They are fearlful (and rightfully so, IMHO) of having their right to freely practice that faith legislated away, inch-by-inch by those that don’t share it.
Damek,
Who said anything about indoctrination or propping ANY religion up? If you are trying to read between the lines of my post; stop, there is only white space there. If you have some beef with people of faith or just Christians in particular I DON’T GIVE A DAMN!! Don’t lay your problems at MY feet. If you had read my post you would see that I don’t advocate for anyone prostelytizing, just having the freedom to practice faith and not have a communist type purge of the symobs of our heritage.
One point at a time Curmudgeon: There has been a problem with social security for at least 30 years. So, let’s leave the war in Iraq out of it.
Even AlGore, in 2000, wanted to put the Trust Fund in a “lockbox” (which is, of course, where it was, before LBJ, a big spending Democrat, took it out).
I’m not looking to festoon public buildings with religious symbolism, wherever the symbols come from. I’m speaking of buildings that have crosses, and copies of the tablets of the 10 Commandments, and paintings of the Last Supper, that liberals want taken down, thus preventing the free practice of religion, the forgotten clause of the 1st Amendment.
I think that people were free to smoke, for many years, before people came along and demanded the so – called right to be “free from smoke”.
And I think your telling me where to go and pray, is the same as telling me where I can’t pray — see above. I should be able to pray wherever I want, if I’m not making you pray. I refer you again to the original meaning of the “establishment clause” in the First Amendment.
And, how about if I answer your objection in re: the Patriot Act the way you answered mine — You’re not a terrorist, are you? Then why do you care what happens to terrorists?
zorro, you and your children can pray where you want. But public education shouldn’t indoctrinate anyone into any particular religion.
Activist Christians single themselves out for scorn when they try to link our religion-neutral government to their particular brand of religion, and/or try to get the public education system to prop up their religion.
Anyone doing such a thing, regardless of the religion, singles themselves out to be scorned by Constitution-respecting Americans.
Personally, I would have no problem with Little Johnny using his free time to meditate or pray or perform the Salaah. But I don’t think having special time set aside for any one of those activities during which others are expected to participate or are left out with nothing to do is an appropriate use of public education resources. The same goes for using public resources to give out bibles or buddhist prayer flags, or teach The Power of The Way.
Maybe we need to put some effort into making sure public education also doesn’t indoctrinate anyone into atheism? Then maybe the one religion that continues to be offended by the lack of religion in schools will feel less offended?
Thank you Quaker in a Basement, my mistake, you are correct.
I think I could say the same of your replies to Mr C. Don’t read between the lines and lay your problems at his feet… or something. I don’t think he was advocating for any “communist type purge of the symobs of our heritage.”
But then I’m not him so…
No, that’s not right at all.
Surpluses in payroll tax collections have been loaned to the Treasury in exchange for bonds since the inception of Social Security.
What LBJ did that was different was in the reporting of deficits and surpluses. It was the Johnson administration that first started reporting the consolidated budget.
From the Reagan administration right up until today, the Social Security system has paid its own way. It has not increased annual budget deficits nor has it increased the national debt by so much as one cent.
The “crisis” that the Bush administration has been trying to sell the public is a speculative and narrowly-tailored worst case projection of future trends. It’s instructive to note that this same administration continues to borrow the Social Security surplus to fund massive budget deficits in exchange for the very same bonds it decries as “worthless.”
before LBJ, a big spending Democrat.
Before I address any of your other points, I feel compelled to point out that as much as you LOVE to throw out these derogatory remarks about your opposition, at least try to update them:
On non-discretionary spending, Bush has outspent LBJ (PDF), spending twice as much as Clinton. And unlike both of them, he’s got absolutely NOTHING to show for it. At the end of the day, I imagine a pre-teen female with a billion-dollar Gold Card could have done a better job budgeting tax money. But I digress…
And I think your telling me where to go and pray, is the same as telling me where I can t pray see above. I should be able to pray wherever I want, if I m not making you pray. I refer you again to the original meaning of the establishment clause in the First Amendment.
There’s the KEY…”NOT MAKING YOU PRAY”…Making time for school prayer, is making people pray. No one is telling you you can’t pray, just that no public institution should sanction prayer, and in effect, force others to acknowledge one faith over another. I don’t see this as an attempt to legislate against faith on a personal level. I haven’t heard any stories of teachers smacking kids upside the head for bowing their head in prayer before lunch. Just as I’ve never heard of anyone being prohibited from, for example, completing a rosary on a park bench. Again, no one is arguing against that. I bet you could genuflect and sign the cross every time you entered a Court House, Public School, or ACLU satellite office, and NO ONE WOULD STOP YOU. There’s a world of difference between what the ACLU, et al. are talking about, and this “slippery-slope” argument being tossed out by various defenders of faith.
Mr. C:
So, hypothetically we should be perfectly free to practice our faith as long as it is within hermitically sealed rooms where no one who might be offended may accidentally catch a glimpse. Some freedom?! Additionally, I don’t think that it is merely a question of one faith over another. There are plenty of people (Christians, Musims, Jews, etc) who take offense at the mere sight of the symbols of the other faiths. But they are not the drivng force behind the movement to abolish Christian symbolism from public spaces. In the opinion of many that I know, it seems that the ACLU has singled out Christians for special scorn. Many people who consider themselves Christian, but not of the evangelical type, are pretty disgusted that a part of their HISTORICAL heritage is slowly being eroded by legislation and judicial decisions. They are also angry and confused because they feel that the Constitution, while calling for the separation of Church and State, also protects their right to worship (in public, if they so choose). I agree with you about arguing religion, but this is less an argument about doctrine and more about civil liberties. The constitution spells out many of our civil and religious liberties, but nowhere does it give protection from being offended by other peoples symbols or actions.
(Reposting/Removing link to avoid moderation)
before LBJ, a big spending Democrat.
Before I address any of your other points, I feel compelled to point out that as much as you LOVE to throw out these derogatory remarks about your opposition, at least try to update them:
On non-discretionary spending, Bush has outspent LBJ, spending twice as much as Clinton. And unlike both of them, he s got absolutely NOTHING to show for it. At the end of the day, I imagine a pre-teen female with a billion-dollar Gold Card could have done a better job budgeting tax money. But I digress&
And I think your telling me where to go and pray, is the same as telling me where I can t pray see above. I should be able to pray wherever I want, if I m not making you pray. I refer you again to the original meaning of the establishment clause in the First Amendment.
There s the KEY& NOT MAKING YOU PRAY & Making time for school prayer, is making people pray. No one is telling you you can t pray, just that no public institution should sanction prayer, and in effect, force others to acknowledge one faith over another. I don t see this as an attempt to legislate against faith on a personal level. I haven t heard any stories of teachers smacking kids upside the head for bowing their head in prayer before lunch. Just as I ve never heard of anyone being prohibited from, for example, completing a rosary on a park bench. Again, no one is arguing against that. I bet you could genuflect and sign the cross every time you entered a Court House, Public School, or ACLU satellite office, and NO ONE WOULD STOP YOU. There s a world of difference between what the ACLU, et al. are talking about, and this slippery-slope argument being tossed out by various defenders of faith.
Since schools are in general locally run by state and local governments, maybe public schools serving particularly religious populations should set up special all-school study periods during which prayer is allowed, if that’s what the student wants to do with his or her academic time. I’d be OK with that, and would have been back when I was in public school, too. As long as the praying students aren’t noisy or something, distracting me from studying, or if they must chant or “om” or something, if I can go to another room to study, that’d be cool.
Seems to me their education would probably benefit more from actual study, but if it’s their choice to spend that time on different priorities, fine by me. Maybe athletically inclined students should be allowed to go practice or train or something. And students who prefer to just slack off wouldn’t be required to study…
Or maybe they could all just do it after school like they did when I was going to school. We could save the holiday celebrating for after-school, too… But again, I’d be comfortable leaving such decisions to local school boards and such, so long as they aren’t, you know, setting up one religion as official or something.
I don t think he was advocating for any communist type purge of the symobs of our heritage.
But then I m not him so&
No..I am not. I’ve got a decent post that attempt to clarify my point, but it won’t show through “moderation” for some reason. Even after I removed the ‘ahref’ links.
Damn, some of my comments are “awaiting moderation” and some are not. What the hell?
In the opinion of many that I know, it seems that the ACLU has singled out Christians for special scorn.
Well, I wouldn’t call it “scorn”, but the fact that Christianity may be seen as being “singled out” might be due to the fact that supporters of said faith are the most vocal and most vehement about abolishing the separation of Church and State in the U.S., apparently “scorning” all other religions.
From my point of view, to respect that division between these two institutions (Church/State) is to encourage to continued free practice of Christianity. For example, what happens *if* in the future, say, Islam – one of the fastest growing religions in the world – becomes a majority in the U.S. and decides, “Well, the Christians removed the balance, so now we should make time for Muhammad in every elementary school!”?
To respect that division is to respect and understand the very reason our country was founded in the first place, as our founders (Pilgrims) left to escape a particular type of “state authorized religion”.
To ensconce religion in the notion of “majority rule” is so short-sighted and dogma-centric, I almost wish it’d happen, just to see these believers fret once they’re moved further and further toward the minority.
For now, my point basically follows what Damek has said, here’s a snippet of the post I can’t get through:
———————————–
And I think your telling me where to go and pray, is the same as telling me where I can t pray see above. I should be able to pray wherever I want, if I m not making you pray.
There s the KEY& NOT MAKING YOU PRAY & Making time for school prayer, can be seen as making people pray.
No one is telling you you can t pray, just that no public institution should sanction prayer, and in effect, force others to acknowledge one faith over another. I don t see this as an attempt to legislate against faith on a personal level. I haven t heard any stories of teachers smacking kids upside the head for bowing their head in prayer before lunch. Just as I ve never heard of anyone being prohibited from, for example, completing a rosary on a park bench. Again, no one is arguing against that. I bet you could genuflect and sign the cross every time you entered a Court House, Public School, or ACLU satellite office, and NO ONE WOULD STOP YOU. There s a world of difference between what the ACLU, et al. are talking about, and this slippery-slope argument being tossed out by various defenders of faith.
As I understand it, one of the defining characteristics of a Liberal (since that was the origin of this thread) is the willingness to reflect and accept that there are many sides to each issue. You constantly criticize people on the right and label them as bigots. You should practice what you preach. If you look closely at my posts, I don’t advocate for organized school prayer or any forced acceptance of one faith (or any faith) over another. I (and many, many more like me; more than I think most on the left of the political spectrum would care to admit) don’t want to prosteletyze or indoctrinate anyone into anything. You want to be a Muslim/Jew/Zoroastrian/Athiest? By all means, you have that right as laid out in our constitution. But please stop trying to equate practicing the Chrisitian faith with indoctrination. That is all many of us want. We should not allow out heritage to be taken away, even if it offends some. And no one should be naive enough to believe that the only thing that those in the ACLU want to do is provide some egalitarian garden of eden where no one offends anyone else. I might have fallen off the tunip truck, but I didn’t fall off yesterday.
Frank D,
I can’t get mad at you. Your response to me was not unlike a lot of liberals who concentrate on one aspect of a conservative ideal and blow it completely out of proportion. I suppose one of these days when both sides of the coin grow weary of going tit-for-tat, then perhaps real progress can be made.
There are a couple of loaded phrases in there that deserve clarification.
“…equate practicing the Christian faith with indoctrination…”
What do you mean by “practicing the Christian faith”? If you’re referring to taxpayer-supported teachers or public officials who witness to students or governmental clients or coerce compliance with the tenets of Christianity, then the use of the term “indoctrination” is valid.
“…allow our heritage to be taken away…”
What “heritage” are you referring to? Classroom prayer led by public employees? Religious symbols displayed in courtrooms or in government facilities? Public classrooms and other government facilities aren’t the property of any single religion and they’re not a suitable venue for celebrating anyone’s religious heritage.
If it makes you feel any better, we’ll just delete my preemptory answers to my own questions and you can have a go:
& equate practicing the Christian faith with indoctrination&
What do you mean by practicing the Christian faith ?
& allow our heritage to be taken away&
What heritage are you referring to?
Well, speaking for myself…only one liberal, I wouldn’t want Frank near me, regardless of whether or not he had a cigarette in his mouth. I believe Frank understands by now that I, personally, would be better off if ALL conservatives moved to unoccupied territory in Austrailia. He keeps calling me a Nazi for saying that…but I just think it’s good, sound domestic policy.
Having said that, may I kindly report to Frank that we have these public smoking laws for a reason: to protect others, particularly children, who might be vulnerable to the effects of second-hand Frank emissions. (A grotesque thought, on its face.)
Same with helmet laws. If Frank decides to get on his Harley and ends up getting into an accident because he was too busy gawking at a Michelle Malkin look-alike, and not paying attention to the Potato truck in front of him, WE ALL pay for Frank’s mistake, in increased insurance rates, or we end up footing the bill if he has no insurance.
Public Schools and Prayer. Public Schools are funded with our tax dollars. They are government institutions, as are courthouses, and countless other entities. The United States does not have, nor advocate a state sponsored religion. What’s so difficult about this again?
(Caveat: I can’t get worked up if the “Son of Frank” praying at “Robert F. Kennedy Junior High School,” as long as he does it in relative privacy.)
I would prefer that Frank Sr., however, pray in that unoccupied territory I was talking about in my opening paragraph above.
JK
No, I didn’t ignore it.
I asked for an explanation of the parts I didn’t understand.
“… and they re not a suitable venue for celebrating anyone s religious heritage.”
De Tocqueville wrote this:
“Religion perceives that civil liberty affords a noble exercise to the faculties of man, and that the political world is a field prepared by the Creator for the efforts of mind. Free and powerful in its own sphere, satisfied with the place reserved for it, religion never more surely establishes its empire than when it reigns in the hearts of men unsupported by aught its native strength.”
I think a lot of people forget that the First Amendment works both ways: It is as much about preserving the sphere of religion as it is the sphere of civil liberties. I’m not a religious person, per se, but I gather that Tocqueville is arguing that a too close association between government and religion threatens to undermine religion as much as it impedes on the civil liberty of a country’s citizens. Put the Ten Commandments in a court house and one is as liable to debase their meaning and influence as promote them. Introduce pray in school and one is as liable to debase and profane prayer as one is to promote it. In other words, Christians may find themselves losing their heritage for real if they tie their faith too closely to the workings of man-made government. Put a cross in a courthouse and you’ve suddenly brought the court house into the church, as well. Would any Christian so welcome the government into their place of worship?
Listen Frame;
I couldn’t agree more about the mixing of gov’t and religion. Your quote of De Tocqueville is relevant and, in my opinion, prophetic. Does this separation, however, need to include a purge of all religious symbols from the public sphere? If a state seal or flag has had a cross (or star, or crescent, or whatever), should it now be redesigned to reflect the fact that government is not in the religion business? I never had a problem with Judge Moore’s wish to put a copy of the ten commandments in the courthouse, because they reflect the judeo-christian foundation for our system of laws and mores (personally, I don’t think that is why he wanted it there, and that is why I think there is such passion on the left towards ALL christian sybology in public). This should not necessarily advocate, but merely concede the basis of our legal system. Like it or not, this is where we as a country (the majority of us anyway) come from. If, in the future, we do become a majority muslim/jewish/agnostic/whatever population; I fully expect this may change. To paraphrase the old addage “history is written by the victors”. Anyway, with so many agenda’s on both sides, it is nearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the subject.
Quaker:
I guess you just ignored the beginning of my last post and just cherry picked a couple of quotes. That’s fine, if that’s your thing. If you can’t glean the gist of my posts at this point then you never will.
LOL
I’ll go along with that. I’d feel the same about any other form of prior restraint on what the valedictorian can say. Do you have an example of this being done? If the ACLU got involved, which side did they come down on?
OK. At the risk of being accused of “cherry-picking,” I think you’re referring to this:
I take issue with the idea that Christianity is the foundation of the American system of justice. However, even if we accept that proposition, the governmental system that we enjoy belongs to us all. Our government and system of justice are the “heritage” of all Americans, not just the Christians.
Personally, I could go for posting the symbols of all religions in our courthouses and public squares. Christian. Jewish. Muslim. Hinu. Buddhist. Druid. Wiccan. (OK, we might need a bigger courthouse.)
Let’s speak to this heritage issue. Read Lawrence M. Friedman’s Crime and Punishment in America. On page 32 he writes of the early American colonies:
“A religious message leaps out of virtually every page of the early Puritan codes. Rules to buttress religious orthodoxy permeate the Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts (1648) … The laws against Quakers were particularly virulent in this colony. In 1658, the Massachusetts General Court allowed the death penality for Quakers who returned after banishment … Blasphemy was another colonial crime. A New Hampshire law defined it as ‘Denying, Cursing, or Reproaching the true God, his Creation or Government of the World,’ or ‘Denying, Cursing or Reproaching the Holy Word of God, that is, the Canonical Scriptures, contained in the Books of the Old and New Testament.’ Under this statute, a court in its discretion could put the blashphemer in the pilory, whip him, bore his tongue ‘with red hot Iron’ or make him stand on the gallows with a rope around his neck.”
This too is part of the heritage of the Ten Commandments in the history of the American legal system. These kinds of injustices, based on the Ten Commandments themselves — “Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain,” for instance — are precisely what our founding father’s intended to abolish with the First Amendment. Do you include this history as part of the heritage you wish to celebrate when you place the Ten Commandments in a court house? Is this the kind of history that should be called to the mind of non-Christian Americans when they go to court to seek equal justice under the law?
This policy has been adopted–in a virtual sense, anyway–by certain blog hosts. Or maybe it’s not all Quakers…
Since you bring the ACLU into it, why not go see what their position really is?
“Practicing Christian faith (means)…. Being able to acknowledge god or jesus whenever/wherever you please. An example: If the validictorian of a high school graduating class wishes to thank his/her creator during the speech, then he/she should not be censured for it.”
This is the problem with the Hard Right in a nutshell. The only model they have for human interaction is dominance/submission. If they are not dominating everyone else in any given situation, they interpret this as being dominated themselves.
If they step on your foot and you yell at them for it, you are by their definition dominating them.
Maniac?
I don’t even understand the question. Ask NTodd. He’s smart.
Frank, your calling JK a “Nazi” might have more ooomph if you hadn’t once before shared with us the fact that you would like to see people who question George Bush tortured.
Just saying. Carry on.
In that case I would argue it depends on the specific content and nature of the speech. If the student wants to speak at length about how God and his religion helped him get through tough times or helped him achieve excellence in school, basically, speaking to how God and faith has impacted him personally, I don’t have a problem with it. Reflection on personal experience and faith is perfectly appropriate for the ceremony. But explicitly prosletyzing at an event like a graduation ceremony, in my mind, impinges of the rights of the other students and parents to expect a school event to be free of attempts at religious persuasion. As the ACLU argues, the ground here is not clearly defined:
“Schools must carefully steer between the claims of student speakers who assert a right to express themselves on religious subjects and the asserted rights of student listeners to be free of unwelcome religious persuasion in a public school classroom.”
There’s a HUGE difference between, “HIgh school is a time of growth and learning and I will always look back at my high school years as the time I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior” and “Everyone here today must accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior if they wish to be saved.”
Quaker:
What do you mean by practicing the Christian faith ?
Zorro:
Being able to acknowledge god or jesus whenever/wherever you please. An example: If the validictorian of a high school graduating class wishes to thank his/her creator during the speech, then he/she should not be censured for it. No indocrination, no public servants advocating for one religion over another, just freedom.
See, this is what I don’t get about these counter arguments. What are you talking about? Show me examples of a valedictorian being censured for citing God? I’ve never heard of this, I’ve searched and found nothing. Point me to one, single example of someone’s faith being censured on a personal level? No one is advocating that anyhow, so it may not even really be worth debating.
The debate currently being waged in the public arena has recently been brought about by, from as best as I can tell, the re-awakening of the evangelical Christian right. Who, through the constant encouragement (and manipulation) of the current Bush administration have begun to demand things be changed to meet their criteria for society, even in the face of our nation’s increasing secularism.
Bush, Rove, Frist, DeLay, et al. have all been stoking the fires of religious zealotry for at least a decade now (Bush and his “born again” status)…and what we’ve seen as a result, is more pressure from fundamental Christian groups, who are pushing their agenda onto mainstream America. Of course there is going to be a backlash, because they do not represent the vast swaths of people (both religious and non-religious) currently populating our country.
However, to posit examples as you have – above – does nothing to feed the debate, they are examples of things that, to the best of my knowledge, have not happened in modern America, nor are even CLOSE to happening.
No one is telling individuals that they can’t have their God.
I may swear a lot but I haven’t devolved into blathering, sputtering nonsense.
Btw, Quaker:
Are all Quakers pragmatists, or are all pragmatists Quakers?
I did find one good example of what zorro was talking about.
The valedictorian of Oroville High School in California (?) planned to give a speech at graduation that included a good bit of proselytizing. The principal told him he couldn’t do it.
(Not coincidentally, the young man’s older brother went through the same experience at the same high school. Smart kids.)
The Ninth Circuit ducked the whole issue by declaring the case moot: by the time they heard the case, graduation was over.
I think that would have been a close case. The purpose of a valedictory address is for one student to give his or her own views about the school experience. Personally, I don’t think it’s right for the school administration to put religious references off limits any more than it would be for them to say the student couldn’t talk about politics or art or homosexuality.
On the other side of the argument, the graduation ceremony doesn’t belong to the valedictorian alone. It’s a function of the state-sponsored school system. Some members of the audience may be unwilling captives to a religious message they don’t want to hear.
Either way the decision would have come down, I fail to see the pernicious advance of anti-Christianity afoot.
BTW, great link Quaker. Seriously, the ACLU is more liberal than I thought.
SadieB: I’ll probably be sorry, but show me where you think I said that “people who question George Bush should be tortured.”
I can’t wait.
Frameone: look who’s talking, you fucking maniac.
JK, you’re still an arrogant Nazi prick… And I don’t smoke
I think Frank has finally lost it.
Quaker,
Thanks for the info. Hadn’t heard about the valedictorian issue. I, myself, wonder what the outcome of the case would have been. From there, would be the debate.
“Frameone: look who s talking, you fucking maniac.”
Um, what?
I don’t recall the exact thread, Frank. We were talking about people protesting the war and you said they ought to be tortured.
Don’t you remember? I do, because I got in a jab about how you had bragged about giving $100 to Catholic charities, and I said you should ask them to throw in a prayer for you soul while they were at it. And now I get to make that same joke twice ….
ROFL
You bet! I’m a freakin maniac for the facts, Frank!
Sez you, frameone…
Face it Frank, I have called you stupid, an idiot, an asshole, a moron, a dipshit, a racist, a bigot and a liar. I stand by those claims. But I have never sunk to calling you a Nazi.
frame;
You can have the rest but leave me M=====F—–
If need be, I suggest we share Nazi.
Geez. Just wanted to add that most people need to stop bitching about school prayer. It is called a “moment of silence”! Of course I pray each morning before helping children in school, I just don’t have scream it out to have faith. Fucking ridiculous
Frank is good fodder. He should be paid a fee by the rest of us for being such an easy and willing target.
It appears, however, at this moment, that Frank has imploded. Perhaps an Australian adventure would do him well.
JK
Oh, there you are, JK, you arrogant Nazi prick. You know you don’t think you should be called that. Please be so kind as to explain to everyone how you earned that title, or I will.
SadieB, and I didn’t brag about giving $100. I mentioned it in passing, remarking that it was easier than donating money to the Red Cross, who I do not, and did not, trust. It really pains you to say even the smallest positive thing about me, doesn’t it? Still trying to impress the guys, eh? If it’s the time I remember, I was joking. I’m not surprised you didn’t know that. You’re just another humorless left winger.
frameone: you are a flaming asshole. You don’t know why I called JK a Nazi, but I’m sure he’ ll give you his version.
Cleo: You want motherfucker for obvious reasons: Shall I explain, or shall we keep that secret between me and you… and your mother?
Here’s a story for you SadieB: JK took it on himself to declare that he had no desire to live with people around him who were not as smart as he was — you see, he had previously proclaimed him to be smarter than every single person who voted for Bush in 2004 — and he wished that everyone who was not as smart as he would would move to some place like Australia, so he wouldn’t have to live with them!
When I suggested that there were other people in recent history, say Germany in the 1930′s, who had similar ideas, he responded rather casually that it was just a personal wish of his.
When I reminded him of the existence of the developmentally disabled and the senile, that phased him not one bit. He still did not quite understand what I was driving at.
So I decided to confront him directly, by calling him an arrogant Nazi prick, until he at least admits he is an arrogant elitist, which he has yet to do.
So there you have it: the Tale of JK the Arrogant Nazi prick.
No shit, frameone, scaring people’s your thing, isn’t it?
You see yourself as Don Quixote, flailing away at the air; No, it’s just Frank, flailing and staying, and staying, and staying…..
Yeah, sure, White Whale… After all, the bajillion comments made by these liberal assholes are all my fault.
We “trolls” have magical powers, don’t ya know?
Dunn Dunn Duhhh…. Children lets knock it off.
JK: I’m waiting you arrogant Nazi prick… C’mon, tell them, or I will.
I mean it.
White Whale’s right. We should knock it off. We seem to have scared away all the Christians.
JK- if Frank didn’t exist we would have to invent him. Nothing personal, white whale, it’s just he’s the original.
BTW, SadieB: You did invent me; all you arrogant left wing know nothing assholes did, years ago. That’s why I used to be known as Conservative since 63.
I’ve been annoying liberals for a long time, honey!
Freakin’ sad story
Hey Frank — Look down. I think someone’s been pulling your leg.
Wow, this thread really exploded. Response to Frank D’s aside about my handle: I have no problem being called a liberal. The johnnyprogressive monkier has a nicer ring to it i feel. Try it out- Johnnyliberal. JohnnyProgressive. Stressing the “gress” in progressive gives the whole thing a poetic quality. Hell, my first name isn’t even Johnny. Its a nom de plume i guess you could say.
And now to comment on Frank’s complaints with liberalism.
Legalized abortion on demand, up to time of delivery? I always thought third trimester abortions were only performed in instances where health of the mother was threatened, or in cases of rape and incest. Those abortions are non-elective. You cant be in the delivery room and say, “You know what doc, I came this far but, lets kill the thing before it comes out.”
And no, much to your chagrin, religious icons are not allowed in public buildings. Key word is public. The Ten Commandments in a courthouse is not free exercise of religion by a citizen. That is sponsorship of religion by the state. You are free to put up a granite monument in your front yard, and no liberal will stop you. Also, you are allowed to pray in a school. But it cant be organized by the school itself. There was a group of kids who prayed around the flagpole on the grounds of my high school once a week, and nobody bothered them. Do you see the distinction here? Organized school prayer=state sponsorship, prayer on your own time on school grounds= free exercise.
On smoking- I beleive the ban on smoking in bars in NYC was dumb, and I think a smoking section in a restaurant suffices. People certainly do have a right to not have to smell smoke when theyre trying to eat. And medical marijuana cannot be smoked “almost everywhere.” And at that the DEA doesnt even recoginze local medical marijuana laws. Using federal tax dollars to bust cancer patients smoking a joint= brilliant!
After going back and reading through this long ass thread, i now see the topic has veered wildly off-course and became a shouting match. Guess I just wasted 10 minutes of my life writing my above response.
Yes a waste of posts. Enter the steel cage match and fight like a man you ass clown or face my scorpion deathlock! (j/k)
Darn, Frank, I was hoping for a nice juicy story about JK’s mother. Or your mother. After a build-up like that.
Too bad, SadieB. Life is so unfair. I guess that’s why you’re a liberal.
frameone: I think you’ve been pulling something else — but I don’t want to discuss your sex life.
Hey, I freakin’ quoted De Tocqueville. If that isn’t classy I don’t what is.
More like Tokeville, hippy! You liberals and your jazz and your marijuana cigarettes! We need another Vietnam!
It’s painfull that Frank isn’t able to recognize rhetorical “tongue in cheek.” But not unexpected.
Frank. Austrailia bekons. Go there.
JK
Oh, in case you were wondering, JK, I’m not joking.
JK: Way to take a cue from frameone, so you can save face. Keep it up for over a month, and then say, “Oh, didn’t you know I was kidding?”
Let me ask you this, JK, without looking over at frameone’s exam booklet, what was the purpose of your complicated, Nazi – esque prank? And don’t return 12 hours from now with come contrived BS.
As it is, it took you 20 hours to capitalize on frameone’s lie.
And, BTW, I don’t care if you flat out lied about the whole thing, and you did make it all up. Jokes are windows to the mind, and you’ll always be an arrogant Nazi prick to me. Nuremberg beckons, you elitist snot, go there.
Oh, and by the way, Mr. Wizard, it’s Australia, not Austrailia, and beckons, not bekons. Maybe the next time a Führer comes along, you should be first in line for the showers, dumbass.
wow. hardcore nastiness.
And in all fairness Frank, JK’s wish that all Bush voters move to Australia really doesnt sound like Nazi talk. He sounds a lot closer to Queen Victoria in her creation of a prison colony on said continent. Now if JK mentioned some sort of “final solution” to cleanse America of “conservative vermin” I would see your point. Its a real big stretch to seriously refer to him as a “Nazi” and I dont think anyone here is buying into it. It just makes you look like a flustered, frustrated little man whose attempting to change the topic at hand, considering how flat out wrong you are on a lot of the greivances you raised earlier.
“What was the purpose of your complicated, Nazi – esque prank?”
Because your responses are priceless?
Johnny, put a sock in it… Do you realize how much shit you and your leftie brothers and sisters have doled out in the last 24 hours?
Do you think your calling me “flustered and frustrated” is supposed to make me have some sort of epiphany or something?
Nearly all you lefties — on these threads — are arrogant snots.
Nearly all of aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are.
Nearly all of you are elitist snobs who think you’re better than the so – called average guy.
As far as the topic at hand goes, JK began his so – called “joke” quite a while ago, with his comment that he really didn’t want to live around people who weren’t as smart as he was.
I just questioned him to see how far he would go. Maybe he became uncomfortable with how he was looking in all of this, maybe he was joking.
But, if he was joking, he could have said so days ago.
I am entirely fed up with dealing with children, who really expect that their misbehavior must be tolerated by others. When it isn’t, they want all their pals to gang up on the accuser, and they, like you, sheepishly oblige them.
Cleo, I’m not going away. Frameone, you have nothing to teach me. TomY, you wouldn’t know a bigot, if one bit you on the ass.
JadeGold, you should learn not to speak about all that bullshit with such certainty.
What I find fascinating is that everyone is so certain that I need to “understand” them!
Meanwhile, when they call me every name in the book, insult my family (yes, my family), hurl every imaginable insult at me, and I’m not just supposed to accept it, I’m supposed to understand that I deserve it.
Further, when I give it back, I’m called more names. I’m told I’m imploding. I’m called a “flustered, frustrated little man” by some intellectual hemorrhoid, who doesn’t even know what the fuck happened!
Look, I’ll comment when I want, about whatever topic I want, until such time as I am banned by Oliver.
Until then, yeah, I’m pissed off!
Until then, if you insult me, or if I even imagine you insulted I will insult you multiple times. In fact, I might insult any of you, any time.
Here’s who I will not insult: The person, or persons, in these threads, who has never insulted me. (By the way, conservatives need not apply — I’ve never been insulted by one of those intolerant, knuckle – dragging neanderthals)
OK, form a line now, no bunching up!
Everybody else, stick to the topic, or insult, I don’t care which. I will do either, as I wish.
frameone: What are you, JK’s pimp?
Priceless.
Jesus, Frank What is your major malfunction?
You’re like Arthur Denton, the maochist played by Bill Murray in ‘Little Shop of Horrors’. You know, the patient of Dr. Scrivello (Steve Martin) who relished the sadistic dentist’s attempts to inflict unspeakable pain on Murray and became frustrated when his paitient failed to mask his enjoyment?
Really. We all have to ask ourselves if we want to participate in this hideous drama.
No, frameoneL you are witless. You don’t even have enough finesse to be ashamed of yourself. You’re a sociopath.
You know what’s real interesting about johnnyprogressive: three things
1) You seem to recall or you went and found out, exactly what JK said, and yet, you expected me to be “fair” to him. Why didn’t you expect him to be “fair” to me? Are you saying that his ‘joke’ was really funny,and I just didn’t get it? The why not say so?
2) How did I go from being someone who didn’t get a joke to being a “flustered, frustrated little man so quickly? Is that what you think of every person who doesn’t get a joke?
3) And how was I “flat out wrong you are on a lot of the grievances you raised earlier”? Don’t you think you owe it to me to tell me about that, before you call me a “flustered, frustrated little man ?
Do you get what I’m driving at, Johnny? Or are just another leftie automaton?
I just questioned him to see how far he would go.
Frank. The last time I pursued your response this relentlessly, you called me a stalker. Turnabout is fair play. Isn’t it?
If I’m Arthur Denton, are you Dr. Scrivello? Or is that frameone’s role?
We all have to ask ourselves if we want to participate in this hideous drama.
“We” do? Speaking for everyone again, eh, Cleo?
Perhaps you should ask yourself that. WuzzaDem awaits you.
Aw, Frank, you think Im interesting. Im flattered.
Actually, I never thought or said it was a joke, cause I dont know what his intent was. Maybe he was just being a jackass, and youre free to think that of him. What I did say was your extrapolation of “conservatives should go to Australia = NAZI!” was a bit over the top whether he was joking or not.
Again, you focus on “getting the joke.” WTF are you talking about? Never in my previous post did I mention you not getting JK’s joke. I say you are flustered and frustrated because about halfway down the page, just about all your posts were focused on JK, referring to him as an “arrogant Nazi prick” and building up to the telling of your story through your peppering of ominous posts saying “tell them why JK, OR I WILL!” (emphasis mine).Basically, I imagined you being red-faced and steam coming out of your ears as you pounded away at your keyboard, because that is the feeling you conveyed, at least in my eyes, through your shrill series of comments.
I addressed this in an earlier post. its about 20 comments up the thread, depending on how many more posts there are after i submit this comment. This was before I referred to you as flustered and frustrated, which seems to have struck a nerve with you. By grievances, I mean your complaints about the “gifts of liberalism” as this was written before I got myself involved in this skirmish.
I based my assement of what happened on YOUR account of the events. If I- being the intellectual hemorrhoid you say I am- didnt get it right its probably because of your incoherent telling of the story.
Now that that’s settled, I just want to know, considering the contempt you have for the liberals here- how you think were all elitist snobs, we think were smarter, and you feel like your dealing with children(hmm, who’s the snob?)- why do you come back time after time for more? Are you a masochist? Way too much time on your hands? You have something to whine about for every regular poster, yet you stick around and instigate, practically begging for more. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to visit the comments section of oliverwillis.com. It would be like me going to freerepublic and constantly harping on their members (that would last about 5 minutes, they ban your IP for the most benign negative comment). You can deal with the “children” as you put it, or you can stay away.
While I reserve to myself the right to return when I wish, I will go do other things for an indefinite period. While I disagree with Oliver about almost everything, I appreciated his media – oriented point of view.
While I sometimes judged his opinions to be anywhere on a spectrum from wrongheaded to downright silly, I never saw him as venal or vicious. This is what has always attracted me to this site.
However, I will leave you with a question to ask yourselves. Do youselves a favor, and don’t type the answers, unless you find the answers moderately interesting to each other, or truly worthy of making public. I won’t be reading them.
The question is: Why me? There are at least a half dozen conservatives posting to these threads regularly. You certainly have been occasionallysarcastic to them, but never have I seen the venom and vituperation aimed at them, that you have aimed at me. I would appreciate it if you answer that question for yourselves, if for no other reason than to prevent some other conservative poster from being the new whipping boy.
Also, if you have indeed driven me from this blog permanently, or reduced my participation in it to nearly zero, what have you accomplished?
One final note: That stalking jab really stung, eh, Cleo? But I didn’t follow him to another blog, and I didn’t comment on his every comment, even when they weren’t addressed to me. You did.
You may find this interesting
>>Let me ask you this, JK, without looking over at frameone s exam booklet, what was the purpose of your complicated, Nazi – esque prank? And don t return 12 hours from now with come contrived BS.
Mark the time.
Frank. You’re not right in the head.
No more wasting OW’s bandwith. If you would really like to discuss this, email Jkstraw_01@yahoo.com
I may or may not reply, given the amount of free time I have to entertain you. After all, that’s all we’re doing, isn’t it?
JK
ykrzdml trde pfyunkzmq eotbg ilvxnjg kshoazn rnbdv