May 30, 2009
Staying on Message: Conservatives Should Play Offense, not Defense
Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.
Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical. If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are.
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Imagine, for a moment, a very different world from the one we live in today.
In this world the far Left continues to substitute insults for serious debate. They regularly accuse conservatives of hypocrisy, racism, homophobia, and indifference to the poor and unemployed. They ascribe selfish and venal motives to those who support limited government and maximized opportunity.
Sadly, even creating an alternative world from whole cloth can't change human nature. But imagine that in this other world, rather than taking insults seriously we refused to become rattled or distracted by such unserious tactics?
In our imaginary world, conservatives are secure in the knowledge that we aren't hypocritical, racist, homophobic, or mean spirited. We understand that simply saying a thing doesn't make it so. We know, with the unruffled assurance of unblemished conscience, that namecalling is the refuge of those who fear losing a debate on the merits. We recognize ad hominid attacks for exactly what they are: an attempt to hijack and control political debate. Feeding trolls gives them exactly what they want. Taking their insults seriously makes us look defensive and unsure of ourselves, giving far more weight to their accusations than they deserve.
Why do Lefties so often use insults instead of argument? Simple. It works:
1. Too often the attacked become angry, lose their tempers and retaliate in kind, neatly providing the Left with a juicy sound byte they can use to support their message: "Don't vote for Republicans. They're an unlikeable bunch of buffoons: spiteful, angry, bigoted, selfish, mean spirited people who don't care about your problems."
2. Insults allow the Left to control the terms of the debate. When voters turn on their TV sets or pick up a newspaper, the Left doesn't want voters to hear how conservative policies will make America a better place. And they certainly don't want voters to hear us explain why Obama's policies are so destructive and foolish. They want those messages to be crowded out by the spectacle of conservatives arguing about whether or not Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat weenie or trying to prove God didn't really tell Sarah Palin to slaughter transgendered Alaskan timber wolves with an illegal assault weapon from the safety of a taxpayer funded helicopter.
Now imagine the Republican Presidential candidate for 2012. As has happened in every presidential campaign since the birth of this nation, much mud is slung at him.
He is called racist for opposing institutionalized unfairness like affirmative action and racial preferences.
He is called a homophobe for expressing doubts about the wisdom of altering the definition of marriage as the fundamental building block upon which stable societies have rested for centuries.
Because he advocates competition and industry as the best foundations for success, he is accused of being indifferent to poverty and financial hardship.
Because not everyone who espouses conservative ideals practices them perfectly (we are, after all, only human), he is called a hypocrite.
But in our alternative universe the Republican candidate and his supporters react to these slurs quite differently than they do in our world. This is because, in marked opposition to today's world, conservatives simply refuse to take ad hominem arguments seriously.
When conservative spokesmen are called bigots, homophobes, or mean spirited capitalistic oppressors our response is always the same: we sideline the attacker by pointing out his insults are irrelevant and off topic. Calmly, we remind voters that namecalling is neither an argument nor a rebuttal of our ideas.
Let's face it - even if it were true that Rush Limbaugh were a big, fat hypocritical racist who hates women, blacks and poor folk, do Americans elect a President based on the personal qualities of talk show hosts?
Of course they don't.
Every minute spent rebutting ad hominem attacks is a minute the American people focus on our opponents' message instead of ours. And what we hear often stays with us. In our alternative world we realize the attention of the American voter is a limited resource. We understand that we have a clear choice.
We can accept the legitimacy of the politics of personal distraction.
We can expend precious time and effort playing defense, if we really believe Rush Limbaugh's or Ann Coulter's reputation is critical to the future of the GOP. Or we can refuse to allow the conversation to be derailed by silly insults and stay focused on our message. We can choose to play offense instead of defense.
Dan Riehl understands what I was trying to say the other day:
The Republicans have been on defense for so long on topics like this, I'm tired of hearing the defenses....
Not since Reagan have Republicans taken the time to effectively articulate that for which they supposedly stand. In this case, fairness for all through understanding and acceptance, not a government hand. Also, individual liberty, along with low taxes and small government are supposed to represent the Republican brand.
...it won't be until they regain some credibility as standing for those things that they can then get around to articulating them effectively in forceful, proactive arguments.
Right now the GOP is actively being portrayed as an irrelevant, ineffectual party that's out of ideas and spends its time engaging in nasty infighting. But what if we chose to counter that message by projecting the image of a serious party that welcomes debate and believes free and vigorous competition will help us select the best path for America's future?
What if, the next time the Left engaged in personal attacks, we calmly and confidently refused to rise to the bait?
Repeating a simple, clear, consistent message over and over again works. And that message should be that unlike the opposition, we are a serious party who don't have time for food fights. I think Donald gets this:
All Barack Obama had to do was tack with the wind of Bush fatigue and war weariness. In turn, McCain had little in his policy quiver to offer voters besides "fight with me." Well, when people weren't so worried about the fight overseas, when the guts were being sucked out of the American financial system, and when the housing debacle sucked everything under with it, McCain was left stumbling along the campaign trail like a dumb mule.
The funny thing is that conservative ideas are there. In education, in economic policy, in deregulation, in energy. The list goes on. The problem is that ideas such as reliance on personal initiative and self-reliance, on school choice, vouchers, and market competition in service delivery, on domestic energy exploration and production, on downsizing government, on compellence in international relations ... all of these ideas are reviled by progressives, unions, and the liberal media establishment. Conservatives have ideas. They haven't been tried. George Bush managed the war on terror. He fought for American national security in Iraq and the broader Middle East. The conflict was not a "disaster." But we've been told that so many times it's become the conventional wisdom. Young people's minds have been turned off to the realities of market choice at home and the deployment of power abroad. People have been led to believe that spending trillions of dollars, and preparing for Democratic budgets as far as the eye can see, won't cost them anything. The "rich" will pay for it! Let's raise taxes! Make them pay their fair share! And then as soon as hundreds of thousands of Americans take to the streets and the plazas to protest the loss of liberties on April 15th what happened? We were all attacked as ... wait for it ... tea-baggers and racists!
There's a lot of frustration and anger out there in Conservative Land. I feel it too. But we need to use that frustration and anger constructively. We can settle for the temporary satisfaction of winning small battles or we can focus on what's really important: convincing the American people that our policies will be better for them than progressive ideas with a disciplined, well crafted message repeated over and over again until they can't ignore it:
This picture should be on every news show, every talk show, day in and day out. It's devastating. Hammer away until your opponents can't take it any more, and ignore anything that distracts from the message you want voters to take home.
That's what Reagan did, and it works. There is nothing more devastating that making your opponent seem irrelevant. That's what the Democrats are doing to us today to great effect. The more we squabble and insult each other, the easier it becomes for them to sideline us in the eyes of the public.
What's needed here is not more anger and nastiness, but an impressive display of confidence, competence, and self-discipline that convinces the American people conservatives practice what they preach and are ready to govern again. We need Reagan's sunny, unruffled confidence and firm conviction. In our hearts, we know how to win. We've licked our wounds long enough.
Now let's get to work.
Posted by Cassandra at May 30, 2009 08:03 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
"ad hominid attacks" - Now that's funny, and sometimes appropriate.
I entirely agree. The ideas are out there, but conservative politicians don't seem to be acquainted with them, for the most part.
Posted by: lumpy at May 30, 2009 01:13 PM
You know, you really should send this post to Michael Steele as a suggestion to be shared with the NRCC, party leadership, et.al.
It might be the unexpected nudge needed to help right the course, relative bearing being so easily lost... Unlike over bearings which never seem to get lost.
Posted by: bthun at May 30, 2009 02:38 PM
Libs stopped trying to ruffle my feathers when I started replying, "Let's fly down to Brazil, so you can repeat that. I can legally kill you there for insulting me, you know."
Then I just smile...
Posted by: BillT at May 30, 2009 03:37 PM
Forget the "Boys From Brazil!"
I just SMILE!
Posted by: vet66 at May 30, 2009 04:07 PM
"Posted by: BillT at May 30, 2009 03:37 PM"gave my tired old carcass a good laugh!
Ya know, it must be Grim's influence on me, but I'd be willing to bet that if the Code Duello were still an acceptable means for gentlemen to resolve disputes, our society would be much more polite, if not exceedingly courteous, from G'day right on through to By your leave...
But then I'm an old southern boy, with all the baggage that entails.
Posted by: bthun at May 30, 2009 04:38 PM
The ideas are out there, but conservative politicians don't seem to be acquainted with them, for the most part.
This is what frustrates me so much. How many times during the last campaign did you find yourself screaming at the TV: "Say THIS. No, it's THAT."
McCain didn't even seem to know what the right response was most of the time. And I supported him because he was the party's nominee. But God help us, he was so worried about putting a foot wrong that he never got out front and led.
Posted by: Cassandra at May 30, 2009 07:12 PM
...it must be Grim's influence on me...
Not just Grim's influence, but his oft-repeated statement that an armed society is a polite one.
When all the residents of a certain locale are armed, there is an amazing amount of politeness prevalent, and it's not a grudging gentility, either.
Then again, it just may be that living with the possibility of an Iranian rocket dropping through your roof seems to enlighten people that behaving churlishly to someone who just might be your blood type is counterproductive...
Posted by: BillT at May 30, 2009 07:37 PM
Someone needs to make flag or a T-shirt or a bumper-sticker with that bar-graph of the deficit. Its shape is distinctive, and it's got some eye-catching colors. Once you know what it is, you'd know it anywhere.
Posted by: Jules Bernard at May 31, 2009 12:16 AM
That's a fantastic idea, Jules.
Posted by: Cassandra at May 31, 2009 08:58 AM
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 5/31/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Posted by: UNRR at May 31, 2009 09:35 AM
How many times during the last campaign did you find yourself screaming at the TV: "Say THIS. No, it's THAT."
Nearly every time a Republican opened his mouth. But then, they were trying to win the election instead of tell the truth.
Posted by: lumpy at May 31, 2009 12:43 PM
Men decide far more problems by hate, love, lust, rage, sorrow, joy, hope, fear, illusion, or some other inward emotion, than by reality, authority, any legal standard, judicial precedent, or statute.
Posted by: Drive-by Cicero at May 31, 2009 04:12 PM
Drive by Cicero:
That's a pretty sweeping indictment. Did you use reason, reality or logic in making it, or was it just some inward emotion that made you say something like that to make you feel good?
Just wondering. Bozo.
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at May 31, 2009 07:55 PM
The prosecution will refrain from addressing the previous witness via ad hominid's... ;-)
But the witness shall answer the question afore the court has to draw the judicial hog-leg!
Posted by: Judge Roy Bean at May 31, 2009 09:25 PM
There is a school of thought which says that human beings are born with a basic moral template which can be modified by experience and the influence of powerful ideas; that moral judgments more often than not come from the gut and are rationalized later by assembling a (hopefully) coherent rational argument to bolster our instinctive moral reactions.
I think there's some support for this point of view.
How do we make important decisions? Do we use our brains only, or do we have a predisposition to go with our "gut" feel about right and wrong and then consider experience, upbringing, and the moral codes we've adopted (either using them to rationalize our initial decision or even to modify or overturn it altogether)?
I think most people use both.
My first reaction to the nomination of John McCain was utter dismay. But then my brain kicked in and told me that although I didn't think McCain embodied the values I believe in Obama would be far, far worse, so I supported him.
Every situation where we accept or even support a result that disturbs us profoundly suggests that we don't always go with what our basic moral instincts tell us. We temper those feelings with other considerations. But I've also seen a lot of cases where people come down forcefully on one side or another of a moral issue and then, when asked to explain why they react that way, can't provide a rationale for their position.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 1, 2009 07:33 AM
How do we make important decisions?
It depends on how willing I am to spend the week sleeping on the couch downstairs, usually...
Posted by: Bill The Dirty Rotten Torture ApologisT at June 1, 2009 07:58 AM
"my brain kicked in and told me that although I didn't think McCain embodied the values I believe in Obama would be far, far worse, so I supported him."After it became apparent that McCain was to be the nominee, most of us fell into line for that reason. Just an application of the skill of critical thinking as a fellow who used to comment here and at Grim's Hall would so often opine. Weighing the prospects of a McCain administration against those of an Obama administration did not require much in the way of hitting each step in the CT process, the Tarot or the I Ching. At least not IMHO.
"Every situation where we accept or even support a result that disturbs us profoundly suggests that we don't always go with what our basic moral instincts tell us. We temper those feelings with other considerations. But I've also seen a lot of cases where people come down forcefully on one side or another of a moral issue and then, when asked to explain why they react that way, can't provide a rationale for their position."Weighing the possibilities often results in a decision that is not satisfying, only acceptable as the lesser of two, or a multitude, of bad possibilities.
And some folk will go through life acting without ever giving much thought to acting rationally. The thief, the murderer, the ponzi-scheme investment broker, the car-jacking thug, the drug addict. All who ought to be disturbed by their actions, unless they are sociopaths. And I can't imagine that many would be able to rationalize the choices that led to their position in life.
Fortunately, we have the much maligned court and prison systems to help the folks in my examples with their choices after they prove to be incapable.
"How do we make important decisions?Heh, When I built this little contraption for my kids almost 20 years ago, one of the considerations was that I enjoyed sleeping outdoors more than on a couch. Plus the condo upstairs had both a slide and fireman's pole exit should a quick getaway become necessary. =;^}
It depends on how willing I am to spend the week sleeping on the couch downstairs, usually..."
"Not everything that can be counted counts,
and not everything that counts can be counted.
--- Albert Einstein
Posted by: bthun at June 1, 2009 09:27 AM
It's funny. I have no idea how this works out with most couples, but whenever the Unit and I have an argument that we don't resolve before bed time, I am nearly always the one who sleeps on the sofa (or in the other bedroom).
I don't do it to punish him, or to make a point. It's just that when I'm involved in an argument, I get so upset that I can't sleep if he is in the room, and if I can't talk things out I just squirrel cage all night. If I go in the other room, I can usually put it out of my mind for a moment and go to sleep.
That is, if my stomach isn't too tied up in knots (which it often is). I envy men the ability to compartmentalize. That is very hard for me - I hate getting angry and will do almost anything to avoid it.
It takes a lot to make me to lose my temper. Consequently, once I do, I tend to get really mad and have a hard time recovering.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 1, 2009 09:34 AM
"It takes a lot to make me to lose my temper. Consequently, once I do, I tend to get really mad and have a hard time recovering."Nothing like a night under the stars to clear the ole attic. =8^}
Posted by: bthun at June 1, 2009 12:10 PM
I find that using the energy to do something constructive helps me get over being mad. Usually, I clean my house. Or do paperwork I've been putting off.
Might as well get something positive from a crappy experience.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 1, 2009 12:35 PM
Drive by Cicero:
That's a pretty sweeping indictment. Did you use reason, reality or logic in making it, or was it just some inward emotion that made you say something like that to make you feel good?
Just wondering. Bozo.
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at May 31, 2009 07:55 PM
Tribune Brouhaha, an honerable man whose very name excites a lust for riot and unrest among the populace, asks that I explain whether my observations are the result of keen intellect or the raw emotion that I indict in my remarks. And to that question I my answer must be in the unqualified affirmative.
I, Cicero (inside joke for those of you who suffered through Latin IV) do not condemn mankind, nor do I remove myself from its throng. Rather, my observations formed a particularly pointed political line of rhetoric that I aimed squrely at my enemies in the Republic that was Rome. But as I, Cicero, already have been dead for a couple of thousand years, then, dear Tribune, explain to me why such observations live on without me? If I am false, would not man have buried my foolish dictums with me long ago?
The instinct of man is at once thoughtless, vicious, selfish, lustful, and vengeful, but also loving and compassionate. We, as men, know these traits to be true (reality) so we will trade our individual liberty for order (authority) and create such predictability in our world by forming behavioral standards (law), clearly expressed (statute) and uniformly applied (judicial precedent).
It is the compssionate side of man's natural instinct, however, that makes such an order possible. Do not confuse this this compassion with empathy, however. Justice is not charity, it is restraint.
Posted by: Drive-by Cicero (AKA: Bozo) at June 1, 2009 02:05 PM
"Posted by: Drive-by Cicero (AKA: Bozo) at June 1, 2009 02:05 PM"Case dismissed!
Sheriff Antony! Release Monsieur Db Cicero.
*holsters hog-leg and turns away from crowd in saloon, er court, to wipe allergy induced damp eyes.
Posted by: Judge Roy Bean at June 1, 2009 02:22 PM
I'm just getting warmed up!
I'm CICERO, dammit!
Posted by: Drive-by Cicero (AKA: Bozo) at June 1, 2009 02:59 PM
Here's the problem. If I, as a conservative, respond to an accusation of racism with "You're full of s**t", that seems to be beyond the pale for the quivering moderates like Frum, Brooks, and Parker, even though that is as flat a dismissal of the accusation as I can imagine short of slapping them to the ground like Dolemite.
Not saying anything in response is even worse, because the meme sticks. That is what most Republcians have been doing. When accusations of racism against conservatives happen, they get very, very quiet.
One of the reasons I like Coulter and Limbaugh so much is that when a leftist pops up his warty head to hurl mud, they hit him back with a very well-placed "You're full of s**t".
Posted by: Jimmie at June 1, 2009 03:47 PM
And allow me to suggest that there are quite a few ways of saying, "You're full of sh**" without accusing your opponents of having anal poisoning or other idiotic retorts.
Sorry, but I think a confident and intelligent party ought to do better. You are positing a false set of binary choices - say nothing, or say you're full of sh**.
But you can also say, "Calling me a racist does nothing to address the point I made - it's a rhetorical stunt that say more about the accuser than the accused. But further, it's an attempt to shift the focus off the point I was trying to raise, which is..."
If you think for one moment that *liberals* are convinced by denials of racism, you might want to rethink that. If you think that *moderates* are convinced when someone gets all defensive in response to accusations of racism, you may also want to rethink this.
Sure, you find Limbaugh and Coulter convincing. You already agree with them.
The folks who agree with us aren't the folks we're trying to persuade.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 1, 2009 03:56 PM
IOW, you're judging the effectiveness of Limbaugh, Coulter et al by *your* response to them.
How much sense does assuming that people who demonstrably don't think like you, think like you make?
Posted by: Cassandra at June 1, 2009 03:57 PM
There are three things that I know:
(1) I don't know sh*t;
(2) If I did know sh*t, I wouldn't want to be asssociated with the likes of it; and,
(3) Not knowing sh*t makes hot dogs taste better
That is all.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 1, 2009 06:24 PM
And hot dogs go great with beer.
Posted by: DL Sly at June 1, 2009 07:51 PM
Please do not eat the Hostess' pet.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 2, 2009 01:57 PM
Is that like a Twinkie?
Twinkie's do not go good with beer.
Posted by: DL Sly at June 2, 2009 02:03 PM
Brownies, however, do!
Posted by: DL Sly at June 2, 2009 02:04 PM
Posted by: Homer at June 2, 2009 04:05 PM
Posted by: DL Sly at June 2, 2009 04:57 PM
So kewl! So much for "transparency and openness" as you state in your 2d post of June 2, having deleted the first post, thread and comments all (without any acknowledgement of that, to boot), and having provided no comment capability in the at-this-moment-remaining-post of June 2.
Now that all has to violate at least 3 basic "rules" of responsible blogging, not to mention common interactional candor.
Curvy and Courageous, that's Cassandra.
Posted by: transpungent at June 2, 2009 09:58 PM
Please. This is exactly the kind of crap that convinces me blogging is not worth the effort. When you start paying my bills and putting in time here, you can start telling me how to run my own site.
In the mean time, I don't work for you or anyone else.
Oh. And lighten up, Frances.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 2, 2009 10:11 PM
I tend to get wrapped around the axle over stupid stuff and then I realize it is stupid stuff. The sun will still rise, the day will come and we have to face whatever comes.
Cassie, you are the epitome of grace, reason and kindness.
As to taking offense regarding liberals, I do it alla time.
*does Hippo dance from Fantasia I*
Posted by: Cricket at June 2, 2009 10:26 PM
Having more than a couple of little computers spun up and a curious streak by nature, I found one PC that still had the entire disturbing thread cached.
"having deleted the first post, thread and comments all (without any acknowledgement of that, to boot), and having provided no comment capability in the at-this-moment-remaining-post of June 2."Yup that inability to comment on the thread is because it's in your cache. The actual thread has been removed from Cassandra's site. Her site, her option.
Anyway, after having re-read the entire thread and comments, I was unable to find the comment you reference concerning "transparency and openness". Neither could the search function of my little editor widget. Not in Cassandra's June 1st or 2nd comments. IOW your charge is adrift, context free, in the Sea of Transpungency... or as the natives call it, the drifting bitterness. Fitting nic, I suspect.
"Curvy and Courageous, that's Cassandra."After the attempts by so many to offer serious discussion on the topics in the thread, if all you can do is whine about violating the 3 basic "rules" of responsible blogging you might want to keep it to yourself. It says more about you than you apparently realize.
BTW, are you related? On the Hubris side?
Posted by: J. Edgar Hubris at June 2, 2009 11:30 PM
Oh my bad... I see the Hey thread does not allow you to sound off... Gosh...
Posted by: J. Edgar Hubris at June 2, 2009 11:32 PM
re: 'transparency'. Irony tends to be lost on the tedious.
Think about it for a while. It'll come to you, your pungentness :p
Posted by: Cassandra at June 3, 2009 05:42 AM
I was watching a gigantic cat the other evening in Sedona, AZ. At least I think it was a cat. Could have been a bobcat or lynx. In any case, he was playing with a field mouse he had caught. At least I think it was a "He" I couldn't get close enough to tell. Could have been neutered if big cats get married in the wild.
I asked myself why play with food you have already caught? The mouse would play dead then attempt to run away only to be brought back into reality. The mouse finally got away when the big tabby took his eyes off the "ball" to scratch and lick himself, which proved to me he was a male now that I think about it.
In any case, sometimes it is fun to play with your "food" before you consume it, or not. The mouse had a story to tell when he got home although I doubt mrs. mouse believed it. Hard to explain feline drool on your fur to a pissed off spouse. Still, our intrepid mouse had something to think about from his position on the mouse couch before venturing out again and dealing with the higher-up's on the food chain.
That in and of itself is worth something. Making the other side think twice is usually benefical for the dialogue.
Posted by: vet66 at June 3, 2009 09:01 AM
Look guys, to those who were participating in the discussion, I am sorry if it bothers you that I deleted the thread and ended the discussion.
But if I had it to do over again today, I would delete it again. In a heartbeat. No remorse whatsoever.
I have only one rule on this site that I enforce with any rigor: we cannot discuss anything - especially some of the topics I have raised in the past - without civility.
That thread was degenerating from the tone I like to preserve here and it needed to stop. I don't much care whether anyone agrees with me or not because this is my site and I pay the bills. I put in the time and effort to write things for the consideration of others, and I make the rules. It ain't a democracy.
We all know that some conversations get heated, but in the end we are all supposed to be friends.
If, in my opinion, something happens that threatens that, it's history. That hardly ever happens, but when I does I make no apology.
IMO, that IS "responsible blogging" - it's what makes the climate we have here possible. It's what allows even people we violently disagree with to express their opinions and be heard. It is inevitable that on those rare occasions when I finally put my tapping little foot down, sensibilities may be bruised. That is unfortunate, but it's also the consequence of maintaining standards and so far, nearly everyone has been wonderful about it. I suggest that anyone who is offended not take it personally. I deleted it just as much to keep myself from saying something I would eventually regret as I did in anticipation of other people's remarks.
Yu-Ain is one of my oldest and dearest friends. I respect him greatly. We had a difference of opinion and I've already apologized. I can't do more than that and I refuse to continue arguing over what I did or didn't say until the disagreement spreads and people start to take sides. That wasn't the point of the post.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 3, 2009 09:29 AM
It's Cass' living room and we are guests there. As Cass said, we have been friends for a very long time. While I did and still do disagree with her on that issue I have tremendous respect for her and her opinions. If my behavior has in any way, shape, or form abused that respect or the priveledge of our friendship then I am sorry and the post deserved to be trashed.
Walking into someone's living room and disrespecting the host is simply not kosher. If you can't handle it, then beat it. Most ISPs give you software that can blacklist certain websites. Then you won't have to dirty yourself by being around us.
Of if that's not clear enough: F*#k off.
Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at June 3, 2009 10:23 AM
I hold your intelligence and integrity in the very highest regard, Yu-Ain. I hope you know that.
It would upset me beyond belief if our longstanding friendship were damaged by anything I've said or done.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 3, 2009 10:28 AM
I for one am "Feeling the Love!"
Posted by: vet66 at June 3, 2009 10:41 AM
I must confess to being all tingly myself.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 3, 2009 10:48 AM
If you guys are looking for a good read, head over to Grim's place. Much food for thought.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 3, 2009 10:54 AM
No, it hasn't and I will say the same.
I won't lie to you and tell you I was not or am not angry, just as I'm sure my words have angered you.
I consider this a family fight. No one can quite piss you off like family can, but at the end of the day you are still family with all that that entails.
What REALLY hacks me off is some pissant nobody sticking his nose where it doesn't belong and acting like it's all about them. Newsflash transpungent: You ain't that G*d$mn&d important.
Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at June 3, 2009 11:15 AM
Heh... I nominate YAG for Secretary of State. Especially before "I WON" leaves on his America Apologizes - 2009 World Tour to the M.E and Europe.
Yup, I'd be willing to bet that the same individuals who suggest the topic is beaten to death or, like old drifting bitterness, think an almost witty remark about shape, courage, openness, transparency and responsibility would not be willing to make the same comments in a living room. Doing so in the wrong living room might result in their landing on their arse in the yard.
But then anonymous commenting on blogs does not carry the same rules of decorum that are present when you might have to answer for your commentary nose to nose. And I for one appreciate places like VC and Grim's Hall where contention among ideas and opinions is expected, but civility is the norm.
If I want bluster, bravado and bare knuckles I can go to the bar with the sawdust floor just down the road.
Posted by: bthun at June 3, 2009 11:20 AM
Ok, but you're buying.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 3, 2009 01:04 PM
Ok. I'll even pack the bandages and wear the Red Cross vest. =8^}
And if we get outta the bar without needing splits, we can visit a great little Bar-B-Que joint up the road with, you guessed it, a sawdust floor.
Posted by: bthun at June 3, 2009 02:15 PM
Maybe I've got other plans.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 3, 2009 02:32 PM
Heh, I meant spliNts. At least I think I did...
At the time I commented I was catching up with the commentary on that piece of trash posted at Playboy the other day... The *ahem* notorious top ten conservative women <I suspect that everyone knows the rest> list.
My iddy biddy mind goes in to a sort of thrash mode when I read such hateful nonsense. I try to imagine the sort of person who thinks that's acceptable and funny, but can't.
And then to see a woman on Politico publish an Oh this is funny link to the trash.
It's actually amazing that I only omitted one character after reading that drek.
Posted by: bthun at June 3, 2009 03:05 PM
Yeah, buddy, whatever.
We're cool so long as your buying.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 3, 2009 03:51 PM
Posted by: Cricket at June 3, 2009 05:01 PM
Nice effort to hide your racist, rich loving, war mongering ways. Oooh, look, we have ideas - more bombs for dark skinned peoples, more deficits so the rich can live easier, more poor people go to die in wars for gas guzzling car companies that are now bankrupt, fewer constitutional rights such as high school sex parties with free condoms as well. Funny thing is you all suck your life force from the government like the rest of us. Actually, you just suck.
Posted by: Bliss Goode at June 3, 2009 05:03 PM
Yeah spd... I've got the beer tab covered. But the BBQ is dutch.
Hey, did anyone get the license number of that runaway diatribe that just went past?
Posted by: bthun at June 3, 2009 05:11 PM
Excuse me, Mr. Troll, but I need to go off-topic here. Has anyone noticed that the last couple of times I posted recently, those threads were immediately yanked? Now Cass is leaving again. Dang, I guess I really AM the fly in the ointment here. No worries, Cass. I will leave permanently so as not to disrupt the feng shui of this site. You can come back now.
Posted by: a former european at June 3, 2009 05:17 PM
Ease back on the stick a bit, afe.
Sometimes, my friend, it isn't all about us.
Note to Bliss Goode:
Grow up, or you'll never get laid.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 3, 2009 05:49 PM
Women don't get "laid" oh vowelless one. Seriously, how could a conservative think Bliss is a male name? Men, especially conservative men, are all about conflict and war. The very concept of my name eludes them.
Posted by: Bliss Goode at June 3, 2009 05:54 PM
So you're female. Whatever. Find your bliss. Be your bliss. Spread your bliss. Revel in your bliss. But either advance a cogent argument or stay home in your goodely blissfullness.
I have a strong suspicion that the world will not take notice of your opinions in either regard.
But I'm curious: How does a woman see herself in the mirror when she is ugly online?
Posted by: spd rdr at June 3, 2009 06:07 PM
Men, especially conservative men, are all about conflict and war. The very concept of [bliss] eludes them.
Nah, conflict and war interfere with the bliss of getting laid.
Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at June 3, 2009 06:23 PM
Women don't get laid? Whoa!
So can we assume that as a result of your knowing all there is to know about the racist, rich loving, war mongering, bombers of peoples of color, authoritarian masters who force poor people to volunteer for the military, supporters of Big Oil and Auto Exec's, suppressors of the Constitution and cheerleaders for deficit government spending, regulars who queue up to derive their over abundance of succor from the government teat and coincidentally comment at VC, men and particularly conservative men, eHarmony hasn't happened for ya?
Does that about sum it up?
Posted by: bthun at June 3, 2009 06:59 PM
Whoa, and I thought He Who Shall Not Be Named, the coiner of "The Ayn Rand Worshiping Chinese toy loving minions of the richest 1 percent could string together a long list of invectives.
The Vietnamese hairy fruit was just an amateur.
Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at June 3, 2009 07:54 PM
*overwhelmed by such praise, all the antiquated Hun can do is bow*
Posted by: bthun at June 3, 2009 08:06 PM
Her Bliss must be self-inflicted...
Posted by: Bad Cricket at June 3, 2009 08:25 PM
Why did conservatives oppose a black man running for President? A Latina for Supreme Court? Abortion for the poor so they might have a chance to avoid being poor by staying in school? Because they hate minorities, foreigners and women, except for those that have sold out and kiss their rear and caddy for them at their golf club outings. You live in a mean mean world. Excuse me for seeking Bliss for everyone - well, except for your wives who must live with your misogynistic and cheating (in business and marriage) lifestyles.
Posted by: Bliss Goode at June 3, 2009 08:50 PM
It is your ginormous codpiece again. It intimidates poor, helpless women like myself. You understand the difficulty, I'm sure :p
Posted by: Cassandra at June 3, 2009 10:02 PM
Stop embaraassing yourself, Bliss. You're a fraud. Your're not even a woman, but a man doing a poor impersonation of what he thinks a woman might be.
You are a useless fricken dip.
I've put four daughters through college. You don't think think that I the cadence of a woman's voice? You would make me believe that you are offended? Screw you. You suck. Now go back to playing video games in your parent's basement in Irvine. Maybe you should take a day or two off to find yourself.
But here's a hint: You ain't gonna find your soul between your legs.
Now piss off, and don't come back.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 3, 2009 10:04 PM
Maybe afe's codpiece will scare her away.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 3, 2009 10:13 PM
You can not possibly be serious in that you do not understand your own question? Why did conservatives oppose a black man running for the office of the Presidency? Could it have possibly been due to the fact that he had the most liberal voting record, when he voted other than present, of all his peers? *shakes head and re-reads the part of the rant concerning abortions and education*
Your sweeping, clairvoyant condemnations of people you know nothing about places you in the unique position of not only sounding like a spiteful, envious, person whose only hope for achievement rests upon having the government take from others, but also one who does not have the slightest clue that there is something askew with that proposition if it is carried to its inevitable conclusion.
Attempting to explain a conservative view of Judge Sotomayor or trying to converse on any of your other insights, again it must be based upon your supernatural clairvoyance, would be a waste of time and energy.
But do have to admit, it has been entertaining, if little else.
Take two doses of DelusionsBGone™ and call someone who will listen to you in the morning.
Posted by: bthun at June 3, 2009 10:15 PM
Or what MR. Rdr suggested.
Posted by: bthun at June 3, 2009 10:15 PM
Good nite, gentlemen. The blog princess is too tired to rise to the bait tonight :)
Love you guys.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 3, 2009 10:22 PM
Just fishing for minnows with dynamite M'lady... no biggie.
Short-timers calendar for the Congress says, 516 days and a wakeup until election day, 2010.
Posted by: bthun at June 3, 2009 10:26 PM
Posted by: spd rdr at June 3, 2009 10:36 PM
Tsk tsk. For those of you who bothered to read Cassandra's column above, the theme, in her words, was this: Every minute spent rebutting ad hominem attacks is a minute the American people focus on our opponents' message instead of ours. And what we hear often stays with us.
Were you listening? My work here is done.
Now if you will excuse me, I am off to lay my head on my abused bird feathers pillow in my huge, high carbon coal plant powered, natural gas burning, old growth wood constructed, pesticide using, air conditioned, high carbon footprinted and enjoying the benefits of air conditioning Mother Earth hating home.
Posted by: Bliss Goode at June 4, 2009 01:05 AM
OF COURSE! How could I have forgotten the effects of my ginormous codpiece (smacks self in head without using either hand)! Best 30 bucks I ever spent at the local Renaissance Faire.
Posted by: a former european at June 4, 2009 01:25 AM
Your ginormous codpiece works its way into so many discussions, afe. Sort of a cultural metaphor for the 21st century -- an archetype, as it were...
Posted by: Cassandra at June 4, 2009 03:21 AM
Codpiece. Staying on message.
Posted by: Bliss Goode at June 4, 2009 09:25 AM
Hey Bliss, lately, I have nothing but spare time on my hands and not being anyone of note, especially in political circles, I do not have to stay on message.
Also I've been known to not listen or obey very well, especially when something shiny like your provocative statements flash past.
So sue me.
Posted by: bthun at June 4, 2009 09:48 AM
You also missunderstand.
You aren't serious and so therefor there is no serious message for us to 'stay on'.
You're just a bit of fun fluff and so we are having fun toying with you.
Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at June 4, 2009 10:05 AM
Years ago - a very long time now - I remember Scott Ott explaining why he tolerated commenters like He Who Must Never Be Named (aka, the Hairy Fruit).
He said that trolls are annoying, but they also wake everyone up and make things lively. It's a balancing act between allowing trolls to throw out challenges (lest we find ourselves engaged in some kind of endless circle jerk) and allowing things to degenerate into a free for all where everyone gets so angry that hurtful things begin to be said on both sides and the intelligent exchange of views ceases.
That is the standard I've tried to uphold here, not always successfully. I suppose I apply a standard someone like the balancing tests for obscenity - I try to look at whether, taken on the whole, a particular commenter is engaging in serious conversation or just revving up the aggravation and pissing people off for the delight of being hurtful. When I feel like that line has been irretrievably crossed (and it's not always easy to tell), I ban them.
I think it says a fair amount that in 5 years, I've banned fewer than 10 commenters, and only after repeated warnings. Certainly far more have shown up here and broken the civility rules, as many of us have at times.
But I look at their contributions holistically. I am also more lenient towards people who regularly contribute here so long as they acknowledge the standard and strive to abide by it most of the time. I'm not into zero tolerance rules on profanity or civility - by that standard I would have banned myself long ago.
But I do think it's important that in a world that is largely abandoning standards of any kind, to set one here, however imperfectly it may be carried out due to the flawed nature of the hostess.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 4, 2009 10:21 AM
I can has chew toy?
Ginormous codpiece: Do not want!
*trots off wagging tail*
Posted by: lolgoggie at June 4, 2009 10:37 AM
Civility is good, and I dare say that I and most of the Villains round he'ah try to give as good as is received. But if Bliss thought that I took he/she/it's remarks as material for serious discussion, I really have some work to do on the delivery and quality of my sarcasm.
Posted by: bthun at June 4, 2009 10:40 AM
If Bliss is *female*, then I am Perez Hilton.
Obama is a socialist. No one cares about the color of his skin, only the content of his politics.
Hence, he got elected by the liberals who are now waking up the morning after.
The Latina legislates from the bench. She disregards the law in order to make law.
We have a system of checks and balances for making laws and the judiciary isn't supposed to run roughshod over it.
Substantial reasons: It makes for great debate. Feelings, not so much.
Posted by: Cricket at June 4, 2009 10:42 AM
I may be mixing metaphors here, but trolls can be fun because like the recent teenie-bopper Vampires, sometimes we like to play with our food.
Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at June 4, 2009 10:53 AM
I'll be good.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 4, 2009 01:54 PM
We get to play 'Whack-A-Troll?'
Posted by: Cricket at June 4, 2009 02:06 PM
Nah, Cricket. We get to play nice.
I'm sure that I can do it, but not without your help.
BTW, the whole "codpiece" dialog has permanently scarred my inner child.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 4, 2009 02:48 PM
Yeah, it has been seared, SEARED, I tell you, into my memory.
Does your inner child need counseling? Mine is having a tantrum and thinking that I might have to use garlic and wolfsbane on my text.
The Accounting Gnomes tell us how to resolve Petty Cash conflicts, but never tell us HOW to get Petty Cash back up to the original amount.
I think I will have to skip to the back of the text to see the surprise ending.
Posted by: Cricket at June 4, 2009 03:18 PM
Between the cod piece commentary and when Lady Cricket mentioned
"Her Bliss must be self-inflicted...I said to myself, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Yet the worrying thoughts persist...
The setting is the halls of the U.S. Congress: We are accompanying a CSPAN crew towards the Speaker's office as a reporter is speaking to the camera in hushed tones. The topic seems to be, "There is nothing wrong with that". The reporter's voice become audible just now the CSPAN camera crew enters the speaker's inner office unannounced:It was was a dark and stormy night..."Unlessssss you happen to toss all discretion to the wind whilst behind your desk in your Congressional office with an expression of rapt concentration on your face".
Later in the CSPAN coverage it is revealed that the speaker was engaged in a telephone conversation with this fellow at the time. The reporter remarks,"Come to think of it, his expression is a little strange, almost cross-eyed and distant… HEY! NO WAY!"
and I wake up in from a deep sleep in a cold sweat, having just experienced what must be the worst nightmare I've ever had.
Posted by: Lowerd E. G. E. L. Bulwer-Lytton at June 4, 2009 03:33 PM
The kind of storm you just knew had to be the result of global warming. This type of storm just didn't happen when you were a kid, what with its lightning and darkness. Your flesh eating neighbor that came home one weekend with a deer strapped to his SUV was no doubt adding his carbon footprint to the tipping point of weather catastrophe. You decided he had to be punished for his crimes. And when you found him, spd would wish . . . .
Posted by: Bliss Goode at June 4, 2009 04:05 PM
spd would wish . . . .
That you'd stay on your medication and stop pestering the rest of us.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 4, 2009 05:48 PM
This type of storm just didn't happen when you were a kid, what with its lightning and darkness. Your flesh eating neighbor that came home one weekend with a deer strapped to his SUV was no doubt adding his carbon footprint to the tipping point of weather catastrophe.
*rolling eyes theatrically* :p
Posted by: Cassandra at June 4, 2009 05:58 PM
It was a dark and stormy night. The kind of night with the type of storm just didn't happen when you were a kid. Its lightning flashed and its terrible thunder rolled through your personal darkness. And You had to pee, but you dared not because your flesh eating neighbor had just come home with a deer strapped to his SUV, and you knew that he's sooon be wandering through the neighborhood for fresh meat. Shivering in your now-wet bed, a small thought began to wriggle its way through your fears and into your frontal lobe - from where the rational you, or what's left of it - bubbles through all of your dreams separating the nightmarish fears from the drug-induced thrills so often found as YouTube confessions. At that moment, you knew - as clear a azure in a summer sky - there was no doubt that your flesh-eating neighbor was adding his carbon footprint to the tipping point of weather catastrophe. And it was, finally, at last, and ultimately up to you to do something in the morning.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 4, 2009 06:23 PM
Spd's opening makes me think we need a story-time post to hold us through the weekend. :-)
Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at June 4, 2009 06:39 PM
The TV screen glowed evilly in the darkness as a bloated political has-been bloviated into the still, inky void. Snidely, you pondered the random permutations of chaos theory. Wasn't it ironic that Al (It Snows Wherever He Goes) Bore's lips, flapping dire prognostications of doom on Capitol Hill, were creating infinitesmal variations to the initial state of our dynamic Multiverse? And worse, these minute ripples would continue to expand until - in the fullness of time - they manifested themselves as the very tornadoes, hurricanes, and freak storms Bore was (at this very moment!) citing as Inconvenient Truthiness?
Just then, you felt the sharp sting of your flesh eating neighbor's incisors neatly parting the tender flesh of your right leg.
(*&^ ankle biter.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 4, 2009 06:41 PM
...no wait! It wasn't your knuckle dragging, snake handling Jebus freak of a neighbor after all.
It was the family Dalmation, Lady Macbeth.
"Out Spot... DAMMIT!", you exclaimed dramatically.
"Out, I say!"
Posted by: Cassandra at June 4, 2009 06:45 PM
T'was not Lowerd E. G. E. L. Bulwer-Lytton's neighbor, t'was I, Harry...And not a mere SUV, but a Land Rover.
The deer carcass was concealed in the aft section of the vehicle under a tarp. A small consideration so as not to offend the sensibilities of the more delicate members of society. Those gentle folk who think meat is cultured in a vat and processed under strict Disney approved supervision which entails moving it from the vat to the shrink-wrapped styrofoam packaging displayed in the market.
This operation is believed to take place under the most humane and environmentally aware of conditions. BWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! *coughs* Haarump...
Which reminds... I have a noble war steed in need of a new home. Excellent confirmation, good teeth, albeit a might long in the ear, but excellent transport qualities. That is if you would like to eschew petroleum based transport, eh Bliss?
What is this global warming of which you speak? Are we entering into the topic of bovine flatulence yet again? Or perhaps Bliss-fullofit rhetoric? Eh what?
By the bye, neither vat operators nor styrofoam packers were harmed in the preparation of this comment.
Posted by: Gen. Sir Harry Flashman III at June 4, 2009 06:51 PM
Bliss Goode, certified sex therapist, slithered out of her hybrid, environmentally responsible transport (being careful to tread lightly on Mother Gaia lest an inadvertent misstep consign yet another protozoan or microbe to an untimely demise). Her hip high go-go boots were cruelty free Pleather.
Red, precisely. The color drove those sexist pigs made with desire. Which she made it her business to thwart, all the while giving the appearance of availability.
Men were such idiots. It was a good thing she was so open minded and tolerant.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 4, 2009 06:56 PM
The mainstream media wouldn’t do it. So we are trying to get your important messages to the American people. 39 This post is a suggested read at, http://aresay.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Aresay at June 4, 2009 06:59 PM
*after processing the ungulate and removing his butcher's apron, Harry wondered if the Lawn Chica would appear in his dreams tonight instead of that wretched House Speaker and the Frank dream that the dolt, Bulwer-Lytton, had spoken of, as if sharing a terrible confession to a priest*
Posted by: Gen. Sir Harry Flashman III at June 4, 2009 07:04 PM
The unremitting horror, fear, trepidation, insensitivity, possible gender harrassment and confusion, not to mention near-bursting kidneys, passed fitfully over eight years until one mid-afternoon in between "The Young and the Restless" and Ophra, a light appeared from yonder window. "Hark!" you say, coughing up the poisonous phlegm of personal failure and class envy, "What light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Obama is the sun.
Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
Who is already sick and pale with grief
That thou, her um... something, art far more fair than she. And that is not an energy efficient lightbulb!"
Posted by: spd rdr at June 4, 2009 07:37 PM
At the Climate Project House (funded by General Electric):
Dire prognostications of environmental doom?!
That will ask some tears in the true performing of it:
if I do it, let the audience look to their eyes;
I will move storms, I will cajole in some measure. To the rest:
yet my chief humour is for a tyrant, GE:
*winks towards the Czar of the Cool the Earth education Ministry*
I could play Ercles always, or a part to tear a coal plant in,
to make all atoms split... nae!
The raging carbon-credit blocks
And shivering market stocks
Shall break the locks
Of bank accounts;
And Hybrid' car
Shall shine from far
And make and mar
The foolish ECO Investors Fates!
Ca, ca, carbon-credits:
Ca, ca, Ca-ching!
Posted by: Aux Gored at June 4, 2009 09:01 PM
You are both certifiably insane :p
Posted by: Cassandra at June 4, 2009 09:11 PM
Crazy people have an excuse.
I have an attitude.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 4, 2009 09:31 PM
Incorrigible is more like it :p
Posted by: Cassandra at June 4, 2009 09:32 PM
Sanity comes and sanity goes, but I have to know, does my over-stuffed carbon-free money-belt make me look fat? =;^}
Posted by: Aux Gored at June 4, 2009 09:44 PM
"sexist pigs made with desire."
I guess so! They 'made' with desire?
Posted by: Cricket at June 4, 2009 10:43 PM
Incorrigible is a label that I wore, proudly or otherwise, between the age of 13 and 21. Afer great personal effort I have reformed, and am now considered a marginally corrigible/possible fundraiser under the admissions standards of the Knights of Columbus. Unfortunatly, at some point during my reeducation process I became either flamable or inflamable, I can't remember which, so pardon me if I seem a bit confused just before your house burns to the ground.
Otherwise, we're on target to exit bankruptcy in 30 days and to return a leaner, more focused General Motors to teh American public.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 4, 2009 10:55 PM
GM, the lean green government-approved driving machine. I am quivering with anticipation.
Algore is getting a tingle.
I can't imagine what other liberals are doing.
Maybe dating Bliss, hoping to find rapture.
Posted by: Cricket at June 5, 2009 07:35 AM
Meanwhile, in Corporate America's executive offices a common refrain is being heard:
Due to a stalled economy and rapidly mounting government debt, the numbers on our balance sheet indicate that we must terminate another 6% of our labor force! At least the rapid decline in the economy is ending *was whispered to nods all around while the board members whistled past the unemployment figures graveyard.
Higher corporate taxes!
Taxing off-shore income!
Federal oversight and capping of salary and bonus actions!
The Fed's becoming majority share holders in our corporations!
Posted by: Sotto Voce at June 5, 2009 11:34 AM
Da, is please to sending "Global Warmings" to Oleg. Every day Oleg and fellow Party-approved progressives and forward thinkers at vanguard of People's Revolution are standings in Derzhinsky Square in North Sverdlovsk and releasing spray cans of chlorofluorocarbons into sky of Motherland.
Prayings are we to Great Collective Utopia that we suffer the "Global Warmings". Offered we many beet slices to People's Champion, Algore, to teach us how to destroy ozone faster but too busy was he destroying ozone in his own Aeroflot jet. (sigh) Great Ones of Party are endlessly toiling for social enlightenment of workers and peasants.
-- Comrade Oleg
Posted by: a former european at June 5, 2009 12:30 PM
And here am I, grounded.
Posted by: spd rdr at June 5, 2009 02:51 PM
You went to see 'Up,' didn't you?
Posted by: Cricket at June 5, 2009 04:32 PM
Posted by: Bliss Goode at June 5, 2009 07:32 PM
I think Ms. Bliss is pulling your collective legs, readers. Check out http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/may/01/goode-family-cartoon
Posted by: I Call BS at June 5, 2009 09:24 PM
You think? :)
Posted by: Cassandra at June 5, 2009 11:17 PM
Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?
Posted by: McSquizzy at June 6, 2009 01:16 AM
"Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?"Suppose it depends on what you're packin', cream pies, rocks, or live rounds.
While we're on that thought, remember them...
Posted by: Bluto Blutarsky at June 6, 2009 07:54 AM
This is interesting Highly
recommend this read because it isn’t being discussed anywhere I have
been reading about the Cairo Speech. When Did Obama become Spokesman in
Chief for Islam, where is that in the Job description of the United
States of America President?
When did it become his DUTY to knock down negative attacks on Islam? Somebody dust off the constitution the ACTING President needs to have it read to him...maybe someone could load the U.S. Constitution into TOTUS?
Posted by: Ree at June 6, 2009 11:39 AM
Nuts and Acorns.
Posted by: McSquizzy at June 6, 2009 12:38 PM
No More Apologies.
Posted by: Ree at June 7, 2009 10:25 AM