Wisconsin native.
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."--GKC
"Liberalism is the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal" --G K Chesterton
"The only objective of Liberty is Life" --G K Chesterton
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Sorry, Mom, "beyond tasteless" is a ridiculous characterization. The only criticism to be honestly made is that the producers of the commercial were not thinking about the juxtaposition of airplanes and a skyline. It is quite plain that there was no attempt to associate any point in the commercial with 9/11 or corporations to terrorists.
You're kidding right? What rock do these mental giants have to have been living under for 10 years to not associate a low-flying airplane over the New York skyline with 9/11 - 3 days before the anniversary.
No. It was to intentionally create a visceral negative reaction to the Republican candidate. You know - the terrorism angle. The Democrats and the left have been using that analogy for years...
Open Left - Republicans are terrorists Kos - the entire book American Taliban Joe Biden - Republicans "acted like terrorists" in the debt ceiling debate.
And while it was certainly most entertaining, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the Senate Republicans are trying to terrorize the American people, and that this makes them, quite literally, terrorists.
Of course this is nothing new on their part. But previously there's always been at least some element of plausible deniability involved. They could point to some sort of policy argument, no matter how lame. Now, that's gone. With the absurdity of the premise totally exposed, this is nothing left but the naked attempt to terrorize America.
That's what the GOP has finally become: America's largest terrorist organization.
Eat your heart out, KKK.
Fine - split hairs over Biden, but it was very clear that many sitting US Senators and Representatives use the "terrorist" meme in the past several weeks.
As far as comparing conservatives to the taliban... if you buy into that, you aren't even worth talking to. I just ask you this. Where is the left's precious "feminist" organizations denouncing the treatment of women under the taliban and other oppressive muslim regimes? Cue the crickets.
Well heck, how about the President of the United States of America fraternizing with a known, unrepentent, terrorist who only wishes his organization had bombed more buildings and killed more innocent American citizens? Ayers.
The Democrats weren't going to talk about death panels, they were too busy creating it in the form of the Orwellian "Independent Payment Advisory Board" - the 15-bureaucrat panel that will decide how much to ration - er, spend - for healthcare.
From the NYT: "Under the law, spending cuts recommended by the presidentially appointed panel would take effect automatically unless Congress voted to block or change them. In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board’s recommendations. The impact of the board’s decisions could be magnified because private insurers often use Medicare rates as a guide or a benchmark in paying doctors, hospitals and other providers. "
Hmm... an unelected panel, with limited Congressional and zero judicial oversight.
From one of neomom's sources..."Now this event would accurately be called a "protest" if it were taking place at, say, a bank or the U.S. Capitol. But when hundreds of loud and angry strangers are descending on your family, your children, and your home, a more apt description of this assemblage would be "mob." Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise, and it worked-even on the police. A trio of officers who belatedly answered our calls confessed a fear that arrests might "incite" these trespassers."
Seems to me, this same description was used by the British toward the colonists and by Carnegie, Vanderbilt, et al. toward their workers when their livelihood was under assault. Of course, we are taught to believe those past intentions were "noble" and "justified" compared to the "culture of fear and intimidation" supposedly inherent in today's labor unions.
The links that neomom provided only provides ONE side of the story, that of the reaction by SOME labor union members. In the case of the longshoremen, I provided the appropriate CONTEXT...
Even IF the generalization that neomom, Dad29, and company held true that unions = thugs, they are simply heeding the advice of that infamous mantra "Buy More Ammo" that conservatives ought to employ. And yet, somehow, labor unions are the ones pigeoned as being "absolutely far left" and castigated for putting that (radical) theory into practice.
Again, neomom, please answer this question--What is the difference between the rhetoric of Hoffa vs. the rhetoric of Tea Party activists?
At least David had the courage to respond.
Dad29--Actually, the phenomenon is called confirmation bias. And those on the right are equally up to the task. Must be wearing heavy duty partisan goggles...yet again!
neomom--Where is the left's precious "feminist" organizations denouncing the treatment of women under the taliban and other oppressive muslim regimes? Cue the crickets.
Great question. Here is a complex answer to that question...
www.sullivan-county.com/x/horowitz3.htm
Money Quote--"If you go to the websites of major women's groups, such as the National Organization for Women, the Ms. Foundation for Women, and the National Council for Research on Women, or to women's centers at our major colleges and universities, you'll find them caught up with entirely other issues, seldom mentioning women in Islam. During the 1980s, there were massive demonstrations on American campuses against racial apartheid in South Africa. There is no remotely comparable movement on today's campuses against the gender apartheid prevalent in large parts of the world.
It is not that American feminists are indifferent to the predicament of Muslim women. Nor do they completely ignore it. For a brief period before September 11, 2001, many women's groups protested the brutalities of the Taliban. But they have never organized a full-scale mobilization against gender oppression in the Muslim world. The condition of Muslim women may be the most pressing women's issue of our age, but for many contemporary American feminists it is not a high priority. Why not?"
Money Quote-..."But American feminists and Muslim women seem as estranged as ever. On an institutional level, their relations remain plagued by stereotypes and mutual suspicion. Their dominant worldviews—one secular, the other faith-based—seem irreconcilable. “When the Taliban were overthrown, the attitude was ‘Now you’ve been liberated by us, we expect you to take off the veil and become like us. Throw off Islam,’” says Pakistan-born Riffat Hassan, a professor of religious studies at the University of Louisville in Kentucky and a women’s rights activist. “There is an imperialist vein in American feminism. I see that clearly at times.”
So your saying Reagan socially engaged with and "admired" a terrorist who was a self confessed killer of American's who wished he could have killed more?
The only thing that represents "total hypocrisy" is the left.
At least you did not blame Bush, a small step forward for you leftists.
Even IF the generalization that neomom, Dad29, and company held true that unions = thugs
Well, to be fair, Trumka's record at the UMW is.....thuggery. Hoffa's old man's record is.....thuggery, along with Mob-relations. I know from personal testimony that the Hodcarriers used.....thuggery....to organize.
The SEIU's record is not classic 'thuggery.' Instead, it's intimidation and vote-theft.
The IBEW/Verizon folks are on record as advocating violence and......thuggery.
The Longshoremen have used.......thuggery.....to gain their contracts and keep them.
These are not George Meany's unions any more.
Mind you: the people who are on record, in the recent past, advocating or carrying out thuggery are the union leadership gang.
I know that my UPS Teamster delivery guy is a good guy; he wouldn't engage in this crap.
Citing Reagan in a discussion about current events of 2011. Why not just stomp your feet and hurl personal attacks. Both actions signal your progress in proving your point without anything to back it up.
"Well heck, how about the President of the United States of America fraternizing with a known, unrepentent, terrorist who only wishes his organization had bombed more buildings and killed more innocent American citizens? Ayers."
You forgot about presidents allowing terrorist attacks to occur to further their perverted agenda, Dave.
Dad29--"I know that my UPS Teamster delivery guy is a good guy; he wouldn't engage in this crap. But his leaders...?"
Now we have a conscience? The UPS Teamster is suddenly a "good guy"? Why, because he won't complain if management dictates everything because that is the way of the "free market"?
Just do us a favor and put on the big boy pants by making the distinction that the LEADERSHIP of SOME unions prefer the methods of your vaunted mantra "Buy More Ammo", rather than generalizing that unions (and their members) are toxic entities which should be put out of their misery.
David--"So your saying Reagan socially engaged with and "admired" a terrorist who was a self confessed killer of American's who wished he could have killed more?"
Reagan did more than "socially engage" with a terrorist...he enabled his administration to make ILLEGAL DEALS with them!
Just quit while your behind, you're embarrassing yourself.
David/TerryN--My point is absolutely relevant, especially today! Our leaders, past and present, have associated with people they promised they would never be "in bed with". It's easy for the right and the left to point the finger at how bad is the other guy/girl for the "shady characters" they know, yet completely discount when one of their own also hangs out with "the wrong crowd".
Case in point--Weaselzippers. Dad29 regularly links to it. "Humans" there relish in "praying for the murder of muzzies" and "bashing the skulls of union goons". Is this the type of people a good Christian sort wants to be associated with?
So, if people want to dig up the past about Obama's pals, great! Just be the adult and admit when it is CORRECTLY pointed out that one of the right's most beloved figures also had questionable "friends"...like those willing to set aside the rule of law in the name of "national security".
Ayers and Reagan are one and the same...one physically killed, the other willingly murdered the Constitution. No difference in my book!
Too bad Reagan didn't practice what he preached...
"These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland...They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."--Labor Day Address at Liberty State Park, 1980
Anony 12:18. You are a pathetic waste of genetic material. You are so blinded by your ideology that you are not capable of understanding the most basic levels of reasonable discourse.
There are differences in this world. There are levels. There are shades of grey.
Of course you are incapable of that. You want to protect your ideology at all costs. Fine. Be the truther version of a democrat.
My apologies for, you know, having a life - that "mom" portion of my moniker is accurate - and not immediately responding to your idiocy.
As far as the Hoffa v the Tea Party rhetoric? It wasn't the Tea Party tut-tutting everyone last January about their tone and accusing Sarah Palin and the rest of us of attempted murder - both before the shooter was known, and after it was discovered he was an apolitical undiagnosed schizophrenic who had been stalking the Congresswoman for years.
If you want to ignore all the actual evidence of real thuggery by the unions and the left in the past year. Well, they say ignorance IS bliss isn't it.
Your now multiple references to some conspiracy theory that GWB knew of the 9/11 attacks before they happened and let them happen anyway makes you simply bat-shit crazy. The alleged smoking gun PDB wasn't an instruction manual of what Bin Laden was planning - certainly not using commercial airliners as WMDs.....
And I thought (most) conservatives were all about "right vs. wrong", compared to them libruls who repeatedly lower the morality bar!
neo-mom--Sorry to burst your bubble, but the 11:55 p.m. is NOT me. I am NOT a 911 conspiracy nut.
If you read my posts carefully, I am acknowledging that there are instances on the left where they are taking matters into their own hands, and that's wrong. No ignorance on my part. But I'm not buying --and neither are a number of moderates/conservatives--into the partisan b.s. generalization that unions = thugs.
And regarding "self-righteousness", are you not demonstrating that conduct with your own post?
David, it is MY CHOICE that I do not put my name on my posts, just as Dad29 decides not to provide his name. And if you want to make assumptions, go right ahead. But you can tell the difference between my posts and the other anony's here because I put thought into my positions.
Fair enough, David. Call me a "truther" all you want. My positions will still have merit, based on evidence and explanation, regardless if I give my name.
I will not listen to any argument made by a white supremacist because his very vile nature precludes the common respect needed in a conversation. The same goes for truthers like you.
I thought it was a little strange, but I don't know why it would be considered tasteless.
ReplyDeleteNow if a Democrat did the exact same thing, THAT would be considered tasteless, I'm sure.
No - having a Democrat do a respectful rememberence would not be tasteless.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this Dem ad is beyond tasteless...
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/09/3282998/three-days-911-dccc-runs-bob-turner-rich-ad-showing-plane-buzzing-ma
Sorry, Mom, "beyond tasteless" is a ridiculous characterization. The only criticism to be honestly made is that the producers of the commercial were not thinking about the juxtaposition of airplanes and a skyline. It is quite plain that there was no attempt to associate any point in the commercial with 9/11 or corporations to terrorists.
ReplyDeleteYou're kidding right? What rock do these mental giants have to have been living under for 10 years to not associate a low-flying airplane over the New York skyline with 9/11 - 3 days before the anniversary.
ReplyDeleteNo. It was to intentionally create a visceral negative reaction to the Republican candidate. You know - the terrorism angle. The Democrats and the left have been using that analogy for years...
Open Left - Republicans are terrorists
Kos - the entire book American Taliban
Joe Biden - Republicans "acted like terrorists" in the debt ceiling debate.
Talking about "creating a visceral negative reaction"...
ReplyDeleteneomom, you mean just like how some on the right insist that unions = thugs?
Unions/thugs... if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/17/union-organizer-suspected-of-shooting-non-union-ohio-employer/
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/28809030/detail.html
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/19/news/companies/SEIU_Bank_of_America_protest.fortune/index.htm
So many examples... so little time.
Open Left: Is that an organization? I'd like to see a quote that says Republicans are terrorists.
ReplyDeleteKos: In context, perfectly true. The book does not equate Republicans to Taliban, just specific groups.
Biden: Not conclusive that he said that, but again, perfectly apt comparison.
You want a quote - here you go...
ReplyDeletehttp://openleft.com/diary/13234/republicans-are-terrorists
And while it was certainly most entertaining, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the Senate Republicans are trying to terrorize the American people, and that this makes them, quite literally, terrorists.
Of course this is nothing new on their part. But previously there's always been at least some element of plausible deniability involved. They could point to some sort of policy argument, no matter how lame. Now, that's gone. With the absurdity of the premise totally exposed, this is nothing left but the naked attempt to terrorize America.
That's what the GOP has finally become: America's largest terrorist organization.
Eat your heart out, KKK.
Fine - split hairs over Biden, but it was very clear that many sitting US Senators and Representatives use the "terrorist" meme in the past several weeks.
As far as comparing conservatives to the taliban... if you buy into that, you aren't even worth talking to. I just ask you this. Where is the left's precious "feminist" organizations denouncing the treatment of women under the taliban and other oppressive muslim regimes? Cue the crickets.
The irony is that the Democrats have been terrorizing senior citizens for YEARS over "making granny eat cat food" and "taking away her wheelchair."
ReplyDeleteReality: the Democrats are now, and always have been, the party of terrorizing.
The phenomenon is called "projection."
Thanks for informing me about OpenLeft. They are so powerful and mainstream Democrats that I've never heard of them before.
ReplyDeleteFortunately we have NewsMax to Google "republicans" and "terrorist" to find a match.
Anyway, thanks.
BTW, regarding "terrorizing senior citizens", I don't think it was Democrats talking about "death panels" in 2009.
Well heck, how about the President of the United States of America fraternizing with a known, unrepentent, terrorist who only wishes his organization had bombed more buildings and killed more innocent American citizens? Ayers.
ReplyDeleteDavid
The Democrats weren't going to talk about death panels, they were too busy creating it in the form of the Orwellian "Independent Payment Advisory Board" - the 15-bureaucrat panel that will decide how much to ration - er, spend - for healthcare.
ReplyDeleteFrom the NYT: "Under the law, spending cuts recommended by the presidentially appointed panel would take effect automatically unless Congress voted to block or change them. In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board’s recommendations. The impact of the board’s decisions could be magnified because private insurers often use Medicare rates as a guide or a benchmark in paying doctors, hospitals and other providers. "
Hmm... an unelected panel, with limited Congressional and zero judicial oversight.
Death Panel sounds about right.
From one of neomom's sources..."Now this event would accurately be called a "protest" if it were taking place at, say, a bank or the U.S. Capitol. But when hundreds of loud and angry strangers are descending on your family, your children, and your home, a more apt description of this assemblage would be "mob." Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise, and it worked-even on the police. A trio of officers who belatedly answered our calls confessed a fear that arrests might "incite" these trespassers."
ReplyDeleteSeems to me, this same description was used by the British toward the colonists and by Carnegie, Vanderbilt, et al. toward their workers when their livelihood was under assault. Of course, we are taught to believe those past intentions were "noble"
and "justified" compared to the "culture of fear and intimidation" supposedly inherent in today's labor unions.
The links that neomom provided only provides ONE side of the story, that of the reaction by SOME labor union members. In the case of the longshoremen, I provided the appropriate CONTEXT...
www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12897315&postID=3672004523701233768&isPopup=true
Even IF the generalization that neomom, Dad29, and company held true that unions = thugs, they are simply heeding the advice of that infamous mantra "Buy More Ammo" that conservatives ought to employ. And yet, somehow, labor unions are the ones pigeoned as being "absolutely far left" and castigated for putting that (radical) theory into practice.
Again, neomom, please answer this question--What is the difference between the rhetoric of Hoffa vs. the rhetoric of Tea Party activists?
At least David had the courage to respond.
Dad29--Actually, the phenomenon is called confirmation bias. And those on the right are equally up to the task. Must be wearing heavy duty partisan goggles...yet again!
neomom--Where is the left's precious "feminist" organizations denouncing the treatment of women under the taliban and other oppressive muslim regimes? Cue the crickets.
ReplyDeleteGreat question. Here is a complex answer to that question...
www.sullivan-county.com/x/horowitz3.htm
Money Quote--"If you go to the websites of major women's groups, such as the National Organization for Women, the Ms. Foundation for Women, and the National Council for Research on Women, or to women's centers at our major colleges and universities, you'll find them caught up with entirely other issues, seldom mentioning women in Islam. During the 1980s, there were massive demonstrations on American campuses against racial apartheid in South Africa. There is no remotely comparable movement on today's campuses against the gender apartheid prevalent in large parts of the world.
It is not that American feminists are indifferent to the predicament of Muslim women. Nor do they completely ignore it. For a brief period before September 11, 2001, many women's groups protested the brutalities of the Taliban. But they have never organized a full-scale mobilization against gender oppression in the Muslim world. The condition of Muslim women may be the most pressing women's issue of our age, but for many contemporary American feminists it is not a high priority. Why not?"
and yet another one.
www.feministezine.com/feminist/international/Islamic-Feminism-04.html
Money Quote-..."But American feminists and Muslim women seem as estranged as ever. On an institutional level, their relations remain plagued by stereotypes and mutual suspicion. Their dominant worldviews—one secular, the other faith-based—seem irreconcilable. “When the Taliban were overthrown, the attitude was ‘Now you’ve been liberated by us, we expect you to take off the veil and become like us. Throw off Islam,’” says Pakistan-born Riffat Hassan, a professor of religious studies at the University of Louisville in Kentucky and a women’s rights activist. “There is an imperialist vein in American feminism. I see that clearly at times.”
David--And Reagan stated emphatically "The United States does not negotiate with terrorists". We all know what happened next.
ReplyDeleteSo, dude, get it straight, man. Hypocrisy is EVERYWHERE!
Sorry, 'nony, the term I used is accurate: the Leftists are projecting their behavior pattern into the actions of the Pubbies.
ReplyDeleteNot the first time, won't be the last. Just another part of the serial psychotic episode known as Liberalism.
So your saying Reagan socially engaged with and "admired" a terrorist who was a self confessed killer of American's who wished he could have killed more?
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that represents "total hypocrisy" is the left.
At least you did not blame Bush, a small step forward for you leftists.
David
Even IF the generalization that neomom, Dad29, and company held true that unions = thugs
ReplyDeleteWell, to be fair, Trumka's record at the UMW is.....thuggery. Hoffa's old man's record is.....thuggery, along with Mob-relations. I know from personal testimony that the Hodcarriers used.....thuggery....to organize.
The SEIU's record is not classic 'thuggery.' Instead, it's intimidation and vote-theft.
The IBEW/Verizon folks are on record as advocating violence and......thuggery.
The Longshoremen have used.......thuggery.....to gain their contracts and keep them.
These are not George Meany's unions any more.
Mind you: the people who are on record, in the recent past, advocating or carrying out thuggery are the union leadership gang.
I know that my UPS Teamster delivery guy is a good guy; he wouldn't engage in this crap.
But his leaders?
So yah. The record is pretty clear.
Citing Reagan in a discussion about current events of 2011. Why not just stomp your feet and hurl personal attacks. Both actions signal your progress in proving your point without anything to back it up.
ReplyDelete"Well heck, how about the President of the United States of America fraternizing with a known, unrepentent, terrorist who only wishes his organization had bombed more buildings and killed more innocent American citizens? Ayers."
ReplyDeleteYou forgot about presidents allowing terrorist attacks to occur to further their perverted agenda, Dave.
Dad29--"I know that my UPS Teamster delivery guy is a good guy; he wouldn't engage in this crap. But his leaders...?"
ReplyDeleteNow we have a conscience? The UPS Teamster is suddenly a "good guy"? Why, because he won't complain if management dictates everything because that is the way of the "free market"?
Just do us a favor and put on the big boy pants by making the distinction that the LEADERSHIP of SOME unions prefer the methods of your vaunted mantra "Buy More Ammo", rather than generalizing that unions (and their members) are toxic entities which should be put out of their misery.
David--"So your saying Reagan socially engaged with and "admired" a terrorist who was a self confessed killer of American's who wished he could have killed more?"
Reagan did more than "socially engage" with a terrorist...he enabled his administration to make ILLEGAL DEALS with them!
Just quit while your behind, you're embarrassing yourself.
David/TerryN--My point is absolutely relevant, especially today! Our leaders, past and present, have associated with people they promised they would never be "in bed with". It's easy for the right and the left to point the finger at how bad is the other guy/girl for the "shady characters" they know, yet completely discount when one of their own also hangs out with "the wrong crowd".
Case in point--Weaselzippers. Dad29 regularly links to it. "Humans" there relish in "praying for the murder of muzzies" and "bashing the skulls of union goons". Is this the type of people a good Christian sort wants to be associated with?
So, if people want to dig up the past about Obama's pals, great! Just be the adult and admit when it is CORRECTLY pointed out that one of the right's most beloved figures also had questionable "friends"...like those willing to set aside the rule of law in the name of "national security".
Ayers and Reagan are one and the same...one physically killed, the other willingly murdered the Constitution. No difference in my book!
Too bad Reagan didn't practice what he preached...
"These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland...They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."--Labor Day Address at Liberty State Park, 1980
Anony 12:18. You are a pathetic waste of genetic material. You are so blinded by your ideology that you are not capable of understanding the most basic levels of reasonable discourse.
ReplyDeleteThere are differences in this world. There are levels. There are shades of grey.
Of course you are incapable of that. You want to protect your ideology at all costs. Fine. Be the truther version of a democrat.
Go to hell sir.
David
To Mr Self-Righteous Anony...
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for, you know, having a life - that "mom" portion of my moniker is accurate - and not immediately responding to your idiocy.
As far as the Hoffa v the Tea Party rhetoric? It wasn't the Tea Party tut-tutting everyone last January about their tone and accusing Sarah Palin and the rest of us of attempted murder - both before the shooter was known, and after it was discovered he was an apolitical undiagnosed schizophrenic who had been stalking the Congresswoman for years.
If you want to ignore all the actual evidence of real thuggery by the unions and the left in the past year. Well, they say ignorance IS bliss isn't it.
Your now multiple references to some conspiracy theory that GWB knew of the 9/11 attacks before they happened and let them happen anyway makes you simply bat-shit crazy. The alleged smoking gun PDB wasn't an instruction manual of what Bin Laden was planning - certainly not using commercial airliners as WMDs.....
David--So much for "civility" on your part, eh?
ReplyDeleteAnd I thought (most) conservatives were all about "right vs. wrong", compared to them libruls who repeatedly lower the morality bar!
neo-mom--Sorry to burst your bubble, but the 11:55 p.m. is NOT me. I am NOT a 911 conspiracy nut.
If you read my posts carefully, I am acknowledging that there are instances on the left where they are taking matters into their own hands, and that's wrong. No ignorance on my part. But I'm not buying --and neither are a number of moderates/conservatives--into the partisan b.s. generalization that unions = thugs.
And regarding "self-righteousness", are you not demonstrating that conduct with your own post?
Anony, put a name on your posts or I am going to assume you are the same bat shit crazy truther as the other anony. No more responses until you do.
ReplyDeleteDavid
Dave - spare us the sanctimony. You're as bat shit as the rest of 'em.
ReplyDeleteDavid, it is MY CHOICE that I do not put my name on my posts, just as Dad29 decides not to provide his
ReplyDeletename. And if you want to make assumptions, go right ahead. But you can tell the difference between my posts and the other anony's here because I put thought into my positions.
And, anony 11:25 p.m., look in the mirror first!
Then it's my choice to assume your all truthers.
ReplyDeleteDavid
(note how I use a name and yet maintain anonymity?, also note that there is no chance you don't recognize Dad29's posts are his. Common courtesy)
Fair enough, David. Call me a "truther" all you want.
ReplyDeleteMy positions will still have merit, based on evidence and explanation, regardless if I give my name.
I will not listen to any argument made by a white supremacist because his very vile nature precludes the common respect needed in a conversation. The same goes for truthers like you.
ReplyDeleteDavid