Conservatives Be Careful IF You Dare Disagree With A Liberal!  

TTigerAtty 62M
3769 posts
6/13/2006 9:21 am

Last Read:
6/29/2006 8:11 am

Conservatives Be Careful IF You Dare Disagree With A Liberal!

Hey conservatives! Be very careful if you dare to disagree with liberals and leave comments to that effect on their blogs. They are not always compassionate like us conservatives and they sometimes get very angry. I recently commented regarding a post and the resulting commentary on another blog. There was so much anti-Ann Coulter, anti-conservative, anti-Republican and anti-Bush material, I just couldn't restrain myself and left nine comments stating my own views about what had been said. The negative, even hateful comments that were made against evil conservatives were deemed by this particular blogger to be perfectly acceptable, while my comments which did not personally attack anyone were deemed to be "rude, offensive and inappropriate".

Well, most of my comments have been deleted and now this particular blogger is proceeding to demonize me. No one will be able to see what comments I did or did not make.

But, ya' know what? I feel like I am in good company ... right up there with the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, John Ashcroft, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and that most hated of all Republicans, President George W. Bush!

Her posting railed against Ann Coulter, an outspoken conservative, and presented a carefully excerpted line from Ms. Coulter's new book "Godless - The Church of Liberalism". The single statement was not put into context with the point of the remark, but rather was used for the purpose of inciting opposition to Ms. Coulter. I stated my opinion in the following comment. Out of courtesy and professionalism, I am omitting this blogger's name and the names of others who chimed in with comments....

-------------------------------------------------

xxxxx ... Is this your blog or yyy's?

Other things written by Ann Coulter ...

From Chapter 1, "On The Seventh Day, God Rested and Liberals Schemed", here are the first four paragraphs:

They exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator .... Therefore, God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature. Romans 1:25-26

Liberals love to boast that they are not "religious", which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course, liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as "religion".

Under the guise of not favoring religion, liberals favor one cosmology over another and demand total indoctrination into theirs. The state religion of liberalsim demands obeisance (to the National Organization for Women), tithing (to teacher's unions), reverence (for abortion) and formulaic imprecations ("Bush lied, kids died!" Keep your laws off my body!" "Arms for hostages!" ) Everyone is taxed to support indoctrination into the state religion through the public schools, where innocent children are taught a specific belief system, rather than say, math.

Liberal doctrines are less scientifically provable than the story of Noah's ark, but their belief system is taught as fact in government schools, while the Biblical belief system is banned from government schools by law. As a matter of faith, liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molestors can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not. If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism weeded out people who don't produce? (For that, we need a theory of survival of the most fabulous.) And if gays can't change, why do liberals think child-molestors can? Pedophilia is a sexual preference. It they're born that way, instead of rehabilitation, how about keeping them locked up? Why must children be taught that recycling is the only answer? Why aren't we teaching children "safe littering"?

We aren't allowed to ask. Believers in the liberal faith might turn violent ... much like practitioners of Islam, the Religion of Peace, who ransacked Danish embassies worldwide because a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Mohammed. This is something else that can't be taught in government schools: Muslims' predilection for violence. On the first anniversary of the 9/11 attack, the National Education Association's instruction materials exhorted teachers, "Do not suggest that any group is responsible" for the attack of 9/11."1


1 John Leo, "NEA Teaches Every Culture but Our Own", Evening Sun (Hanover, PA), September 4, 2002.

If you take the time to understand what she is saying about the libs use of "human shields", i.e. victims of tragedy, to make their political statements, then you might be able to understand the point made about four of the women who lost family in the 9/11 attack. Or you can, and all libs will, take an excerpt out of context and attempt to "kill the messenger". Two New Jersey legislators have called for a "ban" of the book. They don't like what she has said about libs so they want to squash her book, already on the best seller's list.

I already have my copy, and I recommend the book as a wonderful Father's Day gift or as great reading for all recovering liberals!

I love to see the liberals get in a big twit when the truth is spoken!

xxxxx replies on 6/13/2006 7:57 am:
To answer your question, it's my blog. Your behavior and attitude are offensive.

I left one of the nine comments you made. If you ever pull something like that on my blog again, I'll ban you. You were rude to me when I visited your blog, but I won't allow you to be rude to me here. I also will not allow anyone to throw temper tantrums on my blog. I reserve that exclusive right. (My reply - No "temper tantrum" was thrown. I was not "rude" today nor when you visited my blog. I was "assertive" and spoke my piece. I merely dared to disagree with you and the precepts of liberalism. While I left nine comments, only one or two were for you and the others were in reply to visitors who made comments. One of your commenters, yyy, has left nine comments as of today, same as me, but since he agrees with you or attacks others who disagree with you, you have chosen to allow his nine comments to stand. Hmmmmm? Interesting selective tolerance for open debate?!)

Now that you have shown the only reason you visit me, or any of the other young women here is to look at the pictures, since you have labeled me godless, unAmerican, and said that my life style is an offence against your morality, I wonder how you reconcile your flirting on this site with your religion. (My comment - I never said you are Godless or un-American. Ann Coulter has said "Liberalism is Godless". I agree with her. Flirting? What flirting? I thought we were discussing the merits of Ann Coulter's new book?)

If you were interested in a rational debate, I would be happy to debate you. However, like Coulter, you are interested only in name calling and forcing your beliefs on others. (My comment - I, too, am only interested in a rational debate. By deletion of eight of my nine comments to you and others, you clearly show you are only interested in hearing from people who agree with you and the others who comment in support of your postings. I never called you a name. I disagreed with your point of view. You don't like that.)

I wish I had your daughter's email address. I'm sure she would be impressed by her daddy's behavior on this site. (My comment - Is that a threat? What does my political disagreement with you and your friends possibly have to do with my daughter? That is just your rage and anger coming out! Typical of a liberal when a conservative disagrees with them and makes solid arguments! Threaten them, cut off their voice, impune their character, etc. By your actions today in deleting my comments and your statements hereinabove, you prove the points that Ann Coulter is making in her new book. Thanks for the demonstration of these liberal tactics! Your actions and those of the other liberals who are enraged only serve to give Ann Coulter more credibility.)

Do not answer this. You've had your say for today. (My comment - You may delete my one remaining comment if you wish, and you may continue to rant and rave and prove my point and Ann Coulter's point. Good luck in trying to "ban" her book! That was actually suggested by two Democrat legislators from New Jersey.
I have a feeling it is going to be a BIG SELLER!)


My point in posting this is not to continue a debate with people who are intolerant toward the conservative viewpoint and who loathe Ann Coulter, other conservative spokespeople, President George W. Bush and his administration. My point in this posting is to illustrate that what Ann Coulter says in her book about liberals and liberalism is right on! My point is to illustrate by what has just happened to me for my outspoken views disagreeing with the Bush-bashers, the Blame America First crowd and the leftists, how these people behave when you disagree with their views and beliefs. And they are the ones that label conservatives as intolerant. Are conservatives intolerant or do we just dare to disagree with liberalism?

Someday, I hope this blogger will understand the points I made in defense of Ann Coulter, conservatives, President Bush and his administration. And someday, I hope that this blogger will recognize and understand the fallacies of the liberal ideology and modern-day liberalism as it is actually practiced. Today, she has absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for the conservative viewpoint. She definitely has no tolerance for that viewpoint to be assertively stated on her blog which is what I did. Instead she labels the commentary, my behavior and attitude as "rude, offensive and inappropriate" and deletes it, but allows another liberal from the left coast, (zzzzzzz), to call the President of the United States, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly all criminals. I suppose, to liberals, this form of hate speech against conservatives who have not been convicted of anything is seen as
"professional, acceptable and appropriate", because they believe it advances the causes of liberalism. The ends justify the means is apparently their mantra. They had Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives tried and convicted, but look what has actually happened. They now have Tom DeLay (R-Texas) tried and convicted too, but you just watch and see what happens on that one!

While I will no longer leave comments at xxxxx's blog per her request and my desire to avoid her intolerance toward conservative views, I will continue on with my series of postings regarding the Ann Coulter book which is so despised by liberals and which xxxxx so despises. I know full well this will draw the ire of many people: liberals, some moderates, and maybe even some conservatives. The Blame America First crowd from overseas will likely chime in to criticize Ann Coulter, America, our government, President Bush and everything and everyone else.

That will be fine. On this blog, you can state your views and opinions. I will not ban you or delete your comments. If we disagree, so be it. I'll vigorously state my views, beliefs and opinions, so be prepared to vigorously state yours. Don't come in here with half-baked arguments, false accusations, innuendos nor outlandish name-calling against American leaders. If you choose to demean the leader of the free world, our President, then that is your choice. I will simply tell you in no uncertain terms why I believe you are wrong.


TTigerAtty
TIGERS, LLC
non illigitimae carborundum
~^~^~
~0_0~
>""""<
`^^^^`


TTigerAtty 62M

6/13/2006 2:00 pm

Woe is me! I am so sad and forlorn! I have been OFFICIALLY BANNED from making comments on xxxxx's blog. Oh well, some liberals will remain forever lost, I suppose.


micahbiguns 51M

6/13/2006 2:29 pm

Ok pity party time I will bring over the cold Bud light ( i have 41,000 lbs of it in my refer trailer)


TTigerAtty 62M

6/13/2006 2:52 pm

    Quoting micahbiguns:
    Ok pity party time I will bring over the cold Bud light ( i have 41,000 lbs of it in my refer trailer)
Lord! That's a lot of Bud Light! Can you take it to our great men and women in Iraq? They've had an outstanding week! al-Zarqawi taken out, 17 raids that have now led to 100 or so arrests, Iraq Ministers of Defense and Interior named and in place, President Bush trip to Iraq to meet with troops, civilians and the Iraq Prime Minister and his cabinet. Let's keep it going! I heard today from Rumsfeld's comments that Iraq now has 263,000 of their own troops trained. We're getting there! Three cheers for the USA! Three cheers for the coalition of countries that believed in the mission! And three cheers for some brave Iraqi people who believed in themselves and believed in us!


rm_Twister2bed 47M
617 posts
6/13/2006 8:43 pm

I like Ann Coulter and like alot of what she has to say but lets be real TTiger hehe you had to expect to stir up a firestorm...Hell Ann's been stirring that pot for a while now...
As for being banned I tend to only comment on others blogs with lightly seasoned opinions I save hard core opinions for my own blog least I can't ban myself LOL

Politics are a street fight topic sooner or later someones button is gonna be pushed and the slugfest is on....


TheCliticals 35F/F

6/13/2006 9:56 pm

Why does a Neo-Nazi like you have a blog at AdultFriendFinder? Wouldnt you be so much happier writing on one of the many Right Wing sites that proliferate on the web?

Sandy


Nightguy_1961 55M
4866 posts
6/13/2006 10:13 pm

TTiger,

You knew that you'd be calling down the thunder with this, but I salute you for standing up for what you believe in....

Now me, I'm neither conservative or liberal....I'm a drunkard...so I'm welcome anywhere!!

NG61...disappearing back into the shadows...


TTigerAtty 62M

6/14/2006 5:48 am

    Quoting rm_Twister2bed:
    I like Ann Coulter and like alot of what she has to say but lets be real TTiger hehe you had to expect to stir up a firestorm...Hell Ann's been stirring that pot for a while now...
    As for being banned I tend to only comment on others blogs with lightly seasoned opinions I save hard core opinions for my own blog least I can't ban myself LOL

    Politics are a street fight topic sooner or later someones button is gonna be pushed and the slugfest is on....
I just like to tweak the highly indignant libs. They're so predictable. They would like to dominate the speech on this site (and everywhere). Someone has to get in their faces! Just watch what will happen now. I will be vilified and demonized for my conservative views and for daring to associate myself with evil people like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and that most evil Republican leader of all, President George W. Bush!

Oh, wait a minute! I see a lib has commented here calling me a "Neo-Nazi"! Like I say, they are so predictable ... and so stupid and dangerous. If the libs were running things very long, they'd get us all killed!

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned ... nor a liberal challenged ... nor a leftist chastised ... nor a Blame-America-Firster rebuked. They do not like for you to disagree with their ideology!


TTigerAtty 62M

6/14/2006 6:02 am

    Quoting TheCliticals:
    Why does a Neo-Nazi like you have a blog at AdultFriendFinder? Wouldnt you be so much happier writing on one of the many Right Wing sites that proliferate on the web?

    Sandy
Well, Sandy, welcome to my blog! I take notice that your first visit is a rather antagonistic one. Sit down and have a cup of coffee. I'd like to explain to you the difference between liberals and conservatives. In your case, it might take a considerably long period of time.

Your tactic of labeling me and I presume other conservatives like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc. "Neo-Nazis" is a rather familiar tactic of the Left. Rather than deal with the fallacies, failures and inadequacies of your own liberal ideology, you lash out and seek to vilify and demonized conservatives who dare espouse their own beliefs and ideology and point out the ridiculous tenets of your own.

Do you really think the middle-of-the-road, working person who you seek to attrack to liberalism buys vitriolic rhetoric and name-calling? I don't think so and that is why I predict to you a continuing surge in compassionate conservatism of the George W. Bush and Ronald W. Reagan variety.

I will not call you hateful names, my dear. Loveable liberals like your are not to be taken seriously. We conservatives only seek to convert you or move you a little further to the right. Grab a copy of Ann Coulter's new book and read it for yourself .... IF you dare! You just might find many of her points very compelling!

Oh, and I would be remiss for not thanking your Prime Minister Tony Blair and the U.K. military for their support and partnership in the war against terrorism. Tony Blair is courageous and intelligent political leader. I respect him immensely, and I am grateful for his friendship at this key turning point in history.

Have a nice day, Sandy!


TTigerAtty 62M

6/14/2006 6:10 am

    Quoting Nightguy_1961:
    TTiger,

    You knew that you'd be calling down the thunder with this, but I salute you for standing up for what you believe in....

    Now me, I'm neither conservative or liberal....I'm a drunkard...so I'm welcome anywhere!!

    NG61...disappearing back into the shadows...
NG61 ... I enjoy a few drinks myself. Thanks for dropping by! I have worn out my welcome with the libs. Most of them are not very tolerant of assertively stated conservative views. The libs that will stand toe-to-toe and debate the issues vs. resorting to name-calling and cutting off the conversation are truly friendships to develop. They have some good points, they are able to defend them and they are open to debating ... and drinking! Several of my best drinking buddies are more liberal than I and we discuss politics a lot. They speak their minds effectively and they allow me to speak mine. Ronald W. Reagan and Thomas P. 'Tip' O'Neill were like that. They'd disagree with each other respectfully all day long and then share a friendly drink at night. We need to return to those days in American politics. Take care! Keep the fleet at Norfolk safe!


TTigerAtty 62M

6/14/2006 8:02 am

xxxxx, the blogger who deleted my comments on her political blog posting which railed loudly against Ann Coulters and conservatives in general, has claimed that I was "RUDE" to her when she visited my blog at an earlier time. Well, let's just examine her claim, shall we?

xxxxx made the following comment in response to my posting entitled, Political Dissent - Why Leftists Hate President Bush So Much:

If you can provide examples of positive things that Bush has done, then we might have a debate. I do not consider a return to the foreign policy of 1845 or 1898 positive. I do not consider the bankrupting of the federal treasury under Reagan, Bush and Bush to be positive. I do not consider the breach of the separation of church and state as positive. I do not consider the trampling of the first and fourth amendments as positive.

When the Republican Right frames the debate by calling names and inflaming fear as a political weapon, it makes it impossible to have an intelligent discussion. By defining everyone who disagrees as either a traitor or "left wing elitest", you have dismissed other viewpoints.

The one thing I do agree with is his assessment of Clinton. "Most of the time (Clinton hatred) was simply the frustration of the Right with an opponent who was just too quick and too clever for them." As a result, they started a witch hunt, investigating him and everyone connected with him, but never being able to prove anything except a stain on a blue dress. Ken Starr spent over $35 million and didn't bring down a single indictment.

I am not a fan of the dysfunctional Democratic party, but it's the only alternative we have in a political system of two parties that is not ingrained in the Constitution but implemented by the two parties who have held power for the past 146 years.

I will gladly debate any conservative Republican, as long as there is no name calling, and the terms that frame the debate are defined in the dictionary, not ad hoc by Pat Roberson and Bill O'Reilly.


I then responded to her comment as follows:

This is the response I would have expected from you. Did it strike a nerve? I stand by my posting. Liberalism is a "mental disorder". You are free to take the side of the anti-American, leftist crowd if you wish, xxxxx. I will not be joining you. I shall see you at the voting polls, my friend!

Oh, and you forgot to mention Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. I would suggest you start listening to them each day to get the other side of the story!


VERY INTERESTING HOW LIBS THINK! THEY RAIL ON WITH THEIR ANTI-BUSH, ANTI-REPUBLICAN, AND ANTI-CONSERVATIVE, VITRIOLIC RHETORIC, BUT THEN WHEN A CONSERVATIVE DISAGREES OR MAKES FAIRLY CALM AND GENTEEL COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THEIR LIBERAL, DEMOCRATIC TALKING POINTS, THEY LABEL US AS "RUDE". APPARENTLY, THEY CAN DISH IT OUT, BUT THEY CAN'T STAND IT WHEN IT'S SERVED BACK TO THEM?

WELL, XXXXX, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN "RUDE". YOU HAVE SEEN ME EXPOSE LIBERALISM FOR WHAT IT TRULY IS, AND YOU CAN'T STAND THAT, SO YOU BAN MY COMMENTS AND BEGIN YOUR TYPICAL, LIBERAL SMEAR CAMPAIGN TACTICS. (Yes, I've seen your current posting proudly proclaiming that I have been banned for my multitude of offenses. Funny!)

I WAS VERY KIND IN NOT SHREDDING YOUR COMMENT IN MY EARLIER POSTING. NOW, I WILL DO SO IN THIS POSTING. I WILL NOT BE "RUDE", BUT I WILL DISAGREE WITH POINTS YOU MADE, AND I WILL STATE SOME FACTS AND FIGURES AS OPPOSED TO "LEFTIST OPINION" AND "DEMOCRATIC TALKING POINTS" AS YOU HAVE DONE.

NOTICE, THAT EVEN NOW, DEAR, I AM NOT BEING "RUDE" OR UNREASONABLE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INTOLERANCE OF AND ATTACKS UPON ME. I AM MERELY DARING TO DISAGREE WITH YOUR LIBERAL BIAS AND BROAD NEGATIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT EVERY REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION YOU COULD THINK OF.

MY DETAILED RESPONSE TO YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT ON MY BLOG WILL NOW BE GIVEN BELOW AS I CAN FIND TIME TO DEVELOP IT. IF YOU THOUGHT MY EARLIER COMMENT WHICH (1) DISAGREED WITH YOU, (2) STATED THAT I WOULD SEE YOU AT THE POLLS AND (3) INVITED YOU TO LISTEN TO THE RUSH LIMBAUGH AND SEAN HANNITY RADIO TALK SHOWS WAS "RUDE", THEN I SUPPOSE YOU WILL MISCHARACTERIZE MY MORE THOROUGH, FACTUAL RESPONSE AS "MEAN, RUDE, CRUEL, DEMONIC, HATEFUL AND NE0-NAZI" ... AND ALL BECAUSE I SIMPLY REFUSE TO DRINK YOUR LIBERAL KOOL-AID.

I DON'T HAVE ANY PARTICULAR BONE TO PICK WITH YOU PERSONALLY, BUT I WILL NOT COWER TO THE INTOLERANCE, HATRED AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF LIBERALISM!


TTigerAtty 62M

6/14/2006 8:41 am

Oh, I'm sorry, I almost forgot. To be fair and completely disclose the rest of our conversation, I must tell you that xxxxx came back in just 3 hours on the very same day she left her initial comment to comment further to my response:

You would have expected a well stated and reasoned response? Thank you. No, the right-wing mantra you quoted in your post didn't strike a nerve. It is the same liturgy that has been spouted my whole life, no matter the issue or the facts. "Talking points" are just another euphemism for "The Big Lie", a la 1984, whether it is the right or the left using them. I notice that instead of discussing the points I raised, you resorted to name calling and telling me that I have a mental disorder and am anti-American. Up until now, I have always respected you and your opinions. You have just lost that respect.

I then replied to her comment, and xxxxx never returned again to make another comment in that string of commentary about my posting:

xxxxx - Seems I have raised your ire as well, my dear! I just love it when a liberal gets mad! I said that "liberalism is a mental disorder", and I stand by that statement. I did not call you any names, my dear, as you have accused me of doing. If you are not proud to be a liberal, I cannot help that you would want to run away from that label. I am proud to be a conservative. I am proud to have that label thrust upon me. In fact, I am proud to be from Rush Limbaugh's hometown of Cape Girardeau, MO. Now, what do you think of that, xxxxx? Rush Limbaugh's hometown! Rush is right 99% of the time, you know! You and I see things from a totally different perspective, xxxxx, and I suppose we always will.

And by that time, I certainly had no further interest in continuing either.

Let me say that xxxxx had never previously visited my blog to make comments, although I had previously visited her blog and made comments, often positive and complimentary. She apparently only came over to visit me when "called to arms" by another liberal or liberals to come and "do battle" with a mean, old, demonic conservative. I will not judge whether xxxxx was being sincere about respecting me and my opinions prior to our political exchanges. She has certainly proven by her words and actions then as well as her most recent words and actions that she does not respect me or my opinions now because she understands that I don't agree with liberalism, Bush-bashing rhetoric nor the vitriol from the Blame-America-First crowd.

... and now you know the rest of the story!


TheCliticals 35F/F

6/14/2006 8:05 pm

    Quoting TTigerAtty:
    Well, Sandy, welcome to my blog! I take notice that your first visit is a rather antagonistic one. Sit down and have a cup of coffee. I'd like to explain to you the difference between liberals and conservatives. In your case, it might take a considerably long period of time.

    Your tactic of labeling me and I presume other conservatives like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc. "Neo-Nazis" is a rather familiar tactic of the Left. Rather than deal with the fallacies, failures and inadequacies of your own liberal ideology, you lash out and seek to vilify and demonized conservatives who dare espouse their own beliefs and ideology and point out the ridiculous tenets of your own.

    Do you really think the middle-of-the-road, working person who you seek to attrack to liberalism buys vitriolic rhetoric and name-calling? I don't think so and that is why I predict to you a continuing surge in compassionate conservatism of the George W. Bush and Ronald W. Reagan variety.

    I will not call you hateful names, my dear. Loveable liberals like your are not to be taken seriously. We conservatives only seek to convert you or move you a little further to the right. Grab a copy of Ann Coulter's new book and read it for yourself .... IF you dare! You just might find many of her points very compelling!

    Oh, and I would be remiss for not thanking your Prime Minister Tony Blair and the U.K. military for their support and partnership in the war against terrorism. Tony Blair is courageous and intelligent political leader. I respect him immensely, and I am grateful for his friendship at this key turning point in history.

    Have a nice day, Sandy!
Sir,
Thank you for overcoming my deficiency in failing to understand the nature of a conservative. As my grandfather is a Member of the House of Lords, its something that I have long felt I should remedy, particularly before the passage of time sees my father assume that responsibility. You should note that not all conservatives are of the same extremist persuasion as you, Ms Coulter, and Mr Limbaugh.

Furthermore, I suggest that you seek out a definition of the term Neo-Nazi. You will find that your persistent, pedantic, and shrill declarations, many merely quotations of the utterances of others in your camp, qualify you as a Neo-Nazi.

As I believe you colonials sometimes say " if it quacks, its a duck".
And you, sir, are a Neo-Nazi.

I have now read sufficient extracts of Ms Coulter's book in your blog to know that I have no wish to be further aquainted with her writing, and I will certainly not purchase borrow or steal her book. Nor may you give it to me as a gift.

You have similarly no hope of moving me in any way towards your political position. Firstly it is not spiritually viable, and history would bear me out in that. Secondly, I would think that someone of your intelligence would be of greater value to humankind if you could be encouraged to shed your brownshirt and adopt more humanist attire.

You may, in the meantime, call me all the hateful names you wish.

Thank you also for acknowledging the contribution that Mr Blair has made, albiet mistakenly, in lending credibility by association to the absurd notions that Mr Bush has employed to sustain his attack on, invasion of, and occupation of a second-world nation whos only relevance has ever been its possession of some of the world's largest oil reserves. Mr Blair has done so at the cost of many British lives, though he has expended them in a manner that is considerably less costly than the apparent enthusiasm with which Mr Bush wastes the lives of US military personnel and Iraqi civilians. I suspect that the decent hard working middle of the road folk that you refer to deeply mourn their sons and daughters lost in this manner. I doubt that their sense of loss can be healed with Ms Coulter's rhetoric.

He does not do so with impunity, as the next general election will show. As a proud Englishwoman with several relatives currently in our Armed Forces, I will be doing my best to ensure that he looses that election.

And I shall do so as a member of the British Conservative Party.

How dare YOU, Sir?.

Sandy


micahbiguns 51M

6/14/2006 8:37 pm

    Quoting TheCliticals:
    Why does a Neo-Nazi like you have a blog at AdultFriendFinder? Wouldnt you be so much happier writing on one of the many Right Wing sites that proliferate on the web?

    Sandy
Sorry ladys your beautiful and all that but the name calling was down right mean spirited and rude. After all this is TTiger's Blog and you don't have to read it now do you.


TheCliticals 35F/F

6/14/2006 9:35 pm

    Quoting micahbiguns:
    Sorry ladys your beautiful and all that but the name calling was down right mean spirited and rude. After all this is TTiger's Blog and you don't have to read it now do you.
On the contrary. We understood that TTiger enjoys robust debate and happily applies any label he wishes to support his arguments against his opponents

After all, it was his forceful comments on other members' blogs that drew him to our attention


TTigerAtty 62M

6/15/2006 8:21 am

    Quoting TheCliticals:
    Sir,
    Thank you for overcoming my deficiency in failing to understand the nature of a conservative. As my grandfather is a Member of the House of Lords, its something that I have long felt I should remedy, particularly before the passage of time sees my father assume that responsibility. You should note that not all conservatives are of the same extremist persuasion as you, Ms Coulter, and Mr Limbaugh.

    Furthermore, I suggest that you seek out a definition of the term Neo-Nazi. You will find that your persistent, pedantic, and shrill declarations, many merely quotations of the utterances of others in your camp, qualify you as a Neo-Nazi.

    As I believe you colonials sometimes say " if it quacks, its a duck".
    And you, sir, are a Neo-Nazi.

    I have now read sufficient extracts of Ms Coulter's book in your blog to know that I have no wish to be further aquainted with her writing, and I will certainly not purchase borrow or steal her book. Nor may you give it to me as a gift.

    You have similarly no hope of moving me in any way towards your political position. Firstly it is not spiritually viable, and history would bear me out in that. Secondly, I would think that someone of your intelligence would be of greater value to humankind if you could be encouraged to shed your brownshirt and adopt more humanist attire.

    You may, in the meantime, call me all the hateful names you wish.

    Thank you also for acknowledging the contribution that Mr Blair has made, albiet mistakenly, in lending credibility by association to the absurd notions that Mr Bush has employed to sustain his attack on, invasion of, and occupation of a second-world nation whos only relevance has ever been its possession of some of the world's largest oil reserves. Mr Blair has done so at the cost of many British lives, though he has expended them in a manner that is considerably less costly than the apparent enthusiasm with which Mr Bush wastes the lives of US military personnel and Iraqi civilians. I suspect that the decent hard working middle of the road folk that you refer to deeply mourn their sons and daughters lost in this manner. I doubt that their sense of loss can be healed with Ms Coulter's rhetoric.

    He does not do so with impunity, as the next general election will show. As a proud Englishwoman with several relatives currently in our Armed Forces, I will be doing my best to ensure that he looses that election.

    And I shall do so as a member of the British Conservative Party.

    How dare YOU, Sir?.

    Sandy
Sandy,

I am so sorry to have offended your refined English sensibilities. I will not lower myself to your tactics and the predictable tactics of others who seek to suppress free speech by heaping names, labels or innuendos upon those who dare disagree with them as you have done hereinabove.

You are free to disagree with me, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Don Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Condoleeza Rice, Tony Blair and the most hated of all people by those of your ilk, our good and honorable President, George W. Bush. Disagree all you want. Spill out your venom by labeling me a "Neo-Nazi" or whatever else. Yes, you are certainly correct about one thing, my dear, "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck". And, like a duck, I will let all your hateful name-calling and labeling run right off my back, just like water runs right off a duck's back!

Hon, I have been called far worse by others who blame America first (and always), who oppose conservative values, ideas and policy, and who constantly bash our President. I am guilty of nothing more than completely disagreeing with absolutely everything you have said and, in so doing, supporting current American policy. For that you spew out your vitriol upon me and others like me. You are, as I have said, just one of those pathetically lost and loveable leftists who naively believe the failed policies of liberalism.

Oh, by the way, a little histroy lesson for you, Sandy. We are no longer "colonists or colonials" subject to the English Crown. We won our independence from you folks about 230 years ago. Look it up, dear!

Have a nice day, and do come back! I so enjoy my discussions with people who disagree with me. It is rather invigorating!


TTigerAtty 62M

6/15/2006 8:31 am

    Quoting micahbiguns:
    Sorry ladys your beautiful and all that but the name calling was down right mean spirited and rude. After all this is TTiger's Blog and you don't have to read it now do you.
Micah ... You are right! These ladies are quite lovely, and Sandy is very spirited! I like that! Try not to hold their mean tactics against them. All leftists and all of the Blame America Firsters learn these ways from their comrades. We must turn the other cheek, engage them in conversation and save them from the failed ideas and policies of their beloved liberalism. Now, there I go again, saying something very "Neo-Nazi" like! Seriously, I'd like to have a couple brews with Sandy in an old English pub and debate politics and world events. Wanna come along with me?


TTigerAtty 62M

6/15/2006 8:41 am

    Quoting TheCliticals:
    On the contrary. We understood that TTiger enjoys robust debate and happily applies any label he wishes to support his arguments against his opponents

    After all, it was his forceful comments on other members' blogs that drew him to our attention
Sandy ... You are welcome to come back as often as you please. I do not BAN those who disagree with me, and I will not DELETE any of your comments. I try to assert my beliefs and opinions in opposition to those I disagree with. I would expect no less from you, my dear. I would like to learn more about your grandfather and the House of Lords, if you do come back. I will respect your grandfather for serving no matter his particular political views.


sillyperv 54M

6/15/2006 2:32 pm

Ann Coulter is a pillar of your beliefs? TT you have got to do better than this?
I won't argue god because that's personal, but the rest?

Liberalism as a religion? Well, okay, if you define dogma as a religion, which means that any view of the world - conservative, rational, economic (and with the myth of "market forces" so much economic theory is presented as infalible and "holy" absolutes.) et al could be defined as a "faith" and therefore unquestionable because American has religious freedom. There is a difference between religious faith and ideological fanaticism and no side is free resident ideologues.

Criticizing "Liberals" for viewing the world a "particular way" is dully obvious. That's what ideologies do - all of them.

Taking quotes out of context to build an arguement - "hands off my body" "Bush lied, kids died" displays either a devious, or lazy mind, desperate to win an arguement founded on soggy Shreddies.

If the "majourity" are educated by a system meant to spew out liberals into the world, then how does Junior get elected? How is there even a Republican Party left in America?

Then, making statements without one iota of proof - her criticism of Darwin with her "gay arguement" is such a nonsequitor as to be ridiculous. What does the existence of homosexuality have to do with evolution? It neither proves or disproves Darwin's theories.

Conservative values are less proveable scientifically than Noah's Arc. So what?

And placing various issues in a cluster to taint them with the worst in a society - talking about education, recycling and liberalism, darwinism and pedophilia in the same paragraph is like trying to hide a diamond in pig shit. - is such a pathetic form of arguement structure and, again, dishonest and cheap.

And, I think the notion of pedophelia being curable, like psychopathic personality disorders, narcissim (?) has long past. I haven't read otherwise anywhere, by anyone. Does Annie ever present proof of any claim?

"SAFE LITTERING?????"

"Ransacked Danish Embassies". Which embassies? How badly ransacked? I watched the protests, I missed the ransacking.

And Muslim as a religion of violence is a blatant lie. Chivalry and all it entails in terms of decency, honour and respect, was a notion brought back by the English from the crusades. It was learned from the Muslims. Defining a religion by its' extremists is unfair. I wouldn't define Christianity by Pat Roberstons Fatwa on the head of the Columbian Leader (Or was it Argentina?) and Timothy McViah (?).

I'm sure the rest of the book is more of the same. I'll wait for it in the 2 dollar bargin bin before giving it a glance.

TT Ann is a lunatic toady to the rich and powerful and an attention whore.

Sure, I know she gets everyone hot and bothered, and you like that, and it's appropriate, this is a sex site after all, but as a quoteable "intellectual", yeeeschhhh!!

Do you ever read books with ideas not matching your own? If you don't, you shoulld, it's important to know what the "enemy" is thinking. Try "Voltaire's Bastards" for a rational, no name calling, view of the world that doesn't match yours.

Well, I'm off to drink good "CANADIAN" beer - a fine local brewry and watch football. That's SSSSCCCOOOORRRRREEEEE!!! FOOTBALL! Not football.


TTigerAtty 62M

6/15/2006 3:24 pm

    Quoting sillyperv:
    Ann Coulter is a pillar of your beliefs? TT you have got to do better than this?
    I won't argue god because that's personal, but the rest?

    Liberalism as a religion? Well, okay, if you define dogma as a religion, which means that any view of the world - conservative, rational, economic (and with the myth of "market forces" so much economic theory is presented as infalible and "holy" absolutes.) et al could be defined as a "faith" and therefore unquestionable because American has religious freedom. There is a difference between religious faith and ideological fanaticism and no side is free resident ideologues.

    Criticizing "Liberals" for viewing the world a "particular way" is dully obvious. That's what ideologies do - all of them.

    Taking quotes out of context to build an arguement - "hands off my body" "Bush lied, kids died" displays either a devious, or lazy mind, desperate to win an arguement founded on soggy Shreddies.

    If the "majourity" are educated by a system meant to spew out liberals into the world, then how does Junior get elected? How is there even a Republican Party left in America?

    Then, making statements without one iota of proof - her criticism of Darwin with her "gay arguement" is such a nonsequitor as to be ridiculous. What does the existence of homosexuality have to do with evolution? It neither proves or disproves Darwin's theories.

    Conservative values are less proveable scientifically than Noah's Arc. So what?

    And placing various issues in a cluster to taint them with the worst in a society - talking about education, recycling and liberalism, darwinism and pedophilia in the same paragraph is like trying to hide a diamond in pig shit. - is such a pathetic form of arguement structure and, again, dishonest and cheap.

    And, I think the notion of pedophelia being curable, like psychopathic personality disorders, narcissim (?) has long past. I haven't read otherwise anywhere, by anyone. Does Annie ever present proof of any claim?

    "SAFE LITTERING?????"

    "Ransacked Danish Embassies". Which embassies? How badly ransacked? I watched the protests, I missed the ransacking.

    And Muslim as a religion of violence is a blatant lie. Chivalry and all it entails in terms of decency, honour and respect, was a notion brought back by the English from the crusades. It was learned from the Muslims. Defining a religion by its' extremists is unfair. I wouldn't define Christianity by Pat Roberstons Fatwa on the head of the Columbian Leader (Or was it Argentina?) and Timothy McViah (?).

    I'm sure the rest of the book is more of the same. I'll wait for it in the 2 dollar bargin bin before giving it a glance.

    TT Ann is a lunatic toady to the rich and powerful and an attention whore.

    Sure, I know she gets everyone hot and bothered, and you like that, and it's appropriate, this is a sex site after all, but as a quoteable "intellectual", yeeeschhhh!!

    Do you ever read books with ideas not matching your own? If you don't, you shoulld, it's important to know what the "enemy" is thinking. Try "Voltaire's Bastards" for a rational, no name calling, view of the world that doesn't match yours.

    Well, I'm off to drink good "CANADIAN" beer - a fine local brewry and watch football. That's SSSSCCCOOOORRRRREEEEE!!! FOOTBALL! Not football.
Thanks for dropping by and offering an opposing opinion. I can't possibly answer all of your questions. I'd be here all night typing them out. Suffice to say, I stand by what I have previously written. I'm now into Chapter 4 of Ann Coulter's new book, and I personally find it to be an accurate portrail of extreme liberalism, at least as it plays out here in the U.S. While Ms. Coulter does have a talent for words which tend to hook people of the liberal persuasion, it is also fair to point out that their are many on the liberal side who are equally assertive if not downright offensive, venomous and deceitful. Let me so now, there's Michael Moore, Mike Mallory, Al Franken, et al. And, as a result of making a few posts re. politics on my blog and commenting at others, I have found no end to the number of liberals, leftists, Bush-bashers, Blame America Firsters, resistance movement supporters, et al that are much more capable of dishing out the vitriol towards me and any other conservative that dares to disagree with their ideology. I understand Ann's point quite well when she labels liberalism a religion.

Now, rather than wear my fingers out typing, I can only recommend you read the book and judge for yourself. I am trying to make myself more aware of liberal positions and writings by checking out the various websites like moveon.org, AirAmericaRadio.com, et al. I will try reading 'Voltaire's Bastards' on your recommendation.

Wish I could be there drinking a 'Canadian Moosehead' or 'Labatt's Blue' with you! As for the football debate, I'll stick with American football. We have violence on the field in our game, whereas with soccer, you guys apparently have more violence in the stands than on the field! I heard about the German/Polish fights prior to their World Cup game as I listened to the news this morning on the radio.

You're welcome to come back and disagree, but I'm quite comfortable in my own skin and doubt that my political views will change much. I do wish I had time to read and study the issues more than I do. These blogs help that!


TTigerAtty 62M

6/23/2006 9:03 am

    Quoting sweetbabydee07:
    Your description of Muslims as having a 'predilection for violence' is inaccurate and highly offensive. A few extremist Muslims protesting outside embassies is not representative of the religion as a whole, just as a few fanatical Christians shooting abortion doctors is not in any way representative of that religion either.

    Have you ever read the Koran? It is thoughtful and rather beautiful. Unfortunately, as with the Bible, certain people will always make their own interpretations and act accordingly.

    Oh, and calling Liberalism a mental disorder? Go and read any medical or psychiatric textbook for the definition of what constitutes a mental illness or disorder. Then maybe you will stop misusing the term.

Dee ... Since this post, I have had a miraculous conversion to liberalism, and I hereby repudiate everything I have ever said in my previous "intolerant, Christian, right-wing, neo-Nazi" past. Pardon my silly observation that fanatical Muslims are killing innocent people. How could I have ever said anything so cruel?! Liberalism is not a mental disorder. It is the norm. And I am attempting to make the conversion from conservatism to liberalism so that I can become more accepted by the Libs. I am attempting to reform my thinking.


TTigerAtty 62M

6/24/2006 7:10 am

    Quoting sweetbabydee07:
    And yet again Tiger you have singularly failed to reply meaningfully to any of the points I make.

    You did not originally say 'fanatical Muslims are killing innocent people.' If you had, I wouldn't have had a beef with you, as it is a factually correct statement.

    What you actually mentioned was "Muslims' predilection for violence" and that is what I am saying is inaccurate and highly offensive.

    Once again I ask you, have you ever read the Koran? If you did you would see that Islam is not a religion that encourages violence any more than Christianity or Judaism does. The way certain groups of fanatics choose to interpret a holy book should not be used by you as an excuse to defame the whole religion and its millions of followers worldwide.

Once again, Dee, you come back to hammer on me! I have told you that I have made the full-conversion to liberalism and that I agree with everything you folks say! Will you still not leave me in peace?

I watch the news and I see self-professed jihadists who presumably are Muslim blowing themselves up, beheading innocent people, plotting to blow up buildings, etc. Shall we blame this on the Christian-Right? Is it some sort of sinister Jewish plot, my dear? Have the devotees of Hare Krishna taken to recruitment tactics other than proselytizing in public airports?

Whether I have read the Koran or not really is not the point, but you seem to want to obfuscate the issue by making my 'Book of the Month' subscription list and issue. What does reading the Koran, the Bible or Gone With The Wind, have to do with my observation that Muslims are killing people and blowing up buildings?

I have defamed no one and no religion. Rather you seek to defame me! I merely observe along with everyone else who watches TV and reads the newspaper that it is Muslims who are using terrorism, killing innocents and blowing up buildings.

If you choose to twist my words and make them say more than they say, that is your business. We are on the same team now, Dee! I'm a left-winger, I am anti-war, I'm pro-abortion, pro-anything-goes- marriage, pro-Socialism, anti-Capitalism, anti-moral absolutes, and all the other wonderful things that liberalism has to offer the world. Heck Dee, if you say so, I'll even be pro-Muslim fundamentalist, terrorists of western civilization and the infidel Jews and Christians! Now, are you happy?


TTigerAtty 62M

6/27/2006 9:07 am

    Quoting sweetbabydee07:
    Haha. Just found two more tasty quotes from you in this thread.
    Viewed in juxtaposition they are really quite funny...

    1. "I said that liberalism is a mental disorder, and I stand by that statement."

    2. "Of course, liberalism is a religion."

    Does that make religion a mental disorder then?
    By your way of thinking, I mean...

Now there you go again, Dee! Attempting to twist my words!

No, my dear, of course it does not follow from my statements that ALL religions are a mental disorder. From my statements, you may only deduce the following:

"The religion of liberalism is also a mental disorder." Or another way to say it "Liberalism is both a religion to those who practice it and also a mental disorder with which they are so afflicted."

You may quote me, if you wish! I am quite certain of my pronouncement in this regard.

Is there something peculiar that happens to a life-long liberal inasmuch as their powers of logical reasoning are concerned? I see that life-long liberals are prone to take two pieces of information and then arrive at some completely false conclusion through some apparent contortion of deductive reasoning. I suppose I will soon think that way, IF I can only remain a Lib long enough!


TTigerAtty 62M

6/27/2006 10:15 am

sweetbabydee07 - You have been harping about statements in my original post, which are direct quotes from Ann Coulter's book, to wit:

"We aren't allowed to ask. Believers in the liberal faith might turn violent ... much like practitioners of Islam, the Religion of Peace, who ransacked Danish embassies worldwide because a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Mohammed. This is something else that can't be taught in government schools: Muslims' predilection for violence. On the first anniversary of the 9/11 attack, the National Education Association's instruction materials exhorted teachers, "Do not suggest that any group is responsible" for the attack of 9/11."1

1 John Leo, "NEA Teaches Every Culture but Our Own", Evening Sun (Hanover, PA), September 4, 2002.


First, that partiular reference to "predilection for violence" was Ann Coulter's statement not mine.

Second, what she plainly says is something I, too, observe. Have you not observed a fair number of terrorists bombing, beheading, and killing innocent people? Or, has it all been a bad dream of mine?

Third, you seem to follow the Lib way of thinking quite fervently. "Do not suggest that any group is responsible! We don't want to offend anyone's sensibilities. We don't want to risk defaming anyone or any group. Blame the ones who suggest such a thing, not the murderers themselves!"

Fourth, when I can observe through TV and newspaper reports that Muslims have stopped killing innocent people through acts of terrorism, I will stop blaming them.

My response to you hereinabove is fairly straightforward and succinct. I would think that even a Lib of many years could understand my response. If, per chance, you still remain confused, come on back and I will try once again!

Always love to debate politics with you, Dee! You, above all others are helping me make the conversion to the Religion of Liberalism!


TTigerAtty 62M

6/28/2006 3:08 pm

    Quoting sweetbabydee07:
    Yes goddammit I AM harping on. I'm still harping on. I'm not confused at all, just angry that you still defend your view of Muslims' predilection for violence. Re your points:

    1. So Ms Coulter said it, not you. Is that relevant? You quoted it, you backed it up more than once, you obviously agree with it.

    2. Yes, terrorists are killing innocent people. Yes, I have observed it.

    3.Yes, the terrorists we are talking about are Islamic Fundamentalists. When did I EVER say that that was not the case? I have never said or even suggested such a thing. I do not know anyone of a liberal mindset who thinks such a thing either. Quite obviously the 9/11 terrorists were Islamic Fundamentalists, and self confessed ones too! For anyone to suggest otherwise is faintly ridiculous, and I would have no respect for anyone who does. And as I have said repeatedly, I am not a 'Liberal.' I think for myself.

    4. What I am saying is, blame the small group of people committing the terrorist acts, but NOT the religion as a whole.

    You say you too observe 'Muslims' predilection for violence.' In what way, apart from the small groups of terrorists you see on TV? Are Muslim children more likely to start fights at school? Are Muslim men more likely to get into fights on the street? Do Muslim families have higher levels of domestic violence? Do Muslim women get into more confrontational type arguments in the workplace? Do Muslims get involved in more road rage incidents than non-Muslims? Do you personally know any violent Muslims?

    Like I said before, a small number of Christians shooting abortion doctors does not make all Christians guilty of the crime. And a small number of Muslims committing terrorist acts does not make all Muslims guilty of terrorism.

    Muslims in general DO NOT have 'a predilection for violence.'

    And for you to continue insisting that they do is highly defamat
    ory.
Dee, I am highly offended that you have now "taken the name of the Lord thy God in vain" when commenting hereinabove. That is what I am offended about, my dear. You can come on here and cuss me and demean me all you want. That is what us cuddly compassionate conservatives expect of you leftists anyway. But, please, if you wiould humor me on one thing, let us both remember to refrain from taking the Lord's name in vain.

Now, go on being offended by whatever you choose to be offended about, but my answer to your question of me remains as I have previously stated it. I am glad you acknowledge that Islamic Fundamentalists are engaged in terrorism. I was wondering if we had been watching the same news accounts for the past 10 years?

I repeat, when I see Muslim involvement in world-wide terrorism stop or diminish greatly, when I see the killing of innocents even between distinct sects of Muslims in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries stop or diminish greatly, and when I see moderate Muslims come out and more assertively condemn such violence and terrorism, then my view of Muslims will begin to change. I merely observe what I observe before me.

If Buddhists were terrorizing innocent people or fighting among themselves, I would wonder about Buddhists and observe that they have a predilection toward violence. If Hindus were terrorizing innocent people or fighting among themselves, I would wonder about Hindus. If Catholics were killing Baptists or other innocents and Baptists were killing Methodists or other innocents and Lutherans were killing Presbyterians or other innocents, then I would certainly wonder about Christians. If Masons were killing Elks or other innocents or Optimists were killing Rotarians or other innocents, I would wonder about those people who are involved in civic organizations.

Hopefully, this will help you to understand that my view is that the western world is under attack by Islamic Fundamentalists who seek to exert political influence through killing, terrorism and intimidation. And there are an increasing number of them seeking to exert their political influence through these uncivilized means!

The western world and the western lifestyle are not under attack by Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Hare Krishnas, Masons, Elks, Optimists or Rotarians.

I don't know about you, Dee, but I kinda like my western lifestyle, living in a country that permits people to worship as they chose, and the freedom to practice my own particular religion. Unlike you and your liberal friends, I can still think for myself, and I can see what group of people on this earth is using terrorist tactics. I hold the people who commit the acts of terror, the countries which offer them safe harbor and the countries which refuse to participate in the eradication of this threat to innocent, peace-loving people jointly accountable. Yes, they are all a part of the problem. If they are not a part of the solution, then they are a part of the problem. Don't be so naive, Dee. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Or, if you choose and you are certainly free to do so, watch and see who commits the acts of terrorism and which countries harbor the terrorists and then, through some sick and twisted liberal reasoning process, blame this phenomenon on the victims of the terrorist acts, or, if your prefer, blame it upon a poor childhood and upbringing of the terrorists. Blame the USA for the 9/11/2001 attack, because the USA should've done this or shouldn't have done something else. Blame George Bush. Blame Tony Blair. Blame global warming! I cannot even conceive the contorted logic that you Libs may follow to somehow avoid identifying a particular group of people with violence (or terrorism) ... unless, of course, that group of people belongs to a part of the western industrialized and civilized world and especially the United States of America!

Why, Dee, you folks in the U.K. even blame Tony Blair. Some of you there and here too, even blame yourselves and ourselves for heaven's sake! Stop that kind of thinking! The people of Britain, the people of Ireland, the people of Scotland, the whole U.K., the whole USA, the whole of Europe, of Japan, et al are not to blame! That kind of thinking will get you killed and get all of us killed!

We have to be tough-minded, and we have to recognize who is doing this to innocent people. We have to hunt them down like the cockroaches they are and eradicate them until they finally get the picture that the people of our western industrialized and civilized world will tolerate a lot and that we will generously share our resources and technologies with others, but we will not allow innocent people to be murdered or intimidated ... NOT NOW, NOT EVER!

If all this doesn't fit into your naive, pacifist view of the world, then that's OK. I don't seek to change your mind about anything.

Frankly, my patience has run short with your preaching to me about what offends you, what is defammatory, and so forth. You have consistenly taken the side of the Blame America Firsters, you have consistenly argued your silly half-baked and much predictable leftist agenda with me from topics ranging from abortion, war in Iraq, war on terrorism, detainees at GITMO, et al, and I am quite frankly bored by your naivety, your recitation of leftist talking points and your presumption that you can somehow persuade me of the rightness, logic or merit of any of the silly ideas of the left.

I don't care if you change your mind about any of the issues we have discussed. My aim is not to change you nor anyone else who reads and comments here on my blog. You are welcome to continue coming back to express your viewpoints. You are a very intelligent lady, and I respect your intellect as well as your tenacity. I am very sincere in that, Dee. But, don't presume to think that you will convince me of any part of the silly leftist agenda, nor presume to browbeat me for statements of my opinion or my viewpoint which I have every right to express here within my own blog.

Now, that said, I hope we have an understanding. I am a straight-talker, Dee, and I hope I have not offended you. You talk in a very straight-forward fashion too, so I trust that I have not offended you.

And with the weekend nearly upon us, let me wish you a very nice weekend.


TTigerAtty 62M

6/29/2006 8:11 am

    Quoting sweetbabydee07:
    I'm cussing out a different god from yours. And I'm invoking my First Amendment right to do so. I don't think I've ever cussed or demeaned you, and I'm not about to start now.

    I will however correct you on a few assumptions you persist in making about me. I am not left wing. I have never voted for a left wing political party, and I am emphatically not a pacifist.

    What I am saying with regards to international terrorism is:

    Fight the causes, not the symptoms.

    That said, I think any further discussion is somewhat pointless. Not offended in the slightest though, and have a nice weekend yourself.
Dee, why are liberals so afraid to admit they are liberals? Conservatives are not afraid to admit they are conservatives. I cannot "reform" myself to the liking of liberals and therefore I will quit trying. It is just cannot find it within me to become a liberal! Have a good weekend!


Become a member to create a blog