Friday, December 02, 2005

DEATH THREATS and JOSEF STALIN

I don't want to live in fear, but I got my second death threat today, and also a strange man came to my door. My kids were home from school and almost opened the door. For Coulter to put my FAMILY'S home phone number on her front page, knowing it would incite her fans, is unconscionable, and it continues to get worse. I have run the gamut from feeling horribly guilty, stupid for putting our home phone number on a private letter to Coulter, (but I wrongly assumed she was a normal person with the class to realize this was a private communication) and now -- very frightened for my children -- for writing what I thought was a comedic article about my frustration with this war & utter bewilderment over this new militant form of Christianity. Click here to read my original Ann Coulter article at BRAD BLOG The Coulter fans who have been contacting me are rabid hate-mongers, because every nasty e-mail and call I have gotten has been someone telling me Coulter is "enlightened and speaks the truth and I am nothing but an idiot and a failure whose films & TV shows no one cares about." One guy threatened to shoot me and another said he woudn't have minded if I had been blown up in the World Trade Center attacks. "You liberal idiots and your ilk should have been standing in a line at the WTC when they were hit. I for one would not have minded." I honestly wouldn't think of publishing this guy's e-mail address because I don't want him to get hate mail from wackos like I'm getting. Although I am saving the letter just in case anything happens to me or my family.

We are not all despicable, Godless abortionists. Most liberals are so meek, so full of desperation to help the poor, they come off as a bit mushy and disorganized, wearing bad sweaters. I am new at this but as a mother of boys and a Christian (well, at least I love the Christ truth, but the religious right-wing is turning the world off to Christianity.) I have to speak out against corruption and a truly illegal war that is rapidly killing off our best and our brightest. I wish our troops were home to protect our own borders.

Edmund Burke said, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." So by speaking out against this woman, I feel I am at least doing my duty to young people. People wonder how the Nazis took over: because good people remained silent early in the game. Fear. But Love casts out fear. And it's not just Coulter alone we are concerned with; it's the fact that she is the most vitriolic voice in support of the lies and the rush to war. She is directly linked to the brain-washing and the smearing of good people who are trying to have an open dialogue. And she wears the cross on TV. These new type of mega-chruch Christians are packaged to believe she is "on the side of good" because they are spoon-fed this new twisted version of Christianity based on this abortion myth -- that all liberals are unborn baby-killers. I am not pro-abortion! I am liberal in my open-mindedness and love for humanity. And I am sad for these wonderful people -- they have good hearts and think this new corporate form of Christianity is truth, but if they really, REALLY study Christ's own words and see behind the letter to the spirit, they will know things in their heart that no fire and brimstone-rapture-invoking preacher can tell them. I always have to look at my hidden motives: what am I protecting and in fear of losing? For example, these dangerous "Left-Behind" books warm the hearts of people who care about eternal life, their own salvation. Looking down on those sinners left behind who didn't declare Jesus as their savior, makes them feel superior. But true Christians would not worry so much about saving their own lives; you have to lose your life to save it, which means get off thinking about your own salvation so much! And do you think a God of Love would really throw one of his own children who had lived a life expressing the very love Christ came to show us -- a person who feeds the hungry, gives to the poor, loves his neighbor as himself -- do you think he would throw him into eternal hell simply because he was Jewish or Hindu... or Ghandi? Simply because this person didn't declare jesus as their savior -- while walking as Jesus walked? Jesus himself said not to focus on the letter (rules) but the spirit of his law. It's LOVE, he himself was pure love. Abide in love is what he meant. He could have cared less if you said his technical name -- because if this is true, what happens to all the unborn babies on the way who never learned his physical name yet? By the way, Jesus LOVED the heathens, the lepers (AIDS victims of this day), the sinners, the prisoners - these are the meek ones no one wanted to touch. Please see "Walk the Line" - the Johnny Cash movie. The best line in the movie is when the record exec says to Johnny (paraphrasing): "Your fans are church-goin' Christians; they wont' like it if you sing to prisoners (at Folsom prison)." To which Johnny says: "They they aren't Christians are they?" It dawned on me that God used Johnny Cash BECAUSE he was broken; the other brother who died as a young boy, was already going to be a preacher, too perfect, too by-the-book. Cash went to hell and back and could serve the world better with his form of "preaching" -- singing to the downtrodden heathens that no Pharisees would touch.

Here is a still from the recent episode I did of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" on HBO see "The Christ Nail" video clip right here And you can click on another promo called "Bra Tease" under Featured Clips. Larry David made me laugh so hard I couldn't keep a straight face doing improv with him; he's a comic genius. So was Ted Knight, of course, who played my dad. He taught me wondrous things, like how to do a "spit-take" without drooling. I miss him so much (and Audrey Meadows); we used to laugh until we cried everyday. And I miss John Ritter, who used to pop his head in during rehearsals. Hard to believe all these great comic actors are gone. God Bless Dorothy Knight, Ted's wife, who recently died. My brother Paul died ten years ago yesterday. He was my angel. (I love you and miss you so much.) I remember when he showed me in a vision that there is no death; we are spiritual beings having a human experience and our soul's growth is all that matters.


I do standup comedy and have written comedy for years. Most of what I write has a tinge of humor to it. I wrote a book on Stalin's plot to kill Trotsky. Stalin feared Trotsky because he knew the "pen was mightier than the sword"; Trotsky was a brilliant writer and could sway people to his side. Obviously I am not accusing Coulter of being Stalin or physically killing 60 million people. That was a bit of my humor or "satire". But the dictator was a narcissist (a person so full of self-hate he projects it onto others and cannot bear imperfection). Stalin had no humility or empathy for others, and no true interest in other's lives or opinions. It was HIS way or the highway. You know how wonderful a good conversation is -- when you can share each other's viewpoints and consider new ideas? Well normal human beings that are not sociopaths; they engage in conversation with a certain delighted inquisitiveness and open-minded interest in others. I love people who can admit they're wrong, that they make mistakes. God knows I screw up all the time; I need forgiveness everyday. Admitting your mistakes is a sign of strength, not weakness. Only those who have shaky self-esteem have to always appear to have the upper-hand, to be"right" and in control. There were many qualities about Stalin's personality that were pathological, socio-pathological: an inherent disinterest in other human beings, a disregard for other's feelings entirely. A superiority, an elitism that disdained underlings. Doing research at the library one day I looked in the card catalogue under Stalin's name and the strangest thing came up: Alcoholism. Stalin was a delusional alcoholic who grew power-mad. Other names that came up under alcoholism: famous writers like Dorothy Parker (barbed wit), HItler and Mussolini.

"By their fruits you shall know them". (Scripture-quoting is not really my thing, but this seems relevant.) What constructive thing has a destructive critic ever shown us that she has created with her God-given talent? Destruction -- tearing down others -- to promote a war that has increased our enemies around the world. I love this country. America is the best nation in the world and I am tired of apologizing for being upset over this war! How can anyone in their right mind not want our troops home? I can't bear to hear of another young soldier dying! I fly the American flag, I am a patriot, I have family in the Marines, this beautiful goodness and light we used to represent to the whole world has changed. We are no longer the nation people look to for protection, for moral "rightness", or fundamental laws of faith in the universe. I wanted my children to be able to travel the world someday -- to London, Paris, Rome, Madrid and Athens -- even to Egypt to see the pyramids -- without fear of being called the "Ugly American" or worse, attacked. We have carpet-bombed entire cities, white phosphorous on little Iraqi children, ruined ancient Babylonian treasures and glorified corruption in government: these are the fruits of this administration. Corn syrup sweetner and Ambien are not constructive! And Bush has the chance to join the great minds in finding a solution to global warning but he doesn't seem to think its a priority. A new Kyoto treaty -- and we are not involved!

Here is a link to the most inflammatory Coulter hate-speak. http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001939.htm. The reason we are speaking out, and I am writing this book with a conservative Christian who has been working for over four years on every single statement Coulter has ever put in her "books" -- is because we believe Coulter is the most verbal evidence of what is wrong with our beautiful country. I am frightened for young people to be swept up in a tide of hatred, because young students are so easily influenced by charismatic speakers. I am so sad anyone would hire Coulter to speak -- because her words are very provocative and stimulating and ugly; she incites people to go against an entire group of fellow Americans. A house divided does not stand. This woman is not a patriot; she divides people. My whole point was to shine a light on Coulter's hate-speak (and some of you don't do your research.) And of course her defenders, (who think they are defending America) are turning it around and saying I am spewing hatred toward her. I know my intentions are loving. I intend to show love toward Coulter and pray for her. But first I must speak the truth and not hide what I know. God is very personal to me -- I had a catastrophic spiritual awakening and a series of spine-tingling miracles through prayer. Now I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists -- in fact this may be the only thing I know for sure. But God is love and should never be used to justify war, hatred or judgment by humans. And the bible is still being written because we are still living our history. Why do people think it all ends -- it's still going on! Every godly person is writing the living Bible right now. We are spiritual, not material and our battles are truly within ourselves. Love is the essence of everything.

Others, here on my own site have said I am an idiot to confront Coulter, a person doing this just to get attention." Attention like this no one needs. I have spent all these years staying out of the limelight to find my soul, get rid of my obnoxious ego, fall in love, raise children, gain a real life, experience pain and the death of loved ones, deepen myself -- I have never posed nude, have turned down countless offers to cheapen myself with reality TV or by selling products I don't believe in. I am raising a child with a genetic defect whose mother abandoned him -- and I've had a major crash and burn which turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to me. Now I figured out the key to life, and I want to share it -- just like other people before me in their own way, but this article came out way before I had a chance to tell the real story. I never intended my article on hate-speech to reach anyone but a few Dems. I never expected anything like this.

Extra stuff: I had no idea the comments on blogs could become so venomous! Some are wonderful, but others are bizarre. But how can one prevent free speech and open dialogue? Actually the ugliest and most personal attacks against me have come from the right-wing, and all I ever wanted to do was shine a light on Coulter's hate-speak. I never call for the hurting of Republicans, I would never incite or jokingly provoke people to hate a whole group of people, but Coulter does this to Democrats.

Frankly I am new at this, and all ever want to write about these days is about God. I have had a remarkable journey of faith, and the last thing I ever wanted to do was create hatred and division.

I read this comment on Huffington Post somewhere: "For perversely hypocritical reasons, the misguided Christian right has convinced itself that the way to emulate the most gracious man to ever live is to be exceedingly ungracious to others." And if I have been ungracious or offensive in any way, I am deeply sorry. I will work on this pundit thing.

God Bless you! Sorry this is so long.

43 comments:

  1. Anonymous6:37 AM

    Lydia,

    It's amazing that the liberals want to deny Miss Coulter her right to free speech when they themselves accuse her of wanting to do the same thing.

    Check out any links from Media Matters for America.

    So is it safe to say you agree?

    I'm a Republican, but I'm not here to threaten you, harass you or your fellow Dems. I'd like to say you should have done more research before spewing out what you think is right.

    The problem with the Democrats is they whine, bitch and moan about us and call us hatemongers, blah, blah, blah.

    If you all put as much energy into your political campaigns as you do your schtick, perhaps you would win an election or two.

    Geez.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:00 AM

    Ken, thank you for using your own words to prove Ms. Cornell's point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous8:26 AM

    Lydia,

    As has been pointed out a thousand times: When you send an email to a well known pundit, and then 2 weeks later churn out a "piece" comparing her to Stalin, you should expect somewhat of a retort.

    You, in a professional disguise, sent Coulter a message that included contact information. When a messsage is sent in a professional disguise with contact information, it is assumed that the contact information is professional as well. Would a Dr. do this? Would an accountant do this? How was she supposed to know this was your personal home phone?

    Looks like you need to change it. Unfortunately, I think Ann - being an attorney and all - knows that this email is her property and when you chose to click the send button and then write and compare her to Stalin weeks later - you opened yourself up to attack.

    As far as the threatening phone calls, I am sure even Coulter is not endorsing these. How do you know that the attention brought to it by Bradblog or yourself even has not put ideas in the heads of the compulsive types that read his webpage. Read some of the comments Lydia to see where these people are standing in terms of actual speech...misspellings...grammar...and profanity.

    Coulter uses INVECTIVE to make a point....she jokes in a way that conservatives understand. Last night Maureen Dowd, without proof, declared that "Cheney was guilty". The liberal audience laughed and applauded. Yes it hit a sore sport with me, but it's free speech! No she doesn't have proof, but she still got to say it! Write a column and call her "Stalin".

    As far as Ann's repression of liberal free speech, I think she pretty much rebutted it last night on the O'Reilly Factor when she told O'Reilly about these smear sites that are actually helping her.

    I am all for you, having your right to speak your mind. Just curious, how long have you studied Coulter?

    I also admire all of your bumpy stumps in the road and your triumphs. However, why should it be assumed that Ann's life is or has never been "challenging" as well.

    I don't know, you should attack the members in your own party, Lydia. That would be an incredible project that nobody on your side has done yet. Make a list of all the Senate Democrats whining about "Bush Lied" and the mainstream liberal pundits like Moore, Franken, or Vandenheuvel and explain in detail why these individuals are hurting your party.

    Trust me! It's a fresh idea, and since you obviously have a problem with invective and humor...what better place to start than with your own party for this? I guarantee it'll pay off. Not only for you, but for your party's chances of winning the next Presidential Election!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:41 AM

    Lydia..

    So how do you feel about abortion?

    You seem intelligent enough and some Christians might agree with you on the Iraq war, Ann Coulter and especially those obnoxious Assembly of God enclaves churning out all the Amway neocons, but you're hard to take seriously given the uber-liberal company I suspect you keep.

    I bet if I Googled I'd find out you habitually attend these stupid vanity affairs for fringie causes that seem to be a magnet for the D-list--are Mike Farrel and Ed Begeley on your speed dial?

    www.derspiel.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous10:31 AM

    Why is it that former "stars" are always so quick on the draw to take up the liberal causes i.e. Ed Begley Jr., Ed Asner, Mike Farrel, Morgan Fairchild and dare I say Ms. Cornell?

    Could this be a surreptitious attempt to keep their names in the flickering spotlight? I mean do they really believe in their causes?

    Why didn't they all do this WHILE they had their 15 minutes of fame? And when they do manage to get on the tube, why is we see the tagline "Mike Farrell - Actor/Activist?"

    Just what I need. Former stars telling me I'm wrong because I have a different matter of opinion on certain things.

    Just lovely.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous10:48 AM

    Worfeus,

    Granted Lydia said her life was threatened, where did it mention her kids? She said they almost opened the door. There were no threats mentioned against them--and if there were she should have said so.

    I'm sorry there's a few idiots out and running amuck. Yes, the Republican Party has them. So does the Democrats (does the name Howard Dean mean anything to you?)

    Was it wrong to put her personal information out for all to see? Yes it was, but Ms. Cornell should have known better than to put her HOME number there. She bears the blame with that and she herself called it "accidently" (I could have sworn she said "absent-mindedly."

    She calls it accidently, but some better words come to mind--stupidly, irresponsibly, blonde moment (just kidding on the last one).

    Now what source do you have that Ms. Coulter "KNEW that number was not to be published with the letter?" Instinct?

    You forgot to include "IMHO" at the end.

    And as for the next elections?

    Well I guess we'll find out now won't we?

    Murderous? Talk about hyperbole mate!

    Regards,

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous11:08 AM

    And the Liberals talk about us insulting them!

    I'm sure Ms. Cornell is proud of your rant Worfeus.

    But who am I to stop you? I love a good laugh and thanks for providing that mate!

    Regards,

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous12:37 PM

    Worf, at least Ann Coulter comes up with new jokes everytime she makes a comment. Isn't your "Frau Coulter" line getting a little old?

    Ken's exactly right. Worf your posts are laughable. You insult, insult, and insult and want to jump on Lydia's "Coulter-bashing brigade" in an act of preserving "love" and stopping "hate"....then you divert by throwing out random scriptures from the Bible.

    Think for yourself and quit convoluting the Bible (as your peeps do with the Constitution to create rights that never existed in the first place...[and you talk about Republicans twisting the Constitution]...LOL) to substantiate an argument.

    By the way, in an earlier blog, you suggested that Coulter got her clock cleaned in terms of fact with Katie Couric. Are you insane? Did you watch the same interview? Couric moved back and forth in her chair, as Coulter shot everything down she had to say. Everytime Ann said something, Couric rudely interuppted because in her words "actually, since I'm conducting this interview"....

    Couric (more than just one day...Ann was right) and Lauer both opened the shows' segments on each of the days with "Ronald Reagan was an airhead, that's the conclusion of this new book by Edmund Morris" purposely taking out the word "apparent" and furthering that lie by asserting that it was the "conclusion" of the book when it was written in the first paragraph and how the entire course of the rest of the book contradicted that statement.

    If you're too simple minded to understand that, but at the same time can play copy and paste with the Bible, the truth is, you aren't worth debating and are indeed running from the facts.

    You lie! It's in the Commandments, you falsify the book's teachings to support your nonsense and to glorify Lydia's obvious interest in her only apologist on here...(sort of like teacher's pet). So before you LIE and misinterpret God and the Bible by twisting meanings of scriptures to serve your wacky agenda, why don't you try at least memorizing the Ten Commandements my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous1:18 PM

    Uh oh....Worfeus called Steve a "dick"....Bad Worfeus, bad!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous2:04 PM

    Lydia -- I have never heard anyone speak the truth so clearly and so eloquently. PLEASE keep writing and speaking -- please don't let the haters intimidate you. never give up!! The world needs your light.

    Clarissa

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous2:47 PM

    Steve Flesher and Ken, seek some professional help. ASAP.

    Lydia, you nailed everything about these rightwing fascists. Fear was Hitler's powerful weapon. Conservatives & Bush Admin used it against anyone who has enough courage to speak out about their fascism activites & behaviors.

    Don't let these fill-with-hatred conservatives stop you, Lydia. There are many people who are on your side. Never forget that one.

    Steve Flesher and Ken, I repeat: seek some professional help.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous4:19 PM

    Keep it up, Lydia. The tenor and the content of the criticism posted here (hmmm, sounds a lot like Coulter) convinces me that the country needs even more voices like yours.
    To conservatives who resort to name-calling and ridicule, who demonize liberals beyond recognition, I wish some respected public figure would shake his finger and declare, "At long last, have you no decency?"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous4:25 PM

    Lord Worf, You are incredible. Of course you don't "twist" copy and pastes. But you DO twist their meanings. The Bible contains MANY passages that counter anybody's arguments. Your lies about the "holy war" are shameful. In a recent post, I believe it was you that said that it wasn't even a "war" to begin with.

    Katie Couric had NO EVIDENCE. She was holding notes and a QUOTE THAT ANN HAS IN HER BOOK.

    You are the pea-brain if you don't understand the argument. YES Edmund Morris described Ronald Reagan as an "apparent airhead" on a very first meeting. He states this in the BEGINNING of his book. Katie Couric opened the show with "The Gipper was an Airhead - that's the CONCLUSION of this new book by Edmund Morris" when Edmund Morris went on there, he told her that Ronald Reagan WAS NOT an airhead and that was his observation on a VERY FIRST MEETING. The point of the book was to show how intelligent he was, after Morris provided his opinion on the first meeting with him.

    Ann ducked away from nothing in that debate....and when she wanted to conclude the point, a terrified and embarrassed Couric rudely shut her up.

    Also, let me remind you Worf. This IS NOT Heaven. In Heaven there are no wars, On Earth they aren't nescessary if EVERYONE agrees. Unfortunately, we cannot "turn the other cheek" when 3,000 of our people are slaughtered on our own soil. This was a result of religion, and a result of decades of rubbing noses with middle eastern leaders after France tried to bring government to the mid east in the early part of the century, then left the mess for Britain and the United States to deal with. You are obviously unable to step outside of the box in your thought processes.

    If this were Heaven, half of your Bible convolutions would hold water (and that's only half of them) but since it's not Heaven, they do not!

    God's not in control here on Earth, HERE he gave us all free will to do the best we could. I'm interested to see what your thoughts are....in a world with Barbra Streisands and Cindy Sheehans, I can see why you cannot allow yourself an independent thought of your own.

    Things are going my way, so go to your closet as Sissy Spacek had to do in "Carrie", light your candle and chant to your heart's content. When the Republican party continues to stand up to these lunatics that are threatening our safety (including yours) you can come out and join reality.

    :-)

    And "anonymous" it's telling when one's argumentative formulation consists of "seek professional help"...on the basis of what the rest of your blather covered, I'll accept a pre-victory ;-).

    When people resort to comments like that, you know you've already won.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous4:48 PM

    "As long as you and your goosestepping riechstag gang want to wage your knightly crusade using the bible as your declaration of war, I will be happy to counter."

    As a general matter, I have not used the Bible as a justification for war. As a general matter, Coulter has not used the Bible as a justification of war. The Earth is not God-like. Faith is one thing. This is reality, right here as we know it.

    You, on the other hand are using it as your justification to dissent.

    Do whatever you want. But now you are putting words into the mouths of the majority of the people who support President Bush and our troops.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous5:57 PM

    Hello - can someone please tell me where I can read the article? I haven't been able to get to BradBlog for several months, all I get is a screen full of green marble; I tried the "search" feature at editorandpublisher, that failed. Any help? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous7:26 PM

    Thanks, I'll try that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous12:39 AM

    Okay Worf, you want to open a can of grammatical checking? Here goes:

    A. You misspelled “mediocre” in a previous post.

    B. “Steam rolled” is not one word all together.

    C. You misspelled “get” (what’s “git” mean?)

    D. You said: “Your bearing false witness”

    Replace “Your” with “You’re” to make it grammatically correct.

    Replace “bearing false witness” with “bearing a false witness” OR “bearing false witnesses” to make it grammatically correct.

    E. You said: “Trust me, Frau Coulter knew what she was doing.”

    Here, you have two independent clauses incorrectly joined. Next time, try dividing them into separate sentences, adding a conjunction, or changing the punctuation.

    F. You said: “If you doubt that, then I suggest you are not a insightful as you assert. “

    Rather than “a insightful”, you might want to try “as insightful.”

    G. You said: “ordered that their be NO paper trail. “

    Replace “their” with “there” to make it grammatically correct.

    H. You said: “Something your little mediocre Lt. Busch, could not even fathom.”

    Come on Worfeus, you know as well as I do, this is NOT a complete sentence!

    I. You said: “I would take Howard Dean over a billion of your little Busch's.”

    While there is nothing wrong with this sentence grammatically, it certainly questions your certifiable status. Now I know why you have all of this time to answer all of these posts all day long. Get out of the house Worf!

    Of course, this is all done in good fun, but mind you, this is just one of your posts for the most part. You have typed a lot and don’t make me analyze all of them, please! Simply reading them to find your point (which is still nonexistent) requires a lifetime shipment of "No Doz" to get through in and of itself!

    When I write in defense of Republicans, I write comfortably. I understand what is and what is not grammatically correct. I just didn’t realize this was a graded assignment.

    Okay, now to answer the argument at the risk of receiving a C- on this post, I would like to acknowledge your good liberal rant of “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11". It should go without saying that anyone who defends Howard Dean (even a Democrat) is either Howard Dean himself, or, must be on some tripped up meds that he accidentally prescribed. In any case, he’s taught you well. Months after 9/11 when Saddam Hussein made a purposed bluff to the United Nations about WMD’s, it was apparent - by the lessons learned from 9/11 - that we could not take threats from middle eastern leaders lightly anymore. The idea of terrorism and defeating it as a whole and establishing a true democracy in Iraq was and is a terrific place to start. The Iraqi people continue to turn out in record numbers every time a new act of democracy is held. They are proud and have hope. While Osama Bin Laden and Saddam had no immediate ties (even GWB never insinuated such), they certainly had ties in the past. Saddam funded and harbored terrorists. Saddam corrupted the United Nations with his “Oil for Food” scandal and as a result gassed hundreds of thousands of his own people. At this point, based on these facts Worf, I’d like to give you a stress test. Hold up a picture of Saddam Hussein, and then hold up a picture of George W. Bush and see which one really gets your goat! The idea that implies strictly going after Osama without formulating a true plan to clean up the entire part of this sick area of the world would have been hideous.

    But of course, I know you still would have been a good liberal and cowardly blew off Saddam’s bluff and relied on the corrupt Hanz Blix and the rest of the U.N. weapons' inspectors. Or wait, you are probably still relying on Joe Wilson’s “official” report.

    Next you decide to bring up the successful approval ratings. You call them bleak. I call them great. Clearly during the Reagan administration we learned that when the liberal media and these pollsters are churning out questions to get the responses they want - especially during a great Republican’s second term - it’s a good sign. When liberals are ranting pointlessly in masses and then John Murtha throws himself to the mercy of the House and then the House votes against Murtha and your overstated "majority” by a 403/3 vote, it shows one of two things. Either Democrats are spineless and have no backbone to truly support what the “majority” is saying because they are unsure themselves or they don’t really agree with what the “majority” is saying in the first place. Take your pick, I’m not really sure, and to tell you the truth, I don’t really care. I was happy with the results of the House vote last week - even by your trusted Democrats ;-).

    At this point, the only better thing that could happen, is that the approval ratings continue to fall (as they will, don't forget Alito's confirmation is coming up).

    Lastly, and certainly not least, you prattle on about how “we support the troops!” Obviously you don’t seem to understand that when people like yourself constantly denounce your President, you denounce the troops who are supporting him as well BY BEING THERE. None of them were drafted, were they? You write these very irresponsible things, and Murtha cries on national television, and Al Jazeera plays these things and publish these things daily to give support to the insurgents and take morale away from our troops, it makes you no better than the insurgents.

    Stop being a ninny and be a man! Your biblical arguments are elementary. As I said before, in Heaven, God is in control. Here, we have free will. You’re biblical justifications for war - as you put into the mouths of Republicans - are spineless. As I say, you use the Bible to justify your cause, and I haven’t seen one conservative who is pro-war use it to the degree that you have. So dry your eyes. You are the only one who is twisting the Holy word.

    See you in English class!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous3:21 AM

    LOL that was not a lie and you know it. THREE DEMOCRATS still voted for it.

    Dont forget that.

    Wow Im just heading to bed....I was out all night, came home, left and came back. Im amazed you got up to check this so late/early.

    You criticized my grammar, don't lie.

    You aren't the "give peace a chance" martyr you pass yourself off to be.

    Even Hillary, Biden, all of them are saying a PULL OUT like Murtha suggested would be a bad thing.

    You're a great liberal...good at denial.

    It's your party and you'll cry if you want to.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous12:59 PM

    Well I'm glad you mention that Worf (regarding sounding like Ann Coulter).

    It seems that liberals are allowed to use invective and call it "debate" when it serves their agenda. When Ann Coulter uses it, it's "hate-speak".

    Examine your writings Worf from the very first post you posted on this blog. They continue to get more mean-spirited and the name calling triples each time you write a reply to me. You darn liberals (oh excuse me..."independents") are so predictable! LOL.

    Regarding Murthas plan...every DEMOCRAT in the House and Senate reject his plan as well. Biden, Hillary, even Schumer are saying how dangerous that would be. You do not send a memo telling insurgents "just hold out a little longer guys, we're only going to be there another 5 months, 7 days, 3 hours, and 42 minutes!" LOL. I am glad though that there are 3 members of the house (all Democrats) who voted for the proposition...and that people like yourself continue to promote a "timeline". It's going to ensure that Democrats are going to stay out of office where they definitely do not belong. So Thank You!

    You set up your sarcastic factor as an extra insurance policy.

    You also said: "this sentence was barely coherent, and questionable grammatically speaking"

    You were just trying to insult. Which is fine, I've debated brighter and more coherent, and can get through it just fine..just always expect a reply :-).

    Regarding evolution, I'm glad your optomistic, but I think my friend, that so-called "evolution" has had a reverse effect on you. I'm sure whatever created you could have debated me with a little more zeal.
    As my descendants grow (your words) and your descendants continue to decline, can you imagine what a debate between your kids and mine would be like? LOL. Good point Worf, and I'm glad you keep bringing them up.

    Lastly (and believe it or not I was GOING to bring this up in a previous post because as liberals and "independents" start to tire and are scraping the bottom of the pudding cup for ideas to debate...they turn to this one) you have no idea of my military experience number one, and number two, let me turn this around on you.

    Let's assume that I've never been in the miliary and take the following points and answer them to the best of your ability.

    A. Worf, are you supportive of your local fire departments or police departments? If so, you must join them tomorrow in fighting fires and fighting crime (that local donation to the Fire Fighters Association and Fraternity Order of Police is much appreciated but isn't helping much). If you refuse to join them, does it change the IDEA of having them? Come on Worf you must have a little common sense. For you to use this bottom of the barrell argument and then lecture on the basis of "logic" after it's been proven repeatedly that all you seem to be good at in terms of formulating an argument, is copy and paste bible verses.

    B. If you feel our troops, who are supporting our President by being there, are serving as the world police, wouldn't that make them just as bad as he is? Why don't you cross political lines and fight them along with your fellow insurgents? Take a couple leaders of Al Quaida out to dinner and have a slumber party with Al Zarqawi to apologize on behalf of the American People. Though I guarantee you by morning you will have no hands to type with by the time he is done with you. (though that may be a good thing...UH OH is that "hate-speak"?)

    [By the way I'm sure you and Cindy Sheehan are in total mourning today after the death of yet another "freedom fighter". Top Al Quaida Commander, Hamza Rabia was killed! Are you okay Worf, need a hug? How about a nice verse of "give peace a chance".]

    How about starting your own liberal soap opera..."All My Islamic Children"...or even better "One Life to Slaughter" (which would be incredible if your fantasy came true and our boys wind up losing).

    And finally, I just love the newest canard: "I'm not a liberal, but I'm going to argue like one, rehash, redigest, and throw up all over again what the top Senate Democrats have been regurgitating for the last three years". Where's the Bush impeachment? How many people showed up for Cindy Sheehan's book signing last week? And by the way, what did happen to that compelling Downing Street Memo?

    In regard to your "I'm not a liberal" argument Worf, all I can I say is: "If it looks like a duck, and it squawks like a chicken, it's probably a liberal".

    Keep singing!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous1:07 PM

    "Murtha has proposed his own resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date.""

    Translation: "I'm unrealistic".

    Read it and weep Worf.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051120/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous5:02 PM

    hhh

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous5:56 PM

    You said you weren't a democrat...alligning or non alligning yourself with the party.

    That was not YAHOO news. It was SPONSORED by YAHOO and pulled from the Associated Press which is indeed the major news outlet that NY Times, CBS, Fox News, Yahoo, MSNBC all use. See, reporters join the Associated Press. Then the top news outlets purchases these articles from them. They just reprinted what the biggest newsource in the world uses.

    Your long book report only says in a long way, what my small little FACTUAL quote said. Murtha wants to withdraw, WE CANNOT. I explained to you why, but I can see why you would want to divert away from common sense.

    He's clearly wrong Worf, and the top Senate Democrats are not even supporting it. It's not realistic. Stop portraying the Republicans here as they are forcing decisions on House Democrats. What are you saying? House Democrats have no REAL opinion and are just parrots for Republicans, now?

    (By the way, they accomplished this WITHOUT Tom DeLay, just imagine when he comes back)

    My clock being cleaned would mean that you proved something that I was saying was not true. I have known all along Murtha's insane proposal.

    My FACT of the quote only confirms what you pasted.

    It's the same idea, your post or mine, that is being rejected by Congress...even the Democratic members.

    There is my position that you need to "clean my clock on". That Democrats as a majority, ARE NOT supporting it.

    Many other issues too...Bush's impeachment, Cindy's lonely book signing, the faded Downing Street Memo.

    You fail to mention ANYTHING regarding any of that.

    REDEPLOYMENT: "to transfer from one area or activity to another"

    Again Senate Democrats disagree. I disagree. They are just fine where they are.

    You can call it what you want, but in the end we all know what it means.

    Nice try.

    You said: "so little PINHEADS like you could come into Blogs and say the Dems voted against pulling out."

    Your own phraseology was "pulling out".

    You also said: "And in case you forgot there Einstein, I ain’t no democrat:

    Most democrats I talk to say: "democrats are not liberals..liberals are bringing our party down". Are you saying the opposite by calling yourself a "liberal" and not a "democrat"? LOL.

    Don't confuse yourself Worf, you need all the help you can get.

    I also like how you avoided my anti-chicken hawk analogy as well.

    Can't you admit when you've been shot down?

    LOL.

    Probably not, "liberals" are still saying that they won the last election. LOL.

    Denial doesn't work. Ask Cindy Sheehan.

    :-) I enjoy this as well. I admire your endurance. I'll be back in 3 hours - as usual - to refute.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous7:19 PM

    Hi Lydia : How about coming over to my place for spaghetti and meatballs on toast? Anyways, I am completely freaked out that a nice girl such as yourself is interested in such a complex subject as Stalin; very impressive. Most girls worry about shampoo and nail polish!
    My clarity on God, life, war, is undeniable. There are no absolutes to any of lifes questions, problems, or concerns....it is virtually impossible for man to balance the scales and create absolutes. Very desperate people turn to God to manufacture a false hope......I consider these people "Lost Souls".
    Hitlers Germany was filled with lost souls -as he was their God.

    Truthfully,I think theres a little bit of Stalin in everyone!

    Johnny moo moo

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous9:08 PM

    "Worfeus grow bored with lowbrow republican lies."

    You are amazing. You aren't interested in anything I have to say yet you always have something to say back.

    I made it clear that you said "democrat" and not "liberal". I'm telling you, these days there is no difference.

    Worf the way you talk represents the democrats. Dean, Pelosi, Boxer, Bidem, whatever.

    You want to twist it and say "I never said this, and I said this and you said that" but you are fighting the same pointless fights the democrats are.

    Regardless who you allign yourself with, your ideas are as insane as theirs were. Now that they have been slapped with reality, they are shying away...the only difference in you is that you are still ranting about what they are FINALLY giving up on.

    You tried to make a case (regarding your chickenhawk argument) that if you support something you must join something. I refuted it, and you mentioned nothing of it.

    Obviously you won't have much to say. Because you don't want to debate any of the issues or points..because you can't.

    The basic Murtha rant, is the same Sheehan rant, the Downing Street rant, and the Bush impreachment rant. I showed you how all of those are now faded away and mean nothing.

    I also drew a fair comparrison in your anti war speech to that of the Democrats in Congress.

    So now you say that just because Pelosi, Dean, Hillary's flip-flopping, Biden, Schumer, Feinstein, all Senate arguments on the left (that just happen to sound like yours even though you are not a Democrat) that have been shut down, that it means nothing.

    It must be "right" just because Worf says so. LOL. Again alligning with the typical liberal argument that "majority doesn't win" but "our side always wins".

    I show you how Democrats in the Senate and House have babbled on without having the guts to back up their assertions when it actually comes to voting on it, and your answer is: "I'm not a democrat".

    When your arguments to Bush bash, sound just like theirs, you lose when the Democrats lose. Unless you can formulate an argument that we have not already heard.

    Regarding the YAHOO thing, I just pointed out who the Associated Press was. It was you who said I should use an "Anchor"..though I'm sure you were talking about Dan Rather or Mary Mapes LOL.

    I suspect you're frustrated as you should be. You cannot refute anything specific, you just keep repeating yourself.

    It was fun, and I thank you for ensuring that liberals will not be winning any presidential elections anytime soon.

    Thanks Worf! We couldn't have done it without you :-).

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous1:02 AM

    Worf Worf Worf.....

    Stop for a drink. LOL. You need a little air.

    In re-reading your "anchor" comment.....I am not sure anyone would have understood it unless they are incredibly computer minded. My webpage is run off of frontpage and a hosting company. Sorry for the mix-up but unless you're a computer geek - and the subject is "news sources", I think it's more than acceptable to make this mistake.

    Regarding my taking you out of context...I sdmit you said that you were a liberal! I admit you said you were not a democrat. I admit I read the Murtha proposal.

    No matter what you call yourself, your arguments are JUST LIKE the democrats' arguments. The only difference is that you keep holding on to them, after they finally are starting to let them go!

    You are taking yourself out of context, and frankly, I think you are starting to confuse yourself.

    You keep refuting points that I never made in the first place.

    Murtha saying "redeployment" doesn't change the argument. As I stated, we all know what it means. AND NOBODY is supporting it in Congress. Again a point that you should be refuting, but are not!

    The great thing about blogging is that it's always here, anyone can choose to re-read anything I have written. You keep rehashing and arguing points that I have never raised in the first place.

    You have resorted to namecalling (I counted 7 times in the last 3) and now your constant CAPS imply that you are screaming.

    LOL...none of this surprises me.

    Worf you can't win a debate unless you acknowledge the heart of what is being debated.

    You really DON'T want a liberal to have a shot in the White House, do you? LOL....at least that might be a point we can clink champagne glasses on together.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous9:12 AM

    Steve, I don't know why you waste time with Worefeus. It's obvious he lives in his own little world.

    He insults and says and I quote "I could care less if you and your lousy little soul rots in hell."

    Nice Christian attitude from someone who claims to read and quote the Bible.

    It's fanatics like him that make me believe more in Austin 3:16 than anything he'll ever say.

    But I'd expect that from a religious zealot...and a liberal one at that.

    Regards,

    Ken
    Austin 3:16 which just means I whipped your ass.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous10:08 AM

    LOL good one Ken!

    ReplyDelete
  28. lydia, oh lydia!

    just read the whole ordeal at the brad blog. well done, bub! you've proved what a class act you are. mann, once again, had to result to nasty tactics and ugly ad hominems. not that i object to the use of such, but hers was unwarranted, and uproariously ironic!

    heh! "....death is sexier than lydia cornell..."! oh, the ugly irony! should i contrast the charming and delightful ms. cornell with the knobbly mr. coulter? i might as well contrast the former with a burlap sack. a burlap sack with an adam's apple, no less!

    your ardent fan and supporter,
    KEvron

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous6:54 PM

    I think some of these people would defend Hitler if Ann Coulter told them to. Lydia, I can't say it enough, please don't let these hate mongers get to you. Ann is jealous because he'd like to be a real woman like you, and knows he never will be.

    The republicans are falling left and right or is that right and right and mAnn Coulter isn't far behind them. Already MSNBC named her the mose vile or the worst person or something like that.

    Lydia, you're awesome. Now, hire a lawyer and get that bee-awtch!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous6:57 PM

    Steve Flesher is a self hating homosexual who needs to be accepted by the rethugnicans and that's why he worships Ann Coulter.

    Hey Steve, shut up and go play with yourself. If you were a true republican, you'd be straight!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous9:37 PM

    LOL...it's amazing I defend my President and our troops and I'm accused of being a "self-hating" gay man. That's a good sign, because George Bush has been considered a "self hating American", Ann Coulter has been referred to as a "Food restricting anorexic"...LOL. It's amazing the lengths liberals will go to namecall...makes me think of Ann's quote once again from the Couric interview:

    "When everyone of your arguments is characterized as an attempt to bring back slavery or resegregate lunch counters, it's a little hard to have any sort of productive debate".

    So called "progressives" continue to achieve nothing.

    Worf, you have ALOT of time on your hands. LOL.

    But quicky,

    What you keep shying away from, is that EVERYONE has read Murtha's plan...and EVERYONE thinks it's insane.

    Redeploying and telling the insurgents that we are throwing in the towel is preposterous.

    See, you talk about cooling the insurgency down. There IS NO cooling them down. They are always going to be nuts! They were taught to be nuts, and they will remain nuts.

    They will continue to attack even after we are gone. We are going into Iraq's 3rd act of democracy, we removed a brutal dictator who gassed his own people and corrupted the United Nations - and were exptected to trust that same corrupt organization when it came to Weapons inspecting. LOL. You've got to be kidding me!

    As Ann (the hater) has pointed out: and I quote:

    "Saddam is on trial. His psychopath sons are dead. We've captured or killed scores of foreign terrorists in Baghdad. Rape rooms and torture chambers are back in R. Kelly's Miami Beach mansion where they belong.

    The Iraqi people have voted in two free, democratic elections this year. In a rash and unconsidered move, they even gave women the right to vote.

    Iraqis have ratified a constitution and will vote for a National Assembly next month. The long-suffering Kurds are free and no longer require 24/7 protection by U.S. fighter jets.

    Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has voluntarily dismantled his weapons of mass destruction, Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon, and the Palestinians are holding elections.

    (Last but certainly not least, the Marsh Arabs' wetlands ecosystem in central Iraq that Saddam drained is being restored, so even the Democrats' war goals in Iraq are being met.)

    The American military has accomplished all this with just over 2,000 deaths. These deaths are especially painful because they fall on our greatest Americans. Still, look at what the military has done and compare the cost to 600,000 deaths in the Civil War, 400,000 deaths in World War II and 60,000 deaths in Vietnam (before Walter Cronkite finally threw in the towel and declared victory for North Vietnam)."

    ....and Worf and Murtha thinks that now is the time to "deploy".

    Worf, talk to me after this is complete. Tell me how a "timeline" would have sped up the process. In fact, you can argue the new points from the left declaring "we could have achieved this too, but would have done it sooner!" Trust me, it's coming.

    Yes the best man for President in 2008 will indeed be a woman...;-) Dr. Condoleezza Rice (www.americansforrice.com).

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous9:44 PM

    By the way this "huge misquoting" factor of yours is a bit overstated. You keep harping on it - though you acknowledge that I acknowledged it.

    I don't change the jist though - let that be clear.

    Your arguments are nothing new to the political spectrum. We have heard now from Barbara Boxer (and Streisand) what you are presenting now as fresh.

    We need a counter argument that is new. Please come up with one. Liberals we are waiting for your ideas!

    Murtha's plan was a dramatized rehashment of Senators Biden, Kerry, Boxer, and Kennedy's endless blather. It wasn't new.

    It's apparent Worf, you cannot accept when an argument is shot down.

    Also, explain to me, since you imply that the Republicans forced the Democrats to vote in their favor, why you aren't rallying against the three that actually DID vote for it?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous9:57 PM

    Last point:

    I think your energy is amazing Worf.

    It's just a shame you aren't moving ahead with this country.

    I posted a reply tonight to a reader on my website. It's quite long, but if you read it, it might explain a perspective from a bleeding heart - self-hating gay man's perspective ;-).

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous11:27 PM

    Lord, well I'm glad you acknowledge that your arguments are no different from what we have been hearing.

    Worf, you imply that Iraq "apparently" want to revert to an older regime. Bush has been right all along with his strategies. The victories and successes have been documented and displayed and proven, but you still poster boy the left's assumption of what they want.

    Here are more facts Worf:

    On January 30, 2005 - 8,456,266 Iraqis courageously turned out - against the will of the cowards listed above in points 3 & 4 - and voted to begin steps to forming a Democratic government.

    On October 15, 2005 - 9,852,291 Iraqis turned out - in greater numbers - to vote in a referendum on whether or not to ratify the proposed Constitution, resulting in the Constitution being approved.

    There - TEN MILLION (rounding off) voices that prove my side of the debate.

    Now, I ask...copy and paste one Iraqi civilian backing up your assertion that they don't want us there.

    My numbers are not spin - they are fact.

    You don't seem to understand that Murtha's rant is an extension of what we've already been hearing.

    Also, my point was: that you are somewhat implying that the Republican's made it so frightening by removing and adding that it made it necessary to vote against the plan for Democrats. My question is: what do you think that says for the 3 Democrats that voted for it? Are they insane? Are they right?

    Your blathering about my "knowing what Iraqis want" is kind of contradictory because you use it too by implying what they "apparently" want and don't want.

    Lastly, the only thing there was to correct me on was saying you were a "democrat" and you are making a distinction to that of a liberal. Which is fine, and I'll call you a "liberal" from now on. (Which is fine....liberals in most minds are what make Democrats insane). But I still stand by the democrat association theory.

    The Democrats are obviously doing their thinking for you to rehash every one of their arguments that has been shut down.

    I'm not ducking away from anything Worf. It's not even a big "lie" to catch me in.

    The thought process of the argument remains the same. At this point, because your opinions are so close to the Democrats in the Senate - you will lose when they lose. You having a seperate pity party because you are only a "liberal" is not going to change the fact that your arguments were the same insane arguments they were making. ;-).

    By the way, I tried clicking on your name to get to your email.

    Do you have a blog?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous12:08 AM

    "Go ahead and shoot this down all you want, but the fact is, you, and your buddies DON’T KNOW what will happen anymore than anyone else."

    "As for telling you what the Iraqis want? How the hell would I know what they want? But I know what they don't want. They don't want us there."

    You really are not paying attention are you?

    Why did 10 million vote? Why did 10 million care?

    All the accomplishments I posted via Ann Coulter (the alleged queen of hate).

    You are so partisan...you don't even acknowledge the victories.

    You are chasing your tail here. For what Worf?

    Clearly you have more purpose to rant than I do. Congress shut down the Democrats' tired-three year old arguments. We are staying the course and are continuing to make tremendous progress.

    What you are doing Worf is not progressive for your side. It's bottom-feeding!

    Move on....you are a reason why liberals (and democrats) are being labeled the "rut" party.

    Tell me the progress and victories I outlined for you are not true, tell me they are overstated by the evil "conservative media" (LOL).

    Tell me something! But at least acknowledge them.

    It's a fact, Murtha has been rejected! We aren't interested.

    You want to keep drudging, go ahead. You aren't going to get far.

    I'm not trying to discourage you or make you feel bad - I really wish someone with your energy was fighting on our side of this.

    But if you aren't...as someone who cares for a fellow human being Worf...you're going to need to give us something new, man.

    That's it, nothing more....nothing less.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous12:15 AM

    BY the way...

    call me "Slappy", call me "Dopey", "Righty", whetever man.

    It doesn't affect me. I have a pretty thick skin, and have had worse said about me.

    Scroll up to the blogger who accused me of being self-hating because I happen to be "gay" and "conservative". LOL.

    I'm used to this...but I'm telling you...it's not helping your people out of their rut.

    Whether or not you accept "Democrat" status, this is precisely what liberals and democrats do all the time.

    Oh well...guess not much was accomplished and I have a hellish week ahead of me.

    Good luck Worf, seriously. I am sorry we disagree but I do enjoy the dialogue. I might not be on much this week, but will try to pop in every now and then.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous12:17 AM

    "### Why did 10 million vote? Why did 10 million care? ###

    WORFEUS SAYS

    Because we are pointing GUNS at them genius."

    Ah so now our troops are like Saddam's regime that FORCES.

    Nice work.

    Man, even Al Franken hasn't stooped so low.

    How depressing we have Americans who think this way...I mean that in all sadness.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous12:20 AM

    Worf you aren't pushing any buttons.

    You are the one calling names and speaking in CAPS.

    I really am glad that liberals are speaking this way and encourage it strictly for party debate...it keeps getting my guys elected!

    But on an American level it disables progress. So yes, I think it's sad. Especially that you would describe our troops in the way that you just did.

    :-(.

    Goodnight Worf.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous11:09 AM

    These exchanges are a vivid illustration of how Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and even Michael Moore have poisoned political discourse.
    Stereotyping, name-calling, labeling then ridiculing entire groups of people.
    It's all heat and no light. Makes me long for the days of responsible political debates. Whatever happened to William F. Buckley? Is there such thing as a conservative intellectual anymore?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous12:35 PM

    Can Worf and Steve get a show together?
    Point/Coulterpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous3:02 PM

    Whoa, worfeus ... Stop circling the room with a broken bottle. My comments weren't a personal attack on you. I was trying to point out how people like Coulter and Limbaugh have debased political debate by reducing it to name-calling and, I might add, demonizing an entire political party.
    Moore does the same thing from the other end of the spectrum. I think that's a shame.
    By the way, I'm a liberal. A smug, haughty name-calling liberal, apparently. And here I thought we could be friends.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous10:51 AM

    Worfeus, you made a mistake with one of your statements: "Go back and muse on the words of Hermann Goering, just before his thick neck streched a rope to it's maximum capacity."

    Goering cheated the hangman. He swallowed a cyanide pill.

    Regards,

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous11:36 AM

    Worfeus,

    No worries man. Honest mistake.

    Keep posting. While I always don't agree with a lot of things you say, I don't always disagree either.

    But keep posting. I for one would never want anyone in the U.S. have that right taken away.

    Regards,

    Ken

    ReplyDelete