Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow4. Show whatnow4's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    I would love to see one of you far left loons tell us what the goals of the tea party are.

    This should be very amusing, and sad. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from lrecliner. Show lrecliner's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : OK...now we're getting somewhere:  In terms of the tea party's origins, one argument poses it as a historical, regional trend over the past 200 or so years, while another - yours - regards it as a more recent phenomenon mainly within the past 5 years (2006 election). Right away, these are wildly disparate notions of how political movements are formed in our country and how they exact their relative influence on policy.  Note this is not the same as saying they are right or wrong; we can (and will) certainly disagree as to the efficacy of their stated policy goals. Given the disparity, it's far more likely that the real origins are somewhere in between.  The simple facts are that not all southerners are tea party folk (and vice versa) or even confederate sympathizers, and not all of our debt/spending woes are only 5 years old.  Even as a matter of ideological perspective, neither is on terribly solid ground. Is there a strain of anti-govt sentiment in american society?  Absolutely and emphatically yes...and indeed since before our official establishment.  This has manifested in numerous movements and events throughout our history - some justified and some not; some coherent and some incongrous; some dangerous and some benign.  However, it's a height of partisan arrogance to argue that the tea party is beyond reproach, immune to analysis or even as in this case above such comparisons with political trends.  Everything in politics is tainted in some way, and the tea party are no exception.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    Ok, I think we may be at the heart of the matter. You kind of tipped your hand in an earlier post anyhow, but this confirms it I think. In an earlier post you expressed your dislike for epithets and slurs aimed at the left (many of them unfair and inaccurate I am sure). So it seems to me, the comparison of the tea party to the confederates is a sort "whats good for the goose is good for gander" retort on your part. In other words, its more of an emotional issue rather than a disspassionate, intellectual analysis of the authors theories. And I think that is EXAXCTLY what this author is playing to- emotions.

    I never said the tea party was beyond reproach. And I don't think examining the article and not agreeing with it (as well as questioning its intent) indicates that in any way shape or form. But if you want to say that if someone is going to call you names, then you going to do the same thing right back, then I guess I really can't blame you.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]An intriguing premise...not sure I buy it totally (could be coincidental), but the parallels are interesting, if only from an historical analytic perspective.  The writer claims "Fort Sumter Movement" is a more fitting moniker for the group.  Read on: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/02/lind_tea_party/index.html And which nevertheless makes me wonder if the tee partee folk are taking a revisionist view of historical events merely to suit their - somewhat regional - ideology...ethically dubious.  They have every right to protest what they don't like about the govt, but not in aid of making up their own facts or ignoring their own historical bias. And again: "?" in the thread title means this is a question, not a declaration.  If you can't speak to it rationally, then stay out of it.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]
    Matty this is so much BS I don't know where to start! How about these actual facts regarding the Tea Party..

    1. Named Taxed Enough Already the references to the Boston Tea Party are simply both groups revolted over too many taxes.

    2. They are Dems, Rep and Independents from all over the country.

    3. They were started in that bastion of Southern secession, CHICAGO!

    4. They are black, white, hispanic and asian.

    5. They want ALL members of Congress AND POTUS removed from office and start over! D and R.

    6. Name ANY New England Congressional conservatives.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]Reuben has no problem with a 'six degrees of separation' linkage between the Confederacy and the Tea Party, no matter how tenuous...this is 'critical thinking' ... ....but remember, don't dare to have any 'critical thinking' about any possible historical linkage between American leftists and Communists, or in fact express any negative thoughts about Leftists, that would be :   "McCarthyism"...smearing a group based on tenuous connections..
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Any idiot knows there is a HUGE difference between liberals and Communists.  Just like there is a HUGE difference between traditonal American conservatives and Nazis.  Do you know this?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]Perhaps my dear friend Reuben was diagnosed with 'Selective critical thinking'.   It's been going around these days.
    Posted by KittyDuke[/QUOTE]

    Better to have some than none...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : You think you're being cute.  What's really happening is your argument is weak, so you need to smear your opposition. Face facts.  people like you are killing this country, you want debt, you want government control of everything.   you want to steal from the rich and poor alike to pay government pensions. you support government unions, to protect the worker from the excesses of the government, but you expect me to deal with this same government alone, and claim the government will not harm me.  reconcile that little inconsistency. And, to top it all off, you won the debt ceiling debate.  Are you a poor winner or what?
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    You didn't address the contents of the article, just spewed venom.  And you have the nerve to say I smeared someone? You and the Goebbels comment? Really? Are you for real? Nope.  Fraud.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    Hyper sensitivity is the diagnosis here.

    The hybrid strain seems to be growing and may well consume us.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]How about this "intriguing premise' : Today's left wing statists and socialists are intellectual descendants of slavery's most adamant defenders. There is definite solid evidence of this, see below. Ergo, today's liberal Democrats are "neo-Confederates", who consider citizens as helpless, and want the State to act as a master did to his slaves...  ...about as accurate as claiming a connection between the Confederacy and the Tea Party. The South's most ardent intellectual defenders of slavery were socialists. "Southerners did not stop with an open defense of slavery. They went on to attack northern society for its 'wage slavery' and 'exploitation of workers,' using arguments repeated by socialist critics of capitalism. The southern writer who developed these arguments most extensively was George Fitzhugh, a Virginia planter and lawyer. His two books were provocatively entitled "Sociology for the South: Or the Failure of the Free Society and Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters." In them, Fitzhugh defended slavery as a practical form of socialism that provided contented slaves with paternalistic masters, thereby eliminating harsh conflicts between employers and allegedly free workers. 'A Southern farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave ... is far happier, because ... he is always sure of support .' ... 'The best governed countries, and which have prospered the most, have always been distinguished for the number and stringency of their laws,' he wrote; 'liberty is an evil which government is intended to correct.'" -- Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    The South's most ardent intellectual defenders of slavery were socialists.

    That is absolute nonsense and you know it. One weird racist slavery apologist does not establish something as historical fact
    .
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]I would love to see one of you far left loons tell us what the goals of the tea party are. This should be very amusing, and sad. 
    Posted by whatnow4[/QUOTE]

    Do they know what their goals are?  They are not really a party, have no real leaders or a platform of their ideas.  Just a broad anti-government protest movement, but no real plan. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : The West is full of transplants, too, but they are underrepresented in the tea party vs. the South.  The movement is spread out (as the author says), but that's not the same as being national.  He's saying its roots are historically southern and gives his evidence for this.  The 'regional' argument/precedent is historical, i.e., farther back than just our era of mass communications and highways. (Plus, Brown and Christie were elected despite the lack of tea party representation in their states, not because of it.) Ah...here's the thing: If a conservative historian tried to make the case that Massachusetts IS more liberal because of Shay's or the War of 1812 (or maybe Harvard?), and I disagreed, then shouldn't I be required, as a matter of debate protocol, to provide evidence for WHY the author's conclusion is wrong, other than just saying I'm offended or The author is biased or I don't like it...?? bobin, you can't pretend that you're immune to making obtuse, even silly allegations against either liberals, or elites, or northeasterners or any other part of the political system you don't like.  I'm not immune either, but then I never claimed to be. According to you, only right-wing favoring articles are valid and beyond reproach, while left-wing favoring articles should be dismissed automatically and not discussed at all regardless of their premise.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]
    Matty, The issue is his "facts" as you and he state them are wrong! It shows the total ignorance of the liberal left. This groups is comprised of all political parties. They don't care what race, religion or party you belong to. They care only that you feel we in America are Taxed Enough Already! It is telling that many liberals believe the origins of the TP were when Obama was elected. They started before Obama was NOMINATED! They were pi55ed Bush was not conservative!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    Anti government ?.. no
    More like disfunctional and non representative government.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : The South's most ardent intellectual defenders of slavery were socialists. That is absolute nonsense and you know it. One weird racist slavery apologist does not establish something as historical fact .
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    You claim to be an open minded curious intellectual; the vague idea of the Tea Party being connected to the Confederacy is somehow 'intriguing" and worth looking at, because it reinforces your bias. 
    But the thought that slavery as a form of socialism, and intellectuals defending slavery as a form of 'communism' , is 'weird'; contrary to your rigid progressive view of history, so you immediately close your open mind. 
    You never heard of Fitzhugh, did you?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : Do they know what their goals are?  They are not really a party, have no real leaders or a platform of their ideas.  Just a broad anti-government protest movement, but no real plan. 
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    Who needs a plan in this target-rich environment.

    Simple question unites all the TEA partiers:  Should we raise taxes or cut spending (i.e. programs).
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : You claim to be an open minded curious intellectual; the vague idea of the Tea Party being connected to the Confederacy is somehow 'intriguing" and worth looking at, because it reinforces your bias.  But the thought that slavery as a form of socialism, and intellectuals defending slavery as a form of 'communism' , is 'weird'; contrary to your rigid progressive view of history, so you immediately close your open mind.  You never heard of Fitzhugh, did you?
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Well, socialism is a form of slavery.  Everything you have is the property of the government.  I guess in some legalist way it is not slavery.  After all you can go on a hunger strike and not consume any of the governments resources, you know, those resources that were formerly your own.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : Ok, I think we may be at the heart of the matter. You kind of tipped your hand in an earlier post anyhow, but this confirms it I think. In an earlier post you expressed your dislike for epithets and slurs aimed at the left (many of them unfair and inaccurate I am sure). So it seems to me, the comparison of the tea party to the confederates is a sort "whats good for the goose is good for gander" retort on your part. In other words, its more of an emotional issue rather than a disspassionate, intellectual analysis of the authors theories. And I think that is EXAXCTLY what this author is playing to- emotions. I never said the tea party was beyond reproach. And I don't think examining the article and not agreeing with it (as well as questioning its intent) indicates that in any way shape or form. But if you want to say that if someone is going to call you names, then you going to do the same thing right back, then I guess I really can't blame you.
    Posted by lrecliner[/QUOTE]

    Almost.  It's not emotional and never has been.  Not all biases are based upon emotion.  Some are totally logical.

    I make no claim at impartiality.  Most people here know which side I stand on most issues, and that's fine.  But it's wrong to think that any argument I raise or question I ask is automatically one of bad faith.  It's not only insulting and false, but it's no basis for debate either - impassioned or otherwise.

    The point is that the moment you (or anyone) questions the author's "intent", you have no rational basis on which to judge the material or its argument on its own merits and independent of slant.  You could disagree with every point the author makes and still not de-legitimize the argument itself.  It's a reverse bias that's frankly childish in its pretense.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : Matty this is so much BS I don't know where to start! How about these actual facts regarding the Tea Party.. 1. Named T axed E nough A lready the references to the Boston Tea Party are simply both groups revolted over too many taxes. 2. They are Dems, Rep and Independents from all over the country. 3. They were started in that bastion of Southern secession, CHICAGO! 4. They are black, white, hispanic and asian. 5. They want ALL members of Congress AND POTUS removed from office and start over! D and R. 6. Name ANY New England Congressional conservatives.
    Posted by brat13[/QUOTE]

    1) Unimportant, but OK.
    2) They are predominantly conservative republicans.
    3) Incidental, but OK.
    4) They are predominantly white and predominantly southern, especially as represented in congress - an important distinction.
    5) This just makes no sense - it's an absolutist view that's unrealistic to the extreme.
    6) Kelly Ayotte, Scott Brown (too "squishy"?), Gregg, Rudman as well as ME Gov. LePage, Romney, Healey ... but why does this matter to the questions at hand??
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    While some are offended by the neo label... President Obamas henchmen take every opportunity to protect HIS tainted image..

    The University of Tennessee bookstore in Knoxville has decided to stop selling packages of breath mints poking fun at www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/barack-obama.htm#r_src=ramp" class="r_lapi">President Obama after a Democratic lawmaker complained. 

    The product is called, “Disappoint-mints” and features a blue and red picture of the president on the label. 

    State Rep. Joe Armstrong told www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/aug/03/satirical-mints-poking-fun-at-obama-pulled-from/" target="_blank">The Knoxville News Sentinel he found the breath mints offensive. 

    He said a student had notified him of the mints so he decided to go to the bookstore to investigate. 

    He said the breath freshener was “very specifically insulting to the president” and said the university should be sensitive to what he called “politically specific products.” 

    But others find the outrage over “Disappoint-mints” to be curiously strong – suggesting that removing the products is a form of censorship. 

    “Let me make very clear, there is no candy exception to the First Amendment,” Glenn Reynolds, a constitutional law professor, told the newspaper. 

    “Free speech is free speech. If you make fun of the president in a mint, it is just as much free speech as it is if you make fun of the president in a political cartoon.” 

    The bookstore manager said the shop previously carried breath mints satirizing former President George W. Bush – but no one ever complained.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : 1) Unimportant, but OK. 2) They are predominantly conservative republicans. 3) Incidental, but OK. 4) They are predominantly white and predominantly southern, especially as represented in congress - an important distinction. 5) This just makes no sense - it's an absolutist view that's unrealistic to the extreme. 6) Kelly Ayotte, Scott Brown (too "squishy"?), Gregg, Rudman as well as ME Gov. LePage, Romney, Healey ... but why does this matter to the questions at hand??
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]


    The first point is unimportant?

    I thnk we cracked the code:  liberals are unable to comprehend a level of taxation that is too high.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : You didn't address the contents of the article, just spewed venom.  And you have the nerve to say I smeared someone? You and the Goebbels comment? Really? Are you for real? Nope.  Fraud.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    So, I get TEA party members called terrorists, confederates, and the like, and as A WAY TO MAKE A POINT, call Matty a Goebbels wanna be, and that-is-outrageous!

    I think, again, we have cracked the code:  Liberals are free to spew what ever venom they like, in their cute little "I'm so witty" way, but, when it is played against them, WATCH OUT!!!!!

    The point to Matty was that Goebbels famously said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it iwll be accepted as fact.  that is the process Matty is using, and Goebbels invented that basic propaganda technique.

    Like I said in the first post:  you got your big government spending, the economy is collapsing even faster because of it, so stop your whining.  You won.  Accept it and move on.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : OK...now we're getting somewhere:  In terms of the tea party's origins, one argument poses it as a historical, regional trend over the past 200 or so years, while another - yours - regards it as a more recent phenomenon mainly within the past 5 years (2006 election). Right away, these are wildly disparate notions of how political movements are formed in our country and how they exact their relative influence on policy.  Note this is not the same as saying they are right or wrong; we can (and will) certainly disagree as to the efficacy of their stated policy goals. Given the disparity, it's far more likely that the real origins are somewhere in between.  The simple facts are that not all southerners are tea party folk (and vice versa) or even confederate sympathizers, and not all of our debt/spending woes are only 5 years old.  Even as a matter of ideological perspective, neither is on terribly solid ground. Is there a strain of anti-govt sentiment in american society?  Absolutely and emphatically yes...and indeed since before our official establishment.  This has manifested in numerous movements and events throughout our history - some justified and some not; some coherent and some incongrous; some dangerous and some benign.  However, it's a height of partisan arrogance to argue that the tea party is beyond reproach, immune to analysis or even as in this case above such comparisons with political trends.  Everything in politics is tainted in some way, and the tea party are no exception.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    I woke up from the being in the silent middle shortly after 2006 and I became enraged by how HCR was pushed through the Congress.

    If the middle was a real party it would win the vast majority of seats in the 2012 elections; as most in the middle are disgusted with the two parties and there extreme elements.

    I see this election becoming like 1980 with an independent candidate; If that happens I'd most likley for them like I did in 1980, unless Huntsman wins the GOP.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : The first point is unimportant? I thnk we cracked the code:  liberals are unable to comprehend a level of taxation that is too high.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    No, their name is unimportant to the topic at-hand.  (how they compare to the original tea party is another story)

    I know they think they're taxed too high.  That's their opinion... despite the fact that taxes are historically low, especially on the top earners.

    You do know that "too high" is an opinion, not a fact, right...??
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : I woke up from the being in the silent middle shortly after 2006 and I became enraged by how HCR was pushed through the Congress. If the middle was a real party it would win the vast majority of seats in the 2012 elections; as most in the middle are disgusted with the two parties and there extreme elements. I see this election becoming like 1980 with an independent candidate; If that happens I'd most likley for them like I did in 1980, unless Huntsman wins the GOP.
    Posted by massmoderateJoe[/QUOTE]

    Hi Joe,  I hear you.  However, the middle always gets dragged further down the liberal road.  The middle in theory is a great place.  In reality, it is a dead zone, filled with people who think things like you can be fiscally conservative yet socially liberal.  How does that work?  You are for nationalized health care but refuse to fund it?  You think people should be fed, but won't fund food stamps?  It is not a logical place to be for anyone.

    the problem with the middle is it doesn't stand for anything reasonable, it stands for nothing much at all. It is a perfectly luke-warm bath of great ideas and no resolve.

    So, I hear your desire to be in a good place.  so,  follow the light to the only sane political philosophy, conservatism.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow4. Show whatnow4's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    Reuben acts as if he uses his brain to fairly determine issues.  He plays the game but the truth is if you keep an eye on him, he is one of the most partisaned buffoons on here.

    He also claims he is a lawyer when it helps his cause, but then admits he is in fact a teacher.

    He is a partisned buffoon who simply tries to hide it behind a bunch of bs. 

    This is a great example.  To try and defend this post is absurd. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : I woke up from the being in the silent middle shortly after 2006 and I became enraged by how HCR was pushed through the Congress. If the middle was a real party it would win the vast majority of seats in the 2012 elections; as most in the middle are disgusted with the two parties and there extreme elements. I see this election becoming like 1980 with an independent candidate; If that happens I'd most likley for them like I did in 1980, unless Huntsman wins the GOP.
    Posted by massmoderateJoe[/QUOTE]

    Too bad you weren't 'enraged' when children and families were going without health insurance and going bankrupt even with it.  Maybe we would have got a little more cooperation and at least an effort toward good governance....
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE] In reality, it is a dead zone, filled with people who think things like you can be fiscally conservative yet socially liberal.  How does that work?  Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    So, you're finally out of the closet as an unapologetic ideologue with little use for pragmatism... 

    Kudos.  It takes a big man to admit he's never, ever wrong.
     

Share