Odd interaction with a road rager

Discussion in 'rec.bicycles.soc' started by Ron McKinnon, Aug 31, 2004.

  1. Muttley

    Muttley Guest

    On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:45:07 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley)
    >claims:
    >
    >>And, did you see what happened when he went to Britain?
    >>
    >>Unlike any other president, republican or democrat, he had to be shielded from
    >>the population because he is so universally reviled.

    >
    > Clinton, Bush 41 and Reagan never had to have security when in
    >crowds?


    Of course they had to have security.

    But the chimp wasn't allowed anywhere near crowds, because the crowds were all
    hostile.

    It wasn't that they were frightened that he would be attacked, it was because he
    wanted the trip to show him as a popular world statesman, and if he had not been
    shielded from the populace, it would have been made very obvious that was far
    from the case.

    And that would have suited neither him, nor his poodle, the British prime
    minister.
     


  2. Muttley

    Muttley Guest

    On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:45:28 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:26:20 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley)
    >claims:
    >
    >>>>Fair enough.
    >>>>
    >>>>Seems as though it was only Kerry who actually walked the walk and put his life
    >>>>on the line in a war zone.
    >>>
    >>> Which the president has acknowledged repeatedly.

    >>
    >>Congratulations.
    >>
    >>See, once you stop trying to worm your way out of the facts, it will all go
    >>away.

    >
    > I didn't try to worm my way out of anything. The president has
    >been saying that all along.


    I meant that you and others of you ilk have been trying any tactic to try and
    imply that the comparison between Bush and Kerry was not what it seemed, when it
    clearly was, but is pretty much irrelevant today.

    When you stop trying to do that no one can come back with "end of the day blah
    blah blah".
     
  3. Muttley

    Muttley Guest

    On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:50:57 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 22:09:22 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    ><[email protected]> claims:
    >
    >>On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
    >>wrote in message <[email protected]>:
    >>
    >>>Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour

    >>
    >>Are you saying that Kerry is bilingual? As opposed to Dubya who has
    >>not even mastered English yet? ;-)

    >
    > I am saying that Mr. Kerry speaks French fluently.
    > BTW, is another meaning of "bilingual" an ability to state a
    >belief, then after a little while, flip-flop to an opposite belief?
    >As in having "two tongues"?


    No, that's called growing with experience.

    Or, possibly, being a two faced hypocrite.

    But that's something each person has to decide for themselves by taking a long
    hard look at the circumstances. They shouldn't base their opinion simply on the
    fact that someone has changed their mind.
     
  4. Muttley

    Muttley Guest

    On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:55:38 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:30:38 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley)
    >claims:
    >
    >>>>Unlike any other president, republican or democrat, he had to be shielded from
    >>>>the population because he is so universally reviled.
    >>>
    >>> Clinton, Bush 41 and Reagan never had to have security when in
    >>>crowds?

    >>
    >>Of course they had to have security.
    >>
    >>But the chimp wasn't allowed anywhere near crowds, because the crowds were all
    >>hostile.

    >
    > I think Mr. Bush will be happy enough with his growing lead in
    >the polls. And it does not help your case to refer to Mr. Bush with an
    >animal name. Rather juvenile, I think, worthy more of playground
    >arguments.


    Well, he does look like a chimp, (I quite like the look of chimps), and this is
    a bit of a playground.

    Still, if it makes you happy:

    But the Bush wasn't allowed anywhere near crowds, because the crowds were all
    hostile.
     
  5. On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:50:57 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
    wrote in message <0ui3k[email protected]>:

    > is another meaning of "bilingual" an ability to state a
    >belief, then after a little while, flip-flop to an opposite belief?
    >As in having "two tongues"?


    OK, by that definition they probably both are, then :)

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  6. On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:50:57 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    > is another meaning of "bilingual" an ability to state a
    >belief, then after a little while, flip-flop to an opposite belief?
    >As in having "two tongues"?


    OK, by that definition they probably both are, then :)

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  7. [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > I'm saying that Mr. Kerry speaks French fluently. BTW, is another
    > meaning of "bilingual" an ability to state a belief, then after a little
    > while, flip-flop to an opposite belief?


    It's so sad when people cannot do this, isn't it? It renders debate pretty
    much pointless.

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of
    oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
    commerce. -- J. Edgar Hoover
     
  8. Muttley

    Muttley Guest

    On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:44:31 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Take a good look at your boy Lurch. "Why the long face, John?"
    > See how silly we all can get yet settle nothing?


    I wasn't trying to settle anything :)

    That is up to the population of the United States of America.

    Let's just hope that this time, the guy who gets most votes, gets the job.
     
  9. Muttley

    Muttley Guest

    On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:39:36 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:50:17 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley)
    >claims:
    >
    >>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:44:31 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Take a good look at your boy Lurch. "Why the long face, John?"
    >>> See how silly we all can get yet settle nothing?

    >>
    >>I wasn't trying to settle anything :)
    >>
    >>That is up to the population of the United States of America.
    >>
    >>Let's just hope that this time, the guy who gets most votes, gets the job.

    >
    > Oh, I can guarantee that the candidate getting the most
    >electoral votes will be raising his hand


    Just a pity that you can't guarantee that it's the guy that most people cast
    their votes for ;)
     
  10. Muttley

    Muttley Guest

    On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:54:22 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:12:42 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley)
    >claims:
    >
    >>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:39:36 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:50:17 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley)
    >>>claims:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:44:31 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Take a good look at your boy Lurch. "Why the long face, John?"
    >>>>> See how silly we all can get yet settle nothing?
    >>>>
    >>>>I wasn't trying to settle anything :)
    >>>>
    >>>>That is up to the population of the United States of America.
    >>>>
    >>>>Let's just hope that this time, the guy who gets most votes, gets the job.
    >>>
    >>> Oh, I can guarantee that the candidate getting the most
    >>>electoral votes will be raising his hand

    >>
    >>Just a pity that you can't guarantee that it's the guy that most people cast
    >>their votes for ;)

    >
    > Sure I can guarantee that. Just not in the United States.
    >Bolivia, for instance.


    What a crying shame that the US has to look to Bolivia for lessons in democracy!
     
  11. Jack Dingler

    Jack Dingler Guest

    When did Saddam attack the US?

    When will we find his WMDs that he was going to make smoking nuclear
    craters in US cities with?

    Even though he wouldn't tolerate terrorist activities in his country and
    was at odds with Osama Bin Laden, we decided to take out this enemy of
    terrorism, in order to fight terrorism. I suppose that makes sense.

    Now Bush has decided to end reconstruction and move all the funds to
    security. Because until the Iraqi people are subjugated, we can't
    rebuild Iraq. Makes sense I suppose, in light of the fact that Rumsfield
    and McCain both agree we'll have troops in Iraq for decades. In the mean
    time, Halliburton says they don't know what happened to the oil revenue,
    because the interim government didn't tell them what to do with it....

    Some things are true, just because politicians say they're true.

    Jack Dingler

    Mitch Haley wrote:

    >"Ken [NY)" wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, remember?
    >>
    >>

    >
    >All of whom were indoctrinated in puritanical state-run
    >religious schools, much like the Saudis are running in
    >other Arabic countries as a "humanitarian" gesture. When you
    >raise a guy from birth to be a fanatic, don't be surprised
    >if he isn't very tolerant of our right to disagree with
    >his views.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>So the whole notion of creating terrorists by fighting terrorists is
    >>hogwash.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >That depends on whether your definition of "fighting terrorists" includes
    >arming men like Saddam and Usama and training their "soldiers" for them.
    >Seems like every time we help the enemy of our enemy like that, he turns
    >around and bites us on the backside within ten years.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our
    >>troops dispersed through the world only at
    >>the directive of the United Nations."
    >> -Senator John F. Kerry, Harvard Crimson 1970
    >>
    >>

    >
    >While that quote does not seem out of character, credit would
    >have to go to Lieutenant Kerry in 1970. I would suspect that
    >the date is wrong, as nobody ever quoted Lieutenant Kerry on
    >any subject as far as I can tell. He hung out with the Brooklyn
    >protesters, but never stood up and spoke for them until he
    >left the Navy in 1971 to become a politician. By October '71,
    >congresscritters like Ted Kennedy were praising him as a future
    >colleague and he was appearing in Doonbury comics.
    >
    >BTW, I beg to differ with you on mass arrests. In a free country,
    >you can't just round up everybody you see who might or might not
    >be involved in crime.
    >
    >Mitch.
    >
    >
     
  12. Jack Dingler

    Jack Dingler Guest

    I thought the terrorists threatened to attack us again unless we voted
    for Bush. Didn't Cheney make that clear in a recent speech?

    I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were pro-Bush.

    Jack Dingler

    S o r n i wrote:

    >Ken [NY) wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Bin Laden's plea to the US:
    >>"ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
    >>
    >>

    >
    >He better hope the US catches him and not these hard-asses:
    >
    >http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/424964|oddlyenough|09-02-2004::09:09|reuters.html
    >
    >Bill "Geneva Confection?" S.
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  13. Jack Dingler

    Jack Dingler Guest

    Ken [NY) wrote:

    >On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:08:36 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
    >claims:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>S o r n i wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Ken [NY) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Bin Laden's plea to the US:
    >>>>"ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>He better hope the US catches him and not these hard-asses:
    >>>
    >>>http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/424964|oddlyenough|09-02-2004::09:09|reuters.html
    >>>
    >>>Bill "Geneva Confection?" S.
    >>>
    >>>

    >
    >
    >
    >>I thought the terrorists threatened to attack us again unless we voted
    >>for Bush. Didn't Cheney make that clear in a recent speech?
    >>
    >>I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were pro-Bush.
    >>
    >>Jack Dingler
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan, seeing
    >all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of their own
    >members to either capture or becoming room temperature because of Mr.
    >Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush backers.
    >
    >
    >

    The major news media has been reporting that the Taliban and Al Queda
    have retaken much of Afghanistan with the US and the appointed
    government staying in bases, near the oil infrastructure and protected
    areas. They could be lying of course. You never know whta to believe in
    the news, so much of it is invented political stuff.

    The Northern Alliance of Poppy Growers and Heroin Producers that the US
    backed, have been reported as funding the resistance.

    But then at this point there seems to be an uneasy truce. They leave the
    pipeles alone and we don't shell villages.

    I think your info is just old, Ken.

    I can't help but notice you have a derogatory sig line. Is this hate
    speech against the French speaking peoples of the world?

    Jack Dingler

    >
    >
    > Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour.
    >
    >Ken (NY)
    >
    >"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when
    >the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact
    >that we did disarm him."
    > --John F. Kerry (ABC News, 5/4/03)
    >
    >email:
    >http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
    >
    >spammers can send mail to [email protected]
    >
    >
     
  14. Dave Mount wrote:

    > On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:45:40 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >You snipped the claim that this was refuting. ("PArticularly if by "bin
    > >Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal
    > >friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while
    > >just about everything else was grounded...")

    >
    > It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
    > just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.


    Osama's father has 20 wives and Osama himself is one of 56 brothers and sisters. As
    far as we know he is the only terrorist. The mere fact of being a blood relative of
    his does not suffice to incrimminate a family the size of a large village.

    I have plenty of other issues with Bush. Not least a recent documentary I saw which
    showed a 10-fold increase in Al Qaida recruitment since the invasion of
    Afghanistan. But this is really off-topic.

    EFR
    Ile de France
     
  15. Muttley

    Muttley Guest

    On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:54:30 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were pro-Bush.

    >
    > Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan, seeing
    >all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of their own
    >members to either capture or becoming room temperature because of Mr.
    >Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush backers.


    The reason that the terrorist *leaders* want Bush re-elected is that he has
    stirred up so much hatred amongst so many that the number of people available
    for recruitment into terrorism has increased beyond their wildest dreams.

    They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies, and provide
    them with even more confused and hostile young men who can be sent to their
    deaths while they sit safely in their caves.
     
  16. Dave Mount

    Dave Mount Guest

    On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:46:33 +0200, Elisa Francesca Roselli <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Osama's father has 20 wives and Osama himself is one of 56 brothers and sisters. As
    >far as we know he is the only terrorist. The mere fact of being a blood relative of
    >his does not suffice to incrimminate a family the size of a large village.


    Very fair point, but it doesn't really address what I said: i.e.

    | It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
    | just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.


    Nothing to do with who, or how many.
     
  17. S o r n i

    S o r n i Guest

    Muttley wrote:
    > On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:54:30 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>> I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were
    >>> pro-Bush.

    >>
    >> Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan, seeing
    >> all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of their own
    >> members to either capture or becoming room temperature because of Mr.
    >> Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush backers.

    >
    > The reason that the terrorist *leaders* want Bush re-elected is that
    > he has stirred up so much hatred amongst so many that the number of
    > people available for recruitment into terrorism has increased beyond
    > their wildest dreams.
    >
    > They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies,
    > and provide them with even more confused and hostile young men who
    > can be sent to their deaths while they sit safely in their caves.


    What I love is the self-righteous indignation over Cheney's (admittedly
    ham-fisted) remarks, yet "official" Dems can say stuff like this with total
    impunity.

    Bill "blatant hypocrisy" S.
     
  18. Muttley

    Muttley Guest

    On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:08:49 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Muttley wrote:
    >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:54:30 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were
    >>>> pro-Bush.
    >>>
    >>> Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan, seeing
    >>> all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of their own
    >>> members to either capture or becoming room temperature because of Mr.
    >>> Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush backers.

    >>
    >> The reason that the terrorist *leaders* want Bush re-elected is that
    >> he has stirred up so much hatred amongst so many that the number of
    >> people available for recruitment into terrorism has increased beyond
    >> their wildest dreams.
    >>
    >> They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies,
    >> and provide them with even more confused and hostile young men who
    >> can be sent to their deaths while they sit safely in their caves.

    >
    >What I love is the self-righteous indignation over Cheney's (admittedly
    >ham-fisted) remarks, yet "official" Dems can say stuff like this with total
    >impunity.


    I seem to remember a while back, that you claimed that you were 'apolitical'.

    Let me remind you what you said: (thank the lord for google!)

    |I'm not even a Republican.
    |It's the mean-spirited bitterness of the left and their blatant hypocrisy
    |in the recent past that's even motivated me to speak up.
    |I'm usually a-political to a fault (don't really give a crap; don't believe it really matters)

    Yet every time you *do* go against type and post something political, it is
    always anti democrat. And your claim that you: "don't believe it really matters"
    doesn't really ring true.

    I find it odd that whenever anyone claims to be non-political, it is almost
    always followed by something pretty partisan, and in 99% of cases anti-D or
    pro-R. I wonder why that is.

    When there are two major parties in your country, and you always seem to come
    down for one, or against the other, you cannot really claim to be apolitical.

    >Bill blatantly hypocritical" S.
     
  19. S o r n i

    S o r n i Guest

    Muttley wrote:
    > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:08:49 GMT, "S o r n i"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Muttley wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:54:30 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were
    >>>>> pro-Bush.
    >>>>
    >>>> Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan,
    >>>> seeing all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of
    >>>> their own members to either capture or becoming room temperature
    >>>> because of Mr. Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush
    >>>> backers.
    >>>
    >>> The reason that the terrorist *leaders* want Bush re-elected is that
    >>> he has stirred up so much hatred amongst so many that the number of
    >>> people available for recruitment into terrorism has increased beyond
    >>> their wildest dreams.
    >>>
    >>> They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies,
    >>> and provide them with even more confused and hostile young men who
    >>> can be sent to their deaths while they sit safely in their caves.

    >>
    >> What I love is the self-righteous indignation over Cheney's
    >> (admittedly
    >> ham-fisted) remarks, yet "official" Dems can say stuff like this
    >> with total
    >> impunity.

    >
    > I seem to remember a while back, that you claimed that you were
    > 'apolitical'.
    >
    > Let me remind you what you said: (thank the lord for google!)
    >
    >> I'm not even a Republican.
    >> It's the mean-spirited bitterness of the left and their blatant
    >> hypocrisy
    >> in the recent past that's even motivated me to speak up.


    BINGO. What part of that don't you understand?

    >> I'm usually a-political to a fault (don't really give a crap; don't
    >> believe it really matters)

    >
    > Yet every time you *do* go against type and post something political,
    > it is always anti democrat. And your claim that you: "don't believe
    > it really matters" doesn't really ring true.


    I see the VAST majority of hypocrisy and mean, nasty statements being made
    by "official" Democrats this time around (and in fact ever since the 2000
    election). Forget the 527s (over the line on both sides usually), how about
    Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Terry McCauliff (sp?), etc., not to mention Kerry
    himself. Blatant personal attacks, and the "general" media lets 'em slide.
    (Not even including Hollywood fund-raisers and Michael S-Moores "embodying
    the very essence of the Democratic Party".)

    Why I say it doesn't matter is that partisanship is so entrenched nowadays
    that no one is going to change his or her mind. I guarantee you that, even
    if everything had gone perfectly in Iraq (found WMDs, welcomed as
    liberators, etc.), the left would STILL hate Bush and go to any length to
    defeat him. However, if a conservative questions Kerry's voting record over
    the last 25 years, he's smearing him. Sorry, I call bullshit.

    What's more important, the voting public is starting to see that, too. It's
    pretty obvious.

    Bill "when it's bad enough to get ME to speak up, it's pretty bad" S.
     
  20. Muttley

    Muttley Guest

    On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:01:46 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>> I'm not even a Republican.
    >>> It's the mean-spirited bitterness of the left and their blatant
    >>> hypocrisy
    >>> in the recent past that's even motivated me to speak up.

    >
    >BINGO. What part of that don't you understand?


    I understand what you said perfectly.

    What I am saying is that it is patantly untrue. (Even more so, given what you
    have written below).
    >
    >>> I'm usually a-political to a fault (don't really give a crap; don't
    >>> believe it really matters)

    >>
    >> Yet every time you *do* go against type and post something political,
    >> it is always anti democrat. And your claim that you: "don't believe
    >> it really matters" doesn't really ring true.

    >
    >I see the VAST majority of hypocrisy and mean, nasty statements being made
    >by "official" Democrats this time around (and in fact ever since the 2000
    >election). Forget the 527s (over the line on both sides usually), how about
    >Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Terry McCauliff (sp?), etc., not to mention Kerry
    >himself. Blatant personal attacks, and the "general" media lets 'em slide.
    >(Not even including Hollywood fund-raisers and Michael S-Moores "embodying
    >the very essence of the Democratic Party".)
    >
    >Why I say it doesn't matter is that partisanship is so entrenched nowadays
    >that no one is going to change his or her mind. I guarantee you that, even
    >if everything had gone perfectly in Iraq (found WMDs, welcomed as
    >liberators, etc.), the left would STILL hate Bush and go to any length to
    >defeat him.


    Of course. What else would the left do but try and get their candidate into
    power.

    > However, if a conservative questions Kerry's voting record over
    >the last 25 years, he's smearing him. Sorry, I call bullshit.


    Bill, you are 100% entitled to your views, and 100% entitled to enumerate them
    whenever you wish.

    It does not, however, do a lot for your credibility when you state that you are
    "apolitical to a fault", when you clearly do not like the way (you see) the
    democrats behaving.

    You may not consider yourself a republican, but you are very clearly
    anti-democrat, and (again, from your description of them as "the left"), you
    clearly see your ideals as separate from theirs.

    That is in no way the description of someone who is apolitical.

    Another indication of your "politicality", is that you seem to only see
    transgressions on one side.

    I would say I'm slightly to the left of center - I would normally swing more to
    the democrats than the republicans (so I'm declaring a bias), and yet I clearly
    see nastiness and hipocracy on *both* sides of the divide. In other words,
    although biased, I retain the ability to look objectively at what is going on.
     
Loading...
Loading...