Bigmouth

[sesame]

Ann Hart Coulter.
She is an American syndicated columnist, popular TV face, aggrasive critic. And I think that she has got a very big foul mouth! I also consider her a religious bigot. Ah, and she is a staunch "Christian-Republican"!

Her quotes:

1) About 9/11 widows: These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.

2) I don't know if [former U.S. President Bill Clinton is] gay. But [former U.S. Vice President] Al Gore - total fag.

3) The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill. I don't want to suggest that Al's getting big, but the last time I saw him on TV I thought, "That reminds me - we have to do something about saving the polar bears."

4) Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.

5) Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.

6) On Muslims: We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war. (sept 12, 2001)

7) Bill Clinton "was a very good rapist"; "I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties"; "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. Jan 2005

8) [Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.

9) About Obama: a question on reparations has got to be confusing when you're half-white and half-black. What do you do? Demand an apology for slavery and money from yourself? I guess biracial reparations would involve sending yourself money, then sending back a portion of that money to yourself, minus 50 percent in processing fees - which is the same way federal aid works.

10) There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats

11) About 2004 Democratic Convention: Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.

12) About Democrats:
New Idea for Abortion Party: Aid the Enemy
There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.

13) In the history of the nation, there has never been a political party so ridiculous as today's Democrats. It's as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc.

14) Anti-gay: I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot", so I - so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards.

15) For six years, the Bush administration has kept America safe from another terrorist attack, allowing the Democrats to claim that the war on terrorism is a fraud, a "bumper sticker," a sneaky ploy by a power-mad president to create an apocryphal enemy so he could spy on innocent librarians in Wisconsin. And that's the view of the moderate Democrats. The rest of them think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks

16) Anti-Conservationist: The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet - it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars - that's the Biblical view.

17) On Bush: The man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents. June 2008

18) we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. ...That is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews.

19) So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books: Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly.

20) On Princess Diana: "Her children knew she's sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it's the definition of 'not a good mother.' ... Is everyone just saying here that it's okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?"..."[Diana is] an ordinary and pathetic and confessional - I've never had bulimia! I've never had an affair! I've never had a divorce! So I don't think she's better than I am."---

she sounds charming, a great dinner party guest no doubt.

[sesame]

Yeah, she is sure to blow some fuses in people's brains.
She is the catalyst for hot arguments.

8) [Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.

Ila wont like it!
Bush is the savoir of America, says she. And Princess Diana was pathetic and lesser than herself (Ann Coulter)! And if you are divorced and dating, you've got no character!

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by rhythmic delivery

she sounds charming, a great dinner party guest no doubt.

HAHAHAHA... especially when you say: "Nice to have you here, Ann... if you'll excuse me but the party is over... I have to join my wife in her bedroom sucking her long, strong, hard cock till I faint as her little pussyboy... after which she'll impregnate me... we're going for twins... here's money for a taxi... ciao baby!"

[FoxySarah]

Originally Posted by sesame

8) [Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.

The only time Canada and the United States were on opposite sides during a war, Canada (As part of the British Empire), not only won, but razed the American Capitol to the ground.

Further more, today, Canadian troops are much, much better trained than American troops. The average Canadian Corporal is a better, more experienced soldier than an American Sergeant. With superior training and leadership, the only advantage the US military has is sheer numbers (Our equipment rates about the same quality).

During a training exercise with Canadian troops, a Platoon of US Navy SEALS, some of the United States' most elite soldiers were captured by the 2nd Royal Canadian Regiment Pipes and Drums. That's correct. The US' best troops were captured in wargames by a Canadian MARCHING BAND.

I think we Canucks are *quite* safe from any threats from the south.

If it wasn't for the city that I live in, America wouldn't have been discovered until much later, and it could have been a whole different country.

As Jeremy Clarskon said "I'm sure that some Americans are actually starting to mate with vegtables".

This woman sounds as if she would be at home in Germany, 1919-1945.

Ah, the terminally unhappy Paris Hilton of politics...how I hate her so.

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by FoxySarah

The only time Canada and the United States were on opposite sides during a war, Canada (As part of the British Empire), not only won, but razed the American Capitol to the ground.

Further more, today, Canadian troops are much, much better trained than American troops. The average Canadian Corporal is a better, more experienced soldier than an American Sergeant. With superior training and leadership, the only advantage the US military has is sheer numbers (Our equipment rates about the same quality).

During a training exercise with Canadian troops, a Platoon of US Navy SEALS, some of the United States' most elite soldiers were captured by the 2nd Royal Canadian Regiment Pipes and Drums. That's correct. The US' best troops were captured in wargames by a Canadian MARCHING BAND.

I think we Canucks are *quite* safe from any threats from the south.

Um, no offense but Canada's military is inferior to America's. Don't think so little of our training. We have excellent soldiers serving in several distinguished divisions and the like. Also, no other nation has the technoligical edge of our military. We are operating the world's best battle tank and only the British Challenger rivals it. The most advanced warships and the world's most advanced fighter, the Raptor, and the best ground support beast, the almighty A-10 Warthog. No armor can survive it's onslaught! Even down to lesser weapons, such as various man portable weapons are superior. Plus, our military has more money to spend than most other nations. And, to my knowledge, no other nation possesses such a refined rapid deployment ability that enables us to move troops to any warzone within 24 hours of the order given!

But, in fairness, I know well Canadian snipers are some of the finest in the world and they performed quite well in Afghanistan. I also know Canada, despite being a nation of hockey pucks (teasing so don't beat me to death) have had a proud military history and always answered the call of duty when needed.

But seriously, America, if we wanted to, would roll over yas!
But we love your Canadian bacon which really is just ham and has an erroneous name. And the women are lovely.

I happen to love Ann Coulter and can't see why she gets so much hate, on another note. She's controversial. But because she's right wing she is hated as most of the American and foreign media are dominated by liberal or far left ideologues. What Coulter does is no different than the vile hate mongers on websites like The Daily Kos, Arianna Huffington's garbage site, Media Matters or Moveon do. Only, the far left has the virtue of being in the majority of the media. Coulter is just a highly vocal member of a minority who doesn't get equal nor fair media representation as secular progressives, lefties and their ilk get. But, if one would but be objective they'd see she's just the same as any other controversial figure and the hatred lavished on her is often based on an ideological and ignorant bias of the hater who cannot accept opposing views.

[sesame]

1) Republican Alan Keyes announced that "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama."

2) Bushy baby's (George Bush) principle of action is not as simple as: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." Its rather like: "God works through Christians; I am a Christian; Furthermore, I am the President! My decision is ABC; therefore, God's decision must be ABC."

3) Do the Bushy side really believe in government by divine guidance? Does the president think that God speaks through him! May be he thinks of himself as a knight in blazing armour, riding with his sword held high, in a crusade once again after centuries! His personal quest to recapture the Holy Land (Oil) .

4) Barack Obama on the other hand, is not too religious. His dad, born a muslim, became an atheist in adulthood, his mother was spiritual, but doubted organised religion; his grandparents nonpracticing Protestants, you dont find a crucifix tattooed on Obama's forehead! He says, "Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.... The questions I had didn't magically disappear (by Divine intervention)... how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy." On a funny note, "This debate about tax cuts reminds me of that verse from the Book of Hebrews." :D

[GRH]

That we should argue over something with our brethren that is as divisive as military fortification speaks to our current society. It pains me to see us argue about who has the more effective "killing machine" that is funded by tax dollars.

Sesame, do you have any references to back these posts? I ask that, because a link would add validity to your argument. I personally have no love or admiration for Ann Couter, and think her way of thinking only adds to our divisive mentality. To me, conservatives are akin to Satan, but I do respect their right to be wrong.

[Bionca]

The quotes are petty well documented in her own books and recorded interviews. It's a common enough political tactic used all over - to have a small group of people say stupid stuff to make the rest seem "moderate". It is how Ann makes her money - she winds people up.

The bad part is there are large groups of people who think "at last someone saying what people are too afraid to say". Ann's bread and butter is playing on internalized distrust of non-white people, non-Americans, gays, feminists, and non-Christians.

Ann Coulter isn't hated because she's Conservative... she hated because the stuff she says is baseless, half-truth, emotive, easily debunked, fear-mongering, smug, priveledged, and poorly researched.

[sesame]

Sesame, do you have any references to back these posts?

Surely, I do. The megalomania, love for war in Bush's nature require no testimonials. The Christian orthodoxy in Republican party's point of view is also a well known fact.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
http://www.slate.com/id/2144983/

[sesame]

Originally Posted by Bionca

The bad part is there are large groups of people who think "at last someone saying what people are too afraid to say". Ann's bread and butter is playing on internalized distrust of non-white people, non-Americans, gays, feminists, and non-Christians.

Exactly. Thats the ill-effect she is imparting on the image of a "free country".

[ila]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Um, no offense but Canada's military is inferior to America's.

You know not of what you speak.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Um, no offense but Canada's military is inferior to America's. Don't think so little of our training. We have excellent soldiers serving in several distinguished divisions and the like. Also, no other nation has the technoligical edge of our military. We are operating the world's best battle tank and only the British Challenger rivals it.

Wait a second, firstly I think you accidentaly substituted the word rivals for betters. The challenger 2 is the fastest tank in the world, it is lighter than the M1 Abrams even though it is better armoured, it had greater fuel efficiency (which is an important logistical factor), and has a rifled 120mm barrel the Abrams only has a 105mm rifled barrel on the original and 120mm smoothbore barrel on the new version, it had to compromise of accuracy for power, the Challenger has no compromise. It dumps a big fat steamy one on the Abrams.

it is the only class of tank not to have a single loss during the 2003 Iraq invasion, one took 14 rpg hits and MILAN anti tank missile and was not disabled. In contrast, Abrams have been disabled by recoilless rifle fire and have been destroyed by IEDs.

The only Challenger 2 tank ever destroyed during operations was by friendly fire from another Challenger 2 during the assault in Basra.


Onto the other point, which is much bigger and that is US troops are not well trained. They have some the the shortest and crappest training in the world. That is why they are so fucking incompetent and constantly shoot thier allies in the back. The exercise that US marines do on the last day of thier training is what the Royal marines do on the first day. I won't go into details but we all know the US can't train thier soldiers fro shit, they will spend stupid amounts of money of technology and gadget, but when it comes to spending money training them for a decent length of time, they just can't manage it. US army training is now just 9 weeks. The British army spends longer training someone to be in a marching band.

[Ogryn1313]

Is the cannon on the Challenger gyro-stabilized? I don't know for sure.

It is foolish to base supremacy on which has a bigger gun or better record. I'm looking at all factors. A machine lost is only a machine lost, doesn't reflect on its quality.

One nice advantage of the Abrams is the simple design. Do you know it's engine only has 5 connection points which enables rapid repair or replacement, putting it back in action more swiftly?

The comparison in training is justifiable but you are forgetting that each military values specific things differently. For example, WW2 German army training relied less on the close order stuff and more on squad based training, such as problem solving and things like blind folding them and running them through complex courses designed to get them used to fighting indoors. American training is different but is not inferior. American's value certain aspects the Brits do not and vice versa. Such disparaging comments does a disservice to soldiers.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Is the cannon on the Challenger gyro-stabilized? I don't know for sure.

Yes it is.

Also the Leopard 2 A6 is German, just cos Canada have some doesn't make it "Canada's"

Now allow me to continue on another point, I'm not going to quote it, but the idea that America is not fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, lets see, Americans are shooting at Afghans, and Afghans are shooting at Americans, that certainly fits the definition of a war. Likewise in Iraq, this civil war bullshit is just that, I suppose it was a civil war in Vietnam, with the USians as peace keepers was it? The US army is not a peace keeping force in Iraq, if they are, why are they on one side? The US is the invader and the aggressor, they have not won, the fighting was continuous, and it has always been Americans vs Iraqis. Americans are no more peacekeepers than the Nazis were in France, and it is no more a civil war than the occupation of France was a civil war between resistance and collaborators.

[FoxySarah]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Wait a second, firstly I think you accidentaly substituted the word rivals for betters. The challenger 2 is the fastest tank in the world, it is lighter than the M1 Abrams even though it is better armoured, it had greater fuel efficiency (which is an important logistical factor), and has a rifled 120mm barrel the Abrams only has a 105mm rifled barrel on the original and 120mm smoothbore barrel on the new version, it had to compromise of accuracy for power, the Challenger has no compromise. It dumps a big fat steamy one on the Abrams.

it is the only class of tank not to have a single loss during the 2003 Iraq invasion, one took 14 rpg hits and MILAN anti tank missile and was not disabled. In contrast, Abrams have been disabled by recoilless rifle fire and have been destroyed by IEDs.

The only Challenger 2 tank ever destroyed during operations was by friendly fire from another Challenger 2 during the assault in Basra.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on tanks, because I'm not, but I do work for the Department of National Defense, and work very closely with the Electrical and Mechanical Engineers branch of the Canadian Forces. I'm constantly around Weapons and Vehicle Technicians of the Canadian, American and British armies (As well as various other NATO countries), and the Techs rate the Main Battle Tanks from each country, in the order of best to worst like this:

1. Canada's Leopard 2 A6
2. America's M1A2
3. Britain's Challenger 2

[Ogryn1313]

So what are you an expert on?

ATV's based on one of your pics I bet. Those are exceptionally popular here where I am and my county is exploring creating an ATV tourism industry. I've never ridden one though.

The Israeli Merkava isn't half bad.

What I do know more about are tankbusters. And when it comes to killing a tank the A-10 is tops.

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Um, no offense but Canada's military is inferior to America's. Don't think so little of our training. We have excellent soldiers serving in several distinguished divisions and the like. Also, no other nation has the technoligical edge of our military. We are operating the world's best battle tank and only the British Challenger rivals it. The most advanced warships and the world's most advanced fighter, the Raptor, and the best ground support beast, the almighty A-10 Warthog. No armor can survive it's onslaught! Even down to lesser weapons, such as various man portable weapons are superior. Plus, our military has more money to spend than most other nations. And, to my knowledge, no other nation possesses such a refined rapid deployment ability that enables us to move troops to any warzone within 24 hours of the order given!

But, in fairness, I know well Canadian snipers are some of the finest in the world and they performed quite well in Afghanistan. I also know Canada, despite being a nation of hockey pucks (teasing so don't beat me to death) have had a proud military history and always answered the call of duty when needed.

But seriously, America, if we wanted to, would roll over yas!
But we love your Canadian bacon which really is just ham and has an erroneous name. And the women are lovely.

I happen to love Ann Coulter and can't see why she gets so much hate, on another note. She's controversial. But because she's right wing she is hated as most of the American and foreign media are dominated by liberal or far left ideologues. What Coulter does is no different than the vile hate mongers on websites like The Daily Kos, Arianna Huffington's garbage site, Media Matters or Moveon do. Only, the far left has the virtue of being in the majority of the media. Coulter is just a highly vocal member of a minority who doesn't get equal nor fair media representation as secular progressives, lefties and their ilk get. But, if one would but be objective they'd see she's just the same as any other controversial figure and the hatred lavished on her is often based on an ideological and ignorant bias of the hater who cannot accept opposing views.

LoL yeah you would roll over canada in the same way you rolled over north korea, vietnam afghanistan and iraq. you may have the best equiped army in the world, but your troops are a bunch of silly litle boys who grew up playing fps's and thought thats what being in the army's like. then they get out there and people are shooting at them all they can do is run for cover and call in an airstrike, with a great posibility that it will land on a friendly position.

[Ogryn1313]

We came along way since North Korea. You must not understand all the intricacies of warfare. Do you think those are examples of some inferiority?

North Korea: politics, ideology, these lost that conflict and resulted in stalemate. It doesn't reflect on the troops.

Vietnam: civil unrest at home, political pressure, and once again ideology are the cause of the withdrawal from the war. American forces won virtually every engagement against the North Vietnamese. However, the enemy was relentless and elusive. The Ho Chi Minh trail was difficult to sever because it constantly changed. Add to these severe restrictions placed on what we were allowed to do and where to go hindered our ability.

Iraq: For some reason people think Iraq is still an American war. They are in error. Coalition forces won the war in Iraq. All the objectives of the war were met. Saddam was overthrown and the Iraqi people have their own government and elections. What is going on in Iraq since Bush declared victory in Iraq isn't an American war. It is an Iraqi civil war in which various groups in Iraq are jockeying for power, with Al Qaeda and Iranian elements thrown in. America is there now as a sort of peace keeping force trying to hold the nation together. It is not a war in the usual sense as our original enemy there has been defeated. The troop surge has worked and many regions are now more peaceful. However, if troops are drawn out Iraq may well fall apart.

One simply needs to look at basic facts through an unbiased filter to see the truth of this. The liberal media and far left interests have constantly reported on Iraq in a negative light, willingly omitting any stories that would report any success or positive advancement. They even went so far as to prejudge and and influence the public regarding General Petraeus's report to Congress. Later on, many congressmen and senators validated the report as truthful and acknowledged the surge has had a positive effect in Iraq. The far left has used this "war" and "failure" to influence the public in order to get a democrat in the White House.

The "war" and "failure" in Iraq right now is entirely upon the Iraqis themselves. Also, do not forget it is a coalition that went into Iraq, not only Americans, including a few of the "superior" nations you speak of. So, it would seem any failure in Iraq ought to be blamed not only on American forces. Yet, notice the media only reports on the American forces, losses, deaths? No mention of the other forces there? This shows it's all biased and agenda driven reportage.

Afghanistan: again, the war was one and the Taliban government was removed. True, Bin Laden has not been killed nor captured. But his fate isn't critical to fighting terrorism. Only a nice vengeance bonus. There are still elements of the Taliban and al Qaeda at work there, operating in the lawless areas and using the difficult terrain to their advantage.

Also, American forces are operating under the strictest and most complex rules of engagement in their history which ties their hands and limits their ability to fight effectively.

Lastly, I reiterate one needs to look at the issue without bias and agenda to see the truth in a thing, and definately not make use of the media to form an opinion on matters. Now, I provoked this with my facetious comments previously. But I have never once denied America's falures. I just refuse to never overlook its successes and good points unlike most of the world these days.

For the record, I think America should have kept an isolationist stance and never entered into any foreign wars, inlcluding WW2. Should have left Europe on its own. We have only ever gotten grief and criticism ever since. I don't care about the Iraqis and they could still be oppressed by Hussein for my two cents. And my response to 9/11 would have been a rapid strike at Afghanistan and Bin Laden's camps unilaterally with no regard for collateral damage and civilian casualties. Terrorists and radical Islamic nations have no such concerns and so should be dealt with in like fashion in my opinion. Isolationist policies are America's best hopes for the future, and not thinking isolationist is what created so many of our problems.

But none of the above reflects upon the quality of our fighting ability and to grasp at things to put our troops down is a huge insult to our living veterans and dead ones. But I apply this thinking to all veterans of any nation. The troops should never be blamed for the failings of the higher ups. It's not the troops who choose their training, equipment, and such, nor is itthey who choose to go to war.

And with this I have said my piece. My apologies to all for such a long post and my applauds to anyone who actually read all of this. I shall now bow out of the topic.

[nmlss]

Wow, she's hot... I'll like to fuck her fucking reactionary fucking ass with my FAI (Iberian Anarchist Federation) flag covering her face.

I've always dreamed of fucking a fascist ass....

¡¡Tierra y Libertad!!

[ila]

Originally Posted by sesame

8) [Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.

I've seen this comment, in print, before. As always I just dismiss it as the ravings of a no-mind.

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by ila

I've seen this comment, in print, before. As always I just dismiss it as the ravings of a no-mind.

There's no need to begin the name calling and insulting. Such is the hallmark of left wingers and liberals. And thus far this topic seems to be leaning to the far left. Nothing I said was intended as an insult to anyone so basic respect is in order.

Yes. I know of what I speak. I was in the military.

[ila]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

There's no need to begin the name calling and insulting. Such is the hallmark of left wingers and liberals. And thus far this topic seems to be leaning to the far left. Nothing I said was intended as an insult to anyone so basic respect is in order.

Yes. I know of what I speak. I was in the military.

I never called you any names so why are you being so sensitive? In fact what you quoted, from me, in your reply was not even taken from any of your posts. That quote was taken from the first post in this thread. If you would care to follow the hot link it would have taken you directly to the post where I took my quote from.

Left winger, liberal - That's the first time I've ever been called that. I'm sure none of my acquaintances would ever say that of me.

You may not have intended to insult anyone but you certainly did and then you started name calling.

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by ila

I never called you any names so why are you being so sensitive? In fact what you quoted, from me, in your reply was not even taken from any of your posts. That quote was taken from the first post in this thread. If you would care to follow the hot link it would have taken you directly to the post where I took my quote from.

Left winger, liberal - That's the first time I've ever been called that. I'm sure none of my acquaintances would ever say that of me.

You may not have intended to insult anyone but you certainly did and then you started name calling.

It seemed as if you said I was a raging no-mind. Perhaps I took it wrong or misread it. I didn't name call you. I did imply that this topic leans to the left. That is my opinion based on the nature of some of the posts contained put into an ideological context.

If I name call it is clear when I do it. You'd know without a doubt. But such isn't my way so no worries.

"Such is the hallmark of left wingers and liberals." That's what I said. It meant insults and such are how these people debate. I cited an example there and not calling you one. I can see, however, where you would think I did. So I apologize.

That's not important though. My reply was taken out of context just as I misinterpreted yours. This, sadly, happens all the time in such a limited means of communication as we have here with only words on a screen. We lose much through words on a screen.

[ila]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

"Such is the hallmark of left wingers and liberals." That's what I said. It meant insults and such are how these people debate. I cited an example there and not calling you one. I can see, however, where you would think I did. So I apologize.

No problem. I apologize for getting huffy about the whole thing.

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

That's not important though. My reply was taken out of context just as I misinterpreted yours. This, sadly, happens all the time in such a limited means of communication as we have here with only words on a screen. We lose much through words on a screen.

It happens, but we can still continue to express our opinions.