You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. JM can call change "change," but he is still 4 more years of W. SP is the one who is running on the lipstick platform. That's why her supporters are trying to accuse O of calling her a pig.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
Perhaps you should do some studying. SOS all over again, just like all the lies leading to regime change in Iraq, except this time with NUKES. Once again, Bush believes he knows the Iranian people and thinks he can predict how they will respond. Bush's messianic vision is labeled as worrisome, which is a rather kind description of this President.
You really should read the entire article, but I doubt that you will. It's likely to actually cause you to think.
http://www.newyorker.com/press
Issue of 2006-04-17 Posted 2006-04-08
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 8, 2006
THIS WEEK IN
THE NEW YORKER
PRESS CONTACTS: Perri Dorset, (212) 286-5898 Daniel Kile, (212) 286-5996 Maria Cereghino, (212) 286-7936
The Bush Administration’s Plan For Iran
“The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack,” Seymour M. Hersh reports in the April 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker (“The Iran Plans,” p. 30). Moreover, he writes, “There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change.” One former senior intelligence official tells Hersh that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a potential Adolf Hitler. “That’s the name they’re using,” he says. A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror says, “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.” The danger, he adds, is that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” The former senior intelligence official, referring to activity at three U.S. military facilities, says, “The planning is enormous.” He depicts it as hectic and operational—far beyond the contingency work that is routinely done. One former defense official tells Hersh that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He adds, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ” A government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon confirms that undercover units are working with minority groups in Iran, and that while one goal is to have “eyes on the ground,” the broader aim is to “encourage ethnic tensions” and undermine the regime.
Hersh reports, “In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat.” A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, tells Hersh that the Administration is “reluctant to brief the minority.” He adds, “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq.... There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”
Hersh also reveals that one of the options under consideration involves the possible use of “a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz.” The former senior intelligence official tells Hersh that the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military and that some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed. Hersh writes, “The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option.... He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue.” The adviser explains, “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries.”
The Pentagon adviser warns, as do many others, that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?” he asks. He tells Hersh that any attack might also reignite Hezbollah. “If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle,” he says. A retired four-star general tells Hersh that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, “the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.” “If you attack,” a high-ranking diplomat in Vienna tells Hersh, “Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.” The diplomat went on, “There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. This is wishful thinking.” He adds, “The window of opportunity is now.”
Also this week: In “A Church Asunder” (p. 44), Peter J. Boyer reports that the election of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church “posed the biggest crisis for Anglicanism since the Reformation, and brought the worldwide church to the edge of schism.” Boyer writes that while a belief in the power of compromise has always permeated the Anglican faith, to several conservative bishops the move “pushed the Anglican notion of comprehensiveness beyond its historically implied limits. What the Church had affirmed, in the view of these traditionalists, was not just a different expression of Christianity but a different religion altogether.” Bishop Robert Duncan, of Pittsburgh, led a small delegation of twenty bishops in protest the day of Robinson’s affirmation and has since reached out for support from the worldwide Anglican community, and specifically from bishops in the Global South, who tend to be far more conservative. Boyer writes, “More than half of all Anglicans live in Africa, South America, and Asia.... There are more Anglicans in Kenya (roughly three million) than there are Episcopalians in the U.S.... The balance of power has shifted dramatically.” While Anglicanism has no global hierarchy as in the Catholic Church, Duncan hopes that through an alliance with the Global South, he and like-minded bishops can convince the worldwide Anglican Communion that the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, or ecusa ... has already departed from the faith, and that an alternative body of orthodox Episcopalians should be recognized as the true church in America.” Boyer writes, “Duncan says that his battle is not with Gene Robinson, or even over the issue of homosexuality, but with what he considers a radical reinterpretation of the faith by the liberal church.” He says that the future may hold many unpleasant legal battles, “And the question that the state courts are going to have to figure out is, ‘Who are the Episcopalians.’ ” Boyer writes, “Gene Robinson watches these developments with a mixture of sadness and alarm.” He tells Boyer, “Bob Duncan wants to ally our church with the church of Kenya, where the primate there said that, when I was consecrated, Satan entered the church. What most people don’t realize is that homosexuality is something that I am, it’s not something that I do.... We’re not talking about taking a liberal or conservative stance on a particular issue; we’re talking about who I am.” Later, he adds, “I have to tell you—I felt called by God to come out. It seems to me that if God stands for anything, God stands for integrity. And to be a priest, calling other people to integrity, when you’re not exercising it yourself—it’ll kill you.”
Plus: Hendrik Hertzberg, in Comment, on the drawbacks of the Bush Administration’s health-care plan (p. 25); Adam Gopnik on “The Gospel of Judas,” a recently released translation (p. 80); Alec Wilkinson on Pete Seeger and on a new album inspired by his work by Bruce Springsteen (p. 44); Cynthia Zarin on the works of Maurice Sendak (p. 38); David Denby on the new films “The Notorious Bettie Page” and “Friends with Money” (p. 86); John Lahr on the life of playwright Clifford Odets (p.72); and fiction by Bernard MacLaverty (p. 66)
The April 17, 2006, issue of The New Yorker goes on sale at newsstands beginning Monday, April 10th.
he used a phrase - the same phrase that McCain used several times against Hillary - nm
x
What you call so-called history is on the books
if you care to search for it. It is no secret Israel provided gun power to Hamas a long time ago to ward off the PLO......who do you think gave Israel all the weaponery to give to them? China? Then when Hamas becomes entrenched within the Palestinian people and over time basically becomes their government, what do you think they are going to do.....the same as many others that have been given weapons; they turn on the ones that put them there in the first place, simply because they feel no loyalty toward Israel...they hate Israel.....they hate Jews. Simple as that.
You act as if this is not facts. I don't know how old you are but if you are my age, you would certainly remember the PLO and all before them and everything after them. These terrorists groups didn't sprout overnight; they were made!
I don't for a minute think Hamas actually cares for their citizens; it's all a means to an end with them. They use their people as human shields because they are cowards but of course, when Israel kills their innocent, they can scream Israel is murdering their women and children; of course Hamas takes no responsibility for what they do.
Change and Hope: Obama wants your change and hopes you enjoy starving.... sm
...while he's partying like a rock star with the glitterati.
Obama is change you can believe in until you have to take it to the bank.
Our jobs have been offshored until now because of greed. Under Obama and his taxation of small businesses, they will be offshored not because of greed but because of survival.
You could make a difference for our country by not voting for Obama, but instead, if you vote for him, you are selling out to deception. You are embracing a socialist, a communist, a Marxist, a liar, a cheat, and someone who legally cannot run as President of the U.S., much less the Illinois senate. But, you make your choice. You believe the consumate liar and his lies who sat for 20 years under the teachings of a black racist preacher filled with hatred for the U.S., whose association with Bill Ayers is recent and documented down to the fact that Ayers himself wrote Obama's best-selling book (best-selling in the eyes of far left liberals that is), who is a documented member of the socialist party, whose friends and close allies are extremists who not only bomb innocent people and are unrepenetent but who intend to eliminate (kill) 25 million Americans who they cannot "re-educate" in communist ideaology (gosh dog it, those dreadful capitalists), who refuses to hand over a certified copy of his birth certificate and educational records (my goodness, don't you have to provide your birth certificate to any number of entities who want to know if you are legal, i.e., social security, DMVs, etc., and your educational records would show if you had received aid as a foreigner and in 1963 would have shown you were a negro instead of an African-American which Obama's falsified record shows, please speck up on history), and who thinks Joe the Plumber is so stupid not to realize that if he wants to achieve the American dream, he is going to achieve it only if he lets Obama take what he makes to give to those WHO WILL NOT WORK. I'd like to see you, liberals, give a share of your 7.5 cpl to those who don't work as hard as you, but then with Obama, that's what you will have to do. Don't be fooled by his rhetoric that only those making over $250,00 will be taxed. We will all be taxed, and there will be no incentive to work for any of us because we will all have to give up a piece of our pie so those who do not work can have a piece of our pie.
Here is the dividing line, folks. We are at a crossroads in our history. The Lord Jesus puts it this way, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction; and there are many who go in by it."
Choose which gate you enter, the wide or the narrow. It not only determines your eternal destination, but it determines the destination of this country. If anyone here calls themself a Christian and can vote for Osambo, I daresay you are a liar and cheat just as he. One cannot be a Christian and vote for a party and a political candidate who is in total rebellion to God's Word. That is a fact, and if you think any differently, then you, too, like the Obamanation, call God a liar. May He have mercy upon your soul. As He makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust because He is no respector of persons, we will all suffer as this country is destroyed and our Constitution that guarantees our freedoms is trampled just as Bill Ayers is pictured standing upon our flag in total disrespect, and we will thank you liberals that we are all in bondage, reduced to third world status, just as the Israelites were in Egypt. Only Obama ain't no Moses but a Muslim and has no favor with God, and there will be no one to lead us to the Promised Land coming from the Democratic party.
OBAMA'S 'CHANGE': BACK TO THE DEMOCRATIC Washington INSIDERS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on November 7, 2008 Printer-Friendly Version What's with Obama's choice of old-time Clinton cronies and recycled Washington insiders to run the transition to his new politics of change?
Can't the anti-Washington insiders President-elect find anyone who isn't a Beltway has-been?
Judging by the appointments to his transition committee and leaks about possible top staff and Cabinet choices, Obama appears to be practicing the politics of status quo, not the politics of change.
Obama based his innovative campaign on an emphatic and convincing commitment to change the culture of Washington and bring in new people, new ideas, and new ways of doing business. But now, Obama has definitely changed his tune. As president-elect, he's brought back the old Washington hacks, party regulars, and Clinton sycophants that he so frequently disparaged. Like Jimmy Carter, the last President who ran as an outsider, Obama has reached out to the same old folks who dominate the Democratic Party and represent the status quo.
His Transition Committee looks like a reunion of the Clinton Administration. No new ideas of how to reform the system there. The Chairman, John Podesta, was Clinton's Chief of Staff. He presided over the outrageous last minute pardons and his style is strictly inside-the-beltway and make-no-waves.
Then there's Carol Browner, Clinton's competent former EPA Administrator who became the consummate Washington insider. She's Madeline Albright's partner and recently married mega-lobbyist and former Congressman Tom Downey. During the uproar over Dubai taking over U.S. ports, Browner brought Downey to meet with Senator Chuck Schumer to plead Dubai's case. Downey was paid half a million dollars to push Dubai's position. He's also a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, paid half a million to try to cover their rears on the subprime mortgage mess. Is his change?
Federico Pena was Clinton's Secretary of Transportation and of Energy. The President felt he was unduly soft on Air Florida after their crash and lost confidence in him. Now he's back as a Transition Committee member.
Bill Daley, Clinton's former Secretary of Commerce and the brother of the Mayor of Chicago, is the epitome of the old Democratic establishment. Clinton appointed him to the Fannie Mae Board and his son worked as a lobbyist for the agency. Aren't these the kind of folks that Obama ran against?
Larry Summers, President of Harvard and former Clinton Secretary of the Treasury is not exactly an outsider either. He's also alienated more than a few with his bizarre suggestion that women may be genetically inferior to men in math and science.
Susan Rice, Assistant Secretary of State under Clinton advised John Kerry and Mike Dukakis. Does that tell you enough?
Obama has named one of his big bundlers - Michael Froman, an executive at Citigroup. Is this supposed to symbolize change?
Obama's choice of a spokesperson for the transition is also surprising; hers' is definitely not the face of reason and new politics. Stephanie Cutter is the brash and combative former Clinton, Kerry, and Ted Kennedy mouthpiece. The liberal DailyKos.com once described Cutter as "a moron to the nth degree" when she tried unsuccessfully to force the New York Times' Adam Nagourney to treat her unsolicited email criticizing Howard Dean as "background" without mentioning her name.
Speaking of brash, Rahm Emmanuel, the new White House Chief of Staff, makes Cutter look timid. Rahm is also a former Clinton White House staffer - and a very obnoxious one. He spent his White House years leaking to the Washington Post whenever he didn't like what the President was doing. Even Bill Clinton stopped trusting him. Any hopes of Obama keeping his commitment to reach across the aisle would go right out the window with Rahm's appointment. Instead of extending a hand to the opposition, it would be like raising just one finger. And Rahm's strident demeanor laced with the 'f' word in every sentence will do little to elevate the bipartisan dialogue in Washington.
Christopher Edley, another member of the transition team, is Dean of the Berkeley Law School. He's a former member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission under Clinton and his wife, Maria Echaveste was Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff.
Transition committee staffer Christine Varney was a Federal Trade Commissioner under Clinton and worked in the White House.
Throughout the early debates, Obama criticized Hillary as part of the inside-the beltway establishment that needed to go. But now he's reaching out to these exact same folks. Some change.
...Bush remains "The Decider." The question is, will Bush leave when it's time, or will he hijack the country, declare martial law and promote himself to "The Dictator," which he "joked" about on three different occasions. He also giggled about World War III, and he stated back in 1999 (TWO YEARS BEFORE 9/11) that if he ever had the chance to invade Iraq, he would.
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas. (Governing Magazine 7/98)
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
He's keeping his campaign of "change" - that's for sure
Change? Yeah he keeps changing his mind. I've been saying it all along with others that there is no way he can do everything he wants to and spend, spend, spend without taxing us. This is coming right out of the democrats mouth, 250, 200, 150, and now 120. It keeps going lower and lower.
Sure he wants you to go out and vote early. He keeps pushing it as hard as he can because as each hour goes by we keep learning what more of a "sleeze-bag" he really is and the truth is coming out.
Why do people want someone with his character and already the blatant lies he puts out. Have people taken a break from reality? Do people want to live in socialism and fear?
You are definitely not offending us. These fears you express are so much like mine and many others while.
As far as I'm concerned he is NOT NOT NOT eligible to be president. He has not passed the #1 criteria. "American-born citizen". If he wins it will be a stolen election and illegal and lets just see how many people who believe in the constition will be happy about that.
Please define the "change" you expected
Did you expect complete newcomers to Washington to take top cabinet posts at a time when the country is imploding? Is change about the people who lead or the rules they play by? Doesn't NEW POLICY count for anything? In terms of the economy, do you want experiments or experience? Remember the economy under Clinton years as opposed to W? It is a cabinet, not a regime. Please read the OP about where Obama is supposed to look for appointees and then share your ideas with us, if you don't mind.
So NOT proud of the country. O's "change" just
nm
"Change"..."Hope"... Obama does not even to
nm
I agree with change....change to socialism...
NO THANKS.
You like that phrase it seems. He WAS on vacation. sm
I don't know where you have been but he has been making speeches about the Hurricaine all weekend before it even hit and pledged support, etc. So obviously, he may have been officially on vacation, but he wasn't in any way. Do you watch TV. He's been all over it. Get over your own bad self.
I have never personally used that phrase myself. sm
But then, I am sure someone will expend a huge amount of energy to prove me wrong.
I'm thinking of a phrase...
oh yeah - "When pigs fly."
The second amendment phrase that
gun control supporters always fall back on is ''well regulated militia''. But the militia back then was considered to be all able-bodied males capable of fighting. Also, having had such recent experience with the tyranny of an out-of-control government, our founders wiisely built the right to possess and bear arms into our constitution to make sure our new government did not become too big for its britches.
I believe it was in Justice Scalia's opinion on the Heller case (or maybe in his questioning of the pro-gun-control attorney) that I read something to the effect that in revolutionary war times firearms were necessary to procure food and also to protect ourselves and families from hostile attacks, bears, wolves, and other predators. Nowadays most of us don't have to fight off wild animals anymore; the predators have become.....us.
One phrase cracked me up in your post - sm
"whether you believe in God or not as a liberal" - What? If someone is liberal, they don't believe in GOD?...
I may not believe in the same God as you (or the same concept of God is probably a better way to put it), but I don't believe liberals are any more "godless" than anyone else. I know this is off topic and I don't mean to create a stir by posting it, but it seems so "typically conservative" to make assumptions such as this.
Just google the phrase, JTBB.......sm
There's lots there.
Nothing personal, but I don't feel like being derided by anyone today for my opinions.
In fact, I'm thinking of taking a break from this board, as I doubt I would really be missed, anyway.
Salisbury is the one who first coined this phrase,.
So he probably knows what he is talking about, at least from that liberal viewpoint you are so quick to deride. Michael Savage has a different, more conservative interpretation. Good for him. Now that we have established the fact there are at least two opposing views on the same concept, the logical next step would be to respectfully discuss the pros and cons of each and get beyond the tacit dismissal.
Using the phrase "drinking Kool-Aid"
On November 18, 1978, 909 inhabitants of Jonestown, 276 of them children, died of apparent cyanide poisoning, mostly in and around a pavilion. This resulted in the greatest single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster until the September 11, 2001 attacks. Jones and several members argued that the group should commit "revolutionary suicide" by drinking cyanide-laced grape flavored Flavor Aid (often misidentified as Kool-Aid) along with a sedative.
Out of respect for the nearly 1000 innocent Christians who tragically died in Jonestown, I would like to ask the posters of this forum to find another phrase to use other than "drinking Kool-Aid" to describe a person's political beliefs. It is insulting and disrespectful to the memory of those that died in Jonestown to use this expression so flippantly.
JMHO
This is for a serious discussion... Do you think Obama will help the black community to "change&#
I am watching a story on Nightly News maybe that's what this is... It is about what he will do for the "black community" I guess they call it. They then pointed out the murder rate between in that community, that African-Americans make up 13% of the population but 40% of the incarcerated, etc. etc.
We are getting ready to spend billions bailing out the mess that Democrats created. No, Republicans have actually been bringing this mess up, screaming warnings about it, and the only thing this Democratic congress has done was pass a housing bill this time that further encouraged giving out those bad loans. Republicans were against it, but the Dems have the majority. Soooo...here we are. I do blame one Republican, George Bush, for signing it. He should have vetoed it.
I have no problem helping the disabled or even someone that lost their job and has some hard times...
My problem is those that choose not to better themselves BECAUSE of these handouts.
Dont tell me I deserve to work my ASS OFF to pay for these people to live.
I have a huge heart, and I don't make much money even after working hard, and I choose to give it to the charities of my choice, which is the way it should be, not TAKEN from me to give to people that DONT want to better themselves.
You lost me at Dems coined the phrase
If you didn't realize that the expression voodoo economics wasn't coined by Dems, then it makes me wonder how many other things you just don't realize this administration, the previous administration, or politics in general.
The phrase voodoo economics was coined by George H.W. Bush in a debate with Ronald Reagan. The phrase trickle-down economics is not a good thing, as you might have it sound. It's a derogatory phrase that was first used by Republicans as a criticism regarding a dam project John F. Kennedy had planned. He actually was the one who initiated this theory that when the GDP grows, the incomes of all American's will grow. He coined the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats" when referring to this economic theory, and it was the GOP that countered saying it was trickle-down economics.
If you can't get that right, it makes me wonder how you can judge what is right or wrong with what this administration or the last administration does or has done.
You always forget the phrase *under oath*, which is what lost him his law license sm
and the respect of the Supreme Court Justices who for the first time in history, did not attend the State of the Union address of a sitting president. But I guess all that is okay, too.
We were, you changed it to Bush hatred, another bin Coulter phrase.nm
zz
That "my friends" phrase, so oft-repeated, made him Call me what you want, just don't call me late for dinner. LOL....
GP, I like your sense of humor.
You call it hysteria, some call it concern for the
nm
Then call it what it is...or call for conservation...
but don't make up a myth to try to gain control. That is what Gore is after...what all the global warming hoohah is after. They have an agenda...pure and simple. And the base fact is that a very low percentage of the greenhouse gas effect is from cars. Every time you breathe out, you contribute. Are we all going to stop breathing? Are cows going to stop belching? I have no problem with ethanol...I have used it. My husband is from Iowa...I would love it if we started using ethanol more extensively. But in previous years, Democrats (Hillary being a primary one) opposed the use of ethanol. I guess if I believed any of those people out there hawking global warming actually believed what they were saying it would be different...but I don't. The science is not there. As I said...if the real interest is conservation with the side benefit of less CO2...fine. Just say so. But as the article pointed out...if it is as bad as they say it is, you can't stop it anyway. It just does not make good sense to me.
Fine. Call if whatever you want to call it....
I will call it as I see it. I look at a totality of things. He has embraced black liberation theology which is racist and has Marxist tones for 20 years. There is no way the man went to that church for 20 years and did not know their doctrine. But, if you choose to believe that, again, fine. I do not. I believe he knows that theology backward and forward and believes it to his core. You don't have to. That is the wonderful thing about America. We can agree or disagree. On this we disagree.
Yes, I am feeling a pinch. But I don't think the government should take money from you and give it to me. I don't think they should take money from any private business and give it to me. If you think that is fair, fine. I don't. That is how socialism/Marxism takes hold. Historically it ends the same way. I don't want that for America. Perhaps you do...you want the pinch eased for you and if that means taking money from someone else that they earned, and giving it to you, who did not earn it, to you it is all good. To me it isn't.
He never has said who the $1000 checks are going to. I am thinking not every person in the whole US of A...so not only does he get to choose who he takes the money from, he gets to choose who to give it to. That would be another interesting piece of the puzzle. If he confirms to the Marxist view, it would be issuing checks to the "poor." And he gets to define who that is. You may be okay with that...me, not so much.
And by the way...have you ever researched an oil company profit margin? It is not as huge as Obama would like you to believe. But, again, he is counting on no one researching what he says. They hear free money and that's all they want to hear. Also, do you think oil companies don't employ people? You think it is one CEO at a desk in an office raking in billions? You don't think there are rank and file regular folks who work for oil companies? Whose jobs might be impacted by you and others wanting to take money away from their employers and doling it out to people who have not earned it? You think there is a chance they might have a problem with that?
I call, fax, and call again and I do campaign....
xx
I think you know what she means...nm Oh, by all means, it is I who thank you.
''
This means nothing to me
I have seen this and it has been debated as naseum.
As far as winning in Iraq, I am not sure what we are supposed to win.
And please, don't EVER call me your DEAR again. Keep your patronizing on our own board.
Thank you.
It means nothing to you. sm
Yes, by all means, save your anger for being called dear when there it is posted in black and white what the antiwar movement did to our soldiers in Vietnam. Lord love a duck, but I have seen it all now.
Oh, I know what it means....
It is just an uneducated, goofy thing to say...that's all. And you should apologize to all those "grandmas" on this site who you just offended. You are so negative!
marks the location of current message within thread
