Does this surprise anyone? Golly, gee, who would have imagined such a thing??
Just one more nail in the coffin of the neocon cadre in power in Washington. The only question is: how many Americans are still sipping the neocon kool-aid?
posted by limedrops911 at 09:14 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
The only question is: how many Americans are still sipping the neocon kool-aid?
Count the number that reply to this thread with comments accusing the "liberal media" of making this story up, or worse, claiming that the government is forced to BUY/BRIBE the media in order to get the "real" news printed, or something like that.
Let us not forget that the duties of the corporate media are not to the listeners, readers, and viewers of their products (aka "the public"), but to be fidicually responsible to the stockholders (of which management usually is by way of bonuses granted in stock and stock options).
posted by anonymouscoward at 09:21 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
okay - so I read the story linked in the Detroit Free PRess and had to ask...
what's so different about this "program" as it's described than if a paper or tv or radio show read/printed/published a press release?
I'm not being sarcastic, but did I miss something?
And please don't go off on some left-wing slant about this, as you two normally do... I can cite specific publications in the Toledo area that DO print exactly what a press release says - even when it contains what some would call "propoganda."
posted by intrepid at 01:45 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
what's so different about this "program" as it's described than if a paper or tv or radio show read/printed/published a press release?
A press release normally states that it is a press release/advertising.
What the Bush administration has done, and is doing again, is pay reporters, commentators, and media outlets to report whatever it wants as news. This is technically illegal. By law, government agencies must inform the viewing public that the government is the source of the information disseminated. This has not been done several times so far by BushCo. See also Armstrong Williams being paid to endorce No Child Left Behind, anti-drug info coming out of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and promotion of the Medicare prescription drug benefit coming out of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Also, media outlets aren't usually paid to print press releases. Again, if they do print one, it's usually clear.
posted by anonymouscoward at 02:38 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
AC - I didn't see that the article cited said the outlets were being paid - just that they were reporting what the government told them...again - maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the article was confusing and not well-written.
Also, certain media outlets in this area routinely print press releases without identifying them as such...only if you're familiar with such releases would you recognize the "article" as a verbatim relay of the press release.
posted by intrepid at 03:37 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/politics/01propaganda.html?ex=1291093200&en=15a816ae2c304281&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
posted by anonymouscoward at 03:56 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
Also, certain media outlets in this area routinely print press releases without identifying them as such...only if you're familiar with such releases would you recognize the "article" as a verbatim relay of the press release.
Name names, or stop repeating yourself.
posted by anonymouscoward at 03:56 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
Anonynoous Coward
The less than anonymous coward who runs Daily Kos took money to run stories about John Kerry.
Do you still respect this esteemed liberal blog?
posted by MemyselfandI at 05:45 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
Anonymous coward,
The alternative to corporate run media is state run media a la Pravda and Tass. Is this what you would like to see?
posted by MemyselfandI at 05:46 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
The alternative to corporate run media is state run media a la Pravda and Tass. Is this what you would like to see?
The BBC and CBC are figments of my imagination, then?
posted by anonymouscoward at 05:49 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
We've been involved in propaganda in war-torn areas forever. I just finished watching a documentary on Discovery Times that highlighted some of the propaganda we produced during WWII. The only difference really is that we're sending the propaganda to the Iraqis and not to American papers. The military while Clinton was in office also participated in propaganda before any of the bombing campaigns undertaken during the 90s. I could be wrong, but I doubt either Clinton or Bush ordered this to happen....most likely this was a military program in a war zone.
Would you support propaganda if it were to save American or Iraqi lives?
posted by HeyHey at 06:19 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
At least one is a local - weekly paper circulated in the neighborhoods. They've taken press releases from candidates in their circulation area and printed them verbatim...even including information about fundraisers, which would be a violation of the campaign finance laws.
Except for this flaw during the campaign season, I think they do a nice job of reporting on events and such, so I'd like not to slam them by name in a public forum.
Use email if you want more details
posted by intrepid at 06:21 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
Why can't all media outlets be as truthful as this one?
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b251/Foolkiller/dickroboto.jpg
posted by Foolkiller at 07:05 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
Would you support propaganda if it were to save American or Iraqi lives?
Do you support the war with Eastasia, citizen?
posted by anonymouscoward at 07:49 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
The less than anonymous coward who runs Daily Kos took money to run stories about John Kerry.
Do you still respect this esteemed liberal blog?
Answer the question, Coward.
posted by AirTrainer at 08:26 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
Would you support propaganda if it were to save American or Iraqi lives?
Answer the question, Coward.
What is Eastasia? I don't remember the U.S. being at war with any continents, putz.
posted by AirTrainer at 08:30 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
Hey anonymouscoward, What do you mean technically illegal. there is nothing technical about it. It's not illegal period. You've got to be more careful in the way you word things. You know that once you left wingers see it in print, it becomes fact.
posted by AmericanPie at 08:42 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
It's good to know that "responsible reporting" is "all the rage" in Dick and George's world! We need the truth,and nothing but the truth, so help us find it!
February 17, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Bush's Barberini Faun
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
I am very impressed with James Guckert, a k a Jeff Gannon.
How often does an enterprising young man, heralded in press reports as both a reporter and a contributor to such sites as Hotmilitarystud.com, Workingboys.net, Militaryescorts.com, MilitaryescortsM4M.com and Meetlocalmen.com, get to question the president of the United States?
Who knew that a hotmilitarystud wanting to meetlocalmen could so easily get to be face2face with the commander in chief?
It's hard to believe the White House could hit rock bottom on credibility again, but it has, in a bizarre maelstrom that plays like a dark comedy. How does it credential a man with a double life and a secret past?
"Jeff Gannon" was waved into the press room nearly every day for two years as the conservative correspondent for two political Web sites operated by a wealthy Texas Republican. Scott McClellan often called on the pseudoreporter for softball questions.
Howard Kurtz reported in The Washington Post yesterday that although Mr. Guckert had denied launching the provocative Web sites - one described him as " 'military, muscular, masculine and discrete' (sic)" - a Web designer in California said "that he had designed a gay escort site for Gannon and had posted naked pictures of Gannon at the client's request."
And The Wilmington News-Journal in Delaware reported that Mr. Guckert was delinquent in $20,700 in personal income tax from 1991 to 1994.
I'm still mystified by this story. I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the "Barberini Faun" is credentialed to cover a White House that won a second term by mining homophobia and preaching family values?
At first when I tried to complain about not getting my pass renewed, even though I'd been covering presidents and first ladies since 1986, no one called me back. Finally, when Mr. McClellan replaced Ari Fleischer, he said he'd renew the pass - after a new Secret Service background check that would last several months.
In an era when security concerns are paramount, what kind of Secret Service background check did James Guckert get so he could saunter into the West Wing every day under an assumed name while he was doing full-frontal advertising for stud services for $1,200 a weekend? He used a driver's license that said James Guckert to get into the White House, then, once inside, switched to his alter ego, asking questions as Jeff Gannon.
Mr. McClellan shrugged this off to Editor & Publisher magazine, oddly noting, "People use aliases all the time in life, from journalists to actors."
I know the F.B.I. computers don't work, but this is ridiculous. After getting gobsmacked by the louche sagas of Mr. Guckert and Bernard Kerik, the White House vetters should consider adding someone with some blogging experience.
Does the Bush team love everything military so much that even a military-stud Web site is a recommendation?
Or maybe Gannon/Guckert's willingness to shill free for the White House, even on gay issues, was endearing. One of his stories mocked John Kerry's "pro-homosexual platform" with the headline "Kerry Could Become First Gay President."
With the Bushies, if you're their friend, anything goes. If you're their critic, nothing goes. They're waging a jihad against journalists - buying them off so they'll promote administration programs, trying to put them in jail for doing their jobs and replacing them with ringers.
At last month's press conference, Jeff Gannon asked Mr. Bush how he could work with Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality." But Bush officials have divorced themselves from reality.
They flipped TV's in the West Wing and Air Force One to Fox News. They paid conservative columnists handsomely to promote administration programs. Federal agencies distributed packaged "news" video releases with faux anchors so local news outlets would run them. As CNN reported, the Pentagon produces Web sites with "news" articles intended to influence opinion abroad and at home, but you have to look hard for the disclaimer: "Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense." The agencies spent a whopping $88 million spinning reality in 2004, splurging on P.R. contracts.
Even the Nixon White House didn't do anything this creepy. It's worse than hating the press. It's an attempt to reinvent it.
posted by Bbcmjeep43 at 08:53 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
It's amazing how wacky the liberal columnists have become in their hatred for George Bush. There used to be liberals I enjoyed like Donald Kaul, Clarence Page, and David Broder.
But you get really hate-filled, bitter, mean spirited demons like Down, Krugrman, Friedman, and queen of the crazies -- Molly Ivins and you wonder where sanity went in the mainstream press.
BTW, coward, BBC and CBC are state funded, not state operated. We have the comparable PBS even though we don't need it now with the advent of modern cable.
posted by MemyselfandI at 10:45 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
C'mon coward. I put some questions to you. Answer them.
posted by MemyselfandI at 10:45 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 01, 2005 #
"Would you support propaganda if it were to save American or Iraqi lives?"
Hell, no. The promotion of falsehoods only feeds the particular Death Machine that demands such disinformation to be a more effective killer. Bush's Death Machine should receive no support no matter what justification is used. It kills and kills, therefore no moral man should support such a thing.
The body count among American soldiers alone is approaching that of 911's victims. The body count among Afghanistani has long topped it. The body count among Iraqis has far exceeded it.
How many dead will be enough to satisfy the American thirst for revenge? How many more must die before Americans stop this sick love affair with propaganda, torture, imprisonment, dropping bombs and outright murder?
posted by GuestZero at 06:00 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 02, 2005 #
Hell, no. The promotion of falsehoods only feeds the particular Death Machine that demands such disinformation to be a more effective killer. Bush's Death Machine should receive no support no matter what justification is used.
Hmmmmm I wonder if you'd feel the same way if your life was on the line and propoganda was the deciding factor.
It kills and kills, therefore no moral man should support such a thing.
Here's a hypothetical for you.
You're walking down the road, and some guy attacks you, starts beating you with a bat.
I as a armed citizen see this.
Do I
A) Shoot the bastard and save your life
B) Physically attack the bastard and protract the party
C) Remember that someone once said "It kills and kills, therefore no moral man should support such a thing", therefore not wishing to engage in violence, walk away?
The body count among American soldiers alone is approaching that of 911's victims.
What? 9/11 attack? that's the best you can come up with.
Why not "The body count is fast approcahing Vietnam"
or
"The body count is fast approaching WWII"
Why not any of those?
The body count among Afghanistani has long topped it.
WRONG
Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties according to icasualties.org stands at
320
http://icasualties.org/oef/
The body count among Iraqis has far exceeded it.
Considering the loss of 9/11 occured ON ONE DAY, and the war in Iraq is fast approaching it's THIRD YEAR, I'd have to say your desperate attempt to paint the action in Iraq as something awful (no doubt to compare it to terrorism me thinks) fails miserably.
How many dead will be enough to satisfy the American thirst for revenge? How many more must die before Americans stop this sick love affair with propaganda, torture, imprisonment, dropping bombs and outright murder?
*violins in the background*
posted by WhiteAfricanAmerican at 06:32 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 02, 2005 #
"The Bush Death Machine"
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Hate is a liberal value.
posted by MemyselfandI at 08:45 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 02, 2005 #
"Hmmmmm I wonder if you'd feel the same way if your life was on the line and propoganda was the deciding factor."
According to the Bush Apologists and various war- and chicken-hawks, my life IS on the line. Hence it does. Right? Which is it?
I've never bought the line of argument that it's OK to defraud and murder if it's purely in your self interest. Apparently, you do buy it. The Empire was sold to you, and you bought it.
"Here's a hypothetical for you. [some inapplicable situation deleted]"
Please demonstrate how any Iraqi threatened or attacked me or mine. Take your time, Roscoe. (Please note that I have no connection whatsoever to Israel, hence you cannot make a case that the Israelis are "mine".)
"What? 9/11 attack? that's the best you can come up with."
Why not? Your man Bush uses 911 all the f*cking time. He even invoked the 911 demon during the Katrina disaster. The precedent is set.
"Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties according to icasualties.org stands at 320 [blah blah blah -- more Imperialist blather]"
See what I mean? American war- and chicken-hawks are so blinded by vengenace that they can't even understand the goddamn question. I f*cking said AFGHANISTANI ... as in the poor NATIVE AFGHANISTANI folks who were MURDERED by various American and British forces when their country was invaded. Their dead is in the thousands in Afghanistan alone. It could be as high as 100000 in Iraq -- another country invaded, but this time with no connection to 911 (... remember, your President invokes 911 nearly every time he opens his mouth). But we have little way of knowing anything other than estimates, since the murderers in question (i.e. primarily American and British forces) are only interested in counting THEIR OWN dead, not the thousands they kill from invading and bombing others.
As for your link, retard, it's "Coalition Military Fatalities". This says nothing about the native dead from assaults from the so-called "coalition" (which as I've explained, is essentially an American operation with some British support).
"I'd have to say your desperate attempt to paint the action in Iraq as something awful (no doubt to compare it to terrorism me thinks) fails miserably"
The military operations of the USA throughout the world are largely terrorism. Noam Chomsky has largely outlined this in ways more eloquent than I can do so here. In short, go read him first, and then refute his points here second.
And if you can't see that what's going in Iraq (as a result of an unjustified invasion and occupation) is truly awful, then you're an immoral b*stard who has no business speaking on the topic of war with reasonable adults. Really, you're a truly evil person to support so much death and mayhem.
My original plea still stands unanswered among you mediocretins:
When will the body count be enough to satisfy the American need for revenge?
posted by GuestZero at 01:58 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 05, 2005 #
"The Bush Death Machine" -- "I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Hate is a liberal value."
Let's talk terms:
Bush - Bush is running it, along with his pack of Neo-Cons.
Death - Among thousands of American deaths, Bush's military adventures have caused an estimated thousands of dead in Afghanistan as well as tens of thousands in Iraq.
Machine - Any organized military can be termed a machine.
So "Bush Death Machine" is an utterly correct term.
Yet somehow you avoid its correctness ... and then, continue to ignore the fact that invading, bombing and occupying nations for selfish reasons (slathered in lies) demonstrates most clearly that hate is actually a conservative value almost exclusively. (My apologies to the peace-loving conservatives out there ... er, wherever you're all hiding.)
Either that, or you demonize angry speech over actual shooting and bombing.
You war- and chicken-hawks really do take the cake. You're completely unabashed about using weapons of mass destruction (even torture) against native populations to satisfy your need to demonstrate ... well, something. Probably something about oil. And definitely something about obedience to the sick viciousness of militarized Western civilization. But that something has nothing to do with justice and truth. It's likely that tens of thousands of Iraqis lay dead just to prove your somethings.
posted by GuestZero at 02:12 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 05, 2005 #
Guest zero,
Iraq did not attack anyone. However, you can't think of this war in the simplistic terms of the nation-state. This isn't about nation-states and political borders. Terrorists were and are in Iraq. They can and will attack us.
If anything, we need to broaden this war.
posted by MemyselfandI at 07:41 A.M. EST on Tue Dec 06, 2005 #
GZ - the US is fighting side with side with Iraqis who want to rid their country of terrorists and the lunatics associated with Saddam.
How does this FACT fit in with your position?
posted by intrepid at 01:06 P.M. EST on Tue Dec 06, 2005 #
GuestZero,
I didn't realize you were part of the "Hate America Now" campaign. That's a shame, because I have enjoyed many things you have contributed to ToledoTalk.
But today, you disgust me. You have called American and British military forces 'murderers'. You call American military operations 'terrorism'. You focus your analysis of casualties upon losses suffered by Iraqis and Afghanis. You throw a straw man argument on the table that paints Americans as being thirsty for revenge and having a sick love affair with propaganda, torture, imprisonment, dropping bombs and outright murder. The true gem among your statements is your reference to Noam Chomsky!
If anyone has ever earned the right to be called COMMIE PINKO BASTARD it would be Noam Chomsky.
For those of you not familiar with Chomsky, here is a bio that falls short of telling the full story. Noam was an anti-Vietnam War activist, and a full-blown Pol Pot supporter. You may remember Pol Pot as being the dictator of communist Cambodia that killed over 1.5 million of his fellow Cambodians. There were less than 8 million people in the entire nation. Noam also was a fan of Mao Tse Tung's China, saying that it was a 'relatively livable' and 'just society'.
If those references don't suffice, you might remember Chomsky as the idiot that ran into the media spotlight yelling, "9/11 is America's own fault. We brought this on ourselves."
Well, GZ, if you are such a Chomsky fan, you should be familiar with this quotation from the old commie:
I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this—and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.
We are no longer trying to determine if you are a prostitute, GZ; we're just negotiating a price.
Hypocrite!
Most sincerely,
the Immoral Bastard
posted by AirTrainer at 02:44 P.M. EST on Tue Dec 06, 2005 #
Well, what have you got, GZ?
posted by AirTrainer at 02:23 A.M. EST on Wed Dec 07, 2005 #
Once again....what have you got, GZ?
posted by AirTrainer at 08:42 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 08, 2005 #
MemyselfandI said: "Iraq did not attack anyone."
Thank you. How nice to see someone actually address a core issue. Iraq did attack and invade Kuwait, but it well paid for that transgression, hence as far as any rational man should be concerned, that issue is over and done with. (During the 1991 war Iraq did fire missiles at Israel, but we should well note that Israel summarily bombed the site of Iraq's nuclear development reactor back in 1982. As far as I'm concerned, if Iraq and Israel want to lob explosives at each other for their nationalistic reasons, they can be isolated by the international community for doing so.)
"However, you can't think of this war in the simplistic terms of the nation-state."
Oh yes I can, and do ... and if you value the US's own sovereignty, then so should YOU think in terms of the nation-state. Iraq is (was?) a sovereign nation that had every right to defend itself. Like all nations under the so-called community of nations (partially but poorly represented in the UN), they also had every right not to be assaulted by the US military.
The fact remains that Saddam Hussein was for ONLY the Iraqi people to depose. Period. Anything else is just an unwarranted invasion by a foreign power.
"Terrorists were and are in Iraq."
The proof of that in the "were" sense is as lacking as Condi's "mushroom cloud" commentary. You simply bought the justifications for attacks by the American Empire. Iraq was no more or less a terrorist center than Saudi Arabia (see below), and certainly could not compete with the sheer terror brought to the world by the US military.
As for the "are" sense, sure, highly militant assholes are now in Iraq -- as a result of the invasion by the USA. Nothing more produces a terrorist environment than a destabilized and militarized region ... well, other than a Republic in decline, such as the United States.
"They can and will attack us."
Yet that's still no justification to invade countries, breaking their sovereignty and denying them the opportunity to self-police. We had a community of nations to address these issues while still preserving sovereignty. Troubled as the UN was and still is, it still represented a higher form of civilization than just going to war.
Iraq was not Afghanistan (were Osama bin Laden was ... do any of you remember him?). There was no 911 issue with Iraq. Iraq was ONLY an issue with the oil-industry militants running rampant in the Bush Administration.
"If anything, we need to broaden this war."
Firstly, the so-called "war on terror" (note: itself an incorrect term since the US is the primary actor of terrorism in terms of wealth expended and deaths caused) has done so much damage to people and property with little effect against terror, that EXPANDING such a failing policy is itself farcical and downright dumb. It flies in the face of all logic and contradicts the results that the militarists claim to want (i.e. less or no terrorism). It instead supports Imperialism and is moving the world towards WWIII. (A nuclear or worldwide-conventional war is not worth fighting for any reason, morally.)
Secondly, the one place the war will NOT be broadened is the real heart of Islamic extremism: Saudi Arabia. But since they are positioned as an ally by elites, they own a great many assets in the US, and of course they are strongly connected family-wise to the various oil industrialists in the entire Neo-Con crowd (which significantly includes the Bush Family) ... well, they just aren't on the target list. But it has nothing to do with justice or truth. It has everything to do with power and evil.
Look, the only state in the Middle East with nuclear weapons AND known hostile intentions and history is ISRAEL. Isreal has even attacked the US military (ref. USS Liberty). YET ... Iraq (essentially defeated and disarmed from 1991 onward) was chosen as the next place to attack, for supposedly having WMDs (they didn't), having terrible a Human rights record (like Israel), and for ignoring the UN (which Israel does also, when the US isn't blatantly issuing Security Council vetoes on their behalf).
There isn't anything you could allege at Iraq in 2003 that you couldn't equally allege for Israel. But Iraq was instead attacked, invaded and then occupied ... while the military governing body quickly saw to the Oil Ministry and other such assets ... as well as reforming Iraq's legal system into a Western form foreign to the region in a great many dimensions.
Those in Iraq who are blowing up oil wells are doing exactly the right thing to attempt to get the US military to leave. (If I were an Iraqi, that's what I would do too. To get a militarily-superior invader to leave, you have to deny him access to the resources he invaded you for.) The politics were used as pretexts and distractions to obtain the real goal: the West's control of Iraq's oil fields. As well documented in D.Yergin's "The Prize", the West has been very set against the Middle East after their nationalization of native oil assets from Western businessmen. All this war is for oil. It's all EXACTLY in line with what Hermann Goering said (paraphrasingly) that the people have to be dragged to war.
It's Fascism and it's evil. America is the primary terrorist nation in the world and it just doesn't matter how many Americans judge otherwise. The ownership of nukes and the world's leading reserve currency doesn't give ANYONE the right to conduct torture, terrorism, or otherwise invade nations based upon a bevy of lies. If you believe otherwise, you may as well ascribe superior rights to those having White skin; it makes the same amount of sense and logic.
(I have to go now; I'm borrowing this Internet connection, and will deal with AirTrainer soon before he has an aneurysm or something.)
posted by GuestZero at 07:22 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
You tell 'em, GZ.
posted by anonymouscoward at 10:06 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
GZ,
You let me know when your internet connection is ready, and we'll finish this.
************************************************
coward,
Of course GZ is going to be the one to "tell 'em". You are unprepared in so many ways.
posted by AirTrainer at 02:00 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
If anything, we need to broaden this war.
Maybe I'm taking that wrong, but the comment scares me. There should be a few paragraphs between the if anything and the war part. I'm not personally attacking you, MemyselfandI, "calling you out", or poking my finger in your chest trying to get a response, just respectfully disagreeing.
This thread could go to 500 comments, and it won't change any opinions. The fact that America is so polarized by the war should raise some alarms.
The war against terror cannot be won with guns and bombs. We aren't fighting an army or country. Bombs cannot fight thoughts. I'm not sure what the answer is, but you cannot bomb hatred away.
2 cents.
posted by Bruno at 11:24 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Hate is a liberal value.
posted by MemyselfandI
So you're saying every single terrorist is a liberal. Every single racist is a liberal. Every single gay-basher is liberal.
posted by anonymouscoward at 12:56 P.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
