Letter found in FAA ATCT breakroom
Funny



Protected Class or the Subtle spread of Perversion?


In the famous fable the “Emperor has no clothes”, all in the “Village”
were completely conditioned for control of their thoughts and trained to
be silent. As a result, the naked emperor ultimately demonstrated his
control over the uneducated and conditioned masses of the village until
a child in its total innocence exclaimed, “The emperor has no clothes”

The founding fathers of our great nation knew the danger of ultimate
rule and the inability of thought or discord within the confines of
society or Government. The founding fathers took great pains to protect
freedom of speech and to make sure rebellious “non-violent constructive”
opinion was encouraged and protected.

Now within the immoral and secular Federal Government and Federal
Aviation Administration workplace, subtle mind control and perversion is
amongst employees. Under the cloak of diversity and propaganda, the
acceptance of perversion and evil has invaded the microcosm and symbol
of society, The United States Federal Government.

When the head spokesman of the DOT sire Norman Mineta designated
“Trans-Gendered and Homosexual employees “a protected class within the
DOT, a Pandora’s box of perversion and evil flew into their lives
cloaked under the word diversity. That’s right friends, evil is amongst
us. Scripture states money earned in an ungodly environment is poison to
your soul. Your carcass will rot like wormwood if your wages of silver
are poisoned with evil. The silver earned within the secular federal
government is poison silver, it will tarnish and sicken. The wages of
sin is eventually death. In Matthew 6:19-34, scripture says you can’t
honor money and serve God. When your silver is poisoned, you are no
longer serving God.

What must you do as a Christian and continue to work and draw your
silver from the Government? You must speak out. Proclaim and shout that
Gay Pride Month and the acceptance of perversion will poison the
workplace. Will you be labeled a:

Fanatic? Zealot? Racist? Maybe so, however, they are only buzz words
used by the secular media and imperial Federal Government to further
their cause, a march towards evil and perversion. If you came to work
for the FAA say in 2010 and the new protected class and edict from
management was to protect any Federal Employee who has:

“Anal sex on a step ladder with a Giraffe”

Would you be repulsed? Would you speak out? Here is the accepted
perversion declared diversity right under your noses in plain language
people.

Male Homosexual Employees place their penis in the rectum of another male.
Female Homosexual employees insert rubber penis devices into the organ
of their female partner until orgasm
Male Transgender Employees remove their penis and grow boobs and install
a vagina
Female Transgender employees have a penis installed where there once was
a vagina.


Now, if you are a Christian employee, does this not violate your rights?
Does it not violate Holy Scripture? Does it not poison your wages? If
you are a Christian employee why do YOU not have a special month
designated in June or be allowed to place pictures of our Lord Jesus in
the Regional Office lobby?

Stand up for your rights. Your Christian rights.
Now is the time.
Gay Pride Month is forced acceptance of Perversion
IT MUST BE STOPPED

Peterpan > wrote in
:

> Letter found in FAA ATCT breakroom

Well, no surprise that bigotry is alive and thriving in ATC. Do you wear
your sheet to work, or do you keep it hidden in the closet at home?

> Funny

No. Sad.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Yea... so much for the Christian concept of tolerance and brotherly
love. I guess what one does in their personal life outside of work is
suddenly subject to harrassment by your hyper-religious coworkers.

Dave

Stan Gosnell wrote:
> Peterpan > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Letter found in FAA ATCT breakroom
>
>
> Well, no surprise that bigotry is alive and thriving in ATC. Do you wear
> your sheet to work, or do you keep it hidden in the closet at home?
>
>
>>Funny
>
>
> No. Sad.
>

wrote:

> On 08 Apr 2005 22:47:54 GMT, Stan Gosnell > wrote:
>
>
>>Peterpan > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>>Letter found in FAA ATCT breakroom
>>
>>Well, no surprise that bigotry is alive and thriving in ATC. Do you wear
>>your sheet to work, or do you keep it hidden in the closet at home?
>>
>>
>>>Funny
>>
>>No. Sad.
>
>
>
> Not all sad. I thought this part was kind of funny:
>
> What must you do as a Christian and continue to work and draw your
> silver from the Government? You must speak out. Proclaim and shout
> that Gay Pride Month and the acceptance of perversion will poison the
> workplace

Maybe all the hyper-religious zealots will quit in disgust.. and there
will be more opportunities who want to focus on being a professional.

Dave

"Peterpan" wrote:
> “Anal sex on a step ladder with a Giraffe”

You think about this kind of stuff a lot, don't you?

Peterpan wrote:

> Stand up for your rights. Your Christian rights.
> Now is the time.
> Gay Pride Month is forced acceptance of Perversion
> IT MUST BE STOPPED

I guess the author presumes everyone is a Christian (or should be), which is
one of the fatal flaws in their "holy" crusade.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:16:15 -0700, wrote:

>
>
>Peterpan wrote:
>
>> Stand up for your rights. Your Christian rights.
>> Now is the time.
>> Gay Pride Month is forced acceptance of Perversion
>> IT MUST BE STOPPED
>
>I guess the author presumes everyone is a Christian (or should be), which is
>one of the fatal flaws in their "holy" crusade.
>


These guys would be laughable, but for the support they seem to have
from many on high in our government these days.

In article >,
wrote:

> These guys would be laughable, but for the support they seem to have
> from many on high in our government these days.

"these guys" don't have the support of anyone in our Government.

What's laughable is the paranoia of people who are afraid of
these kooks.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

In article >,
wrote:

> >"these guys" don't have the support of anyone in our Government.
>
> You need to listen more closely.

you need a lesson is discernment.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

Bob Noel > wrote in
:

> What's laughable is the paranoia of people who are afraid of
> these kooks.

In case you haven't noticed, these kooks are taking over the government,
and suggesting that judges should be killed for handing down decisions
they don't like. One of them is my junior Senator.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
>
> In case you haven't noticed, these kooks are taking over the government,
> and suggesting that judges should be killed for handing down decisions
> they don't like. One of them is my junior Senator.
>

Do you have a quote?

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> "these guys" don't have the support of anyone in our Government.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> looking for a sig the lawyers will like

Look again. The agenda of the govt is driven by the Christian right wing
extremists.

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Look again. The agenda of the govt is driven by the Christian right wing
> extremists.

How so?

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> In case you haven't noticed, these kooks are taking over the government,
>> and suggesting that judges should be killed for handing down decisions
>> they don't like. One of them is my junior Senator.
>>
>
>Do you have a quote?

Senator Cornyn:
"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen
some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly
nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse
violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may
be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some
occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are
unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up
to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence."

So violence against judges is a natural outcome of the fact that they are
"unnaccountable to the public", (such unnaccountability being by design of
the framers of the Constitution, by the way).

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I'm a Darwinian carnivore. I only eat things that weren't fit enough
to prevent their being killed.
-- Mike Sphar

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Senator Cornyn:
> "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen
> some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly
> nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse
> violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may
> be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some
> occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are
> unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up
> to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence."
>

Where does Senator Cornyn suggest that judges should be killed for handing
down decisions he doesn't like?


>
> So violence against judges is a natural outcome of the fact that they are
> "unnaccountable to the public", (such unnaccountability being by design of
> the framers of the Constitution, by the way).
>

"Unaccountable to the public", but not unaccountable. The Constitution says
judges shall hold their offices during good behavior. Acting contrary to
the Constitution is clearly bad behavior.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Senator Cornyn:
>> "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen
>> some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly
>> nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse
>> violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may
>> be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some
>> occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are
>> unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up
>> to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence."
>>
>
>Where does Senator Cornyn suggest that judges should be killed for handing
>down decisions he doesn't like?

He doesn't, directly. He suggests that violence against judges is a
natural consequence of them making "political decisions", which is code
phrase for "decisions I don't like".

>"Unaccountable to the public", but not unaccountable. The Constitution says
>judges shall hold their offices during good behavior. Acting contrary to
>the Constitution is clearly bad behavior.

I haven't seen any judges acting contrary to the Constitution. On the
contrary, I see them restraining the Executive and Legislative branches
from overstepping their Constitutional authority time and time again.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Today Has Been Two Of Those Days.
-- Mike Andrews

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> He doesn't, directly.
>

Nor indirectly.


>
> I haven't seen any judges acting contrary to the Constitution.
>

It's done regularly. If you're not aware of it you are grossly uninformed.


>
> On the
> contrary, I see them restraining the Executive and Legislative branches
> from overstepping their Constitutional authority time and time again.
>

Can you cite any examples?

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:07:04 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> He doesn't, directly.
>>
>
>Nor indirectly.
>
>
>>
>> I haven't seen any judges acting contrary to the Constitution.
>>
>
>It's done regularly. If you're not aware of it you are grossly uninformed.
>
>

Can you cite any examples?


>>
>> On the
>> contrary, I see them restraining the Executive and Legislative branches
>> from overstepping their Constitutional authority time and time again.
>>
>
>Can you cite any examples?
>

OtisWinslow wrote:

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "these guys" don't have the support of anyone in our Government.
> >
> > --
> > Bob Noel
> > looking for a sig the lawyers will like
>
> Look again. The agenda of the govt is driven by the Christian right wing
> extremists.

Two or Three Sundays ago Brian Lamb, the manager of C-Span, had a guy on his
Sunday night interview program who brags that he is the chief lobbyist for
the Christian Right in DC. He added that the Christian Right was not
organized nor a political force until he started organizing them at the end
of the 1980s, or thereabouts.

He then went on to say, "We, the Christian Right, are very pleased we
finally have our first president."

At that point I couldn't take anymore so I changed to the Comedy Channel.

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Two or Three Sundays ago Brian Lamb, the manager of C-Span, had a guy on
his
> Sunday night interview program who brags that he is the chief lobbyist for
> the Christian Right in DC. He added that the Christian Right was not
> organized nor a political force until he started organizing them at the
end
> of the 1980s, or thereabouts.
>
> He then went on to say, "We, the Christian Right, are very pleased we
> finally have our first president."

The Christian Right's first president was Ronald Reagan.

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
said:
>
> He doesn't, directly. He suggests that violence against judges is a
> natural consequence of them making "political decisions", which is code
> phrase for "decisions I don't like".
>
> >"Unaccountable to the public", but not unaccountable. The Constitution
says
> >judges shall hold their offices during good behavior. Acting contrary to
> >the Constitution is clearly bad behavior.
>
> I haven't seen any judges acting contrary to the Constitution. On the
> contrary, I see them restraining the Executive and Legislative branches
> from overstepping their Constitutional authority time and time again.

Not only didn't they NOT act contrary to the Constitution, their decisions
were perfectly in conjunction with the laws of their jurisdictions.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/03/terri_schiavo.html
(second half of the article...after the ***).

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not only didn't they NOT act contrary to the Constitution, their decisions
> were perfectly in conjunction with the laws of their jurisdictions.
>
> http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/03/terri_schiavo.html
> (second half of the article...after the ***).
>

Are you concluding that judges have never acted contrary to the Constitution
because they did not do so in the Schiavo case?

Matt Barrow wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Two or Three Sundays ago Brian Lamb, the manager of C-Span, had a guy on
> his
> > Sunday night interview program who brags that he is the chief lobbyist for
> > the Christian Right in DC. He added that the Christian Right was not
> > organized nor a political force until he started organizing them at the
> end
> > of the 1980s, or thereabouts.
> >
> > He then went on to say, "We, the Christian Right, are very pleased we
> > finally have our first president."
>
> The Christian Right's first president was Ronald Reagan.

Well, the lobbyist I saw on C-SPAN disagrees with your view as do I.

Reagan didn't even go to church.

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
...
> > >
> > >
> > > Two or Three Sundays ago Brian Lamb, the manager of C-Span, had a guy
on
> > his
> > > Sunday night interview program who brags that he is the chief lobbyist
for
> > > the Christian Right in DC. He added that the Christian Right was not
> > > organized nor a political force until he started organizing them at
the
> > end
> > > of the 1980s, or thereabouts.
> > >
> > > He then went on to say, "We, the Christian Right, are very pleased we
> > > finally have our first president."
> >
> > The Christian Right's first president was Ronald Reagan.
>
> Well, the lobbyist I saw on C-SPAN disagrees with your view as do I.
>
> Reagan didn't even go to church.
>

The Religious Right had their first run up under the Reagan Administration.

"Religious America is awakening, perhaps just in time for our country's
sake." "In a struggle against totalitarian tyranny, traditional values
based on religious morality are among our greatest strengths." -- Ronald
Reagan (1)

"Religious views," says Congressman Jack Kemp, "lie at the heart of our
political system. The 'inalienable rights' to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness are based on the belief that each individual is created by God
and has a special value in His eyes. . . . Without a common belief in the
one God who created us, there could be no freedom and no recourse if a
majority were to seek to abrogate the rights of the minority." (2)

Or, as the Education Secretary William Bennett sums up this viewpoint: "Our
values as a free people and the central values of the Judeo-Christian
tradition are flesh of the flesh and blood of the blood." (3)

1. Conservative Digest, Sept. 1980.
2. From a symposium on "Sex and God in American Politics," Policy Review,
Summer, 1984.
3. Quoted in The New York Times, Aug. 8, 1985.

Quoted from Leonard Peikoff's "Religion vs. America" at
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5360&news_iv_ctrl=1225

wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:54:19 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Two or Three Sundays ago Brian Lamb, the manager of C-Span, had a guy on
> >> his
> >> > Sunday night interview program who brags that he is the chief lobbyist for
> >> > the Christian Right in DC. He added that the Christian Right was not
> >> > organized nor a political force until he started organizing them at the
> >> end
> >> > of the 1980s, or thereabouts.
> >> >
> >> > He then went on to say, "We, the Christian Right, are very pleased we
> >> > finally have our first president."
> >>
> >> The Christian Right's first president was Ronald Reagan.
> >
> >Well, the lobbyist I saw on C-SPAN disagrees with your view as do I.
> >
> >Reagan didn't even go to church.
> >
>
> No but he ehtertained folks like Jimmy Swaggart and Pat Robertson.
>
> The Christian Coalition was largely responsible for his elction and
> especially his re-election.
>

The percentages by which Reagan won don't bear that out.

>
> Right wing Christians don't much care who goes to church, in the final
> analysis.

Probably true, but their lobbyist proclaim Bush Jr. as the first president for that
group. Seems like his point is well taken. Reagan never screwed things over in
the name of Jesus like Bush Jr. is doing.

> wrote in message ...
>
> Probably true, but their lobbyist proclaim Bush Jr. as the first president
> for that
> group. Seems like his point is well taken. Reagan never screwed things
> over in
> the name of Jesus like Bush Jr. is doing.
>

What is Bush doing that screws things over in the name of Jesus?

>
> wrote:
>

>>
>>The Christian Coalition was largely responsible for his elction and
>>especially his re-election.

That makes you a very tiny minority, seeing as only Minnesota didn't
vote for him in 84.

wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 04:33:02 -0700, wrote:
>
>>Probably true, but their lobbyist proclaim Bush Jr. as the first president
>>for that
>>group. Seems like his point is well taken. Reagan never screwed things
>>over in the name of Jesus like Bush Jr. is doing.
>
>
> This I would agree with about 1000%.

While I also agree, keep in mind that lobbyists make their money by
convincing their clients of the lobbyist's powers. So claiming "we're the
first to achieve this" is self-serving.

That doesn't mean that it's wrong, but it's something to consider.

- Andrew

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 04:33:02 -0700, wrote:
>
> Probably true, but their lobbyist proclaim Bush Jr. as the first president
> for that group.
> Seems like his point is well taken. Reagan never screwed things
> over in the name of Jesus like Bush Jr. is doing.

Possibly, but Reagan had loads of hard core bible-thumpers in his admin,
right up to the cabinet level, making policy. I shudder to think what that
bunch would have done unchecked. Robert Bork may have gotten a raw deal, but
he was an out and out fascist, even outside the views that got him his bad
ride in the Senate. Kemp and William Bennett were throwbacks to some
medieval age...

In this vein, don't confuse "faith" with a positive outlook on life,
especially with all the glorification of suffering we've heard these past
couple weeks.

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
>
> Possibly, but Reagan had loads of hard core bible-thumpers in his admin,
> right up to the cabinet level, making policy. I shudder to think what that
> bunch would have done unchecked. Robert Bork may have gotten a raw deal, but
> he was an out and out fascist, even outside the views that got him his bad
> ride in the Senate. Kemp and William Bennett were throwbacks to some
> medieval age...
>

Those two throwbacks are still around, too.

No doubt Reagan had some weirdos in his Administration. So did Clinton, but of
different weirdo stripes.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Probably true, but their lobbyist proclaim Bush Jr. as the first
president
> > for that
> > group. Seems like his point is well taken. Reagan never screwed things
> > over in
> > the name of Jesus like Bush Jr. is doing.
> >
>
> What is Bush doing that screws things over in the name of Jesus?

You know your not going to get a logical response to this. Your just
pulling teeth here. The left wingers can't offer any specific examples or
solutions. Just complaints and whines. If you look at polling history,
Bush got no more votes, percentage wise, than any other Republican has in
the past thirty years from the self-proclaimed "religious right". The truth
being is the Republicans are actually changing left-leaning minds and
recruiting more voters their way than the lefties can buy.
>
>

"oneatcer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > What is Bush doing that screws things over in the name of Jesus?
>
> You know your not going to get a logical response to this. Your just
> pulling teeth here. The left wingers can't offer any specific examples or
> solutions. Just complaints and whines. If you look at polling history,
> Bush got no more votes, percentage wise, than any other Republican has in
> the past thirty years from the self-proclaimed "religious right". The
truth
> being is the Republicans are actually changing left-leaning minds and
> recruiting more voters their way than the lefties can buy.

Well, once you get past your circular logic, non-sequiturs and evasions,
meb'be we can talk.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, once you get past your circular logic, non-sequiturs and evasions,
> meb'be we can talk.
>

We may be able to talk if someone can identify anything Bush is doing that
screws things over in the name of Jesus.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "oneatcer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>
> > > What is Bush doing that screws things over in the name of Jesus?
> >
> > You know your not going to get a logical response to this. Your just
> > pulling teeth here. The left wingers can't offer any specific examples
or
> > solutions. Just complaints and whines. If you look at polling history,
> > Bush got no more votes, percentage wise, than any other Republican has
in
> > the past thirty years from the self-proclaimed "religious right". The
> truth
> > being is the Republicans are actually changing left-leaning minds and
> > recruiting more voters their way than the lefties can buy.
>
> Well, once you get past your circular logic, non-sequiturs and evasions,
> meb'be we can talk.
>

Truely what was written was logic, sequiturs and non-evasions. Just can't
face the facts or offer any solutions, eh? Next, please answer Steve,s
question.
>

"oneatcer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "oneatcer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > What is Bush doing that screws things over in the name of Jesus?
> > >
> > > You know your not going to get a logical response to this. Your just
> > > pulling teeth here. The left wingers can't offer any specific
examples
> or
> > > solutions. Just complaints and whines. If you look at polling
history,
> > > Bush got no more votes, percentage wise, than any other Republican has
> in
> > > the past thirty years from the self-proclaimed "religious right". The
> > truth
> > > being is the Republicans are actually changing left-leaning minds and
> > > recruiting more voters their way than the lefties can buy.
> >
> > Well, once you get past your circular logic, non-sequiturs and evasions,
> > meb'be we can talk.
> >
>
> Truely what was written was logic, sequiturs and non-evasions. Just
can't
> face the facts or offer any solutions, eh? Next, please answer Steve,s
> question.

Whole legions of people here have tried to answer McNicoll's questions and
come to a general consensus-- it's futile.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "oneatcer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "oneatcer" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > > What is Bush doing that screws things over in the name of Jesus?
> > > >
> > > > You know your not going to get a logical response to this. Your
just
> > > > pulling teeth here. The left wingers can't offer any specific
> examples
> > or
> > > > solutions. Just complaints and whines. If you look at polling
> history,
> > > > Bush got no more votes, percentage wise, than any other Republican
has
> > in
> > > > the past thirty years from the self-proclaimed "religious right".
The
> > > truth
> > > > being is the Republicans are actually changing left-leaning minds
and
> > > > recruiting more voters their way than the lefties can buy.
> > >
> > > Well, once you get past your circular logic, non-sequiturs and
evasions,
> > > meb'be we can talk.
> > >
> >
> > Truely what was written was logic, sequiturs and non-evasions. Just
> can't
> > face the facts or offer any solutions, eh? Next, please answer Steve,s
> > question.
>
> Whole legions of people here have tried to answer McNicoll's questions and
> come to a general consensus-- it's futile.

I am one of the legionaires. However, for once I agree with him in wanting
an answer.
>
>
>

"oneatcer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "oneatcer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "oneatcer" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > > What is Bush doing that screws things over in the name of Jesus?
> > > > >
> > > > > You know your not going to get a logical response to this. Your
> just
> > > > > pulling teeth here. The left wingers can't offer any specific
> > examples
> > > or
> > > > > solutions. Just complaints and whines. If you look at polling
> > history,
> > > > > Bush got no more votes, percentage wise, than any other Republican
> has
> > > in
> > > > > the past thirty years from the self-proclaimed "religious right".
> The
> > > > truth
> > > > > being is the Republicans are actually changing left-leaning minds
> and
> > > > > recruiting more voters their way than the lefties can buy.
> > > >
> > > > Well, once you get past your circular logic, non-sequiturs and
> evasions,
> > > > meb'be we can talk.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Truely what was written was logic, sequiturs and non-evasions. Just
> > can't
> > > face the facts or offer any solutions, eh? Next, please answer
Steve,s
> > > question.
> >
> > Whole legions of people here have tried to answer McNicoll's questions
and
> > come to a general consensus-- it's futile.
>
> I am one of the legionaires. However, for once I agree with him in
wanting
> an answer.

And the silence is deafening.
> >
> >
> >
>
>