Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Angry nation

April 23, 2007

Advertisement

To the editor:

The Virginia Tech horror again shows the level of anger and malaise in America. The reasons why the young student turned assassin will never be known.

Dissatisfaction and anger in America increases, a level never felt before, a tangible that one senses in almost everyone. Saber rattling began with George W. Bush's first presidential campaign. Shortly after inauguration for Bush's first term, 9/11 happened. His reaction, body language, then as now, with arms extended from his sides, is that of another Quick Draw McGraw, jumping in without further thought, dragging this nation into a war of his creation with no end in sight.

The loss of lives continues. Every household now is not complete without its stash of guns and ammunition. What idiocy!

Concealed weapons the rule of the day, highway shootings, copycat killings. Violence characterizes this once-peaceful nation, which fought when attacked. The Virginia Tech massacre is a symptom of outrage, helplessness of the individual to change American policies that affect all lives, a president that appears to be one who endorses endless wars for peace. His "winning" office in the first place is clouded. If anything is to be gained from this recent mass killing, it is the fact that all life is precious. Our government needs to reflect that fact in some turnaround in its failing policies. What has happened to and inside this land of ours is unreal and fodder for another "Catch 22" novel.

Sue Hess, Lawrence

Comments

bisky1 7 years, 3 months ago

do you have any mirrors at the house sue?

0

KS 7 years, 3 months ago

And George W. Bush was responsbile for the San Francisco earthquake and the Chicago fire too, Sue! This attitude in the US started a long time before 2000.

0

number3of5 7 years, 3 months ago

Most of the anger in the United States develops when our children are small. Parents no longer employ good old fashioned discipline. Children are allowed to sass parents, elders, and teachers. Children are allowed to tease, torment, and bully others. They are talked to, taught by stories, but there is no punishment for the actions. Many parents are afraid to use punishment for such actions, because they are afraid that the government will become involved and take the children out of the home. So the children are impowered even more and the anger builds throughout their lives. Eventually it explodes. As for George W. Bush, he is just a bantam rooster in a big rooster crowd, blustering and bullying his way around by demanding his way or not at all.

0

mick 7 years, 3 months ago

"The reasons.....will never be known." That's not true. But those who know will never be heard.

0

canyon_wren 7 years, 3 months ago

Good comments, number3of5. It is so unrealistic for people like Sue Hess to cast about for a culprit they can regulate (like through gun control which will NEVER solve the social problems) when there are so many factors, such as those you pointed out, which are really the source of our problems.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 7 years, 3 months ago

Actually, abortion is a much larger contributor to America's attitude of human worth-lessness.

When a nation doesn't value its most innocent and most vulnerable, it can hardly be expected to value other human life.

0

mom_of_three 7 years, 3 months ago

You can't generalize or lump parents into one big category. Not all kids, and most I know, are not allowed to sass their parents or anyone. Bullying has been around for years, since you and I were kids. It's not new, however, the resulting violence has escalated since I was a teenager.
And schools are sometimes as much to blame for bullying as anyone, for the lack of action taken by administrators.

0

Gary Sandell 7 years, 3 months ago

Preytell, what is W responsible for?


He's responsible for at least trying to take control and get rid of these bunches of cutthroat, mudering terrorist that seem to think that they have the right to come over here or anywhere else they choose and kill innocent people just because they can. He's responsible for having the guts to believe that this country has to take a stand when all of the other gutless contries won't or refuse to acknowledge that those same terrorist are out to take over their way of life. Bush has made lots of mistakes, but at least he had the courage to take a stand. He can't help it that his public speaking abilities are not up too or even close to the level of Bill Clinton. That seems all people really want from our President. A line of B.S. and feel good words but no follow through.

0

Flap Doodle 7 years, 3 months ago

I blame the Democratic Party for running such a horrible candidate in 2004 that over 62 million American voters said "you know, I'd rather give George another 4 years than vote for that Kerry person."

0

canyon_wren 7 years, 3 months ago

Hey, Snap, I think you said it. I am an Independent and am pretty much disgusted with BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans, but am afraid that the Dems will repeat that mistake and pick someone like Hillary (Hilary? I can never remember how to spell it!) which will mean another Republican in the WH for another 4 years. Though a conservative by nature, I am afraid our environment can't take another 4 years like this past 8. Now, for my money, I would choose Richardson for the Dems or McCain for the Republicans. Please don't all jump on me at once!!

0

Gary Sandell 7 years, 3 months ago

scenebooster FYI- We went to Iraq when "credible intelligence" told us that they were building a stock of WMD's there that Saddam would be glad to supply his terrorist buddies with, if it suited his purpose. Failure of Saddam to respond and allow inspections requested by the UN, in a timely fashion, gave cause for concern that these weapons were, in fact, being manufacutured and stored for use by terrorist. Saddam knew, by past experience, that he could not defeat an allied attack of Iran but he was banking on the US and Britian not having the guts to go in to Iraq again. The delay of the UN in taking any action allowed plenty of time for Saddam to move any WMD's into hiding.
So you're asking why we are still there then if no WMD's were found? Because you do not go into a country and take out it's structure of government, no matter how brutal that gov't was, as we did in Iran, and then just leave it to re-build the infa-structure and Gov't without assistance.
I'm sure that the hundred's or thousands of victims of Saddam the "Terrorist", found in the mass graves, would have loved to have had the opportunity to be alive and build a new "Saddam-free" gov't. They did not have that opportunity because they are DEAD! The infa-struture and gov't could have been rebuild by now but the terrorist and radicals do not want a stable and democratic gov't, they want to control the gov't and run it like Saddam did, by terror and fear. Is that how you want Iraq to be governed? Also, thanks for the new name!

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

"Posted by scenebooster (anonymous) on April 23, 2007 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Agno -

While I respect the tone of your letter, I do think you've got it wrong.

This incident is absolutely about politics"

Because, if this wasn't about politics, if there was an issue that did not in some way reflect poorly on Republicans, Conservatives, and George W Bush, my entire worldview would collapse. Ack!

0

BigAl 7 years, 3 months ago

right_thinker.. I think there is plenty of anger all around. I watch people like O'Reilly and Hannity "lose-it" quite often. Ann Coulter is on a high hate campaign that even Michael Moore can't touch. Just mentioning Rush Limbaugh raises the hate level.
No sir, there is plenty of hate going around. What this country needs is a "uniter" not a "divider". Oh Wait.....

0

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 3 months ago

Sue,

V. Tech & George Bush. Tell me why these names are brought up in the same article? You rail against households having a stash of guns and ammunition, yet never mention that the ONLY chance the V Tech students had was LESS restrictive gun control.

I wonder what KU is doing on this subject. I wonder in their administrative meetings that are no doubt on going, if anyone has even considered allowing legal carriers of handguns on campus?

0

pelliott 7 years, 3 months ago

I am pleasantly surprised that so many of you state that Bush is responsible. I only hold him responsible for his horrid leadership on almost all issues domestic and then of course hisinternational policies are killing us. He is a liar and a coward but his service record speaks for itself. Back to gun control laws. Would it hurt to make it as hard to buy a gun as for two people in a loving committed relationship to marry. It would help to be required to pass a test and to apply for a licence, heck, whats faster than a speeding bullet?

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

"Posted by scenebooster (anonymous) on April 23, 2007 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jonas, again with the hackery. Address factually any of the issues that I mentioned, and we can discuss."

Errrr. . . hackery? O'tay. Never been called a hack before. Anyway, why would I want to debate any of those issues here. On most of them I agree mostly with your position. I just find you, personally, to be distasteful.

"You don't know me."

Nope, which is why you should care more about the persona you convey in your posts, or people are likely to assume you're just an angry jerk. Unless you WANT to be seen that way, which I concede is entirely possible.

"My politics are not black and white. This issue reflects negatively all the way around."

Which means it can't be easily politicized, except poorly and clumsily, as demonstrated above.

"But you don't really want to discuss this, am I right?"

Of course I don't. Primarily, it's far more fun to tease you, because you over-react so easily and often. Second, I find the immediate politicization of tragedy to fit personal viewpoints and agendas to be disgusting. At least wait until all the bodies are in the ground.

"Gets in the way of stereotyping anyone who is not in lockstep with you."

Wow! How can you, of all posters on here, even say that with a straight face? That's good for a chuckle, for sure. I don't stereotype at all. All of my engagements towards you have concerned you as a singular poster, not as a member of a larger group of any kind. Except perhaps the over-arching group of highly irritable and polarized internet howlers. I hadn't considered it before, but I guess that could be considered a group.

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

"Posted by kneejerkreaction (anonymous) on April 23, 2007 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sue,

V. Tech & George Bush. Tell me why these names are brought up in the same article? You rail against households having a stash of guns and ammunition, yet never mention that the ONLY chance the V Tech students had was LESS restrictive gun control."

Sorry, but that's just silly. There are no viable levels of gun control liberality which would have led to less bloodshed. The simply fact is that the large percentage of people don't want to carry guns on their persons. Further, that most of those people, in a tense combat situation, would not be worth a rat's patoot in a hurricane. (That phrase is patented, as of now!) Rail all you want, but the only thing that VT shows is that we live in an imperfect world where bad things can and do frequently happen. You should just accept it and move on. Then you could be happy, like me. I'm always happy! Where's my booze?!

0

purplesage 7 years, 3 months ago

Since 9/11 - the roots of which were deeply growing and ignored during the Clinton administration - America has apparently forgotten the horror of the attack. That the plan was laid and executed during two so diverse American Presidencies is evidence that they actually do hate us - all of us.

"Where's Obama?" - Wow. He is slick, intelligent, photogenic. You gotta admit his background is suspect. I'd worry a lot more about his Islamic roots than about John Kennedy's Roman Catholicism, for example. The prospect of the Muslims having the ear of the President is a lot more alarming than if the Pope had Kennedy's attention (which he didn't).

Hillary already had her 8 years of co-presidency. And she was sure backpedaling on her votes re: war in Iraq!

Mitt Romney's LDS theology includes concepts of the Mormon Church taking over the government and saving America.

The "Gs" - Rudy and Knute - have both been married too many times.

John Edwards spends too much on haircuts.

History tells the story of an administration. President Bush has been unmercifully bashed by the media. When there is a longer lens looking at post-9/11 America, nonsense like Mr. Bush being somehow responsible for a tragedy like VT will be out of the view finder.

Let's not let the VT horror become political, or religious, or racist.

0

denak 7 years, 3 months ago

"....Violence characterizes this once-peaceful nation,.."

I'm just curious as to when that was..... when were we a peaceful nation? Was it when we were slaughtering Native Americans by the thousands, or enslaving other human beings and hanging them from tress, or maybe water hosing them and setting dogs on them... or maybe it is when we had children working in factories or dying in church bombings or maybe it is when we were putting people in "relocation camps"

Maybe someone can clear this up for me...I'm just a little hazy on this "once peaceful nation" concept

Dena

P.S. Isn't Knute just the cutest little thing!

0

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 3 months ago

Jonas,

The amazing thing about your comment regarding my thoughts about allowing V Tech students to legally carry firearms on campus... "Sorry, but that's just silly. There are no viable levels of gun control liberality which would have led to less bloodshed."...is nothing short of amazing, or typical.

Conservatives AND liberals seem to blindly follow the doctrine of their group's beliefs. You totally ingore the one chance that the V Tech students had, which was shoot the shooter. You must be a liberal-inclined person and, all liberals hate all gun issues all the time, hence your comment.

Forget your group's beliefs for a moment and put yourself in that situation. Kill or be killed. Sure, it sounds redneck and conservative and all that and I don't like it either. But, it's the truth.

0

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 3 months ago

Every time gun control advocates use an isolated instance of firearm violence to promote their agenda they fail to note the following:

In 1997, Pearl, Miss., assistant principal Joel Myrick stopped triple murderer Luke Woodham, using a handgun retrieved from his car.

In 1998, in Edinboro, Pa., the 14-year-old who killed science teacher John Gillette at an off-campus dance was captured by shotgun-wielding James Strand.

And in 2002, at Virginia?s own Appalachian Law School in Grundy, student Tracy Bridges used his pistol to detain murderer Peter Odighizuwa.

Each time, armed intervention saved lives without additional shots being fired.

Beyond anecdotes, researchers John R. Lott and William M. Landes, then at Yale University and the University of Chicago, studied multiple-victim public shootings. Examining data spanning 19 years from 1977 to 1995, they reported that shootings in states that adopted concealed handgun laws declined by 84?percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted by 90 percent, and injuries, 82.5 percent.

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

"Conservatives AND liberals seem to blindly follow the doctrine of their group's beliefs. You totally ingore the one chance that the V Tech students had, which was shoot the shooter. You must be a liberal-inclined person and, all liberals hate all gun issues all the time, hence your comment."

Nope. I'm not for further gun control either. I am going to point out how ignorant this comment makes you look, but I'm not going to hold it against you. However, I would suggest that you've played too many first person shooters on the Nintendo. The result of the scenario you suggest, an armed student populace efficiently dropping a gunmen attacking them, is a pixie-dust fairy tale. There is a reason that they TRAIN police and military personel in armed combat. Because it is very, very hard. Not just to point and shoot, though standard recoil makes even that pretty difficult, but to stare down a life and death situation with calm and without panicking, to make efficient and accurate shots. I'm going to make up a largely anecdotal statistic and guess that less than 5% of the population would be effective in such a scenario. Unless you had a trained and armed shooter randomly in the shooter's direct path, the more likely situation would be a panicked crossfire, which would probably only increase the bodycount. All this assuming the unlikely situation that the university itself allowed weapons into its facilities.

If you want to lower the body count, improving communication in the campus to where an alarm could have been sent to the students so they could flee or prepare themselves before hand might have dropped it by at least half.

I have no doubt that lowering gun controls would have a positive effect on crime overall. But it WILL NOT prevent every incident, and I can't see how you can make a good case that it would have made a dime's worth of difference here.

You may not like it, but that's reality. Sorry.

0

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 3 months ago

Jonas,

Can you read? I gave you real-life and documented instances of armed and untrained civilians dropping murders before they murder more, one even from Virginia. You choose to ingnore the evidence, blindly follow your undocumented thoughts and invent your facts..."I'm going to make up a largely anecdotal statistic and guess that less than 5% of the population would be effective in such a scenario".... That's BS Jonas.

Your highly trained police at V Tech that should have made everyone safe, were put out of commisson by a couple of hardware store chains thrown around the doors.

And, your opinions about "point and shoot", "life and death situation"..."standard recoil"...are just laughable and show, once more, that you do not talk from experience. You're simply full of yourself.

0

Gary Sandell 7 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

kneejerkreaction: Holy crap! THREE WHOLE EXAMPLES!!! Don't work overtime on my account. Now go do a google search for "Innocent killed in crossfire in United States," and find some more anecdotal examples.

The only difference between us is that I acknowledge that I am BS'ing, and you like to believe that you have something valid to say. Let's talk about which of us is full of ourselves, neh?

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

Oh man, I didn't get time to absorb your second post before it got yanked! Too bad for me.

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

"Posted by scenebooster (anonymous) on April 24, 2007 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, jonas! You just have all the answers!"

Yes, thank you for acknowledging that.

"You don't know me, but you find me "personally distasteful".

Well, lordy, let me just fall over myself for posting! Sorry for offending your tender little sensibilities."

You haven't ever offended me. I'd have to take you seriously in order for you to do that. I can't imagine anyone ever taking you seriously. That's probably why you're so bitter. I would say that what has really happened is that I have offended YOU. You should learn how to relax and have fun. You take yourself too seriously.

"You don't want to discuss, you want to tease?"

Only with people who are capable of having discussions. I don't see any evidence of that.

"What a service you offer. My post wasn't directed at you, nor did it concern anything you said, so kindly p1$$ off, friend."

You don't seem to act like you like me. Why do you call me friend? I'm getting mixed signals! And my post was only nominally directed at you. To be honest, I consider you a lost cause. My post was directed at myself and others who might find my drawing out your ire to be infomative and amusing. After all, we can't have anyone else laboring under the dilusion that you are anything more than an angry jerk.

Again, not that there is anything wrong with being an angry jerk, if that's really what you want.

0

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 3 months ago

Jonas,

You've got me there. You admit your rantings are malarky, and intended as such. I can say no more. Don't you have something better to do?

0

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 3 months ago

Scenebooster, ditto that ignore Jonas comment. Some small people are emboldened by the anonymity of email and annoy others, with that being the only intent. At least he said so.

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

I was hoping that you'd be willing to admit that you are as full of BS as me, and the rest of the people on here. We're all just yahoos on an internet forum. Saying that something you think is absolute is just painting yourself up to be shot down.

I have plenty to do. I imagine I keep myself busier than most folk. I simply have fun drawing fools into saying foolish things. The only problem with the argument is that, really, everything I said both made sense, and was reasonably accurate. At least to someone not willing to, how did it go, stereotype and villify anyone not in lockstep with them already.

You don't need to respond. I know there's really nothing to say. But don't lose any sleep on my account.

0

Crispian Paul 7 years, 3 months ago

Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on April 23, 2007 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

---- heavy----vertigo, pitching forward---dizzy, surreal walls closing in---quick, some hard candy, juice--something, it's getting dark---must lay down--but just got up---

I like it---honestly, I do.

The far-left are so far off the deep-end with their hysterical, unconctrollable seething anger toward the man they now conjure up this kind of crap.

You have GOT to be kidding me? Now the far-left Bush haters will use a mass murder as an expo to further free their twisted mind from the internal conflict apparently caused by GWB too I suppose.

Yet ANOTHER example of R_T's hipocrisy. Waah, newcomers, liberals are so mean here in this site. But I will take the time to bash liberals every day, unprovoked on this site. What a __ (insert synonym for hipocrit here)

0

Crispian Paul 7 years, 3 months ago

Posted by SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) on April 23, 2007 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, abortion is a much larger contributor to America's attitude of human worth-lessness.

When a nation doesn't value its most innocent and most vulnerable, it can hardly be expected to value other human life.

Seriously ya'll, what does abortion have to do with this? Why does this always get brought up as the red herring on just about EVERY thread?

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

I think, Agno, that whatever laws were in existence at the time, the dude would have found a way to get himself a bunch of guns. I suppose there is a possibility that once legitimate options were exhausted he would just give up. However, I personally find that to be highly unlikely.

On another curiosity, re-reading your first comment, do you really consider it relevant whether we remain anonymous or not? I think most of us probably are anon not because we're afraid of repercussions, but because we're nobodies. If I gave you my real name, you'd have never heard of me, so who cares. Would you consider that to bear some truth to it? I only ask because it's kicked around so much. (Not necessarily by you.)

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

I agree, though, that a thorough background check that has accuracy would be a good thing. I just don't think it would be an immediate fix-all by any stretch of the imagination.

0

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 3 months ago

Agnostick....given the fact that there are nutballs out there who are more than content to off people to make some sort of wackjob social statement, I'll opt to remain anon.

0

Crispian Paul 7 years, 3 months ago

Well, that is my real name.....oh well. As far as I know I am the only Crispian in this town.

0

Crispian Paul 7 years, 3 months ago

Kneejerk, are you seriously implying that because of statements made on here, if people knew who you were, you might get killed. Are you an egomaniac? I know for a fact that R_T, and Dambudzo, for example, could not care less at the end of the day that I think they are, in the parlance of R_T, rightwing, whackjobs....I really doubt anyone here, knowing my name, would care anymore than if they didn't.

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

Snarkiness can be fun. And I agree with the do little but recycle garbage. Doing little has an opposite, though, in doing too much. I'll preface this by saying that I agree with your idea that background checks should be more effective (how couldn't you?), but I think that the mood that such an event as this causes needs to be considered very carefully before any action is taken. What I mean, is that in the wake of this sort of thing, many, many people look for answers that aren't there, and spout ways to change things that would make such events not happen. An admirable goal, but I think a futile one. These people tend to break into two types, those honestly concerned, and those trying to promote their own agendas or chips on shoulders, so to speak. One doesn't bear mentioning, but the other can cause well meaning but afraid folk to hurting society in a misguided attempt to help it. I just think that it's healthier to look at this incident as something that happened, very unfortunately, due to an imperfect world, rather than a symptom of something gone terribly wrong with our society that needs fixing. We rush to change things and fix things too quickly.

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

"B) One measure or effort will completely eradicate the problem from now until the end of time"

That's pretty much what I was aiming toward in terribly inefficient fashion, but I had a class to go to immediately so I didn't have time to finish properly. I don't think it's delusional, though, to consider an issue to be unsolvable, although perhaps what I really mean is that the only thing possible is to lower occurance rates, which would be a worthy goal.

By rushing to fix things too quickly, I was not referring to numbers of incidents, but rather to the lee time on what decisions to make following an incident. I think that too frequently talking points are tossed out in place of fact, and people in their fear accept them, and their false solutions, in order to appear proactive in fixing the problem. Frequently, those talking points are not based on real thought into the matter, and its many varied influences and effects, but on pre-existing political or social environments, that very frequently do not truly address underlying causes of said incident, which then inmesh us in more controls without any positive gain. The example that springs immediately to mind (though I admit I hesitate to bring it up on fear of tangential crap, not to mention the appearance of politicizing this event after spending so much space railing against that very thing) is our current war in Iraq, in context of the fight against terrorism and the battle against Al Quaeda.
Somehow, with the experience I have of your posting history, I doubt you'll disagree with that analogy.

As I said, I agree with your viewpoint on more effective background checks. It's simply been my experience that, for some time after incidents like this, logic and reasoning frequently have no presence, and their rare presence is innefectual, until fears and tempers have had time to cool. In such environment, I tend to err, due to my inherent distrust in controls, governments, and the population in general, on the side of caution. And, by caution, I mean the absence of further controls.

0

pelliott 7 years, 3 months ago

You should be required to have a license to have a gun, bullets are faster than a car. If a court has declared one likely to be a harm to others, not just hospitalized, maybe no glocks until a you get through the system again. A fundamental safety knowledge standard. I was raised with guns, but I was raised with informatiion. It should scare the heck out of anyone who is a hunter or likes to shoot, to imagine people with no back ground, no one showing them to point the thing down, how to carry it, how to not point the thing randomly, getting to go to walmart and buying a glock.

0

BigAl 7 years, 3 months ago

right_thinker. You are obviously an O'Reilly worshiper. I watch O'Reilly often. His attack on Moyers was weak, at best. O'Reilly says he doesn't care what O'Donnell says but then spends a large part of his show, every night, covering her. Just like he did Anna Nicole Smith, Alec Baldwin, etc... He is tabloid TV. O'Reilly is fine as long as you agree with him AND let him say whatever he wants.

O'Reilly is very much like you. ANYONE that doesn't agree with you on everything is "far-left" and "secular-progressive" (a stupid O'Reilly term).

I voted for George Bush Sr., Ronald Raegan and giving away my age, Richard Nixon. I am a veteran and a gun owner. Call me far-left if you want but I am definitely NOT. And I don't hate "W". I hate this misguided and mishandled war.

By the way right_thinker, why aren't you a veteran? Oh wait, I know, you are just another all mouth and no substance right-wing follower.

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

"Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on April 25, 2007 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You mean like how when Bill Moyers denied saying the FNC was a "slime machine" and FNC (O'Reilly) ran the tape of him saying it----and there are numerous examples of Moyers denying saying something he HAD INDEED SAID."

Errrr. . . . no. I was actually talking about THIS incident, not something else that you had to bring up in order to keep from admitting to flaws in your position.

The rest just sounds like something you cry yourself to sleep at night with.

0

Crispian Paul 7 years, 3 months ago

The far-left is uber-emboldened at the the present time and the hysteria that has resulted has rendered the far-left somewhere on the level of the Phelps bunch.

That's a stretch

0

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

Are you suggesting that the source in some way screwed up Limbaugh's quote, RT? Because, on it's own, it sounds pretty damned stupid and insulting.

Or did you even read it? No, of course you didn't.

0

BigAl 7 years, 3 months ago

I'm not going to argue with you right_thinker but you, and all of us, really need to consider everything that is happening and not simply follow ANY party line.

Again, please remember, not everyone that disagrees with you is far-left.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.