They really do make 'em crazy in AZ

If you still aren't sure who to vote for, here is another option. This isn't serious politics so i decided to put it here in Home Base. An Arizona dentist wants you to write in your vote on Nov 2.

article

Ahhh, more "good" news from WorldNetDaily. Scary shit.

Doesn't Mel Gibson have like 16 kids? I can see his first move in office to try to outlaw both abortion AND birth control. :yelsick:

Dude, wasn't he born in Australia? He can't be President.

Mel was born in the US--the family emigrated to Aussie-land when Vietnam broke out. Mel's dad was dead set against the draft.

garnet wrote:

Ahhh, more "good" news from WorldNetDaily. Scary shit.

Doesn't Mel Gibson have like 16 kids? I can see his first move in office to try to outlaw both abortion AND birth control. :yelsick:

rest assured mel isn't going to be president, as he doesn't even want it. but way to jump the gun and condemn him for actions you don't even know if he supports. he is proud of his christian faith.... KILL HIM!!!

lookout123 wrote:

but way to jump the gun and condemn him for actions you don't even know if he supports. he is proud of his christian faith.... KILL HIM!!!

I'm not jumping the gun on anything. From what I understand, Mel Gibson is a strict practicing Catholic. I know for a fact that he is vehemently against abortion, and if he follows the doctrine of the Catholic Church, he would also therefore be against any form of "unnatural" birth control.

If he's "proud of his Christian faith" I hope he will do something "Christian" with the $200 million plus that he made from his "Passion of the Christ" movie....I don't know, like maybe give most of it away to the less fortunate.

He is not what most would consider Catholic - the sect he and his father belong to consider the mainstream Catholic organization to be heretics.

i beg to differ. A lot of the mainstream Catholics in my region think Mel is "right On" with his artistic vision--and I live in the heartland, swing-state. There are a boatload of devout Catholics in Ohio. We're not all Baptist!

Happy Monkey wrote:

He is not what most would consider Catholic - the sect he and his father belong to consider the mainstream Catholic organization to be heretics.

Regardless, they still abide by basically the same tenets as "mainstream" Catholicism, correct? I'm guessing his sect (or whatever you want to call it) isn't pro-choice....

itis amazing to me that if an individual is a pro-life, anti-abortion type it doesn't matter what else he believes...

I was going to add that I have a great deal of respect for anybody who shows not just strong conviction to, but also practices the tenets of his/her faith.

The Catholic sect that Gibson belongs to celebrates the Mass in Latin. They are Hard Core in Catholic Terms.

lookout123 wrote:

itis amazing to me that if an individual is a pro-life, anti-abortion type it doesn't matter what else he believes...

Did I say it doesn't matter what else he believes?

No, all I said was that if he were to be elected to office that he would probably try to outlaw abortion. Perhaps since you are the expert on his Mel Gibson's personal and political beliefs you can enlighten us all as to what they are. Not that I care that much, but go right ahead and tell us anyway.

wolf wrote:

I was going to add that I have a great deal of respect for anybody who shows not just strong conviction to, but also practices the tenets of his/her faith.

I agree. That's great, just as long as those with such religious beliefs who hold public office do not try to force their beliefs down everyone else's throat.

There is a difference between "expressing them" and "forcing them down" people's throats.

Freedom OF, not freedom FROM religion.

wolf wrote:

Freedom OF, not freedom FROM religion.

ding ding ding - wolf gets the award for being one of the few who still realize the difference.

garnet - i don't know or particularly care what mel gibson's politics are, i started this thread because i found the article humorous.

i find it telling that because an individual has been in the news for his stated religious convictions the first and only thing you can point out is that he will probably infringe upon your right to choose. you didn't take the time to think that maybe he finds abortion morally abhorrent but doesn't believe it is an issue for legislation. sort of like John Kerry and many christians.

like i said, i don't know or care about what gibson would do if somehow he were magically made POTUS, i just think it's interesting to see where your thought process takes you.

Ah, but freedom of religion *is* freedom from religion, once one gets into a government office. It's pretty blindingly obvious that the Government was never intended to favor any specific religion, and that this doesn't just apply to various xtian sects. Jehovah's Witnesses are well within their rights to show up at my door at 9am on a Sunday, and I am well within my rights to answer the door with a pentagram drawn in ash on my forehead and stage-blood spattered over my shirt. That is a private affair (and quite entertaining, at that). However, the issues arise when the state and/or state-run organizations (such as public schools) begin to enforce religious beliefs as law.

The Catholic religion (and most others) forbids murder too. Should laws against that be repealed because they are "religious" in origin? :eyebrow:

BrianR wrote:

The Catholic religion (and most others) forbids murder too. Should laws against that be repealed because they are "religious" in origin? :eyebrow:

Speaking on murder itself, I don't think that's religious in nature. That's just good sense for a community as a whole. Otherwise, extortion could be protected by law...that 10% tithing business is little more than religiously sanctioned extortion. Pay up and you help guarantee your place in heaven. Don't and it counts as a little black mark against you when you're facing St. Peter.

Cyber Wolf wrote:

Otherwise, extortion could be protected by law...

Are you in communication with the IRS?

Griff wrote:

Are you in communication with the IRS?

I think it'd be more accurate to say they're in communication with me. :ninja:

lookout123 wrote:

garnet - i don't know or particularly care what mel gibson's politics are, i started this thread because i found the article humorous.

Lookout--

Almost every single article you post is from various right-slanted websites about politics. You always claim you post them because they're "humorous" or "interesting," yet they always turn into some form of political debate and/or discussion on this forum. I'm sure you expect that by now.

If you post an article about Mel Gibson possibly running for office, people are going to want to discuss his politics--which may include his stance on abortion. Nobody's just going to sit there and pat you on the back for posting a "funny" article.

You are obviously pretty far right on most political issues. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not. If you don't want people disagreeing with your acceptance of these articles you post, perhaps you shouldn't post them at all.

What I've read so far of the Mel Gibson religion thing is that the church he belongs to is called First Family. It seems that their greatest divergence from Catholicism came with them refusing to follow Vatican II(tm).

And his dad is nuts.

YMMV

Edit:

If he can be as strongly religious in his personal life as we are led to believe and still make the movies, taken as a whole, that he makes then I'm thinking that he could probably do the same thing in office.

BrianR wrote:

The Catholic religion (and most others) forbids murder too. Should laws against that be repealed because they are "religious" in origin? :eyebrow:

The idea behind separation of church and state isn't to look at all religious laws and do the opposite. It is to make laws on their own merits, without redard to religious laws. Murder as a law predates all current religions, possibly all religion. It isn't on the books because of the Bible.

Happy Monkey wrote:

The idea behind separation of church and state isn't to look at all religious laws and do the opposite. It is to make laws on their own merits, without redard to religious laws. Murder as a law predates all current religions, possibly all religion. It isn't on the books because of the Bible.

So, hypothetically, if we could find evidence of, say, the early Egyptians or another culture B.C.E. condemning abortion (or perhaps condemning punching a pregnant woman in the stomach, to account for medical advances) as wrong, then we could discuss putting it on the lawbooks since it would have origins outside religion?

Cyber Wolf wrote:

Otherwise, extortion could be protected by law...that 10% tithing business is little more than religiously sanctioned extortion. Pay up and you help guarantee your place in heaven. Don't and it counts as a little black mark against you when you're facing St. Peter.

if you've actually ever read the book, you would know that is not how tithing works.

Clodfobble wrote:

So, hypothetically, if we could find evidence of, say, the early Egyptians or another culture B.C.E. condemning abortion (or perhaps condemning punching a pregnant woman in the stomach, to account for medical advances) as wrong, then we could discuss putting it on the lawbooks since it would have origins outside religion?

No. I also don't support reimplementing Hammurabi's Code. It isn't the age of the muder law that's important, it's the nonreligious reasoning behind it. Anyway, Roe vs Wade isn't based on religious reasoning, but most of the agitation to reverse it is.

I agree that most pro-lifers believe what they do because of religious reasons. But do you at least agree that there *could* be an anti-abortion law based on the same reasoning as the murder law ("better for society") and not the "because God says so" reasoning?*


*FWIW, I'm one of those personally-pro-life-legally-pro-choice fence sitters. I very strongly believe that abortion should never again be illegal in this country.

Clodfobble wrote:

But do you at least agree that there *could* be an anti-abortion law based on the same reasoning as the murder law ("better for society") and not the "because God says so" reasoning?*

Yes, there could be such a law. But like someone here said, the vast majority of arguments from pro-lifers are of the "God says so" variety. It's much more difficult to argue that forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want is somehow "good" for society. In fact, I think if everyone looked at the issue without clouding it with religion or other personal beliefs, they would agree that having unprepared, ill-equipped people raising the next generation is most likely NOT good for society in general.

*Grabs a bag of popcorn and a joint and settles in for the fireworks display*

Ahh that ol'favourite the Abortion debate. It's one of those unwinnable debates precisely because the one side argues from a sociopolitical standpoint and the other from a moral/theological standpoint. Each side is moving along an entirely different set of rails and as such cannot meet.

Go garnet! Right there with'ya

*stubs out joint and opens the popcorn*

garnet wrote:

If you post an article about Mel Gibson possibly running for office, people are going to want to discuss his politics--which may include his stance on abortion. Nobody's just going to sit there and pat you on the back for posting a "funny" article.

no i posted an article about a nutjob dentist who lives near me wanting everyone to write mel gibson in as their vote for president. as far as i know mel gibson has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

and as i said before, you have the right to disagree with anyone you want. i pointed out that you saw "mel gibson, president" in the same sentence and immediately jumped upon the "oh shit, he's a catholic or christian and therefore he MUST want to take away my right to choose." it just illustrates your reactionary nature that you brought to the table in other threads.

Almost every single article you post is from various right-slanted websites about politics.

yep, and as i have said before some are just to effing funny not to post. they highlight the caricature nature of some of the people involved. if you take the time to notice, the serious articles that i post are generally pulled from fairly balanced sources. most recently i have been pulling a bit from the economist. how right leaning is that?

i seriously cannot believe that this article turned into a freaking abortion debate. FWIW - i believe abortion is murder. i also believe you should retain the right to murder your unborn child until the strong majority of americans decide it must be stopped. since that will never happen, enjoy your right to choose. i find this to be consistant with my support of assisted suicide and the death penalty.

lookout123 wrote:

no i posted an article about a nutjob dentist who lives near me wanting everyone to write mel gibson in as their vote for president. as far as i know mel gibson has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

HUH? the article wasn't about the dentist--it was about Mel Gibson! Not one single person has commented on the dentist--you knew exactly where this thread would end up when you posted it. You weren't looking for comments on the "nutjob" dentist. Get real.

lookout123 wrote:

oh shit, he's a catholic or christian and therefore he MUST want to take away my right to choose."

Because most of the religious nuts in office immediately want to outlaw abortion. Yup, that's the first conclusion I came to because THAT'S WHAT THESE PEOPLE USUALLY DO. As someone who is concerned about losing the right to choose because of our current administration, I think it is natural to come to that conclusion.

lookout123 wrote:

it just illustrates your reactionary nature that you brought to the table in other threads.

Ahhh, so were back to personal insults. How refreshing.

lookout123 wrote:

yep, and as i have said before some are just to effing funny not to post. they highlight the caricature nature of some of the people involved.

I guess I have no sense of humor, but I don't get how the article you posted is so outrageously funny. The same goes for your Alice Cooper thread, which was pulled from exactly the same right-wing website. These threads ALWAYS turn into political debates, and you know it. So 'fess up--you post this stuff to get a rise out of people--you don't do it just to get a laugh. If you're just looking to make us all chuckle, perhaps you should post some JOKES instead.

lookout123 wrote:

if you take the time to notice, the serious articles that i post are generally pulled from fairly balanced sources. most recently i have been pulling a bit from the economist. how right leaning is that?

You may have pulled "a bit" from the Economist, but most of the stuff you post is from WorldNetDaily (one of the most extreme right-wing websites out there), and Fox. Every political article you post is pro-Republican and pro-Bush--including the stuff you posted from the Economist.

lookout123 wrote:

FWIW - i believe abortion is murder. i also believe you should retain the right to murder your unborn child until the strong majority of americans decide it must be stopped. since that will never happen, enjoy your right to choose. i find this to be consistant with my support of assisted suicide and the death penalty.

Good for you. Isn't it great we live in a country where we can disagree about this stuff?

lookout123 wrote:

itis amazing to me that if an individual is a pro-life, anti-abortion type it doesn't matter what else he believes...

Strangely, the reverse also seems to be true. Go figure.

garnet wrote:

HUH? the article wasn't about the dentist--it was about Mel Gibson! Not one single person has commented on the dentist--you knew exactly where this thread would end up when you posted it. You weren't looking for comments on the "nutjob" dentist. Get real.

no, the article was about a dentist in arizona who doesn't like the current candidates and thinks that mel gibson's characters in movies like Braveheart and The Patriot qualify him for the office. again, the dentist is nucking futs.

and let's refer back to my original comment with the link

If you still aren't sure who to vote for, here is another option. This isn't serious politics so i decided to put it here in Home Base. An Arizona dentist wants you to write in your vote on Nov 2.

Because most of the religious nuts in office immediately want to outlaw abortion. Yup, that's the first conclusion I came to because THAT'S WHAT THESE PEOPLE USUALLY DO. As someone who is concerned about losing the right to choose because of our current administration, I think it is natural to come to that conclusion.

religious nuts? how very fair and objective of you.

I guess I have no sense of humor, but I don't get how the article you posted is so outrageously funny. The same goes for your Alice Cooper thread, which was pulled from exactly the same right-wing website.

i still think the former king of shock rock talking about rockers being treasonous to rock and roll, by siding with mainstream politicians is pretty funny.

. So 'fess up--you post this stuff to get a rise out of people--you don't do it just to get a laugh. If you're just looking to make us all chuckle, perhaps you should post some JOKES instead.

if you get all riled up by it, then that is your issue. in a way if it sparked conversation here then that is good. and BTW look in the humor thread, i DO post a lot of jokes.

You may have pulled "a bit" from the Economist, but most of the stuff you post is from WorldNetDaily (one of the most extreme right-wing websites out there), and Fox. Every political article you post is pro-Republican and pro-Bush--including the stuff you posted from the Economist.

ok, here are the number of sources i've linked to in threads i've started in the last month or so.
Fox 3 (2 being AP stories)
Economist 2
CNN 2
WND 2 (1 about alice cooper, 1 about a crazy dentist)
suntimes 1
editor and publisher 1
techcentralstation 1
reuters 1

i am not a bush fan but i do support him over kerry so it kind of makes sense that i would post articles about him doesn't it? i think there are very few people in the cellar who are fans of either candidate. you wouldn't expect happy monkey to post links to pro-bush articles would you? as far as being pro-Republican, get off the effing bus sister, i am not an R.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lookout123
it just illustrates your reactionary nature that you brought to the table in other threads.


Ahhh, so were back to personal insults. How refreshing.

what else would you call your comments at the beginning of this thread? you see an article about nutjob dentist. it mentions mel gibson and president you flip out and take us down the path of mel gibson wanting to take away your right to choose. is that what you consider calm and rational?

Elspode wrote:

Strangely, the reverse also seems to be true. Go figure.

you're right Patrick, i should have been more detailed with that thought. let me rephrase that. i am absolutely amazed at the ability of people to become obsessed with one issue to the exclusion of rational thought on the others. that goes for people of all political outlook.

(about the economist) how right leaning is that?

Fairly. However it's rational which is more than you can say for most republicans.

lookout123 wrote:

what else would you call your comments at the beginning of this thread? you see an article about nutjob dentist.

"Nutjob" dentist? How fair and objective of you.

lookout123 wrote:

it mentions mel gibson and president you flip out and take us down the path of mel gibson wanting to take away your right to choose. is that what you consider calm and rational?

Easy tiger. You flipped out as soon as I brought up abortion--I've remained perfectly calm. You've gone back to the the old routine of "lets personally insult garnet" because she disagrees ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. B-O-R-I-N-G. I've heard it all before, honey.

BTW, it's TOTALLY obvious that your indeed are a right-winger and just don't want to admit it. Everything you say leans that way, and you know it. Hey, it's OK to admit your beliefs--it's a free country. Just don't be dishonest about and hide behind supposedly posting something because it's "funny" or whatever. It's really, really obvious what you're doing.

garnet wrote:

"Nutjob" dentist? How fair and rational of you.



Easy tiger. You flipped out as soon as I brought up abortion--I've remained perfectly calm. You've gone back to the the old routine of "lets personally insult garnet" because she disagrees ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. B-O-R-I-N-G. I've heard it all before, honey.

BTW, it's TOTALLY obvious that your indeed are a right-winger and just don't want to admit it. Everything you say leans that way, and you know it. Hey, it's OK to admit your beliefs--it's a free country. Just don't be dishonest about and hide behind supposedly posting something because it's "funny" or whatever. It's really, really obvious what you're doing.

where did i insult you? if you go back and reread this thread you will see that there may have been some misunderstanding - i didn't get upset at all. i simply pointed out that it was pretty silly for you to go from point A) a story about a dentist, to point B) mel gibson wants to take away your right to choose.

and i think i have made it perfectly clear that i do lean to the right. I believe the 2 party system is BS but i am not into the LP so i remain independent and vote for the individuals that i think will do the best job. get this - once that was even bill clinton OMG! but please, if it is obvious that i am a right-winger, point out to me exactly which of my beliefs makes me a right-winger and while we're at it let's pick apart my beliefs and educate me as to why they are wrong.

i don't hide behind anything garnet, never have, never will. i've got nothing to lose, so why bother hiding? when i think something is funny i say so. if you don't find it funny that's ok. but don't pretend to know what i think or what i find funny.

jaguar wrote:

Fairly. However it's rational which is more than you can say for most republicans.

Jag, we've already had this discussion. it is all a matter of perspective. to you the economist is right leaning. to the majority of americans it is either centrist or left leaning. this is the publication that declared GWB wasn't president about a year after the election.

and i think rather than saying most republicans are irrational it would be more fair to say that most people who hold strongly to any party line are pretty irrational.

lookout123 wrote:

but please, if it is obvious that i am a right-winger, point out to me exactly which of my beliefs makes me a right-winger and while we're at it let's pick apart my beliefs and educate me as to why they are wrong.

Going back a month or two, here are some of the threads you've started:

"Kerry's Three-Faced Foreign Policy"
"Planned Parenthood's Fashion Line"
"Economist Says Bush in a Landslide"
"Pelosi Discards a Little More Credibility"
"DNC News, or Lack Thereof"
"Kerry Changes Mind!!!"
"Questions About [Michael] Moore's Facts"
"John Kerry Flips the Bird"

I'd say that's a little more than "leaning" right. And funny, I don't see any pro-Kerry or pro-Democrat threads there for someone who's so "unbiased". Hmmmm.

and no, I have no interest in picking apart your beliefs. Believe whatever you want--I could care less.

lookout123 wrote:

if you go back and reread this thread you will see that there may have been some misunderstanding - i didn't get upset at all.

lookout123 wrote:

as far as being pro-Republican, get off the effing bus sister, i am not an R.

Call me crazy, but somebody sounds a liiiiiittle bit touchy to me there....

Then could not the banning of state-sanctioned (murder) of a fetus be considered "good common sense" as well? Common sense can be defined so many ways...

BTW, I am not a rabid Catholic or anti-abortionist, but I *am* a troublemaker ;)

Brian

garnet wrote:

Going back a month or two, here are some of the threads you've started:

"Kerry's Three-Faced Foreign Policy"

was a very well written article about the 3 phases of Kerry's political evolution.

"Planned Parenthood's Fashion Line"

was a link to PP's page where they were selling a very tacky tshirt

"Economist Says Bush in a Landslide"

was an article talking about the major investment players and who they are looking to win.

"Pelosi Discards a Little More Credibility"

read the thread, you may be a little surprised at the outcome.

"DNC News, or Lack Thereof"

i posted all types of articles about the goings on of the DNC to that thread during the week. there wasn't much news going on at the time as may be noted in the thread title.

"Kerry Changes Mind!!!"

was talking about THK's evolution since being the wife of an R politician.

"Questions About [Michael] Moore's Facts"

michael moore is an asshat. i think HM did a very good job answering the questions. i don't necessarily agree with it all, but HM as usual did a great job.

"John Kerry Flips the Bird"

Kerry flipped a guy off. i pointed out the lack of thinking in the action. just like i thought GWB was stupid for getting caught calling a guy and asshole on a live mike four years ago. when you are running the most important election of your life you should be able to think about the consequences of your actions under a microscope.


so there we go. as i said i support bush over kerry. kerry was in the news a lot during that time frame so there was plenty of fodder publications to pick from. i post and comment on what i see. just like hm and most of the cellarites favor kerry over bush, i wouldn't expect to see them posting a lot of pro-bush articles. but exactly how does my preference for bush over kerry make me a big bad right-winger? (obvious negative connotation) very few people are really far right or far left unless they are running for office and trying to get the support of a large activist base. most of us are pretty close to the middle because we go in different directions on different issues.

do you want to talk issues or do you want to throw around subjective names like right-winger vs liberal? if you just want to throw around names, that is fine, but it does get old after awhile and it doesn't really help us to understand where the other person is coming from, which i think is the point of having the discussions we do around here. i think that most of us, while we don't have our minds changed from what we see in the cellar too often; we do learn by seeing how other cellarites respond to certain issues and questions.

Lookout, Garnet...if you guys want to flame each other, there's a private message feature you can use to keep your cock-measuring and destruction of an otherwise interesting discussion to a minimum.

As far as the abrotion debate goes, I will be pro-choice until I see common-sense, logical evidence to support the other side. Every argument I've seen from pro-life folk has boiled down to a religious issue, and therefore is invalid until the neocons actually establish the theocracy they are pushing oh-so-hard for. Abortion may be a sin, it may be immoral, it may be genuinely wrong, and there may be other options. Take that into account when you make YOUR decision as to whether your fetus (not baby, fetus, non-viable clump of cells that only differs from a tumor with regards to potential) should be brought into this world or not.

EDIT: I feel I have to add that another reason I'm pro-choice is that it is *not my decision*. As a male, I think I'm already over-stepping my bounds in having an opinion at all, because I'm not the one with the little bundle of DNA in my belly. In a functioning relationship, should the father be consulted as to the fate of his child? Of course he should. But the final decision rests on the mother. That being said, I could not justify to myself the idea that I might take away this woman's right to make a decision on an issue that doesn't actually concern me or my body.

"Protestors at abortion clinics are suing for the right to block entrances and harrass women as they enter the clinic. It's rather ironic, they want the right to do what they want with their bodies."
---Paraphrased from Dennis Miller

lookout123 wrote:

as i said i support bush over kerry. kerry was in the news a lot during that time frame so there was plenty of fodder publications to pick from.

So Kerry was the only one who did anything negative in the past couple months? Everything about Bush is positive? Nope, doesn't fly.

lookout123 wrote:

but exactly how does my preference for bush over kerry make me a big bad right-winger?

Again, I don't really care what your beliefs are, and I never said being right-leaning makes you a "bad" person. I just don't think you're being honest about your motives in posting the things you do.

garnet wrote:

So Kerry was the only one who did anything negative in the past couple months? Everything about Bush is positive? Nope, doesn't fly.




Again, I don't really care what your beliefs are, and I never said being right-leaning makes you a "bad" person. I just don't think you're being honest about your motives in posting the things you do.

ok, fuck it. i don't care anymore. ifyou don't want to consider what i've put out there, then that is ok. i am done.

Lookout, Garnet...if you guys want to flame each other, there's a private message feature you can use to keep your cock-measuring and destruction of an otherwise interesting discussion to a minimum.

yup, thanks for the reminder. i'll go back to my corner now.

i already stated what my position. anti-abortion, but anti-legislation about abortion. and the absolute last thing someone should do to a person is try to make them feel worse about having an abortion. that about covers it.

apologies to all who were forced to read through this BS to get to a reasonable discussion.

Everyone has an agenda of some sort. That's not necessarily a bad thing...it just is.

lookout123 wrote:

ding ding ding - wolf gets the award for being one of the few who still realize the difference.

Not only that, I recognize it from the position of someone who is of a "minority religion."

I am the religious right. Just not the religion you were expecting ...

Clodfobble wrote:

... then we could discuss putting it on the lawbooks since it would have origins outside religion?

There were laws and religion prior to the rise of either Judaism or Christianity.

I know you know that, but I just had to point that out ...

I was reminded of a conversation I had with a Catholic friend. I was detailing some of the History of the Early Catholic Church, and she suddenly got it ... She got this look of revelation on her face and said, "Wait, you mean that before Jesus everyone was pagan?!

Two cents.
One- I thought the article about the dentist was funny.
Two- the Alice Cooper article made me laugh out loud.
:)

garnet wrote:

"BTW, it's TOTALLY obvious that your indeed are a right-winger and just don't want to admit it.

Not all people on the right are registered as Republicans. You threw the word "republican" at him like it was an insult.

As a matter of fact, the Republicans are hardly ever right. :haha:

wolf wrote:

Not all people on the right are registered as Republicans. You threw the word "republican" at him like it was an insult.

Uhhh, and where exactly did I do that, Wolf? I believe I used the actual word "Republican" once in the entire thread, if I am counting correctly.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Two cents.
One- I thought the article about the dentist was funny.
Two- the Alice Cooper article made me laugh out loud.
:)

thanks bruce. glad to see that i did at least cause one person to laugh with my attempts at something humorous.