TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Attacking John Roberts

Attacking John Roberts

So, we're back to the "throwing as much shit at the wall and see what sticks" approach, eh? Good to know CNN has a code of ethics.

quote:

CABLE CONTROVERSY: CNN AGREES TO AIR BLOODY ABORTION AD ON JUDGE ROBERTS Tue Aug 09 2005 19:41:54 ET CNN has reviewed and agreed to run a controversial ad produced by a pro-abortion group that falsely accuses Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers supporting a convicted clinic bomber! The news network has agreed to a $125,000 ad buy from NARAL, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, for a commercial which depicts a bombed out 1998 Birmingham, AL abortion clinic. The Birmingham clinic was bombed seven years after Roberts signed the legal briefing. The linking of Roberts to "violent fringe groups" is the sharpest attack against the nominee thus far. However, the non-partisan University of Pennsylvania�s Annenberg Factcheck.org reviewed the NARAL ad and found it to be �false.� Factcheck.org found "in words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false." The Republican National Committee is preparing to send a letter to television stations asking them to pull the spot, according to sources. The RNC�s letter claims: "NARAL's ad is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts that has no purpose but to mislead the American people."

And from Factcheck

quote:

NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts Attack ad says he supported an abortion-clinic bomber and excused violence. In fact, Roberts called clinic bombers �criminals� who should be prosecuted fully. August 9, 2005 Modified:August 9, 2005 Summary An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers �supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber� and of having an ideology that �leads him to excuse violence against other Americans� It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham , Alabama . The ad is false. And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law. The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question. Analysis NARAL Pro-Choice America released a new ad focusing on John Roberts, President Bush's nominee to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's vacant Supreme Court position, called "Speaking Out," on August 8. NARAL said it plans to buy half a million dollars worth of airtime in coming weeks on national cable networks, as well as well as on networks in Maine and Rhode Island. NARAL Pro-Choice America TV ad, "Speaking Out" Announcer: Seven years ago, a bomb destroyed a women's health clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. (On screen: Footage of bombed clinic) (Tex on screen: New Woman/All Women Health Clinic; January 28, 1998) Emily Lyons: When a bomb ripped through my clinic, I almost lost my life. Announcer: Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber. (On screen: Footage of Roberts; image of April 11, 1991 brief from Bray v. Alexandria) (Text on screen: Roberts filed court brief supporting clinic protestors) Emily Lyons: I'm determined to stop this violence so I'm speaking out. Announcer: Call your Senators. Tell them to oppose John Roberts. America can't afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans. The ad shows images of a bombed clinic before a woman identified as Emily Lyons appears on screen, saying "I nearly lost my life." An announcer says, "Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber".The announcer then urges viewers to "call your Senators" and "tell them to oppose John Roberts" because we "can't afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans." A False Implication In words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false. To the contrary, during the Reagan administration when he was Associate Counsel to the President, Roberts drafted a memo saying abortion-clinic bombers "should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." In the 1986 memo, Roberts called abortion bombers "criminals" and "misguided individuals," indicating that they would get no special treatment regarding requests for presidential pardons. Reagan in fact gave no pardons to abortion-clinic bombers. The 1986 draft is on file at the Reagan library. The White House furnished a copy to FactCheck.org. (See "supporting documents" at right.) Seven Years Earlier The ad fails to mention that the "court briefs" it mentions are actually from nearly seven years before the abortion clinic bombing talked about in the ad. The woman in the ad, Emily Lyons, was injured by a bomb blast at the New Woman/All Women Health Clinic in Birmingham on January 28, 1998 that also killed an off-duty police officer. The bomber was Eric Rudolph, who was captured in May 2003 after a five-year manhunt. Rudolph pleaded guilty and in July 2005 was sentenced to two consecutive life terms without parole. The brief that Roberts signed, and on which the NARAL ad is based, is from another matter entirely. It is dated April 11, 1991. Furthermore, it is from a civil lawsuit brought by abortion clinics against protesters who were blockading the clinics. Bombing was not an issue. Supporting Anti-abortion Groups? The ad contends that Roberts "filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber." Indeed, Roberts' name appears on the "friend of the court" brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic that the ad shows. But what Roberts was supporting wasn't violence or bombing or even the behavior that was the subject of the lawsuit - blockades of clinics. In fact, Roberts went out of his way to say that the blockaders were trespassing, which is a violation of state law. What Roberts argued was that a federal anti-discrimination law couldn't be used against abortion blockaders because they weren't discriminating against women � they were blockading men, too. Roberts was serving as Deputy Solicitor General in the administration of George H.W. Bush. He was one of six Justice Department officials who submitted the brief on behalf of the United States government. The case began as a lawsuit against protestors who hold "antiabortion demonstrations in which participants trespass on, and obstruct general access to" abortion clinics by blocking the entrances and exits. Lawyers for abortion clinics took the position that the protesters conspired to violate the civil rights of women. There was no disagreement that the protestors had committed a state crime by protesting on the private property of clinics. Upon appeal, the question was whether the protestors also violated federal law by intentionally denying women equal protection under the law and prevented them from exercising their constitutional right to interstate travel. In Roberts' brief, and in oral arguments he made in person before the Supreme Court, the government argued that a particular part of U.S. law (Section 1985(3) of Title 42, which derived from the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871) applied only to conspiracies to deprive people of civil rights due to racial discrimination, not gender discrimination. They also argued that the protestors did "not aim their anti-abortion activities exclusively at women" but "at anyone, whether male or female, who assists or is involved in the abortion process � doctors, nurses, counselors, boyfriends, husbands and family members, staffs, and others." The court, in a 6-3 decision, ultimately agreed with much of the government's argument, saying that "the characteristic that formed the basis of the targeting" for protest "was not womanhood, but the seeking of abortion," which is entirely voluntary. The court also found that the protestors did not engage in a conspiracy to deprive women of their civil rights. To be sure, anti-abortion protestors saw the court's decision as a victory. It made them subject only to state actions for simple trespassing on the clinic's private property rather than for federal claims involving civil rights violations, at least as long as the protests stayed non-violent and didn't raise charges of assault or inciting to riot. But the ruling and the argument that led to hardly excuses violence, as the NARAL ad falsely claims. Nowhere in Roberts' court brief or oral arguments does he defend or excuse acts of violence. Guilt by Association The ad uses the classic tactic of guilt by association, linking Roberts with "violent fringe groups" and a "convicted . . . bomber" because he made the same legal arguments as they did in the case. But, contrary to the ad's message, Roberts didn't argue in favor of them or their actions. The "fringe group" in question is Operation Rescue, a zealously antiabortion group that had a history of staging confrontational protests around the country, and which the lawsuit was aimed at stopping. Originally led by Randall Terry, Operation Rescue protesters would stand in front of local abortion clinics, sometimes screaming "Mommy, mommy," waving crucifixes, and pleading with pregnant women to turn away. They sometimes pressed against car doors to keep pregnant women from getting out. Hundreds would go limp to make it more difficult for police to clear them away. More than 40,000 people were arrested in these demonstrations over four years. Although these methods in some ways mirrored the non-violent tactics used earlier by civil-rights activists, some saw Operation Rescue's actions as relying on the threat of violence, at least. In his dissent, Justice Stevens, describes the protests as instances where �the duly constituted authorities are rendered ineffective, and mob violence prevails.� Justice O�Connor, in her own dissent, spoke of "the threat of mob violence" raised by the blockaders. The ad also links Roberts to a "convicted clinic bomber." That refers to Michael Bray, one of those named in the lawsuit. (His wife's name came first alphabetically, which is why the case is called Bray vs. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic in the first place). Bray himself had been convicted years earlier, in 1985, of conspiracy and possessing unregistered explosive devices in connection to a series of 10 bombings at abortion clinics in Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Washington D.C. He eventually served just under 4 years in prison. In 1993 he wrote a book titled A Time to Kill , which argues that killing abortion providers is morally justified. Whatever one thinks of Bray, Terry, or Operation Rescue, it is misleading to say that Roberts supported them. He was not their attorney; the protestors had their own attorney, Jay Alan Sekulow, for that. Roberts argued the government's position. NARAL would have every right to say that Roberts argued for a legal result with which they disagreed. They could also say accurately that many persons, including three Supreme Court justices, also disagreed and saw a threat of "mob violence" going unchecked because of that position. But it is false to suggest that Roberts supported the actions of "violent" groups or clinic bombers because he argued that a law aimed at the Ku Klux Klan could not be used against those who blockade abortion clinics. Footnote: Soon after the Supreme Court ruled in the case, Congress passed a new law specifically aimed at the blockaders. The 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances (FACE) act, signed by President Clinton, makes it a federal crime to use force, "threat of force," or "physical obstruction" to injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone "obtaining or providing reproductive health services." That act in part gave rise to state legislatures and court systems creating so-called "buffer zones" that force protestors to stay a certain distance away from health clinics, which the Supreme Court has allowed to stand. --by Matthew Barge Sources "Rudolph gets life for Birmingham clinic attack," CNN.com, 18 July 2005 Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health, U.S. Supreme Court, 506 U.S. 263, 13 January 1993 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health, U.S. Supreme Court, 11 April 1991 Oral Argument, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health, U.S. Supreme Court, 16 October 1991 Oral Argument, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health, U.S. Supreme Court, 06 October 1992 National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 914 F.2d 582, 19 September 1990 Guy Taylor, "Court won't rule on clinic buffer zones," Washington Times, 19 April 2005 Michael Powell, "Randall Terry Fights Gay Unions. His Son No Longer Will, Washington Post 22 April 2004: C1.

Good job, CNN. Good job loony leftist fringe.

Hmm, looks pretty stupid of NARAL. And I have to say their response misses the mark a little bit here too:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/Iss...oberts_spin.cfm

They really didn't address the issues brought up by factcheck very well at all.

And most liberal bloggers are saying this NARAL ad wasn't a very good one at all. TPMCafe (started up by Josh Marshall - talkingpointsmemo.com) had this to say:

quote:

There is no doubt the ad takes significant liberties with the facts: The footage used was filmed seven years after the brief was filed, with no pertinent disclaimer. The ad implies that Roberts filed the brief privately (�Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting��); in fact, he co-authored the brief as a Deputy Solicitor General of the United States. The ad claims that John Roberts excused violence and supported abortion clinic bombing. In truth, he was in legal agreement with clinic protestors � not bombers � regarding a statutory interpretation question. In addition, the ad (and NARAL�s documentation in support of the spot) distorts the legal issue. The United States� amicus brief conceded that the clinic protestors trespassed on clinic property in violation of state law. The question presented in the case, however, was whether the clinic protestors had violated a particular federal statute. The government argued that the protestors were not in violation of the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act � a federal law passed specifically to punish those who conspire to commit racial discrimination. It�s telling that the NARAL version of the facts doesn�t even include the words state or federal. They have gone out of their way to obfuscate the legal issue in order to focus attention on the political outcome. With ads like this one on the air, it will be virtually impossible to have a meaningful, even-tempered national discussion of John Roberts� legal philosophy and its implications for American law. Also, it undermines the Democratic Senators� request that the White House release all of Roberts� government work product. If NARAL wants to oppose John Roberts� nomination, it should articulate clearly the reasons for its opposition to Roberts� judicial philosophy or his ability to weigh cases impartially. It does the public and Senate Democrats a disservice to do so by making questionable, or even false, accusations. http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/sto...8/10/101510/667

Not quite as bad as SwiftBoat "throw at the wall shit" (which I'm sure you remember quite well and was fully endorsed by the entire GOP was it not?), but still, they do seem to be trying to provoke a response of some sort here. Not to defend them much here, but it does seem apparent that the WH is sitting and downright REFUSING to release some much desired documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee. One has to wonder - why is that? What exactly are in those documents that they are hiding?:

quote:

Thrown on the defensive by recent revelations about Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s legal work, White House aides are delaying the release of tens of thousands of documents from the Reagan administration to give themselves time to find any new surprises before they are turned into political ammunition by Democrats. Before Roberts's July 19 selection by President Bush, there was no comprehensive effort to examine the voluminous paper trail from his previous tours as an important legal and political hand under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, administration officials said. ... . . While serving in the Reagan and Bush administrations, for instance, Roberts argued against affirmative-action quotas and other civil rights remedies that conservatives regarded as reverse discrimination, and he expressed deep skepticism about what he called the "so-called right to privacy" that underpins the constitutional right to abortion. "They should be embracing those memos," said Bruce Fein, who worked with Roberts in the Reagan Justice Department. "They are squandering the opportunity to move public perception."

And just how serious are these documents that the WH is sitting on?:

quote:

White House aides are exerting full control over the documents still under their authority. Under an executive order signed by Bush in 2001, the White House has the right to review, and in some cases block, the release of presidential papers from previous administrations. White House lawyers have been dispatched to the Reagan library in Simi Valley, Calif., where they are combing through documents that have not been released. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0901232_pf.html

So NARAL's ads leave much to be desired, but the central question really should be what is the WH hiding (yet again)? And I'm sorry, but Bush's fucking excuse for not releasing those documents is "simply contrary to the public interest"?:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5080501555.html

Pardon the fuck me? Seeing what he advised in a political position (solicitor general's office) is not in the fucking public interest?

That's the true gift of this Administration - they really do think the public is that fucking stupid and ignorant enough to believe the bullshit they say. Unfortunately, much of the time they're right - but the polls are increasingly beginning to demonstrate otherwise.

And one last thing, I do realize it may come as a shock for this GOP to have such brazen smear words stated to them. Afterall, this GOP has NEVER, and I mean NEVER performed any smear tactics of their own, right?:

quote:

�Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,� Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State. Citing calls by progressive groups to respond carefully to the attacks, Mr. Rove said to the applause of several hundred audience members, �I don�t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.� � Mr. Rove also said American armed forces overseas were in more jeopardy as a result of remarks last week by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, who compared American mistreatment of detainees to the acts of �Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others.� �Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?� Mr. Rove asked. �Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.� http://www.all-encompassingly.com/k...september-11th/

So here's a deal for ya - the liberal groups and politicians will continue to dissociate themselves from NARAL's ad IF those darn GOP politicians start dissociating themselves from Rove's fucking outlandish, bullshit comments.

What's that? This Admin., the Right Wing Noise Machine, and the RNC supported Rove's comments to the fullest? Hmm, wonder why that is.......

screw your "deal".

Yeah, NARAL...completely out of line. agreed.

...but Rove's comments about "indictments and therapy" and his rebuttal to Dick "the Dick" Durbin's comments, outlandish bullshit? he was right on, considering he was at a conservative fundraiser. "noise machine" my ass. lets not talk about the liberal noise machine, shall we?

be a little more f**king dramatic why don't you?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Not quite as bad as SwiftBoat "throw at the wall shit" (which I'm sure you remember quite well and was fully endorsed by the entire GOP was it not?), but still, they do seem to be trying to provoke a response of some sort here.

I think in the end that was a glorified episode of "he-said, she-said." What you have here is a flat out, agenda-serving lie meant to enrage the masses at the evil Republicans.

There seem to be growing parts of the Left that are getting increasingly desperate as they feel the erosion of their power and influence in current American politics. Have both sides historically engaged in such behavior? Sure. To the scale that we're seeing it today? Perhaps. Does that make it right? Fuck no. Do I reserve the right to criticize a personal foul? You bet your ass. I thought that was one of the things we did here.

This NAMBLA, NORAD or whatever the fuck they're called organization can lick my balls. There I said it.


On a side note, a young future hippy rang my doorbell yesterday. She was going door to door, trying to get donations and support for an environmental project or protest or something. I knew she was pandering for money, but I heard her out. Who knew, maybe she'd try to sell me some hot volcano insurance. But I digress... Suddenly I hear the words, "...Our current Administration...is fucking little furry bunnies in the ass, and we're next..." or a rough equivalent, and I could see what was going on. I'll bet top dollar she was in her college "environment club" or something. Not that I am against the environment, but I loved how political it was. I proudly pointed to my flag hanging next to the door and explained to her that while I supported the environment, I sure as hell wasn't going to put my name on a piece of paper that was littered in leftist political undertones. I gave her some money because I truly do care about the environment, but I don't need some hippy do-gooder trying to shove her political bullshit down my throat while asking me for money. I already pay someone else to do that for me.

I bet 85% of my donation goes to political donations or something other than a novel attempt to create a solution, rather just another way to complain about the problem.

/RANT

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo screw your "deal". Yeah, NARAL...completely out of line. agreed.

What a shock.

quote:

...but Rove's comments about "indictments and therapy" and his rebuttal to Dick "the Dick" Durbin's comments, outlandish bullshit? he was right on, considering he was at a conservative fundraiser. "noise machine" my ass. lets not talk about the liberal noise machine, shall we?

Go ahead and talk about it. I'm more than willing to match tit for tat on the current bias of the media (save the recent drillings on McClellan and the Plame issue).

And you think Rove was right on? How is that, exactly? Please demonstrate how Rove's words fit exactly the sentiments of liberals on 9/11, and how we wanted to fucking give "therapy" to the fucking bastards who killed our loved ones.

Pardon me for a second, but I have to say - fuck you. Fuck you for even thinking such a thought, Q5. And fuck you for even believing one second that I didn't have the same dose of sorrow, anger, and desire for our country to give the terrorists a good healthy dose of fucking justice shoved right back up their asses for what they did on our soil.

So what exactly was the vote for us liberals in going after the ******s who did this to us on 9/11? Did the majority of us not want to go on the attack in Afghanistan or something?

Did the majority of us not want to get bin Laden after what he did to us?

Did the vast majority of us liberals NOT want to keep fighting in Afghanistan until we did hunt down and kill bin Laden?

And who the fuck was it that finally called off the troops in Afghanistan and began making preparations to go to war, and allow the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"?:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1593607,00.html

Who was it that decided that finding the man who killed our loved ones was no longer important enough, and that attacking another country instead that had nothing to do with 9/11 would serve our public interest that much better?

Who decided this? And what's more, who outright fucking lied about tracking the culprit down in Tora Bora who attacked us on our own soil? Who called the fight off, Q5?:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8735217/

Notice that part about the CIA guy being an avid Bush supporter? Newsweek has more for you:

quote:

During the 2004 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and John Kerry battled about whether Osama bin Laden had escaped from Tora Bora in the final days of the war in Afghanistan. Bush, Kerry charged, "didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill" the leader of Al Qaeda. The president called his opponent's allegation "the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking." Bush asserted that U.S. commanders on the ground did not know if bin Laden was at the mountain hideaway along the Afghan border. But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora--intelligence operatives had tracked him--and could have been caught. ...In his book--titled "Jawbreaker"--the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members. Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at Tora Bora "was not necessarily just the number of troops." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

So spare me Rove's bullshit, and spare me your own bullshit if you are in line with Rove, especially in lieu of what this Administration deliberately pulled in Afghanistan, and what the Administration continues to pull in Iraq. I don't care where that treasonous fuck was giving his speech, hearing such asinine garbage come out of that traitor's anti-American mouth is more than anyone can handle. Funny how such an anti-American fuck like Rove can say things like that when he puts politics ahead of his own country's interests in the war on terrorism (like outing a covert CIA agent who works on WMD proliferation).

quote:

be a little more f**king dramatic why don't you?

Yeah, I realize that seeing a liberal getting fucking worked up about 9/11 and wanting to actually kill the culprits who caused it might come as a shock to you, but I'm not about to make apologies for such feelings.

And I'm also more than willing to talk about Durbin's comments if you want to. While I certainly believe he could have worded it better, you tell me, did that description from the FBI agent sound very American to you, especially when we know that many of the individuals we've tortured have been let free (i.e. some are actually fucking innocent)? If that description sounds American to you, I'm truly scared for you.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I think in the end that was a glorified episode of "he-said, she-said." What you have here is a flat out, agenda-serving lie meant to enrage the masses at the evil Republicans. There seem to be growing parts of the Left that are getting increasingly desperate as they feel the erosion of their power and influence in current American politics. Have both sides historically engaged in such behavior? Sure. To the scale that we're seeing it today? Perhaps. Does that make it right? Fuck no. Do I reserve the right to criticize a personal foul? You bet your ass. I thought that was one of the things we did here. This NAMBLA, NORAD or whatever the fuck they're called organization can lick my balls. There I said it.

I don't disagree - and get ready for a nice big dose of it on both sides for the midterm '06 elections too.

quote:

On a side note, a young future hippy rang my doorbell yesterday. She was going door to door, trying to get donations and support for an environmental project or protest or something. I knew she was pandering for money, but I heard her out. Who knew, maybe she'd try to sell me some hot volcano insurance. But I digress... Suddenly I hear the words, "...Our current Administration...is fucking little furry bunnies in the ass, and we're next..." or a rough equivalent, and I could see what was going on. I'll bet top dollar she was in her college "environment club" or something. Not that I am against the environment, but I loved how political it was. I proudly pointed to my flag hanging next to the door and explained to her that while I supported the environment, I sure as hell wasn't going to put my name on a piece of paper that was littered in leftist political undertones. I gave her some money because I truly do care about the environment, but I don't need some hippy do-gooder trying to shove her political bullshit down my throat while asking me for money. I already pay someone else to do that for me. I bet 85% of my donation goes to political donations or something other than a novel attempt to create a solution, rather just another way to complain about the problem. /RANT

Damn treehuggers.

I'm surprised you actually gave her some money. I'm a loony liberal and I wouldn't trust someone comin' to my door like that whatsoever!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.