Westboro Baptist Church: Where's The Outrage?

[mudwhistle]

I keep wondering why the left hasn't lashed out at these freaks. They're extremist Christians that pretty much exemplify everything the left hates about Christianity yet I see nobody here complaining about them.

I wonder why that is?

Because they've been doing this for a long time, they're old news. That's why.

I've seen people on all sides bashing these guys and if you haven't well you must be living under a rock.

Not stop with this dishonest crap.

What's dishonest.....that they're scum or that I think the left doesn't care enough to complain?

I floated this because I wanted to hear what was the deal with the left. What I got was a bunch of insults. It's impossible to talk to the left without them breaking into an insult fest.

Well let me tell you folks something...I'm not about to shy away from it. It would be fun to be able to be in the same room with some of you while your throwing your shit around the place. I guarantee the exchange would be quite different.

 

[mudwhistle]

Bold....disrespectful....rude and arrogant.

And your point is what? Everything I put in bold fits.

So please continue with the lesson...

No reason to. Like everything else you've posted on this thread from the OP onward, with this post you continue to demonstrate so much reach and so little grasp.

Regardless of the facts you continue to act like you're better then me. I gave you some credit before but now you're just being a dishonest asshole.

I fail to see how in the world I could have been mistaken. You're rude, disrespectful, arrogant. Everything I said. So instead of claiming I'm stupid or don't understand maybe you could show me why....other then that STFU.

 

[goldcatt]

Bold....disrespectful....rude and arrogant.

And your point is what? Everything I put in bold fits.

So please continue with the lesson...

No reason to. Like everything else you've posted on this thread from the OP onward, with this post you continue to demonstrate so much reach and so little grasp.

Regardless of the facts you continue to act like your better then me. I gave you some credit before but now you're just being a dishonest asshole.

I fail to see how in the world I could have been mistaken. You're rude, disrespectful, arrogant. Everything I said. So instead of claiming I'm stupid or don't understand maybe you could show me why....other then that STFU.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? Go back and try again. You'll still have no grasp of what I'm talking about, because you don't want to see it. But all this stretching you're doing is good for you.

Just like the rest of the thread. Explanation after explanation with links from the Courts to back it up....but of course you're right, the rest of the world is wrong, and we're abusing your poor widdle feeeeeewings when we make fun of you for sticking by your false argument and obviously incorrect statements long past the point of sanity. Although it's not really even funny anymore, just pathetic.

That's not even commenting on the numerous factual errors in the OP itself. I was going easy on you considering your obvious limitations.

And all this effort, twisting, turning and spinning to make the same old point you make every day in countless ways on this board: "Libruls are evul". Good job, Einstein.

Just give it up, dude. You're way over your head and digging deeper every time you post.

 

[Liability]

For the record...I never said they had rendered a decision.

Go ahead and try to claim that I did...but you'd be lying.

At first blush it looked like you were suggesting that the SCOTUS had reached its decision.

But, upon a second reading, and giving you the benefit of some ambiguity, I can certainly see how you did not say that they had rendered a decision.

It's simply a matter of construction. You OP line on the matter wasn't written all that clearly (imho). That left it open to interpretation. But the qualification words you used to start the sentence in question means to me that the ambiguity and any doubt should be resolved in your favor.

As for what the SCOTUS may rule, I don't know. I suspect that they favor the concept of "freedom of speech" so highly that they will err on the side of permitting that outrageous WBC behavior.

I think Mark Levin has the better legal analysis, but I'd be surprised if this SCOTUS rules along such lines.

Thus, gun to my head time to make a prediction, I am afraid that the Phelps and his inbred collection of WBC shitheads are more likely to prevail And I'm not convinced at all that such a resolution is required to preserve the First Amendment.

 

[mudwhistle]

No reason to. Like everything else you've posted on this thread from the OP onward, with this post you continue to demonstrate so much reach and so little grasp.

Regardless of the facts you continue to act like your better then me. I gave you some credit before but now you're just being a dishonest asshole.

I fail to see how in the world I could have been mistaken. You're rude, disrespectful, arrogant. Everything I said. So instead of claiming I'm stupid or don't understand maybe you could show me why....other then that STFU.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? Go back and try again. You'll still have no grasp of what I'm talking about, because you don't want to see it. But all this stretching you're doing is good for you.

Just like the rest of the thread. Explanation after explanation with links from the Courts to back it up....but of course you're right, the rest of the world is wrong, and we're abusing your poor widdle feeeeeewings when we make fun of you for sticking by your false argument and obviously incorrect statements long past the point of sanity. Although it's not really even funny anymore, just pathetic.

That's not even commenting on the numerous factual errors in the OP itself. I was going easy on you considering your obvious limitations.

And all this effort, twisting, turning and spinning to make the same old point you make every day in countless ways on this board: "Libruls are evul". Good job, Einstein.

Just give it up, dude. You're way over your head and digging deeper every time you post.

I'm not twisting and turning. I've been very consistent. I wondered out loud why all of the silence from the left. Then they gave me their reasons. I have my beliefs and I don't believe they're written in stone....but still in some cases they're justified.

If you want to admit to being a liberal then your words prove you fit the mold in many respects. You're arrogant, superior, just an elitist asshole that can't win an argument unless you take what I say the wrong way or make fun of a less then perfect argument. You think I'm a mindless knuckle-dragger that can't possibly grasp simple concepts. But instead what you keep doing is proving my point over and over again.

 

[mudwhistle]

For the record...I never said they had rendered a decision.

Go ahead and try to claim that I did...but you'd be lying.

At first blush it looked like you were suggesting that the SCOTUS had reached its decision.

But, upon a second reading, and giving you the benefit of some ambiguity, I can certainly see how you did not say that they had rendered a decision.

It's simply a matter of construction. You OP line on the matter wasn't written all that clearly (imho). That left it open to interpretation. But the qualification words you used to start the sentence in question means to me that the ambiguity and any doubt should be resolved in your favor.

As for what the SCOTUS may rule, I don't know. I suspect that they favor the concept of "freedom of speech" so highly that they will err on the side of permitting that outrageous SBC behavior.

I think Mark Levin has the better legal analysis, but I'd be surprised if this SCOTUS rules along such lines.

Thus, gun to my head time to make a prediction, I am afraid that the Phelps and his inbred collection of WBC shitheads will prevail And I'm not convinced at all that such a resolution is required to preserve the First Amendment.

This is the kind of reaction I was looking for. Problem is many others here aren't as open-minded as you are. They're too busy going after me for daring to suggest something that time and time again proves to be the case with them.

 

[goldcatt]

For the record...I never said they had rendered a decision.

Go ahead and try to claim that I did...but you'd be lying.

At first blush it looked like you were suggesting that the SCOTUS had reached its decision.

But, upon a second reading, and giving you the benefit of some ambiguity, I can certainly see how you did not say that they had rendered a decision.

It's simply a matter of construction. You OP line on the matter wasn't written all that clearly (imho). That left it open to interpretation. But the qualification words you used to start the sentence in question means to me that the ambiguity and any doubt should be resolved in your favor.

As for what the SCOTUS may rule, I don't know. I suspect that they favor the concept of "freedom of speech" so highly that they will err on the side of permitting that outrageous WBC behavior.

I think Mark Levin has the better legal analysis, but I'd be surprised if this SCOTUS rules along such lines.

Thus, gun to my head time to make a prediction, I am afraid that the Phelps and his inbred collection of WBC shitheads are more likely to prevail And I'm not convinced at all that such a resolution is required to preserve the First Amendment.

I'd be much more worked up about WBC winning if the family had asked for any redress other than the tort award. If, for example, they had requested a mandatory buffer zone for protesting around funerals like the one their town instituted in their case. The one that worked.

But all they want is money, and maybe I sound cynical but that makes it harder to believe they have other families' interests at heart, or are interested in stopping WBC at all. Smells like revenge to me. And that's fine, I can understand wanting it and would probably feel the same in their shoes, but I'm not thrilled at the prospect of broad new restrictions on speech so this guy can get his revenge for looking up WBC's website.

WBC will just raise more money from their own lawsuits and the internet crazies with more money than brains, and there is no possibility of a ruling in favor of the Snyders that will actually stop them. But it could stop a lot of other things. Forgive me if I'm not out for blood on this one, but it's the wrong vehicle to do anything about the scum at Westboro.

 

[Liability]

For the record...I never said they had rendered a decision.

Go ahead and try to claim that I did...but you'd be lying.

At first blush it looked like you were suggesting that the SCOTUS had reached its decision.

But, upon a second reading, and giving you the benefit of some ambiguity, I can certainly see how you did not say that they had rendered a decision.

It's simply a matter of construction. You OP line on the matter wasn't written all that clearly (imho). That left it open to interpretation. But the qualification words you used to start the sentence in question means to me that the ambiguity and any doubt should be resolved in your favor.

As for what the SCOTUS may rule, I don't know. I suspect that they favor the concept of "freedom of speech" so highly that they will err on the side of permitting that outrageous WBC behavior.

I think Mark Levin has the better legal analysis, but I'd be surprised if this SCOTUS rules along such lines.

Thus, gun to my head time to make a prediction, I am afraid that the Phelps and his inbred collection of WBC shitheads are more likely to prevail And I'm not convinced at all that such a resolution is required to preserve the First Amendment.

I'd be much more worked up about WBC winning if the family had asked for any redress other than the tort award. If, for example, they had requested a mandatory buffer zone for protesting around funerals like the one their town instituted in their case. The one that worked.

But all they want is money, and maybe I sound cynical but that makes it harder to believe they have other families' interests at heart, or are interested in stopping WBC at all. Smells like revenge to me. And that's fine, I can understand wanting it and would probably feel the same in their shoes, but I'm not thrilled at the prospect of broad new restrictions on speech so this guy can get his revenge for looking up WBC's website.

WBC will just raise more money from their own lawsuits and the internet crazies with more money than brains, and there is no possibility of a ruling in favor of the Snyders that will actually stop them. But it could stop a lot of other things. Forgive me if I'm not out for blood on this one, but it's the wrong vehicle to do anything about the scum at Westboro.

I am not about to pretend to be able to judge the pureness of the motivation of the family of the dead serviceman.

The WBC inbred motherfuckers can all die a painful death for all I care about them.

but suing them for their behavior isn't a wrong vehicle. As long as their scumbag behavior isn't actual "speech," I have no problem with them getting sued into oblivion. Those evil scumbags deserve all the shit that can flow down on their heads.

 

[mudwhistle]

For the record...I never said they had rendered a decision.

Go ahead and try to claim that I did...but you'd be lying.

At first blush it looked like you were suggesting that the SCOTUS had reached its decision.

But, upon a second reading, and giving you the benefit of some ambiguity, I can certainly see how you did not say that they had rendered a decision.

It's simply a matter of construction. You OP line on the matter wasn't written all that clearly (imho). That left it open to interpretation. But the qualification words you used to start the sentence in question means to me that the ambiguity and any doubt should be resolved in your favor.

As for what the SCOTUS may rule, I don't know. I suspect that they favor the concept of "freedom of speech" so highly that they will err on the side of permitting that outrageous WBC behavior.

I think Mark Levin has the better legal analysis, but I'd be surprised if this SCOTUS rules along such lines.

Thus, gun to my head time to make a prediction, I am afraid that the Phelps and his inbred collection of WBC shitheads are more likely to prevail And I'm not convinced at all that such a resolution is required to preserve the First Amendment.

I'd be much more worked up about WBC winning if the family had asked for any redress other than the tort award. If, for example, they had requested a mandatory buffer zone for protesting around funerals like the one their town instituted in their case. The one that worked.

But all they want is money, and maybe I sound cynical but that makes it harder to believe they have other families' interests at heart, or are interested in stopping WBC at all. Smells like revenge to me. And that's fine, I can understand wanting it and would probably feel the same in their shoes, but I'm not thrilled at the prospect of broad new restrictions on speech so this guy can get his revenge for looking up WBC's website.

WBC will just raise more money from their own lawsuits and the internet crazies with more money than brains, and there is no possibility of a ruling in favor of the Snyders that will actually stop them. But it could stop a lot of other things. Forgive me if I'm not out for blood on this one, but it's the wrong vehicle to do anything about the scum at Westboro.

I didn't assume that the family was out for money...but now that you mentioned it I could be a possibility. I would hope that wasn't the reason. It's a shame that Westboro got a chance to beat their drum on a national stage because of a less then honest lawsuit.

 

[Liability]

For the record...I never said they had rendered a decision.

Go ahead and try to claim that I did...but you'd be lying.

At first blush it looked like you were suggesting that the SCOTUS had reached its decision.

But, upon a second reading, and giving you the benefit of some ambiguity, I can certainly see how you did not say that they had rendered a decision.

It's simply a matter of construction. You OP line on the matter wasn't written all that clearly (imho). That left it open to interpretation. But the qualification words you used to start the sentence in question means to me that the ambiguity and any doubt should be resolved in your favor.

As for what the SCOTUS may rule, I don't know. I suspect that they favor the concept of "freedom of speech" so highly that they will err on the side of permitting that outrageous WBC behavior.

I think Mark Levin has the better legal analysis, but I'd be surprised if this SCOTUS rules along such lines.

Thus, gun to my head time to make a prediction, I am afraid that the Phelps and his inbred collection of WBC shitheads are more likely to prevail And I'm not convinced at all that such a resolution is required to preserve the First Amendment.

I'd be much more worked up about WBC winning if the family had asked for any redress other than the tort award. If, for example, they had requested a mandatory buffer zone for protesting around funerals like the one their town instituted in their case. The one that worked.

But all they want is money, and maybe I sound cynical but that makes it harder to believe they have other families' interests at heart, or are interested in stopping WBC at all. Smells like revenge to me. And that's fine, I can understand wanting it and would probably feel the same in their shoes, but I'm not thrilled at the prospect of broad new restrictions on speech so this guy can get his revenge for looking up WBC's website.

WBC will just raise more money from their own lawsuits and the internet crazies with more money than brains, and there is no possibility of a ruling in favor of the Snyders that will actually stop them. But it could stop a lot of other things. Forgive me if I'm not out for blood on this one, but it's the wrong vehicle to do anything about the scum at Westboro.

I am not about to pretend to be able to judge the pureness of the motivation of the family of the dead serviceman.

The WBC inbred motherfuckers can all die a painful death for all I care about them.

But suing them for their behavior isn't a wrong vehicle. As long as their scumbag behavior isn't actual "speech," I have no problem with them getting sued into oblivion. Those evil scumbags deserve all the shit that can flow down on their heads.

 

[goldcatt]

At first blush it looked like you were suggesting that the SCOTUS had reached its decision.

But, upon a second reading, and giving you the benefit of some ambiguity, I can certainly see how you did not say that they had rendered a decision.

It's simply a matter of construction. You OP line on the matter wasn't written all that clearly (imho). That left it open to interpretation. But the qualification words you used to start the sentence in question means to me that the ambiguity and any doubt should be resolved in your favor.

As for what the SCOTUS may rule, I don't know. I suspect that they favor the concept of "freedom of speech" so highly that they will err on the side of permitting that outrageous WBC behavior.

I think Mark Levin has the better legal analysis, but I'd be surprised if this SCOTUS rules along such lines.

Thus, gun to my head time to make a prediction, I am afraid that the Phelps and his inbred collection of WBC shitheads are more likely to prevail And I'm not convinced at all that such a resolution is required to preserve the First Amendment.

I'd be much more worked up about WBC winning if the family had asked for any redress other than the tort award. If, for example, they had requested a mandatory buffer zone for protesting around funerals like the one their town instituted in their case. The one that worked.

But all they want is money, and maybe I sound cynical but that makes it harder to believe they have other families' interests at heart, or are interested in stopping WBC at all. Smells like revenge to me. And that's fine, I can understand wanting it and would probably feel the same in their shoes, but I'm not thrilled at the prospect of broad new restrictions on speech so this guy can get his revenge for looking up WBC's website.

WBC will just raise more money from their own lawsuits and the internet crazies with more money than brains, and there is no possibility of a ruling in favor of the Snyders that will actually stop them. But it could stop a lot of other things. Forgive me if I'm not out for blood on this one, but it's the wrong vehicle to do anything about the scum at Westboro.

I am not about to pretend to be able to judge the pureness of the motivation of the family of the dead serviceman.

The WBC inbred motherfuckers can all die a painful death for all I care about them.

but suing them for their behavior isn't a wrong vehicle. As long as their scumbag behavior isn't actual "speech," I have no problem with them getting sued into oblivion. Those evil scumbags deserve all the shit that can flow down on their heads.

We're never, ever going to agree on this one. No surprise there.

You prefer to look at the parties, I'm looking at the principles. Different point of view, different priority, different conclusion. But you're not particularly evul even though you don't agree with me. I doubt you'd accuse me of secretly supporting the WBC scum and their actions and agenda to further some vague political scheme. AND you tend to do your homework. That's why I can respect you and agree to disagree.

This is still the wrong case though, and the thing that gets me is that nobody's asking for anything that will actually resolve the WBC issue. Why bring the case this far if you're not seeking a remedy for the actual problem? Makes no sense to me.

 

[goldcatt]

At first blush it looked like you were suggesting that the SCOTUS had reached its decision.

But, upon a second reading, and giving you the benefit of some ambiguity, I can certainly see how you did not say that they had rendered a decision.

It's simply a matter of construction. You OP line on the matter wasn't written all that clearly (imho). That left it open to interpretation. But the qualification words you used to start the sentence in question means to me that the ambiguity and any doubt should be resolved in your favor.

As for what the SCOTUS may rule, I don't know. I suspect that they favor the concept of "freedom of speech" so highly that they will err on the side of permitting that outrageous WBC behavior.

I think Mark Levin has the better legal analysis, but I'd be surprised if this SCOTUS rules along such lines.

Thus, gun to my head time to make a prediction, I am afraid that the Phelps and his inbred collection of WBC shitheads are more likely to prevail And I'm not convinced at all that such a resolution is required to preserve the First Amendment.

I'd be much more worked up about WBC winning if the family had asked for any redress other than the tort award. If, for example, they had requested a mandatory buffer zone for protesting around funerals like the one their town instituted in their case. The one that worked.

But all they want is money, and maybe I sound cynical but that makes it harder to believe they have other families' interests at heart, or are interested in stopping WBC at all. Smells like revenge to me. And that's fine, I can understand wanting it and would probably feel the same in their shoes, but I'm not thrilled at the prospect of broad new restrictions on speech so this guy can get his revenge for looking up WBC's website.

WBC will just raise more money from their own lawsuits and the internet crazies with more money than brains, and there is no possibility of a ruling in favor of the Snyders that will actually stop them. But it could stop a lot of other things. Forgive me if I'm not out for blood on this one, but it's the wrong vehicle to do anything about the scum at Westboro.

I didn't assume that the family was out for money...but now that you mentioned it I could be a possibility. I would hope that wasn't the reason. It's a shame that Westboro got a chance to beat their drum on a national stage because of a less then honest lawsuit.

I don't assume they're just looking for a payday...but I do think the signs point to the fact that they're looking for revenge. Or at least they haven't asked for any remedies that would possibly stop the problem of WBC's behavior - which is at best lousy lawyering.

And like I said, it's understandable if revenge is their prime motivation and I would probably feel the same way. But the potential downsides here under these facts are too great for me to support his revenge over keeping speech as free as possible for every individual or group this decision will apply to.

Do you know what Snyder is actually arguing? One of his main arguments is that his freedom of religion trumps everyone else's freedom of speech - and the way the argument is framed that would apply in any situation, as a bright line rule that Religion > Speech. Think about the ramifications of that if he wins. I mean really think about it. Scary stuff.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'd be much more worked up about WBC winning if the family had asked for any redress other than the tort award. If, for example, they had requested a mandatory buffer zone for protesting around funerals like the one their town instituted in their case. The one that worked.

But all they want is money, and maybe I sound cynical but that makes it harder to believe they have other families' interests at heart, or are interested in stopping WBC at all. Smells like revenge to me. And that's fine, I can understand wanting it and would probably feel the same in their shoes, but I'm not thrilled at the prospect of broad new restrictions on speech so this guy can get his revenge for looking up WBC's website.

WBC will just raise more money from their own lawsuits and the internet crazies with more money than brains, and there is no possibility of a ruling in favor of the Snyders that will actually stop them. But it could stop a lot of other things. Forgive me if I'm not out for blood on this one, but it's the wrong vehicle to do anything about the scum at Westboro.

I didn't assume that the family was out for money...but now that you mentioned it I could be a possibility. I would hope that wasn't the reason. It's a shame that Westboro got a chance to beat their drum on a national stage because of a less then honest lawsuit.

I don't assume they're just looking for a payday...but I do think the signs point to the fact that they're looking for revenge. Or at least they haven't asked for any remedies that would possibly stop the problem of WBC's behavior - which is at best lousy lawyering.

And like I said, it's understandable if revenge is their prime motivation and I would probably feel the same way. But the potential downsides here under these facts are too great for me to support his revenge over keeping speech as free as possible for every individual or group this decision will apply to.

Do you know what Snyder is actually arguing? One of his main arguments is that his freedom of religion trumps everyone else's freedom of speech - and the way the argument is framed that would apply in any situation, as a bright line rule that Religion > Speech. Think about the ramifications of that if he wins. I mean really think about it. Scary stuff.

Good point....now I'm learning something now that the dust has cleared.

 

[goldcatt]

I didn't assume that the family was out for money...but now that you mentioned it I could be a possibility. I would hope that wasn't the reason. It's a shame that Westboro got a chance to beat their drum on a national stage because of a less then honest lawsuit.

I don't assume they're just looking for a payday...but I do think the signs point to the fact that they're looking for revenge. Or at least they haven't asked for any remedies that would possibly stop the problem of WBC's behavior - which is at best lousy lawyering.

And like I said, it's understandable if revenge is their prime motivation and I would probably feel the same way. But the potential downsides here under these facts are too great for me to support his revenge over keeping speech as free as possible for every individual or group this decision will apply to.

Do you know what Snyder is actually arguing? One of his main arguments is that his freedom of religion trumps everyone else's freedom of speech - and the way the argument is framed that would apply in any situation, as a bright line rule that Religion > Speech. Think about the ramifications of that if he wins. I mean really think about it. Scary stuff.

Good point....now I'm learning something now that the dust has cleared.

Seriously, I now I was a little rough before but do go back and read some of those links if you have the time and inclination to follow the case. It's enlightening what really is - and is not - at issue here v. what the media is reporting.

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't assume they're just looking for a payday...but I do think the signs point to the fact that they're looking for revenge. Or at least they haven't asked for any remedies that would possibly stop the problem of WBC's behavior - which is at best lousy lawyering.

And like I said, it's understandable if revenge is their prime motivation and I would probably feel the same way. But the potential downsides here under these facts are too great for me to support his revenge over keeping speech as free as possible for every individual or group this decision will apply to.

Do you know what Snyder is actually arguing? One of his main arguments is that his freedom of religion trumps everyone else's freedom of speech - and the way the argument is framed that would apply in any situation, as a bright line rule that Religion > Speech. Think about the ramifications of that if he wins. I mean really think about it. Scary stuff.

Good point....now I'm learning something now that the dust has cleared.

Seriously, I now I was a little rough before but do go back and read some of those links if you have the time and inclination to follow the case. It's enlightening what really is - and is not - at issue here v. what the media is reporting.

Trust me...I realize how the media is often guilty of misreporting. I don't know if it's just the fact that they're journalism grads or just out to cause a stir.

 

[goldcatt]

Good point....now I'm learning something now that the dust has cleared.

Seriously, I now I was a little rough before but do go back and read some of those links if you have the time and inclination to follow the case. It's enlightening what really is - and is not - at issue here v. what the media is reporting.

Trust me...I realize how the media is often guilty of misreporting. I don't know if it's just the fact that they're journalism grads or just out to cause a stir.

Sex sells. They only have so much time to spend on the issues. Sex sells. They don't exactly employ constitutional lawyers or scholars to explain everything to them. Oh yeah, and sex sells. They're for-profit companies. They're concerned with what sells. /shrug

 

[strollingbones]

so i take it you have done nothing but bitch on a messageboard?

so you can feel so superior......

No but you do.

I mean really......WTF are you doing right now?

BTW...are you actually defending Westboro.

It sure seems like it.

you are really fucked...i have in no way defended wbc...but nice try

and how does it seem like it...do tell?

and again what have yo u done to protest wbc other than bitch on this board

have you done anything?

 

[mudwhistle]

so i take it you have done nothing but bitch on a messageboard?

so you can feel so superior......

No but you do.

I mean really......WTF are you doing right now?

BTW...are you actually defending Westboro.

It sure seems like it.

you are really fucked...i have in no way defended wbc...but nice try

and how does it seem like it...do tell?

and again what have yo u done to protest wbc other than bitch on this board

have you done anything?

If they try it in my town I'll let you know.

 

[strollingbones]

so you have done nothing...but try to make yourself look good for being a conservative?

 

[mudwhistle]

so you have done nothing...but try to make yourself look good for being a conservative?

I thought I answered this question yesterday.

Do you have Alzheimers' desease or something?