Signature's - Curious

[HGROKIT]

I had a member PM me wanting to debate the merit of my signature, stating that what Chenney said was out of context with Kerry's statement about fighting a more sensitive war on terrorism.

I've read and heard both men's statements reagarding this - I find Cheney's remark to be on point and a rebuttal to what Kerry eluded to.

What is everyone elses' take?

 

[Hobbit]

Even the NYT says that the words "sensitive" and "war" shouldn't be used together.

 

[Annie]

I think we should all be more sensitive and nuanced! :chains:

 

[Moi]

In my opinion, Kerry doesn't know what he's talking about and failed to elaborate a vision for his type of security to which I could subscribe.

Cheney is correct...sensitivity, the way I understand it, has no place in war.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Its a damn signature, who cares?

 

[dmp]

Its a damn signature, who cares?

Your signature is insensative to our disabled americans who can neither walk nor wear shoes.

 

[HGROKIT]

Its a damn signature, who cares?

My point exactly.

So, the person that PM'd me and you know who you are; I don't give a shit. I just hope you find new clothes.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Your signature is insensative to our disabled americans who can neither walk nor wear shoes.

damn, I guess I better change it then. :

 

[Said1]

My point exactly.

So, the person that PM'd me and you know who you are; I don't give a shit. I just hope you find new clothes.

Isn't that the guy who has about 20 ID's anyway? I think he's on a flame rampage if it's the same person. Boohoo.

 

[007]

So I guess my sig would be insensitive to people who like to pee down other people's backs...