I noticed. I'm Catholic and I wasn't offended...... Maybe you're just wound too tight.

I notice you didn't make mention of ANY of the other links. I even included a NewsMax link for your pleasure. I could provide things on Sandy Berger episode also, but why bother, as you'd just dismiss them (not refute them, just dismiss them).

But then you never actually offer evidence, only "personal observation."

Fellas! Fighting online is a lot like the special olympics. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, at the end you are still retarded.

Fellas! Fighting online is a lot like the special olympics. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, at the end you are still retarded.

LMFAO! You pretty funny for somebody from Arkansas (I know, you're not, really)!

Nah brother. I was just yanking your chain a little. All in fun my friend...

So, you like Brokeback Mountain?

Once again man, you've got to take it to a differant thread!!!!!! LOL


Ken

Fellas! Fighting online is a lot like the special olympics. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, at the end you are still retarded.

OMG...........that is just too funny! Possibly NOT politically correct, but........Good one!!!

What a waste of perfectly good carbon you've proven yourself to be!

Joe!!!

You refuted all that with one line!!!! You must be a genius or an asshole! (To bad I already ruled out genius)
Honostley man, if you can't respond to someone and not address all the points given, then give it up. Scott has some great points and you blew them all off because you couldn't answer. Instead you bad mouthed again. Can we say asshole?

KRW- You've done it to me also!

Don't quote the 9/11 Commission to me, they were not formed to discover anything, just to cover up the lapses of the previous administration.

More to prove the official story, leaving out anything that didn't agree with it. Believe it or not.


KRW

Joe!!!

You refuted all that with one line!!!! You must be a genius or an asshole! (To bad I already ruled out genius)

Honostley man, if you can't respond to someone and not address all the points given, then give it up. Scott has some great points and you blew them all off because you couldn't answer. Instead you bad mouthed again. Can we say asshole?

KRW- You've done it to me also!

In NYJ's defense, he did respond to some of the points in my earlier post. As Jim pointed out NYJ doesn't use the quotation codes properly. A casual reader might just blow right by his commentary since you have to read between the lines to understand what he is trying to say.

However, he still didn't really respond to the points, and he's still not a genius.

I noticed. I'm Catholic and I wasn't offended...... Maybe you're just wound too tight.

I notice you didn't make mention of ANY of the other links. I even included a NewsMax link for your pleasure. I could provide things on Sandy Berger episode also, but why bother, as you'd just dismiss them (not refute them, just dismiss them).

But then you never actually offer evidence, only "personal observation."

Now, Jim, why the dyspepsia? When I was posting last week, it wasn't from my usual Manhattan cybercafe. I was visiting my friends in PA, where the Badman needs the computer for his job. So I could post only when he wasn't using it. And that's why it might have =seemed= I was dismissing your points. Never the case, my old vieux.

But you suggest I might be "wound too tight" in seeing an anti-Catholic agenda in THE DA VINCI CODE. Not at all. 180 degrees opposite. To quote a great man, I just have "a relaxed brain." But let's assume you're right. How then, to account for a producer of the flick, John Calley, saying it's "conservatively anti-Catholic"? Is this insider "wound too tight?"

I apologize to you also, RIK, but stand by my statements above. The use of the word Druggie is to parallel Rush's own use of such derogatory terms.

Here's a quote. Can't find an audio. Granted, it's not quite as harsh as I portrayed it...... Who else does that? (Rush?)

[INDENT][URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/01/national/main1563996.shtml"]Before his own problems became public, Limbaugh had decried drug use and abuse and mocked President Clinton for saying he had not inhaled when he tried marijuana. He often made the case that drug crimes deserve punishment.

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995.[/URL][/INDENT]

Well, I don't see the precise connection here -- as this quote seems to be a bit out of context (more below) anyway. The main difference her is that Rush's "drugs" were acquired by prescription, legally. Not the same as the illegal drugs and junkies he was referring to.

Rush, in this quote was actually criticizing those people that bellyache about the "drug crisis" and just want to keep passing more drug laws when there are already laws on the books, not enforced, that deal with these issues.

RIK

Well, I don't see the precise connection here -- as this quote seems to be a bit out of context (more below) anyway. The main difference her is that Rush's "drugs" were acquired by prescription, legally. Not the same as the illegal drugs and junkies he was referring to.

Rush, in this quote was actually criticizing those people that bellyache about the "drug crisis" and just want to keep passing more drug laws when there are already laws on the books, not enforced, that deal with these issues.

RIK

Note too, that quote =far= predates Rush's addiction. Some folks, not friendly to Limbaugh's way of thinking, trolled through his show's transcripts seeking more bad-mouthing of addicts after Rush found a chimp on his own back. Just to prove hypocracy, y'unnerstan. They couldn't.