NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: As an abortion rights supporter ( albiet an admittedly reluctant one ), I am deeply distressed at some organizations resorting to this sort of attack against Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. I've seen this ad and it is inaccurate, misleading and defamatory. All it succeeds in accomplishing is in giving abortion opponents ammunition with which to attack all abortion rights advocates, no matter how honest.


TV Ad Attacking Court Nominee Provokes Furor (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/politics/11abort.final.html?th&emc=th)

Published: August 11, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 - An advertisement that a leading abortion-rights organization began running on national television on Wednesday, opposing the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. as one "whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans," quickly became the first flashpoint in the three-week-old confirmation process.

Naral Pro-Choice America has begun this advertising campaign against the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court.

Several prominent abortion rights supporters as well as a neutral media watchdog group said the advertisement was misleading and unfair, and a conservative group quickly took to the airwaves with an opposing advertisement.

The focus of the 30-second spot, which Naral Pro-Choice America is spending $500,000 to place on the Fox and CNN cable networks, as well as on broadcast stations in Maine and Rhode Island over the next two weeks, is on an argument in an abortion-related case that Judge Roberts made to the Supreme Court in the early 1990's, when he was working in the first Bush administration as the principal deputy solicitor general.

The question before the court was whether a Reconstruction-era civil rights law intended to protect freed slaves from the Ku Klux Klan could provide a basis for federal courts to issue injunctions against the increasingly frequent and violent demonstrations that were intended to block access to abortion clinics.

The court heard arguments in the case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, in October 1991 and then again the next October before finally ruling in January 1993, by a vote of 6 to 3, that the law did not apply. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Mr. Roberts has been nominated to succeed, voted in dissent. The decision prompted Congressional passage of a new federal law to protect the clinics.

Mr. Roberts participated in both arguments, presenting the administration's view that the law in question, the Ku Klux Klan Act, did not apply to the clinic protests. In earlier cases, the Supreme Court had parsed the law, which prohibits conspiracies to deprive "any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws," as requiring proof that a conspiracy was motivated by a "class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus."

In this case, two lower federal courts had found that the clinic protests met that test because they were a form of discrimination against women. But Mr. Roberts argued that the demonstrators were not singling out women for discriminatory treatment but rather were trying to "prohibit the practice of abortion altogether." He told the court that even though only women could become pregnant or seek abortions, it was "wrong as a matter of law and logic" to regard opposition to abortion as the equivalent of discrimination against women.

The administration's position initially attracted relatively little attention when it entered the case in the spring of 1991. But after a summer of violent protests at clinics in Wichita, Kan., during which Mr. Roberts and other administration lawyers opposed the authority of a federal judge there to issue an injunction, the situation had become politically sensitive. Mr. Roberts began his second argument by saying the administration was not trying to defend the demonstrators' conduct but rather to "defend the proper interpretation" of the statute.

That distinction is blurred in Naral's advertisement, prepared by Struble Eichenbaum Communications, a Democratic media company here. The spot opens with a scene of devastation, the bombing of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Ala., in January 1998. Emily Lyons, a clinic employee who was seriously injured in the attack, appears on the screen. "When a bomb ripped through my clinic, I almost lost my life," she says.

Mr. Roberts's image then appears, superimposed on a faint copy of the brief he signed in the 1991 case. "Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber," the narrator's voice says. The spot concludes by urging viewers to: "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."

According to Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania that monitors political advertisements and speeches for accuracy, "the ad is false" and "uses the classic tactic of guilt by association." The imagery is "especially misleading" in linking the 1998 clinic bombing to the brief Mr. Roberts signed seven years earlier, Factcheck said in an analysis it posted on its Web site, www.factcheck.org, under the heading: "Naral Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts."

As the Factcheck critique began to be trumpeted by conservative groups early Wednesday, Naral prepared a rebuttal of what it called "glaring errors" in the organization's analysis. Michael Bray, a defendant in the case, had been convicted several years earlier for his role in bombing abortion clinics, Naral said, adding that since the Bush administration and Mr. Bray were on the same side of the Supreme Court case, "John Roberts did, therefore, side with a convicted clinic bomber" as well as with Operation Rescue, "a violent fringe group."

Naral's president, Nancy Keenan, defended the advertisement during an interview in her office here.

"It's tough and it's accurate," Ms. Keenan said.

"It has done exactly what we expected it to do," she added, namely to provide a "wake-up call" about the stakes for reproductive freedom at issue in the current Supreme Court vacancy.

"Conventional wisdom says the Roberts nomination is a done deal, so it behooves us to make sure the American public knows who John Roberts really is," she said.

Ms. Keenan, a former Montana state legislator who has headed the organization for the past year, said it was important to note that because the federal government was not a party in the Bray case, the administration's participation in the Supreme Court appeal was voluntary.

"They chose what side to take," she said. "That tells us something."

Within the larger liberal coalition of which Naral is a part, there was considerable uneasiness about the advertisement, although leaders of other groups generally refused to speak on the record. One who did, Frances Kissling, the longtime president of Catholics for a Free Choice, said she was "deeply upset and offended" by the advertisement, which she called "far too intemperate and far too personal."

Ms. Kissling, who initiated the conversation with a reporter, said the ad "does step over the line into the kind of personal character attack we shouldn't be engaging in."

She added: "As a pro-choice person, I don't like being placed on the defensive by my leaders. Naral should pull it and move on."

Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration and longtime Naral supporter, sent a letter on Wednesday to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and its ranking Democrat, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, respectively. Mr. Dellinger said he had disagreed with Mr. Roberts's argument in the Bray case but considered it unfair to give "the impression that Roberts is somehow associated with clinic bombers." He added that "it would be regrettable if the only refutation of these assertions about Roberts came from groups opposed to abortion rights."

A conservative group, Progress for America, said it would spend $300,000 to run ads, beginning Thursday, on the same stations on which the Naral ad is appearing. "How low can these frustrated liberals sink?" its advertisement asks.

keep judges out of politics-says Pete

"How low can these frustrated liberals sink?" its advertisement asks.
Never so low they'd advocate killing abortion doctors, anyway.

And Eutrusca's centrism rises to the fore once again.

Careful Eustrusca, don't lump all liberals with this.

And yes, I agree that this is a low blow, and even beyond that it's sensationalist and false. And if anyone here knows me...they know I HATE sensationalism...

(Pro-Choice BTW)

Oh you're an abortion rights supporter?

= liberal

Careful with that wide brush you're painting with, Eutrusca.

And Eutrusca's centrism rises to the fore once again.
Yeah, I'd thought about mentioning that but I figured if I said something I'd just get pilloried for having the audacity to point it out. That and not being an American. You know, the usual stuff.

Damn...

Do you ameriancs get off on smear campaigns or something ? Every single time a politician wags a finger, someone will run an add proclaiming that wagging a finger in that way is ebil(tm)

And Eutrusca's centrism rises to the fore once again.
Add your flammage to the list: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176

Wow, and I thought partisanry could sink no lower

Yeah, I'd thought about mentioning that but I figured if I said something I'd just get pilloried for having the audacity to point it out. That and not being an American. You know, the usual stuff.
Add your flammage to the list: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176

Oh you're an abortion rights supporter?

= liberal

Careful with that wide brush you're painting with, Eutrusca.
Yes, I support abortion rights. I definitely do not like abortion, but I see no practical way to resolve the issue other than to guarantee a woman rights over her own body and, by extension, any unborn child she is carrying.

But this obviously doesn't make me anything other than a "neo-con" in the eyes of most on here. Their position is that unless you march in lockstep with them on every issue, you're nothing but a "conservative" or a "neo-con.:" http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176

What are you on about now, Eutrusca? What "flammage"? What "list"?

What have YOU been smoking?

Add your flammage to the list: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176

You think thats a flame? Seems like nothing to me. People tend to be awfully jumpy about that kind of thing now and I dont see why.

I dunno, Eutrusca, you might want to wait this one out as some conservative groups are now planning campains against Judge Roberts as well. I'm sure more than enough bucket fulls of shite will be thrown between both camps and I'd hate for anyone to get caught in the middle of it.

Damn...

Do you ameriancs get off on smear campaigns or something ? Every single time a politician wags a finger, someone will run an add proclaiming that wagging a finger in that way is ebil(tm)
Unfortunately, that's closer to the truth than I would like to admit. Because of the way the media immediately pounce on anything strange, unusual, outre, or just plain wierd, people who make wild accusations, use innuendo, and proclaim outright big lies, will immediately be thrust to the fore. Sigh. :(

I wish both sides would just get the truth, accept it, and move on. This mud-slinging shit is flat-out stupid.

You think thats a flame? Seems like nothing to me. People tend to be awfully jumpy about that kind of thing now and I dont see why.
Well, I'm kinda gun-shy about it because I've "transgressed" twice and was forum-banned ( twice ) for it. So I tend to understate whatever case I'm making just to be careful. This makes those who despise me ( for whatever reason ) feel freer to call into question things like my political leanings, my religious orientation, and for all I know, my parentage. :D

I wish both sides would just get the truth, accept it, and move on. This mud-slinging shit is flat-out stupid.
No shit! But I won't hold my breath. Seems like more and more people, of whatever political persuasion, make their living by doing this sort of thing. God help us! :(

And Leahy said that these ads aren't worth the money they spent. I found that comment funny from him.

Never so low they'd advocate killing abortion doctors, anyway.

...yet low enough to think that it's okay to kill unborn babies, or fail to realize that it's a human life in that there womb...

;)

No shit! But I won't hold my breath. Seems like more and more people, of whatever political persuasion, make their living by doing this sort of thing. God help us! :(


Children get by in school by doing this sort of thing. I guess some people just never grow out of it.

...yet low enough to think that it's okay to kill unborn babies, or fail to realize that it's a human life in that there womb...

;)
Please ...

do ...

not ...

start!

...yet low enough to think that it's okay to kill unborn babies, or fail to realize that it's a human life in that there womb...

;)

It's not sentient, however. Hop over to the abortion debate threads if you'd like to pursue that.

Come on, guys. Don't stop posting. It was starting to get interesting....

Glad to see that bipartisan hackery is still alive and well here in America! :rolleyes:

If anything, I would have thought that some of this "dish" would've made the left a bit happier, considering he's fought in the legal trenches on their side.

keep judges out of politics-says Pete
Unfortunately, judges at this level have too much power to avoid politics.

Unfortunately, judges at this level have too much power to avoid politics.

then they should be killed at birth....hmm wait a minute !

Patrick Leahy says its a waste of time and money to run ads both for and against Roberts. Now there's a headline for you.

I'm just rolling around in Eutrusca's amazing centrism. Seriously, if you were any more center, I'd go insane. You just have this talent to present highly biased stories with no spin. How do you do it?

Yes, I support abortion rights. I definitely do not like abortion, but I see no practical way to resolve the issue other than to guarantee a woman rights over her own body and, by extension, any unborn child she is carrying.

But this obviously doesn't make me anything other than a "neo-con" in the eyes of most on here. Their position is that unless you march in lockstep with them on every issue, you're nothing but a "conservative" or a "neo-con.:" http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176

Yeah, well you ARE a conservative. Face it, deal with it, quit this denial. There's nothing wrong with being a conservative. ;) Embrace the power of the dark side11!11!!

But then again these terms, liberal and conservative, are pretty much meaningless. I can't even keep them straight. Is a desire for small government liberal? Small government means more freedom, especially economically, so that seems 'liberal.' On the other hand, these days 'liberal' seems to mean the opposite. So thats the problem with making generalizations about "liberal lies," "liberal media" etc - because for everyone complaining about the "liberals" there's someone complaining about "conservative" biases. It's all a stupid game, and I wish everyone could refrain from being tempted into playing it. We all spend time bashing words that may or may not refer to... well, anyone and everyone. Meanwhile ignoring the real issues, no?

And I KNOW you can't really think that anyone for whose interest it is to lie about Roberts is "liberal." Life doesn't work like that. Even if "liberal" meant anything.

I'm just rolling around in Eutrusca's amazing centrism. Seriously, if you were any more center, I'd go insane. You just have this talent to present highly biased stories with no spin. How do you do it?

I don nott know. Certainly those filthy Liberals must be a terrible bunch though to inflame a centrist so terribly. Teach us O great Centrist!

Liberals need to back off of this guy. He's conservative, but he could be a lot more of a rightwing christian nutcase, and I think he's about the best they are going to get.

Liberals need to back off of this guy. He's conservative, but he could be a lot more of a rightwing christian nutcase, and I think he's about the best they are going to get.

Something that Leahy (A DEMOCRAT) alluded too.

RUM ROMANISM AND REBELLION - Democrats declare that catholics need not apply to the Supreme Court .

I guess Democrats should disavow all connection to the Kennedy family too.

Democrat critics of Roberts also believe that white men have no right to adopt needy children from overseas. How dare you open your heart for charity when those kids should be left to starve in a brothel in Guatemala! Democrats - just like Karen Walker from Will&Grace - willing to jail an immigrant so she can go free.

Read the democrat accusations here. (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com)

RUM ROMANISM AND REBELLION - Democrats declare that catholics need not apply to the Supreme Court .

I guess Democrats should disavow all connection to the Kennedy family too.

Democrat critics of Roberts also believe that white men have no right to adopt needy children from overseas. How dare you open your heart for charity when those kids should be left to starve in a brothel in Guatemala! Democrats - just like Karen Walker from Will&Grace - willing to jail an immigrant so she can go free.

Read the democrat accusations here. (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com)

You have a little spittle there......

No no, that's just where your mother french kissed me in bed. In the past your kind baited blacks, jews and catholics.. now it's noob baiting. the older more known member accuses a newbie of being a rabid flaming idiot and tries to get him banned..
Please refer yourself for moderation. I wont waste my time on your inferior accusations.

Yeah, well you ARE a conservative. Face it, deal with it, quit this denial. There's nothing wrong with being a conservative. ;) Embrace the power of the dark side11!11!!
Add your flammage to the list: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176

No no, that's just where your mother french kissed me in bed.

Knock it off or I'll report you myself.

Knock it off or I'll report you myself.


Just the example I wanted.

Democrats should disavow all connection to the Kennedy family too.
They can't. Most of them are Teddy's illigitimate children. :D

Just the example I wanted.

What? For calling your flame? Sorry!

Better that I exit for a day than stay and argue.

No no, that's just where your mother french kissed me in bed. In the past your kind baited blacks, jews and catholics.. now it's noob baiting. the older more known member accuses a newbie of being a rabid flaming idiot and tries to get him banned..
Please refer yourself for moderation. I wont waste my time on your inferior accusations.

Well newbie.

Reread your post and tell us its not a tad on the rabid side.

The flaming idiot part is your interpretation.

Even this responce gets a :rolleyes:

Go ahead and report me. The moderation board is for that.

You want acceptance. At least spew with out generalizations......

Add your flammage to the list: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176
What's "flammage" supposed to be? Sounds like a dessert topping.

What's "flammage" supposed to be? Sounds like a dessert topping.

Actually I want to know what's with that link. Seems entirely unconnected tothe fact he's a closet conservative.

What's "flammage" supposed to be? Sounds like a dessert topping.
For you, it probably is! :D

Actually I want to know what's with that link. Seems entirely unconnected tothe fact he's a closet conservative.
Add your flammage to the list: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176

mmmmmmm....flammage with pie....mmmmmmmm

Add your flammage to the list: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176

Wow. Forrest sure has a broad definition of "flammage." So far the practical meaning is "anything that calls me on my self-proclaimed Centerism." Maybe he's trying to make it a NationState catchphrase like "Don't Have a Cow Man" or "Isn't that Special?"

Not to mention it's ironic that a Nam vet who probably been through a couple of napalm strikes is constantly crying about being "flammaged" online with this attention-getting gimmick.

:rolleyes:

Wow. Forrest sure has a broad definition of "flammage." So far the practical meaning is "anything that calls me on my self-proclaimed Centerism." Maybe he's trying to make it a NationState catchphrase like "Don't Have a Cow Man" or "Isn't that Special?"
:rolleyes:
If you try to call him conservative in the nicest way possible, you can count on being flamed by him and then have Zooke come in out of nowhere and side with him.

If you try to call him conservative in the nicest way possible, you can count on being flamed by him and then have Zooke come in out of nowhere and side with him.
I think Zooke is really Eutrusca in a dress and hair-curlers.

And Eutrusca's centrism rises to the fore once again.
If you excuse the title

Oh you're an abortion rights supporter?

= liberalNot necessarily. I support abortion rights, gay rights and euthanasia, but in other regards I am anything but liberal, and get quite irritated when people refer to me as such.

Add your flammage to the list: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176

I think I have a valid question, tell me if I'm wrong: When someone questions your centrism, why do you consider it to be a flame?

I think it is a valid question when someone who claims to be a centrist attacks the "left" so much.

I think Zooke is really Eutrusca in a dress and hair-curlers.


Great now you're gunna give me nightmares :P

As to the issue of the article, I'm going to defend NARAL here. Roberts argued for a very narrow interpretation of a very broadly drawn law while defending Operation Rescue and that piece of dirt Randall Terry.

Members of Operation Rescue have advocated and participated in violent acts against abortion clinics and the workers in those clinics, in violation of both state and federal law. This isn't MLK and the civil rights movements agitating nonviolently for enforcement of laws--this is a bunch of thugs using violence and intimidation and illegal methods to stop people from carrying on legal and protected conduct.

Roberts sided with this group, which included convicted bombers, in a case before the Supreme Court. NARAL's ad is factually correct, and the Annenberg School ought to be ashamed of the shitty job that factcheck.org did in its so-called analysis.

"Mr. Roberts's image then appears, superimposed on a faint copy of the brief he signed in the 1991 case. "Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber," the narrator's voice says. The spot concludes by urging viewers to: "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.""

I dont see how these are lies.

"Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber,"

His court briefs supported the legal right of these protesters to be out there, protesting. Indirectly, he is supporting violent fringe groups, and unless he is really out of touch, he realized that this is true. Yet he went forward with the brief. This leads into the next part.

"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."''

Now, it would be unfair to say his ideology alone lead him to support this case, for the protesters. Quite possibly, he believed in the legal precedent. But its also unfair to say that his personal dislike of abortion didnt come into play. At the least, I would guess he took the case, at least a good amount because he was glad with what the protesters were doing(probably not the killings, but the general meaning).

The only real untruth in the thing was excusing violence. The case didnt seek to do this, though indirectly, helping the protesters stay out, and even feel justified by law, could lead to more bombings, killings, etc.

Its a low-blow, but not lies. Misinterpretations at worst, mostly truth at best.

By the way, Eutrusca, I'll try to say this in the nicest way possible. You need to get off-edge. Anyone makes any comment toward you any way, even in a nice and non-derogatory manner, and you consider them flamers. You also seem convinced the "liberal mob" is after you, trying to pick on a disabled, old vietnam vet. And then you post things like this, or in threads like the 1984 + 21 thread, refusing to even argue, because you simply assumed the "liberals" in the thread would not listen, and consider themselves your intellectual superiors.

Again, im not trying to flame you, but I think that you may need to go to a therapist, or something similar. You seem convinced that everyone is against you, that any comment given to you is meant to be derogatory. At least, take a break off the forums, or go on vacation, or something similar. And really consider the intent of peoples messages toward you.

By the way, Eutrusca, I'll try to say this in the nicest way possible. You need to get off-edge. Anyone makes any comment toward you any way, even in a nice and non-derogatory manner, and you consider them flamers. You also seem convinced the "liberal mob" is after you, trying to pick on a disabled, old vietnam vet. And then you post things like this, or in threads like the 1984 + 21 thread, refusing to even argue, because you simply assumed the "liberals" in the thread would not listen, and consider themselves your intellectual superiors.

Again, im not trying to flame you, but I think that you may need to go to a therapist, or something similar. You seem convinced that everyone is against you, that any comment given to you is meant to be derogatory. At least, take a break off the forums, or go on vacation, or something similar. And really consider the intent of peoples messages toward you.
How long has it been since you've had a smoke, Eutrusca? Are you still dealing with withdrawals? I agree with Chellis--you seem really edgy and short-tempered and defensive lately.

And conservative rhetoric begins. Sigh.

Roberts is a person just like any one of us: a horrible human being. I just happen to think he's horrible in the horrible sense of way. Sortof like when you go to cook hamburger meat, but it's already gray, and you throw it out because that's just disgusting.

They can't. Most of them are Teddy's illigitimate children. :D
lol, all the Democrats are the spawn of Teddy!

lol, all the Democrats are the spawn of Teddy!

50m plus? Wow, I dont even have that much sperm ^_^

Great now you're gunna give me nightmares :P
Don't worry, it's just psychological leftovers from when he was bucking to get out of Vietnam with a Section 8! [/MASH reference]

Don't worry, it's just psychological leftovers from when he was bucking to get out of Vietnam with a Section 8! [/MASH reference]


LOL!!! Would it be flammage if we started calling Eutrusca "Clinger"?

LOL!!! Would it be flammage if we started calling Eutrusca "Clinger"?
lol, I don't think so as long as it's all in good fun. :D

And it's Klinger, I believe.

lol, I don't think so as long as it's all in good fun. :D

And it's Klinger, I believe.

Can I be Hot Lips? Oh wait, I'm a guy.

Dammit now he will never answer my quesiton because we have moved to a new page with our sillyness.

Can I be Hot Lips? Oh wait, I'm a guy.


Guess that would make you Klinger as well

Guess that would make you Klinger as well
Yeah. What you said.

BTW. Yeah, that's Tink! ( http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/manchester%20madness/exports/tink%20lurves%20sinuhue.jpg)

Yeah. What you said.

BTW. Yeah, that's Tink! ( http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/manchester%20madness/exports/tink%20lurves%20sinuhue.jpg)


omg you get all the fine bitches! :p

I <3 Sinuhue too!

Oh and no matter which MASH character I would want to be, I'm Radar all the way.

Not necessarily. I support abortion rights, gay rights and euthanasia, but in other regards I am anything but liberal, and get quite irritated when people refer to me as such.

That's the point. When people are labelled (dismissed) as "liberal" or "conservative," every viewpoint they have on every issue, every opinion they may have, is ignored. It pigeonholes everyone into one of a very few warring camps just to make it easier to root for your own 'team' and bash the other with little need for thinking. I'm pretty much against that whatever the term in question is.

Add your flammage to the list: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176
Wow. Having read that-well. I'm not going to type what I was gonna. But-Wow.

As you can see, there are a few posters on General who have decided that a disabled, old, Vietnam veteran is unworthy to post in their pristine forum. I predict more of this same thing as time goes on.

I truly believe there is a small group that would love to see me gone for those very reasons. Perhaps I'm just getting paranoid in my old age.

Since there are more of them than there is of me, if I report them nothing will happen. If I respond in kind, I will get banned. I suppose my only option is to just say nothing and let them continue to harrass me. Not a very good choice for an old military type.

and then-

It's nice to see that not everyone on NS has become a whinning, whimpering, victimized little wimp!
I really thought you'd be making this harder to do as time went on...


So, I don't want victimize you or anything-so I won't point out your complacency with sperious attack ads by previous conservative groups that had actual 0 degree seperation from the actual presidential campaign, or that bodies like factcheck.org refute the notion you've painted here of this being a 'liberal' thing.

I don't want to wound such a sensitive soul. Perhaps I'll just gently suggest that you take a more centralized look at the process?

Add your flammage to the list: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176

Ummm that confuses me. Did I flame anyone? Or am I supposed to report someone flaming? Nothing to do with what I posted? :confused:

Ummm that confuses me. Did I flame anyone? Or am I supposed to report someone flaming? Nothing to do with what I posted? :confused:

Eutrusca's feeling got at, don't worry.

I swear, I think Eutrusca's just having an extended nic-fit. Maybe he's just unplugging for a bit in order to deal with it, which I heartily encourage. Anything to keep him from taking up the cigs again.