Advertise here: Contact FM.

The Godless Left
August 26, 2006 5:56 PM Subscribe

Liberals 'Crush Dissent' because they are sinful, and shouldn't be elected because they would legislate sin. Is this type of insanity due to the ever more depressing polls for the Republicans, or are we at the start of a larger, longer cultural war in this country?
posted by UseyurBrain (69 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

Not just liberals, but any non Christian, according to Harris.
posted by delmoi at 5:58 PM on August 26, 2006

Jesus - you don't even have to read the article, just look at dude's photo, and you know he's a douchebag.
posted by stenseng at 5:58 PM on August 26, 2006

Further, "Yes, DAMN those Liberals - controlling both houses of congress, the Executive, and the Judicial, as well as most of the corporate media, to propagate their intolerant, god hating, fag loving, flag burning ways!"
posted by stenseng at 6:02 PM on August 26, 2006

pot... kettle... black
pisss and moan
posted by edgeways at 6:02 PM on August 26, 2006

Only the "conservatives" could take over the world, fuck it up, and then still find some way to blame it on the left.
posted by stenseng at 6:02 PM on August 26, 2006

Katherine Harris says separating religion and politics is `wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.'
Of course, she really needs to believe that at this point, since it must be becoming apparent even to her that the electorate ain't gonna vote her in...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:15 PM on August 26, 2006

These four bills would require that in every classroom from kindergarten through high school perverse sexual activity be praised and highlighted in a positive light. They would require textbooks, many of which would then also be produced for other states beyond the borders of California, make positive references to the ideas of men putting on women's under things. They would restrict school districts from being able to bar females from displaying dildos on the outerwear of their prom dress. And in functional sexuality courses from K-12, they would require positive explanation of the merits and instruction of anal intercourse.

Do people actually stay awake at night, worrying that maybe someone will put a dildo on her prom dress? Has anyone ever done that?
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 6:18 PM on August 26, 2006

The text of one of the bills mentioned (SB 1437) can be found here. Does anyone know or can someone find the other three bills he seems to be referring to in this "article"?

I think the guy might be distorting, just a weee little bit?? <sarcasm> But I guess he's got a book to promote hey?
posted by bdragon at 6:22 PM on August 26, 2006

Do people actually stay awake at night, worrying that maybe someone will put a dildo on her prom dress?

Not only that, but they stay up worrying that someone will put a dildo on his prom dress.
posted by TedW at 6:23 PM on August 26, 2006

[IMG]
posted by Jimbob at 6:28 PM on August 26, 2006

... are we at the start of a larger, longer cultural war in this country

It doesn't help that we have an administration that exploits and actively fosters the polarity at every turn.
posted by madamjujujive at 6:36 PM on August 26, 2006

I will believe there is a culture war in this country when I see battling in the streets. Until then, what we have here is a culture "disagreement".
posted by 1adam12 at 6:39 PM on August 26, 2006

Exactly right madamjujujive. A man who hoodwinked conservatives into thinking he was a "unifier not a divider" has been one of the most divisive in long memory. Strange that he nor his brother has come to the aid of his comrade in arms. Certainly they believe everything she says, no?
posted by Eekacat at 6:41 PM on August 26, 2006

In conclusion, "Order your copy of Kevin's hot new book, 'The MuscleHead Revolution,' now!"
posted by yeti at 6:43 PM on August 26, 2006

Rob Corddry?
posted by grabbingsand at 6:43 PM on August 26, 2006

We are at war with culture. We have always been at war with culture.

1790: The Novel
"The free access which many young people have to romances, novels, and plays has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth; and prevented others from improving their minds in useful knowledge. Parents take care to feed their children with wholesome diet; and yet how unconcerned about the provision for the mind, whether they are furnished with salutary food, or with trash, chaff, or poison?"
- Reverend Enos Hitchcock, Memoirs of the Bloomsgrove

1816: The Waltz
"The indecent foreign dance called the Waltz was introduced ... at the English Court on Friday last ... It is quite sufficient to cast one's eyes on the voluptuous inter-twining of the limbs, and close compressure of the bodies ... to see that it is far indeed removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered distinctive of English females. So long as this obscene display was confined to prostitutes and adulteresses, we did not think it deserving of notice; but now that it is ... forced on the respectable classes of society by the evil example of their superiors, we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion."
- The Times of London, 1816

1909: Movies
"This new form of entertainment has gone far to blast maidenhood ... Depraved adults with candies and pennies beguile children with the inevitable result. The Society has prosecuted many for leading girls astray through these picture shows, but GOD alone knows how many are leading dissolute lives begun at the 'moving pictures.'"
- The Annual Report of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 1909

1926: The Telephone
"Does the telephone make men more active or more lazy? Does [it] break up home life and the old practice of visiting friends?"
- Survey conducted by the Knights of Columbus Adult Education Committee, San Francisco Bay Area, 1926

Quotes from this Wired article
posted by blahblahblah at 6:45 PM on August 26, 2006 [8 favorites]

Wall Street Evil + Middle American Dumbassery = GOP
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:02 PM on August 26, 2006

Katherine Harris says separating religion and politics is `wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.'

Man, Katherine Harris is Katherine Harris Crazy, dawg.
posted by Hypnic jerk at 7:02 PM on August 26, 2006

Woah. Some halfwit internet columnist and a failing Senatorial candidate say a few asinine things and we're on the cusp of a new, longer culture war?

Careful of that bar; it's set so low, you might trip over it.
posted by felix betachat at 7:03 PM on August 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

Felix said it. Incidentally, I tried to restrain myself, but given that the quotes I posted above are about reactions to new cultural technologies, they demand it:

Metafilter: Confined to prostitutes and adulteresses
Metafilter: Breaking up home life and the old practice of visiting friends
Metafilter: Trash, chaff, or poison
Metafilter: Gone far to blast maidenhood

I feel better.
posted by blahblahblah at 7:09 PM on August 26, 2006

Democrat Party to make Satan Worshipping the official religion of the US

Liberals to ban heterossexual marriage

Left to ressurect Stalin via stem cell research and install him as president of the US

Pot smoking to be made compulsory to everyone (including children)

You know it could happen. Vote Republican.
posted by qvantamon at 7:14 PM on August 26, 2006

Man, God is an *idiot*. Good thing he doesn't run the universe, or anything like that.
posted by uosuaq at 7:17 PM on August 26, 2006

Yes, not having curricular materials that identify gay and bisexual people as horrible inverts is opening the door to dildo prom dresses.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:28 PM on August 26, 2006

2010: Dildo Prom Dresses

2020: Dildo First Communion Dresses
posted by yeti at 7:32 PM on August 26, 2006

Metafilter: Opening the door to dildo prom dresses.

...

sorry
posted by sparkletone at 7:43 PM on August 26, 2006

These viewpoints are rather extreme. How many people agree with any of them? I come closest to Bistrup's take on things, but some of his ideas are way out there.

It's interesting that Bistrup thinks that TV in particular serves to dissolve the traditional barriers of geography. Of all the forms of mass communication, it seems like the most susceptible to patriarchal hegemony.
posted by owhydididoit at 7:46 PM on August 26, 2006

posted by delmoi at 7:55 PM on August 26, 2006

What, no RJ Rushdoony links?
posted by blucevalo at 8:03 PM on August 26, 2006

Liberals are actively undermining First Amendment rights to free speech by trying to crush opposing views.

Growing ever bolder in their naked grab for power they are leaving scorched earth behind those who disagree with them. This is why Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller no longer find themselves included in the modern Democratic Party.

Scorched earth? I think that he makes the Democratic party sound a little more macho than I see them.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:31 PM on August 26, 2006

[Liberals] are a stubborn and sinful people – people that are bent on reshaping a utopia that God did not design and one that will never exist.

And that would be OK, but they also wear women's under things and put dildoes on prom dresses. That's where I draw the line.

BTW, wouldn't something have to exist in order to be reshaped?
posted by c13 at 8:42 PM on August 26, 2006

" U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is ``a lie' and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be ``a nation of secular laws.'"

If God is omnipotent then how could something he didn't want come to be? I suppose you could say the devil got in there and changed it...but that means the devil is approximately as strong as God. Unless the devil is just part of the plan, then we're back to where we started, and therefore God did plan for the US to be a nation of secular laws.

Anyway, what I think is that this woman is a heretic and worshipping a false God. She's set up a God that's weaker than the US constitiution.

That's not the real God. That's like calling God a pussy. She called God a pussy! She's a heretic and should be burned at the stake! Burn the witch!
posted by nyxxxx at 9:54 PM on August 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

Fascists love the idea of a culture war. Whether it be Conservatives vs. Liberals or Americans vs. Muslims, it makes no difference. The idea is to encourage peoples' worst instincts and get them to forget that we all want more-or-less the same things. It's the best way to distract people from the fact that you're robbing them blind and ultimately disempowering them.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:20 PM on August 26, 2006 [2 favorites]

I don't have the link, but I saw recently an article where the writer was complaining about the religious left 'making up' sins like destroying the environment rather than being suitably outraged over real sins like homosexuality.
posted by UseyurBrain at 10:41 PM on August 26, 2006

He doesn't look very muscular... Still, I think posts where we make fun of those with mental disabilities are in poor taste.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:06 PM on August 26, 2006

Harris is one damn scary-looking woman, to my eyes at least. I think she might be reptilian, along with Laura Bush and Condi Rice.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:49 PM on August 26, 2006

But nyxxxxxxxx, what if God used his omnipotence to give all his power to Katherine Harris? Then what? Huh?
posted by notswedish at 4:46 AM on August 27, 2006

"If God is omnipotent then how could something he didn't want come to be?"
Wow.. what a thought provoking question.

"Fascists love the idea of a culture war."
There is a culture war, and it's looked for by all people capable of thought.

"Harris is one damn scary-looking woman, to my eyes at least. I think she might be reptilian, along with Laura Bush and Condi Rice."
Yeap, uglier than your down syndrome mother.
posted by econous at 5:14 AM on August 27, 2006

Breaking: NASA to ask congress for 5.2 billion to place Christian Cross on the moon.
posted by Unregistered User at 6:23 AM on August 27, 2006

"What is happening to our young people these days?
I see a deterioration of values that worsens with every passing year."
- Baltasar Gracian, 1658
posted by Happy Monkey at 8:02 AM on August 27, 2006

just look at dude's photo, and you know he's a douchebag.

I was going to say vampire.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:11 AM on August 27, 2006

Another small article.

Highlight:

Assemblymemer Mountjoy stated his opposition to the bill, saying “It’s a good thing that Adoph Hitler was not a homosexual or we couldn’t say anything negative about him.”
posted by Stauf at 8:16 AM on August 27, 2006

It is an advantage to conservatives that people buy into the "culture war."

For further reading.
posted by whimsicalnymph at 9:19 AM on August 27, 2006

And furthermore, get off my lawn.
posted by ninjew at 9:38 AM on August 27, 2006

McCullough is not trying to win any new converts, so to speak. When he slanders California Democrats by calling them "wildly anti-American, anti-God and anti-biblical leftists," you know that he's not trying to change any minds, he's trying to reinforce existing political divisions.

That said, here's my attempt at countering his arguments. He seems reticent to actually name the four bills that would supposedly "incarcerate someone for daring to criticize a different point of view." I can find three pieces of legislation that superficially cover the topics that have McCullough so upset:

SB 1437: "School instruction: prohibition of discriminatory content."
SB 1441: "Discrimination: state programs and activities: sexual orientation."
SB 1471: "Sex education programs: requirements."

SB 1437 would outlaw public school educational activities and materials that "reflects adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion." It's amending existing anti-discrimination law to include sexual orientation, and nothing more.

SB 1441 would outlaw denying "full and equal access" to state services "on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability." McCullough claims that "its actual purpose is to cripple any state resources such as fire or police protection for any religious institution – i.e., a Bible-based church – that would in any way demonstrate negative 'doctrine' or 'propaganda.'" Quite the opposite, actually - SB 1441 would require equal service regardless of religious viewpoint.

SB 1471 mandates that all sexual education or sexual health programs funded by the state follow rules like "All information shall be medically accurate, current, and
objective" and "The program content shall be age appropriate for its targeted population." It even mandates that they teach "the only certain way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases" and "unintended pregnancy is to abstain from sexual intercourse." Sounds like it should appeal to religious sexual obsessives like McCullough, right? Unfortunately for him, it also mandates that "the program shall not teach or promote religious doctrine" and "it shall provide information about the effectiveness and safety of all drugs and devices approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration for preventing pregnancy, including, but not limited to, emergency contraception."

So where does the bit about preventing "school districts from being able to bar females from displaying dildos on the outerwear of their prom dress" come from? I can only conclude that McCullough is either making it up or he really believes that requiring sex-ed to be medically accurate will lead to "perverse sexual activity."

One final note - there's a falsehood being repeated by fundamentalist Christians across the country, seemingly in the hope that it will become accepted common wisdom. In McCullough's words, "Without Judeo-Christian morals, there would be no society in place today that would have allowed freedom of speech." This astonishing bit of fantasy is easily countered with two facts:

1. America is founded on Enlightenment principles, not nebulous "Judeo-Christian morals." Many of the first Americans fled repressive religious regimes in Europe. That's why we have freedom of religion - "because Baptists and other evangelicals had been persecuted and harassed by the majority faiths" in their countries of origin.

2. Religions, including Christianity, consistently oppose freedom of speech, because freedom of speech is threatening to religion's claim as the sole authority on truth. Examples include the persecution of Galileo, the Spanish Inquisition, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," witch hunts, and countless others.
posted by LightStruk at 9:57 AM on August 27, 2006

Culture war. No.

A former majority losing power and control wanting to make sure they maintain power and control (i.e. conservative white people in America) and finding any possible way to do it. Yes.
posted by smallerdemon at 10:21 AM on August 27, 2006

Won't somebody please think of the children?!!
posted by Navelgazer at 11:00 AM on August 27, 2006

Harris is a joke, but her comments are part of a vast unveiling (un-closeting?) of attitudes and prejudices long held and previously unstated publicly in recent years--from this to the racist shit absolutely everywhere to all the anti-gay shit--with all of the media as willing propagator, where they weren't in the past.
posted by amberglow at 11:42 AM on August 27, 2006

Jesus Is Not a Republican
posted by homunculus at 12:58 PM on August 27, 2006

"make positive references to the ideas of men putting on women's under things"....... "under things" ?? Go on man you can say it. There is no shame in saying underwear .

I believe that when Jesus returns He will, if asked, refer to womens undergarments as bra and panties. probably.
posted by kingzog at 1:41 PM on August 27, 2006

Thanks for the link, homunculcus. That article gave me some hope that things might change, and from within the religious right itself.
posted by jokeefe at 2:26 PM on August 27, 2006

amberglow: could it be reaction to the rapid progress in rights made these past two or three decades? Everything seems to go in circles or swing like a pendulum: one decade we're all free love, the next we're wrapping our willies; one decade we're open offices, the next it's cubicle city.

One decade we're finally getting our heads around black equality and getting pushed on accepting sexual cultures, the next decade we're back to old-school attitudes.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:38 PM on August 27, 2006

One of the bills goes a step further. Its actual purpose is to cripple any state resources such as fire or police protection for any religious institution – i.e., a Bible-based church – that would in any way demonstrate negative "doctrine" or "propaganda." So if an arsonist (who also just happened to be a radical activist) decided to burn down a church that was in their view teaching the faithful interpretation of Scripture as it relates to sexual practice, then the local fire company could be barred from assisting in the recovery and protection of said facility.

That's insane. Does he actually believe that's what the law would do, or is he lying through his teeth? I don't know which one makes him sound dumber.
posted by EarBucket at 4:50 PM on August 27, 2006

i don't think so, fff--these aren't new attitudes at all and never went away--it's the prominent media attention to them that's new--David Duke's shit was never mainstreamed and propagated like all this shit now is--even Pat Robertson and other religious figures never had the opportunity to spout all their nonsense all the time all over the place. People like Ann Coulter were never as visible on tv in the past--Buchanan was the most extreme tv would go, and he held back all the time. Part of it is outrage as entertainment, and part of it is the mighty wurlitzer where whoever has the support of the GOP and their organizations gets on every tv show and radio and newspaper no matter what or how extreme. We haven't made any advances in years in terms of real rights, and studies show that we're backsliding fast---schools are more segregated, communities are more segregated, affirmative action is dead or dying in many areas, faith-based funding has taken resources away from traditional social service organizations and given it to those who discriminate, realistic and useful information is less available from government (esp in terms of medical and health issues), entertainment is more segmented and fragmented with less overlap (there are no shows that match in the top 10 for blacks and the top 10 for whites anymore, unlike in the 80s, etc)...
posted by amberglow at 4:57 PM on August 27, 2006

ARGH! Listen. LISTEN!!! REMEMBER!!!!

Being Christian DOES NOT EQUAL the Religious Right.

There are quite a few liberal Christians out there who do NOT oppose free speech, who support the separation of Church and State, etc. etc. I'm one of them. And I know a ton of them.

Sorry for the rant. I've written letters and shouted and yelled until I'm hoarse, but no one seems to be listening to the Christian Left. It doesn't fit the all too convenient stereotype. And I'm tired of being lumped in with the stupid, so-called Religious Right. Because I believe that the Christian Right is neither right nor Christian.
posted by jeanmari at 7:43 PM on August 27, 2006 [1 favorite]

Ahhhh! I see what you mean, amberglow: it's part of an overall increase in freedom of expression.

We're hearing more from the social primitives like O'Reilly and Coulter, sure. Would never have happened a few decades ago.

But there's the flipside, too: Family Guy, Heather Has Two Mommys, NYPD Blue, and the internet and so on.

The advancement of our collective freedoms and rights cuts both ways: good and bad both get more voice.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:22 PM on August 27, 2006

Time to start addressing the issue of fraudulent churches, then, jeanmari. Time to start calling out the scum televangelists and creepy megachurches, time to name them for what they are. Time to make their parishoners understand how they are being mislead and lied to.

that's gonna fall on deaf ears--because they disassociate themselves from people like Harris and Reed, and Robertson and Falwell and Dobson and all the many many others --"Because I believe that the Christian Right is neither right nor Christian." --they don't feel it's their problem nor their responsibility. The rest of us clearly know they don't listen to us, and we're the ones most at risk from it all--we look to Christians to rein in the hateful psychos who act in all their name to change our laws and society and shut out all of us who aren't as they are.
posted by amberglow at 9:36 PM on August 27, 2006

Maybe someday they'll clean their house, because it is their house and their brothers and sisters who are hurting this country in many ways.

Harris only stated what many of them believe-- and her audience loved it--are they all not Christians either?
posted by amberglow at 9:39 PM on August 27, 2006

Jesus Is Not a Republican
posted by homunculus at 3:58 PM EST on August 27 [+] [!]

From that link:

Rod Parsley, pastor of World Harvest Church, in Ohio, issues swords to those who join his organization, the Center for Moral Clarity, and calls on his followers to "lock and load" for a "Holy Ghost invasion."

Lock and load for a holy ghost invasion.

Whoa. I so want a t-shirt that says that.
posted by Skygazer at 10:02 PM on August 27, 2006

It's hard to Google, because this guy's column is republished on websites all over the place, but I had to look up the quote that Kevin McCullough attributes to Kevin Nunez:

Perhaps that's why this week in one of the boldest moves yet by a sitting liberal, Democrat California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez proclaimed, "The real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system."

He continued, "The way you correct a wrong (perspective) is by outlawing. 'Cause if you don't outlaw it, then people's biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view."

McCullough uses the quote again as the basis for his argument:

Speaker Nunez's view to "outlaw traditional perspectives" is shocking in its blunt regurgitation.

I thought the quote was very odd. Who talks like that? Why would a Democratic senator say something like "the real purpose… is to outlaw traditional perspectives?" It sounds like something a paranoid right-wing group would say.

Surprise surprise! It is something a paranoid right-wing group said. Continuing in the vein of "blunt regurgitation", the bulk of McCullough's column seems to have been lifted from this press release from the Campaign for Children and Families, producer of such unbiased reporting as "the transsexual activists want your children." CCF's original press release editorializes:

In his opening remarks, Democrat Fabian Nunez, the Assembly Speaker and the bill’s floor jockey, openly said the real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system. “The way that you correct a wrong is by outlawing. ‘Cause if you don’t outlaw it, then people’s biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view,” Nunez said.

Apparently, that just wasn't inflammatory enough for McCullough, so he put quotes around CCF's description, reattributed it to Nunez, added the word "perspective" to the second quote, and used his "reimagineered" quotation as the structural foundation for his article.

Put it all together, mix it up with wildly inaccurate descriptions of a few bills, and BOOM!—Democrats are incarcerating dissenters, affixing dildos to prom dresses, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together—mass hysteria.
posted by designbot at 9:25 AM on August 28, 2006

As a Christian and a liberal, I find myself in the position in which I have placed so many moderate Muslims. I have said in the past that if Muslims do not want to be profiled as terrorists they need to stand up and take their religion back from the extremists. I guess I'm rapidly being put into that position. As a result, I realize how unfair my challenge to my liberal Muslim counterparts is. You can't have a logical discussion with those who accept the illogical. The rational cannot argue with the irrational. I believe that the Christian fundamentalist is every bit as dangerous to this country and the world as the Islamic fundamentalist. I just don't know how to start trying to change this. I don't think my liberal Muslim counterparts do either.
posted by waltb555 at 10:05 AM on August 28, 2006

walt, they're far far more dangerous--there are millions of them and they're already here and influencing our government and laws and society and freedoms and rights--and not for the better.
posted by amberglow at 10:38 AM on August 28, 2006

I believe that the Christian fundamentalist is every bit as dangerous to this country and the world as the Islamic fundamentalist.

Not only that, the distance between Christian fundies and Muslim fundies is less than the distance between fundies and libs regardless of the macro-classification (speaking broadly, imo of course.)
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:54 AM on August 28, 2006

The bottom line is this:

Those of us who are non-religious have no real ability to influence the direction your religions take. There aren't enough of us to have any effect and, anyway, religionists generally take no note of what we say.

Which means you religious folk are going to have to belly-up to the bar and demand change.

The religious extremists must be publicly identified as a scourge on our society. They must be marginalized. They must be removed from positions of power. They must be painted as the true fools and lunatics they are.

In short, it must become as publically unacceptable to be a fundamentalist/extreme religionist as it is to be a communist, nazi, terrorist, etc.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:04 AM on August 28, 2006

Speaking of Moderate Muslims: The largest Muslim organization in North America has elected its first female president - a watershed that the group says signals support for women leaders throughout their community.

Ingrid Mattson, a Canadian convert to Islam and an Islamic law scholar at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, was elected to lead the Islamic Society of North America just ahead of its annual convention, which starts Friday in Rosemont, Ill. ...
posted by amberglow at 2:31 PM on August 28, 2006

"The gates of hell are prevailing against the church"
posted by UseyurBrain at 9:10 PM on August 29, 2006

What "Christian" means to the Christianists--... I'm pretty sure that she really meant was that among the people the rest of us call "Christians," only the born-agains should be elected.

The people the rest of us call "born-agains" or "fundamentalists" or "the religious right" don't usually refer to themselves in those terms. Sometimes they call themselves "evangelicals," but more usually they call themselves simply "Christians." That's not to say that they don't sharply distinguish themselves from mainstream Protestantism; it means that they consider themselves the only true Christians. ...
posted by amberglow at 1:53 PM on August 30, 2006

Then we need to start calling them extremists and, should they start again with the abortion clinic bombings and the like, call them terrorists.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:21 PM on August 30, 2006

« Older We Shall Not Be Moved: Some joined the US military... | We shall not be trilled... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

The Godless Left August 26, 2006 5:56 PM Subscribe

The Godless Left
August 26, 2006 5:56 PM Subscribe