| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/29/2008 04:24:40 PM · #601 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I found an interesting comment here;
I think you guys here are no fun to argue with as I agree with most of your conservative, hummer driving, gun toting, liberal bashing views. I go to liberal threads and stir the pot. Preferably international liberal threads where the lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist outnumber us conservatives. One needs a thick skin in there. |
1. Why would you post this?
2. Are you offended by this post?
3. If you are offended, why are you offended? What specific words are offensive?
4. Have you read all my posts here on DPC and in Rant?
5. Are you aware that I have argued against atheists, gays, socialists, liberals, lefties and Obama?
6. Are you making a specific insinuation? If so say it?
If you want to search the internet for my posts - simply ask me for the sites I visit. At least place them into context. What is your opinion of Obama going to San Francisco and discussing those Pennsylvanians who cling to religion and guns while pandering to the liberal lefties? Is that acceptable?
Since you seem interested in my posts - here is another posted on the Hummer site from a participant who is a bit more left:
[i]Quote:
Originally Posted by h3hummerVA
I feel like I should have to be a republican to own a hummer. Thats just not right!
Reply:
The fact that others than "republicans" own Hummers is (imo) a good thing. The question becomes "why" do you own the Hummer? You must be aware of the "stigma" associated with it and the preception it denotes about you as a vehicle owner, so either you disagree with some the tenets of the democrats and drive the H out of spite, or you have a real NEED for the capabilities of this particular machine and thus overlook the stigma and perception or you are really a republican but just don't know it yet .
Seriously, I think anyone can drive whatever they like. It does seem that most Hummer owners lean towards the conservative side. However as I do not agree with every part of the platform - I do pretty much support the ideas that mans impact on Global warming are minimal at best and I am far from the platform of restricting the 2nd amendment and I do think that fur and meat are viable options in apparrel and dinnerfare - respectively. Lastly, my preference is for lower taxes not more social support for those that won't help themselves, and smaller rather than larger government - which pushes me towats the republican side. I do have issue with some on the right who want to interfere with a couple of women's choice issues, but overall, I'd say I lean quite a bit more right. I think most H owners do. Why else would they drive such an icon of individualism. A vehicle that only Harley owners surpass as one that gets personalized and customized. There won't be an identical H3 to mine on the streets/trails. Nor a Road King either. I like it that way. Like nothing else.
Please feel free to respond. |
Would you care to explain these adjectives about DPCers?
"..lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist"
It doesnt speak too highly of a senior member like you.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:33:05 PM · #602 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Would you care to explain these adjectives about DPCers?
"..lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist"
It doesnt speak too highly of a senior member like you. |
1.They are descriptive of those I argue with most. If you need me to list the usernames of those here in Rant that consistently defend the left - liberal - athiest - gay - pro Obama positions I guess I could.
2. Are you claiming that they are inaccurate? |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:38:09 PM · #603 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Would you care to explain these adjectives about DPCers?
"..lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist"
It doesnt speak too highly of a senior member like you. |
1.They are descriptive of those I argue with most. If you need me to list the usernames of those here in Rant that consistently defend the left - liberal - athiest - gay - pro Obama positions I guess I could.
2. Are you claiming that they are inaccurate? |
It is ok for everyone to have their own opinions and reservations. But how can you generalize these attributes to all those who defend the left?
Lets go one by one since you like things organized. Name just one DPCer per category for each adjective below, and then bring your proof. You said it, so you prove it:
[1] Athiest. Name of the DPCer and proof.
[2] Gay. Name of the DPCer and proof.
Then link these proofs to them being liberal.
Can you?
Message edited by author 2008-10-29 16:41:24.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:41:48 PM · #604 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Would you care to explain these adjectives about DPCers?
"..lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist"
It doesnt speak too highly of a senior member like you. |
1.They are descriptive of those I argue with most. If you need me to list the usernames of those here in Rant that consistently defend the left - liberal - athiest - gay - pro Obama positions I guess I could.
2. Are you claiming that they are inaccurate? |
It is ok for everyone to have their own opinions and reservations. But how can you generalize these attributes to all those who defend the left?
Lets go one by one since you like things organized. Name just one DPCer per category for each adjective below, and then being your proof. You said it, so you prove it:
[1] Athiest. Name of the DPCer and proof.
[2] Gay. Name of the DPCer and proof.
Then link these proofs to them being liberal.
Can you? |
Prash, with all due respect, this is a silly line of argument to proceed down. I'm a lefty, I'm agnostic (probably worse than an atheist in Flash's view), I'm straight (but I support gay-rights), and I support Obama. So what. Flash is welcome to be as bitter at the world as he wants, wherever he wants.
ETA: Oops, I forgot socialist. I'm not really a socialist, although I think some things do better in a socialist environment, while others do better in a free market environment.
Message edited by author 2008-10-29 16:44:14. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:49:20 PM · #605 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Would you care to explain these adjectives about DPCers?
"..lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist"
It doesnt speak too highly of a senior member like you. |
1.They are descriptive of those I argue with most. If you need me to list the usernames of those here in Rant that consistently defend the left - liberal - athiest - gay - pro Obama positions I guess I could.
2. Are you claiming that they are inaccurate? |
It is ok for everyone to have their own opinions and reservations. But how can you generalize these attributes to all those who defend the left?
Lets go one by one since you like things organized. Name just one DPCer per category for each adjective below, and then being your proof. You said it, so you prove it:
[1] Athiest. Name of the DPCer and proof.
[2] Gay. Name of the DPCer and proof.
Then link these proofs to them being liberal.
Can you? |
Prash, with all due respect, this is a silly line of argument to proceed down. I'm a lefty, I'm agnostic (probably worse than an atheist in Flash's view), I'm straight (but I support gay-rights), and I support Obama. So what. Flash is welcome to be as bitter at the world as he wants, wherever he wants.
ETA: Oops, I forgot socialist. I'm not really a socialist, although I think some things do better in a socialist environment, while others do better in a free market environment. |
Thanks. But it really is like Fox news when people just blurt things out with no facts.. or if there are facts, twist them. Everybody has a right to believe in what they want. It is just not good moral practice (even if it is legal) to twist truth around in light of one;s own prejudices. Another example: I am still waiting for a response on this one. Typical example. People just run away when faced with facts. It is very easy to grasp what suits one as truth and spread it; but very hard to gather true information and analyze it, and then communicate it.
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
[quote=Prash] Apparently there is no restriction on a media house that would stop it from distorting or morphing a 'news' to suit other motives. Or else FOX wont be in business. |
For those with short memories, FOX was the channel that was kept from being born by the major networks and it was only after years of litigation that they even got on the air. Then other countries successfully banned them (for a time) and in markets like Canada and the UK, they are increasing viewership as more and more people see for themselves that FOX is the only news organization that consistently offers more than one side to a story and goes out of their way to present the opposing view. Even Hannity has a Colmbs. But the vitriol against FOX is large and trying to convince many here of these facts is like spittin' in the wind. It really matters not in the grand scheme of things - viewers have gravitated towards FOX because of what FOX presents. That speaks for itself. People have a choice to turn on a multitude a channels. More are turning to FOX for their news than any other channel. Must be something in the water. An Obama presidency will likely increase FOX's viewership even more. A trinity of Obama, Reid and Pelosi with a filibuster proof Senate will likely send the viewership through the roof. |
I just did a quick google search on 'Why is FOX News so popular". Here are the answers I got (and these are NOT from the FOx-bashing websites as towards the end I will share the source too) :
"My feeling is that Fox news is popular because it knows its target audience and it does a good job of catering to its target audience. The real innovation behind Fox news is that they've turned the conventional wisdom of neutral and balanced news on its head. Instead of neutral and balanced news, they skew and color their news stories to appeal to a right wing point of view."
"...Fox viewers watch longer for the opinion and personality-driven programming. Because the smaller total number of Fox viewers are watching more hours, they show up in the ratings as a higher average number of viewers."
"...They know how to appeal to the general public. They stir controversy for the sake of controversy and they have hosts who air strong and divisive opinions. "
"...I watch Fox news because they're entertaining. They have fun and wacky characters who make the news fun. You can't get any more wacky than Bill OReilley."
"I ONLY watch Fox News. I feel that they have a great staff that is good with entertaining their audience."
Ok now... how many times did you read 'fair' or 'true' or 'impartial'?? And counter them now with the terms 'fun', 'entertaining', 'wacky', 'controversy'??
A news channel doesnt need to be fair to be popular. Most people want entertainment, and Fox knows the recipe.
That doesnt meant they are fair with reporting the true facts!!
I wonder how you will justify all this (and these are not my words either..it comes from the common folks like you and me.. here is the source). Or perhaps you will just IGNORE this post and continue with the others that you CAN answer with facts? |
|
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:54:52 PM · #606 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Prash, with all due respect, this is a silly line of argument to proceed down. I'm a lefty, I'm agnostic (probably worse than an atheist in Flash's view), I'm straight (but I support gay-rights), and I support Obama. So what. Flash is welcome to be as bitter at the world as he wants, wherever he wants.
ETA: Oops, I forgot socialist. I'm not really a socialist, although I think some things do better in a socialist environment, while others do better in a free market environment. |
Thanks. But it really is like Fox news when people just blurt things out with no facts.. or if there are facts, twist them. Everybody has a right to believe in what they want. It is just not good moral practice (even if it is legal) to twist truth around in light of one;s own prejudices. |
Well, what Flash said was:
Originally posted by Flash's Quote as quoted by BeeCee:
Preferably international liberal threads where the lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist outnumber us conservatives |
Honestly, that's probably true, if not very delicately put. Most threads I've encountered Flash in, he's been outnumber by people who would seem to support the left, atheism, gay rights, and Obama. Socialism might be a stretch, but maybe not. What Flash should probably be more concerned about is that beyond these threads, he's probably outnumbered in the world at large if not yet in the US.
Message edited by author 2008-10-29 16:55:38. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 04:56:13 PM · #607 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I found an interesting comment here;
I think you guys here are no fun to argue with as I agree with most of your conservative, hummer driving, gun toting, liberal bashing views. I go to liberal threads and stir the pot. Preferably international liberal threads where the lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist outnumber us conservatives. One needs a thick skin in there. |
1. Why would you post this?
2. Are you offended by this post?
3. If you are offended, why are you offended? What specific words are offensive?
4. Have you read all my posts here on DPC and in Rant?
5. Are you aware that I have argued against atheists, gays, socialists, liberals, lefties and Obama?
6. Are you making a specific insinuation? If so say it?
If you want to search the internet for my posts - simply ask me for the sites I visit. At least place them into context. What is your opinion of Obama going to San Francisco and discussing those Pennsylvanians who cling to religion and guns while pandering to the liberal lefties? Is that acceptable?
Since you seem interested in my posts - here is another posted on the Hummer site from a participant who is a bit more left:
[i]Quote:
Originally Posted by h3hummerVA
I feel like I should have to be a republican to own a hummer. Thats just not right!
Reply:
The fact that others than "republicans" own Hummers is (imo) a good thing. The question becomes "why" do you own the Hummer? You must be aware of the "stigma" associated with it and the preception it denotes about you as a vehicle owner, so either you disagree with some the tenets of the democrats and drive the H out of spite, or you have a real NEED for the capabilities of this particular machine and thus overlook the stigma and perception or you are really a republican but just don't know it yet .
Seriously, I think anyone can drive whatever they like. It does seem that most Hummer owners lean towards the conservative side. However as I do not agree with every part of the platform - I do pretty much support the ideas that mans impact on Global warming are minimal at best and I am far from the platform of restricting the 2nd amendment and I do think that fur and meat are viable options in apparrel and dinnerfare - respectively. Lastly, my preference is for lower taxes not more social support for those that won't help themselves, and smaller rather than larger government - which pushes me towats the republican side. I do have issue with some on the right who want to interfere with a couple of women's choice issues, but overall, I'd say I lean quite a bit more right. I think most H owners do. Why else would they drive such an icon of individualism. A vehicle that only Harley owners surpass as one that gets personalized and customized. There won't be an identical H3 to mine on the streets/trails. Nor a Road King either. I like it that way. Like nothing else.
Please feel free to respond. |
Hmmmm, when you post it in that manner and in that venue, I'd say that those terms could be viewed as derisive and pejorative.
If you support fiscal responsibility and smaller government, how can you support the Republicans, especially the current administration, which has done nothing but spend freely on the national credit card and bloat the government to Brobdignagian proportions?
You say you support lower taxes, but the problem is that the Republicans have been spending and not collecting taxes, racking up huge debt. We, as a country cannot continue to gimp along like some irresponsible college studentt with his first Visa card making only the minimum payents forever while continuing to rack up irresponsible debt. Eventually that debt will need to be paid through taxes. The question is was it a better use to invade a sovereign nation to line the pockets of big corporations and the wealthy or would that money have been better put to use by helping people here at home. You do realize that for the money we, as a nation, will have spent in Iraq, we could have ELIMINATED homelessness and hunger here at home twice over?
Such a waste of resources. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 05:14:01 PM · #608 |
Originally posted by Flash:
5. Are you aware that I have argued against atheists, gays, socialists, liberals, lefties and Obama?
6. Are you making a specific insinuation? If so say it? |
Bigotry is evil. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 05:20:21 PM · #609 |
| How does one argue "against gays", or any of those, anyway? "I have argued against gays." Sounds tragically bigoted to me. Something to be ashamed of, not something to crow about. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 06:00:21 PM · #610 |
Originally posted by Louis:
How does one argue "against gays", ......?...... |
Gay: "What nice weather we're having this weekend. It sure is nice out."
Slippy: "No it isn't."
Gay: "Yes it is."
Slippy: "No it isn't."
Gay: "Yes it is."
Slippy: "No it isn't."
Gay: "Yes it is."
Slippy: "No it isn't."
Gay: "Yes it is."
Slippy: "No it isn't."
Gay: "Yes it is."
Slippy: "No it isn't."
Gay: "Yes it is."
Slippy: "No it isn't."
Gay: "Yes it is."
Slippy: "No it isn't."
Gay: "Yes it is."
Slippy: "No it isn't."
Gay: "Yes it is."
Slippy: "No it isn't."
Gay: "Yes it is."
|
|
|
|
10/29/2008 06:07:11 PM · #611 |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 06:09:33 PM · #612 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Would you care to explain these adjectives about DPCers?
"..lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist"
It doesnt speak too highly of a senior member like you. |
1.They are descriptive of those I argue with most. If you need me to list the usernames of those here in Rant that consistently defend the left - liberal - athiest - gay - pro Obama positions I guess I could.
2. Are you claiming that they are inaccurate? |
It is ok for everyone to have their own opinions and reservations. But how can you generalize these attributes to all those who defend the left?
Lets go one by one since you like things organized. Name just one DPCer per category for each adjective below, and then bring your proof. You said it, so you prove it:
[1] Athiest. Name of the DPCer and proof.
[2] Gay. Name of the DPCer and proof.
Then link these proofs to them being liberal.
Can you? |
Well, count me in! :D I am:
[1] Atheist
[2] Straight, but pro-gay rights
[3] Supporter of some socialized programs such as health care (but to be accurate, I'm not fully a socialist).
[4] Liberal
[5] Lefty, well, now that just seems redundant with #4
[6] Obama Supporter
Regarding the bigotry label I just noticed below... I don't believe arguing for or against the above necessarily makes someone a bigot. Heck, I argue against religion from time to time and I believe the world would be better off without religions, but I have no problem tolerating the religious views of those around me and I cherish their right to hold those views. Bigotry is a tough word that should be used for people who are truly intolerant of the views of those around them imho. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 06:39:16 PM · #613 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Lastly, my preference is for lower taxes not more social support for those that won't help themselves... |
I've always wondered why people, Christians in particular, are so scared of helping someone who doesn't deserve it if it means lots of people who do deserve it get aid? |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 06:41:31 PM · #614 |
Originally posted by JMart:
I have no problem tolerating the religious views of those around me and I cherish their right to hold those views. |
Therein lies the difference. "A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable." |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 06:41:47 PM · #615 |
Originally posted by Prash:
[1] Athiest. Name of the DPCer and proof.
[2] Gay. Name of the DPCer and proof.
|
Well, I never! I can't believe you would even insinuate that we have either of those groups represented on this fine, upstanding site! |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 06:49:02 PM · #616 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Prash:
[1] Athiest. Name of the DPCer and proof.
[2] Gay. Name of the DPCer and proof.
|
Well, I never! I can't believe you would even insinuate that we have either of those groups represented on this fine, upstanding site! |
Exactly. But that is what this person was getting at. He was ready to prove that his statement about DPCers ...
"..lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist"
..is correct. How narrowminded !!! My point is that it is just a big prejudice to categorise people like this without knowing them personally or contextually. I took offense in that.
Message edited by author 2008-10-29 18:50:58. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 06:55:09 PM · #617 |
Originally posted by Prash:
"..lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist" |
Didn't he just mean Louis? ;) |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 07:08:13 PM · #618 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Prash:
"..lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist" |
Didn't he just mean Louis? ;) |
:-)
Actually I should have checked his profile out first. With only 10 challenges entered in past 5 years, it doesnt show photography being his main interest on a Digital Photography Challenge website. Furthermore, all of his recent contributions belong to 'RANT' section of the forum. Another one to ignore.
Message edited by author 2008-10-29 19:15:23. |
|
|
|
10/29/2008 07:17:03 PM · #619 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Flash:
Lastly, my preference is for lower taxes not more social support for those that won't help themselves... |
I've always wondered why people, Christians in particular, are so scared of helping someone who doesn't deserve it if it means lots of people who do deserve it get aid? |
Taxes will eventually have to be raised to pay off the debt. There's no way around that. The question I have for Republicans who are also Christian is why is it better to support a $3 Trillion war that killed tens, if not hundreds of thousands and was unnecessary to begin with vs spending a portion of that to house the homeless or end hunger.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2008 08:17:31 PM · #620 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Flash:
Lastly, my preference is for lower taxes not more social support for those that won't help themselves... |
I've always wondered why people, Christians in particular, are so scared of helping someone who doesn't deserve it if it means lots of people who do deserve it get aid? |
I've always wondered that too. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 01:04:39 AM · #621 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I found an interesting comment here;
|
1. Why would you post this?
2. Are you offended by this post?
3. {snip} |
1. I can't answer for BeeCee as to why she posted this link, but I'm glad she did. It is interesting because it reveals the way you speak (i.e., write) when you aren't camouflaging your prejudices with pseudo-reasonable language.
2. At first I was slightly offended by the tone of easy ignorance: your insistent pairing of liberalism with socialism, for example, and that highly original way you call liberals "whiny." The liberals and democrats in these forums have been anything but whiny, but I guess you can't read them as otherwise when you see everything through Coulter-colored glasses. Furthermore I'm annoyed that you admittedly come to DPC to be a shit-stirrer. Seeing your forum post count (as compared to, say, your number of photo comments) is further evidence of this, and I really wish there was a way to block you and the other kooks who exclusively use their registrations for this purpose. Since that's not an option, I guess to "mostly ignore" you is the best course of action.
PS: No paper trail, no democracy. Any updates on the reports of miscalibrated voting machines in W.Virginia giving early votes to McCain that were meant for Obama?
Message edited by author 2008-10-30 01:12:22. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 01:26:26 AM · #622 |
My question is: What will be this election's version of the hanging chad?
Message edited by author 2008-10-30 01:26:44. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 02:58:28 AM · #623 |
While I usually refrain from the world of political discussion, I just couldn't help this one.
Message edited by author 2008-10-30 02:59:13.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:29:24 AM · #624 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I found an interesting comment here;
I think you guys here are no fun to argue with as I agree with most of your conservative, hummer driving, gun toting, liberal bashing views. I go to liberal threads and stir the pot. Preferably international liberal threads where the lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist outnumber us conservatives. One needs a thick skin in there. |
1. Why would you post this?
2. Are you offended by this post?
3. If you are offended, why are you offended? What specific words are offensive?
4. Have you read all my posts here on DPC and in Rant?
5. Are you aware that I have argued against atheists, gays, socialists, liberals, lefties and Obama?
6. Are you making a specific insinuation? If so say it?
If you want to search the internet for my posts - simply ask me for the sites I visit. At least place them into context. What is your opinion of Obama going to San Francisco and discussing those Pennsylvanians who cling to religion and guns while pandering to the liberal lefties? Is that acceptable?
Since you seem interested in my posts - here is another posted on the Hummer site from a participant who is a bit more left:
[i]Quote:
Originally Posted by h3hummerVA
I feel like I should have to be a republican to own a hummer. Thats just not right!
Reply:
The fact that others than "republicans" own Hummers is (imo) a good thing. The question becomes "why" do you own the Hummer? You must be aware of the "stigma" associated with it and the preception it denotes about you as a vehicle owner, so either you disagree with some the tenets of the democrats and drive the H out of spite, or you have a real NEED for the capabilities of this particular machine and thus overlook the stigma and perception or you are really a republican but just don't know it yet .
Seriously, I think anyone can drive whatever they like. It does seem that most Hummer owners lean towards the conservative side. However as I do not agree with every part of the platform - I do pretty much support the ideas that mans impact on Global warming are minimal at best and I am far from the platform of restricting the 2nd amendment and I do think that fur and meat are viable options in apparrel and dinnerfare - respectively. Lastly, my preference is for lower taxes not more social support for those that won't help themselves, and smaller rather than larger government - which pushes me towats the republican side. I do have issue with some on the right who want to interfere with a couple of women's choice issues, but overall, I'd say I lean quite a bit more right. I think most H owners do. Why else would they drive such an icon of individualism. A vehicle that only Harley owners surpass as one that gets personalized and customized. There won't be an identical H3 to mine on the streets/trails. Nor a Road King either. I like it that way. Like nothing else.
Please feel free to respond. |
*shrug* Actually I Googled "Awareness Associates LLC" because I was curious but all I found was forum threads so I popped into one at random. I still didn't learn what "Awareness Associates LLC" is, but it doesn't matter because it was just idle curiosity born out of boredom one late evening.
Not particularly offended, no. You've already shown here how you feel but you put it into such nice, succinct terms there that it pretty much wraps up your opinion without you needing to say more.
"5. Are you aware that I have argued against atheists, gays, socialists, liberals, lefties and Obama?"
Fully aware, but that's also not what you said there. "the lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist" is one entity as you describe it, not "gayS, socialistS," etc.
There IS a difference, as others have already pointed out. (And you forgot to add the whiners to your list, btw.)
In closing, thank you for your kind permission to post. I have, and now I'm off to learn in the photography-related threads :)
|
|
|
|
10/30/2008 09:04:46 AM · #625 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Prash:
"..lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist" |
Didn't he just mean Louis? ;) |
:-)
Actually I should have checked his profile out first. With only 10 challenges entered in past 5 years, it doesnt show photography being his main interest on a Digital Photography Challenge website. Furthermore, all of his recent contributions belong to 'RANT' section of the forum. Another one to ignore. |
He loves us and cannot get himself to leave the company of such great freethinking liberal minded people, he only wishes he could be so.
Doc, shame on you for saying that. ;] |
|
