The New Republic

That's one thing that annoys me about conservatives is that when you bring up something like Glenn Beck's promotion of right-wing loon W. Cleon Skousen, they counter with Bill Ayres, Van Jones or Jeremiah Wright, as if they had equivalent influence in the body politic. They've lost all sense of proportion.

- zardoz67

September 18, 2009 at 5:02pm

Now, I am semi pro anti-anti racism on most days; but occasionally I get a true inkling into the mind of a professional conservative intellectual and that dissolves into an anti semi pro antinomy instead. I become as hopelessly ambivalent then as when I contemplete the paradox of discovering a Theory Of Everything that accommodates both free will and the hard determinism of the crack head materialists. Just like you, right? Brooks is obviously a dignified conservative. After all, we view him regularly on the News Hour; and he almost qualifies to comment on racism with Gwen Ifill on Washington Week. Public television would never allow George Will, Pat Buchanan or Bill Kristol to discuss race, would they? Well, excepting Charles Krauthhammer's appearances on Inside Washington. But that's almost a political cartoon when Kolby and Chuck go at it. So, we are honor bound to respect Brooks's intellecual integrity. And while I was saddened to find Brooks regaling us with his jog around Washington's segretgated hotspots in today's Times Op-Ed, it was rather touching when he brought us all back once again to Rodney King's America. Thanks, Dave. gw

- iambiguous

September 18, 2009 at 6:45pm

that is right zardoz, I am sick of all this false equivalency. Republicans keep trotting out ancient Sen. Byrd and his Klan days as evidence that Democrats are hypocrites, neverminding the fact that Byrd has long since repented (Christian forgiveness being only for Republicans who sleep with prostitutes and are caught at it).

- blackton

September 18, 2009 at 7:30pm

When David Brooks repeated this on NPR yesterday, E. J. Dionne politely pointed out evidence of racism behind the opposition to Obama. I do wish he had called him out on the Father Coughlin comparison. Why conservatives want to rehabilitate such a hatemonger is beyond me.

- zardoz67

September 19, 2009 at 9:44am

I heard that NPR piece, too, and I believe I might have exclaimed aloud in amazement when Brooks offered the precedent of Father Coughlin as somehow disproving a racist element to these protests. I was also annoyed (Zardoz has it exactly right) when Brooks said that the Beck/Limbaugh "10%" of the population were equally matched by the conspiracy-theory Left. Who was it that organized these beloved-of-the-Republican-mainstream protests in DC, again? If Glenn Beck were serving in a Republican administration, would Van Jones or Jeremiah Wright be able to get him to resign?

- frippo

September 19, 2009 at 2:06pm

I don't think it's really fair or accurate to pro rate the right-wing nut element against the left-conspiracy loopies and call the result zero, but I can see how many would think that was ok. But what always strikes me is the degree of intense and personal antipathy and hatred on the right. Yes, there's a kind of diffuse animosity toward "the system" or whatever on the left fringe, and certainly figures like Cheney provoked digust, but the degree of virulent hatred for the person of the president -- who, whatever your politics, seems to be an equable, balanced, and indeed very American kind of guy -- among a section of the opposition is quite shocking and scary.

- ironyroad

September 19, 2009 at 2:16pm

Let us suppose that Mrs Clinton were President: do you doubt that we would now be hearing the same noise but with an anti-feminist tinge? Mr Edwards would be drawing insults about his foreign language skills. The most plain vanilla candidate you can imagine would be attacked for speaking too elegantly, or wearing too nice suits, or preferring mustard on his hamburgers. People take what they are given and build from it. So yes...it's racism. But you'd be hearing the same attacks with the same nasty tone no matter who was President. Same church; different pew.

- AlanK

September 19, 2009 at 11:02pm

It's clear to us all, some conservatives are racist. It's clear to independants, and should be to progressives, some blacks are racist. I'd say, count up the signs at last weekend's rally-then find the ones which are racist-there's your percentage. But, please, don't count the ones with communists, Hitler, socialism, etc. as racist-go back into your video archives and witness the fascist, Hitler, brownshirt..............and the death to Bush.........signs and chants during the prior administration. Remember, many of your senior politicians said similar, if not exact, things. It's an error to say that the tone of the political debate today is worse or more dangerous than during much of Bush's administration-it's probably because you think those protests and disagreements were correct. What was Pelosi's comment all about-if you're looking for unintentionally hilarious political moments: with that sadly face-lifted veneer, she feigns emotion regarding the deaths of Moscone and Milk. She claims that the frenzied political whirlwinds of the time led to the violence. Problem is, you and she know that's a complete and utter lie. Senator Feinstein has said: if she hadn't been on vacation the 3 weeks before the murders, she's confident she could have calmed Dan White down, homophobia had nothing to do with the murders and she has Dan White's diary, indicating Dan was angry about not being re-appointed as a Supervisor and worried about his finances. Where's the vast right wing conspiracy through cable news and radio fanning the flames? This, as much, is simply politics. Which, counter to the Liberal meme (it will hurt the GOP), it will actually assist the GOP. When progressives find racism where it doesn't exist-or intentionally exaggerate it's influences, they lose some of the middle. When progressives allege that anger about where America's current position -both with high unemployment and with Obama's desire to control more and more of our income and decisions-are largely just dumb or silly people (just listen to your liberal pundits-Ed, Rachel, Stephanie), not unlike Obama's comment is SF-they ignore some of the middle. Jimmy Carter has been, and continues to be, a fool. I can't find anyone on the left who listens to this guy, at all. It's sad to see a guy who's done some good, still bitter about how his presidency ended and is viewed, inserting himself-far beyond any former president-into the current political scene. He can let Obama handle it. Clinton has sat on the sidelines. The attention needs are too much. Ed, please defend ACORN for us. No, Ed, his point was most, if not all, of last weekend's protesters are not racist and are not driven by racial animus in opposing Obama. We all know a few-an insignificant minority-are racist. That's it. You can be cute boy, quasi-intellectual boy, or whoever you wish to be. As I asked-count the signs, be fair, and give us the numbers.

- lobosven

September 20, 2009 at 10:16am

"the death to Bush.........signs and chants during the prior administration. Remember, many of your senior politicians said similar, if not exact, things." Any evidence for this ludicrous assertion, lobo? Or do you just let your fingers do the typing?

- ironyroad

September 20, 2009 at 1:11pm

Donna Brazille, today, called the racists on the right, a "small fringe". Go argue with her. A call for evidence-sadly, my man, either your memory is short, selective or just downright pathetic. During one Bush speech, CBS news runs a logo at bottom "Sniper's Wanted" Sen. Kerry says: "I could have gone to 1600 Penns. Avenue and killed the real bird with one stone." Sens. Byrd, Gore and Glen compared Bush, or his policies, to Nazis or Brownshirts. You really don't remember the ant-Bush rallies and signs? They were just like the 9/12 demonstration-but more and angrier: Bush with Hitler mustache, pictures of socialists/facists with Bush added, buring of Bush effigies. I made a call for evidence: YouTube last weekend, count the signs, then count the racist signs. Rare. What's sad and rather silly, the left's belief that on the right hardens the discourse, personally attacks the other or makes stupid comments. As indicated, Jimmy Carter's comments was plain stupid-he said overwhelming majority of demonstrations/disagreements is race related. I don't think you could find a black spokesperson to say that. Then, Ms. Pelosi (is there any weirder politician in America today?), alleged right wing discourse led to deaths of Moscone and Milk (remember, Bill Clinton said same thing about Oklahomo City bombings). She's so wrong it's sick-just ask her colleague, Diane Feinstein, who, I think, was first person on the scene. So, let's all calm down. Let's stop poking fingers. Let's all stop telling lies.

- lobosven

September 20, 2009 at 3:53pm

You know what lobo, you're new around here (or you seem to be) so I'll set it out for you once more in plain English: Either provide evidence that "senior politicians" in the Democratic Party called for the death of President Bush, or apologize for your utterly ludicrous, moronic, and disgusting remark. Simple.

- ironyroad

September 20, 2009 at 5:01pm

Lobo says, "Jimmy Carter's comments was plain stupid-he said overwhelming majority of demonstrations/disagreements is race related." That's not accurate. He said he believes "an overwhelming portion [not overwhelming majority] of the intensely demonstrated animosity [not demonstrations/disagreements] toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man." There is a vast difference between saying that the overwhelming majority of the opposition to Obama's policies is race-related (which neither Carter nor any other responsible commentator has said) and that an overwhelming portion of the intense animosity toward Obama as a person is race-related.

- dhurtado

September 20, 2009 at 8:51pm

I've quoted Kerry quote as he made it. I've quoted Byrd, Gore and Glen comments as I've read them. Funny, you clowns can say whatever you want without challenging for evidence, but, the new guy must arrive with books, magazines, cites, etc. What difference is overwhelming majority (that means 50% plus a lot) and overwhelming portion (which, must be 50% plus a lot also). Whatever, he says over half of protestors or their motivations are racist. Silly at best. No one, though, responds to Donna Brazille's comment this morning on TV-did I make this up also? The guy who takes the ad hominum pot shots-you've revealed two things-the limit of your intelligence (quite small) and the strength of your arguments (quite weak). Jousting with you girlie men is like stealing candy from a baby. Remember these two things: 33% of Democrats believe that Bush administration had active role in planning and implementing 9/11 attacks (must be proud of those colleagues) NYU graduate students did a simple poll: asked 4 questions, how many (not which ones) do you support (things like national health care, etc.), to two groups, Dems and Gopers......then......same poll, with 5th question, do you support a black candidate for presidency. Guess what-Democrats were less likely to support a black candidate for presidency that the GOPers. So, as I've asked in NR for the last few days, where ar the real racists? I'd enjoy an intellectual exchange with any of you. but if you're home, sipping the progressive coolaid, and wish to attack me personally-go ahead. My memory is long about the insanities practiced by the left and the right-they're roughly equal-none better, none worse. You have your buffoons (Biden) we have ours (Palin). You have your hypocrits (Rangel, Dodd) we have ours (the recent sex fiends). I will say that Obama, ostensibly, is the most intelligent of the post WWII presidents. However, as a former lawyer, I see the obtuse, caveated, shifty style that most Ameicans can't stand-oh, and yes, that's what he was formerly trained as and taught for so long. I've wished for an expansive and robust economy for nearly 2 years now-knowing, full well, that such recovery will ignite support for Obama and you progressives. I wonder, if shoe was on other foot, if you'd be so gratious. Bring the facts, and the arguments, not the crap, and we'll have fun. Otherwise, whether I'm new or not, I have the facts and the arguments and maybe, just maybe, that's way too much for you. Later.

- lobosven

September 20, 2009 at 9:25pm

So, lobo, as you refuse to either support with evidence the ugly assertion you made, or to back off and admit to having said something dumb (which can happen to any of us in the heat of the moment), I conclude that (a) you are not able to back up your accusation and (b) that you haven't even the sliver of self-respect that might encourage an apology for the slur. The next logical step is to identify you as an ignorant blowhard and a liar. With the greatest respect.

- ironyroad

September 20, 2009 at 9:48pm

Ok, ironyroad, tell me how you want be to cite my evidence for the Kerry quote and the Gore/Bryd/Glen references. I will provide within 24 hours. Here's what I find most interesting about you-if you are indeed a progressive: First, you say it's incredible to you "the degree of intense and personal antipathy and hatred on the right". Then, when someone disagrees with you and provides historical facts-you start saying: ludicous, moronic and disgusting (you're simply wonderful with the modifiers-the longer the list-the more powerful your argumetn) and then ignorant, blowhard and a liar (for less than what Obama actually lied about in his speech on healthcare of which I counted at least 13). who's intensely personal in their antipathy and hatred? Me, the rightie, or you? You know what, ironheadroad-it's just not worth it. I do know this from psychology-most of the time, taunts like the above from you are most amptly assigned to you. think about that one, silly boy. Later.

- lobosven

September 20, 2009 at 10:29pm

Ironhead road, here are my cites, both from National Review (providing exact quotes and context when necessary): Victor David Hanson, blog, 9/14/09 Jay Nordlinger, article, 9/21/09 It's all there for all of you to see. I suppose, now, you can say: well, it's National Review, they're from the right, they lie all the time, so we can't trust anything written. If that's your take, let me know, then we can all go home. Love you man.

- lobosven

September 20, 2009 at 10:45pm

Lobo, I agree that the ad hominem attacks are not productive, and you will note that I did not level any ad hominem attacks. However, don't you think "girlie men" is an ad hominem epithet? (Actually, I don't necessarily think there is any thing wrong with being a "girly man," but there is no doubt that you mean that as an insult.) But back to the facts: A "portion" is not necessarily a "majority," whether or not it is "overwhelming." More importantly, the distinction between those who oppose Obama's policies (of whom Carter was not speaking) and those who are expressing intense hostility to Obama as a person (of whom he was speaking) is vast. The latter is a very small subset of the former. As to Donna Brazile's comments, she did indeed say that a small fringe of protestors are racist, and she also said that responsible leaders should denounce it. So what's your point? That her estimate of the extent of the racism is smaller than Carter's? That her estimate is more reliable because she is black? Let's keep in mind that her perspective on the matter is colored by how she thinks Obama should respond to it as a matter of governance. But in any event, even Brazile does not think the issue should be ignored. Now your turn. You say that "33% of Democrats believe that Bush administration had active role in planning and implementing 9/11 attacks." You provide no citation for that statement. The notion that 33% of any group consisting of tens of millions of people believes that is preposterous on its face. So provide us the source of that statement so that it can be evaluated. You also say that a poll by NYU grad students showed that "Democrats were less likely to support a black candidate for presidency tha[n] the GOPers." Again, can you provide a cite for that asssertion? If you want to have an "intellectual exchange," you cannot expect the readers here to accept those assertions at face value without having an opportunity to evaluate the source and the methodology employed. That said, who cares whether Democrats or Republicans are more likely to be racist? If racism persists, it needs to be addressed regardless of party affiliation.

- dhurtado

September 20, 2009 at 11:00pm

Lobo, you stated: ""the death to Bush.........signs and chants during the prior administration. Remember, many of your senior politicians said similar, if not exact, things." Unless you're claiming now that I misunderstood your comment, I took this to mean that you were asserting that "senior [Democratic] politicians" had in similar language called for the death of President Bush. As it's a remarkably serious thing to suggest that anyone in public life, let alone a U.S. Senator, called for the death of a president, I asked you to supply evidence. In response, you quoted John Kerry in some contextless situation expressing a well known and commonly used idiom that means taking care of two objectives at once. You also claimed a national TV network ran a banner calling for the president's death (which you now appear to have dropped). You mentioned other names (Sen. Byrd et al) in connection with Nazi/Hitler comparisons, which is irrelevant as I was asking how they were meant to have called for the president's death. Let me break this to you gently: to quote someone quoting someone is not evidence. Somebody's opinion on something is not evidence. Even if you didn't like John Kerry or his politics or both, it's beyond the borderline of insanity to suggest that John Kerry would call for the murder of George Bush (I take it that's what you mean, murder/assassination). Finally, to call someone out on a lie, or even ugly groundless bullshit, is not an ad hominem argument. I'm not saying that your comment was evil because you in particular made it. I'm saying that it would be evil no matter who made it.

- ironyroad

September 20, 2009 at 11:47pm

I've given you sources for the comments regarding Bush and the dissenters for his 8 year term. I understand you'd like me to cite everything-but none of you do-I guess you simply trust others of similar political ideas. Fine. All I can tell you is I'm a strong conservative-but spend over 70% of my time listening to, watching and reading progressive material. Regarding the NYU study-it's on the Internet, find it. Kerry was on Bill Maher's show, Maher asked what John had gotten his wife for birthday, John said they went to Vermont. Maher said: "You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone." (NH being on early primary state). John said: "or I could have gone to 1600 Penns. and killed the real bird with one stone". This is not unique with John, in 1988 he "joked" "Somebody told be the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot they're going to shoot Quayle." The Carter thing can go a bunch of ways: One, he's saying that some small group of dissenters are really racist. I've already agreed with this. Then what is purpose of his comment? Two, he's saying most of the dissenters are motivated by racism. That's how all of the pundits took it-namely your pundits-and how I took it. You have pundits saying they agree with him-most of the teabaggers (what kind of sick name is that for the dissenters?). My point has been: Many Americans are racist-spanning Dems (probably the most), Repubs and blacks The dissenters have a myriad of issues with Obama and his administration, the smallest of which is his color The overwhelming majority of the dissenters are not racist Yes, of course, out the racists so they can't pollute our society My other point, the Democratic leadership's pathetic attempt to castigate the dissenters as teabaggers, astroturfers, idiots, racists, etc. causes me deep concern-some of their tactics (horrible signs) were invented by the left during the Bush years. More important, though, is Nancy Pelosi's attempt last week to say that some horrible violence will result from this moment of anger. First, where was she when the left was hanging Bush is effigy, calling him a fascist, booing him at the 2005 State of Union address-well, nowhere (hypocrit). Second, she's dead wrong about her example-the Moscone/Milk murders (a liar?-you tell me). Finally, the 33% figure, is from a poll. It may shock you-you can't believe it-you must believe it's made up.........but it's not. Note, after Reagan proposed missle defense, a poll identified 66% of Americans in disbelief-they noted that the US already had a missle defense shield. Here's what's most annoying about you guys: you count the number of angels dancing on a pin (to no avail, as no one cares), you make allegations without proof (but ask anyone who disagrees for proof-they provide it-you still ask for it), you deny anything which isn't consistent with your worldview and then most of you attack the messenger. Of course I drop some amusements-girlie man and others-to see what you all are really about. Funny thing, as a close observer of your tactics, I can write your responses for you. So, please, stop drinking the coolaid, open your minds to the vast and massive evidence in the real world which unfortunately shatters your closely held beliefs and grow up. Really. Grow up.

- lobosven

September 21, 2009 at 1:50am

And this exchange completely illustrates my point. Conservatives have to flail about to find leftist examples. Liberals just have to tune in Beck or Limbaugh and take notes. For example: http://obamaisamonkey.wordpress.com/

- zardoz67

September 21, 2009 at 9:53am

Lobo, I will let the other posters here address the issues they have been discussing with you. My original post was to point out that you were not accurately representing Jimmy Carter's comments. My evidence for that was the comments themselves, which, as you know, can be seen/heard on Youtube as well as elsewhere on the Internet. Your response to that is to insist that "overwhelming portion" is necessarily the same as "overwhelming majority," and to ignore the fact that the base group Carter was talking about (whether or not "portion" means "majority") is not all dissenters to Obama's policies, but only those who have been expressing "intense hostility" to Obama himself. Surely it is not your position that the latter group constitutes a majority of dissenters to Obama's agenda. You say you took Carter to be saying "most of the dissenters are motivated by racism." Well, let's assume that "overwhelming portion" means "most." That is not an unreasonable interpretation even if it is not the only possible interpretation. But from whence do you derive "of the dissenters"? Carter was speaking of those who are expressing "intense hostility" toward Obama. If Carter was saying that the majority of dissenters to Obama's policies are racist, then I strongly disagree with him. But that is not what he said, whether or not pundits on either side of the aisle purported to take it that way. You and I both know that the pundits at MSNBC and FOX are interpreting these things in a manner that suits their respective agendas. So perhaps we can stipulate that there is some minority of Obama-haters that is motivated by racism or other bigoted attitudes, and that they ought to be called on it. You, me, Carter, Donna Brazile and others are bound to disagree about how large or small the minority is, based at least in part on our own experiences and sensibilities, and, yes, on our own ideological predilections. But setting that aside, perhaps we can agree, and I am going out on a limb here, that the minority is large enough to be potentially dangerous and that it should be spokent to. I am not really interested in the left/right, Democrat/Republican shoot-out because I do not idenfity with either side. But it is nevertheless an extraordinary proposition that a signficant number people of any political stripe would openly admit to a pollster that they would not vote for a black presidential candidate, or that 33% of a political party consisting of tens of millions of people believe that Bush conspired to cause 9/11 to happen. You certainly do not expect me or anyone else to take that at face value without being presented with the evidence. Your statement that it was the result of a poll is not evidence. The details of the poll itself would be evidence, but it would be evidence that should be subjected to scrutiny. Polling is a science and it can be done in a way that methodologically sound or methodologically flawed. It can also be done in a way that is designed to achieve a particular result. So I think it is reasonable for me to ask you to point us to the actual studies/polls, rather than tell us to go fishing for them on the Internet, or, in the case of the 33%, to just state conclusorily that it is from a poll. Finally, the 33% figure, is from a poll. It may shock you-you can't believe it-you must believe it's made up.........but it's not. Note, after Reagan proposed missle defense, a poll identified 66% of Americans in disbelief-they noted that the US already had a missle defense shield.

- dhurtado

September 21, 2009 at 11:48am

Just to clarify, the last paragraph in my most recent post is a quote from one of lobo's posts that I meant to delete. On another point, Zardo, it is not clear to me what the connection is being Beck/Limbaugh, on the one hand, and the Obama is Monkey site on the other hand.

- dhurtado

September 21, 2009 at 11:52am

Lobo, I asked for evidence that a senior politician had called for the death of President Bush. You have finally provided, to support your assertion, a single remark by John Kerry on a comedy talk show that involved a turn on a well-known idiom that most of us use every few weeks. I don't believe any normal human being would have concluded that that involved a threat. Plus one joke from 20 years ago that the entire country was telling at the time -- and that joke, in case you don't get it, is about Quayle's perceived lack of smarts. That appears to be it. On that basis, I conclude that you are a complete nincompoop who seems to have very little self-control over what he posts -- and that's doing you the favor of not assuming any malice.

- ironyroad

September 21, 2009 at 12:01pm

dhurtado, while there may not be a direct connection between Beck, Limbaugh and that website, I consider it part of the same stream of virulent bile pouring forth from the far right. We can debate the extent of the racism behind the opposition to Obama. What we cannot deny is that is does exist, which that website clearly shows.

- zardoz67

September 21, 2009 at 12:32pm

Of course I didn't say that senior Dems intended to kill a President. However, Kerry made two comments which have no place in the political sphere-jokes about killing a President or a Vice President. I find these "jokes" to be far worse than Mr. Wilson's performance. I find it sad that progressives cannot condemn Kerry's remarks, but instead, try to explain them away. I was a little off on my 33% and 9/11. Source, Scripps Survey, question in 2007: "people in government either assisted in 9/11 attacks or took to action to stop because they wanted a war". Dems: very likely, 23%, somewhat likely, 28%. Less than 33% on very likely, but over 51% who believe a good chance. By your silence, I assume you agree, Pelosi's comment was wrong. By your silence, I assume you agree, past and current senators compared Bush to Hitler. My point was kinda simple: the left's attacks on Bush, while not based upon race, were in tone, number and excessiveness, far worse than what Obama is facing today. In addition, the racists appear more pronouced within the Demo party, and while a few racists appear at the protests, the overwhelming majority are simply opposed to Obama's policies. I then, leave it to you, to figure out which ones are which. Enjoy.

- lobosven

September 21, 2009 at 1:06pm

I had prepared another comment for this thread, but it was lost because I had been automatically logged off without my knowledge. Is there now a time limit for being logged onto the site? In any event, I will have to be brief on the second try here. Lobo, I have not been able to locate the actual Scripps survey of which you speak. If it is something you have actually reviewed, I would appreciate a specific citation or link. I did locate some articles discussing a July 2006 Scripps survey and a November 2007 Scripps survey, each relating to 9/11. Since you have referenced a 2007 survey, I will assume you are referring to the November 2007 survey, which was discussed in a November 23, 2007 article by Kevin Crowe and Guido Stempel of Scripps Howard News Service, and in a Wikipedia article, "9/11 Opinion Polls." The general conclusion that Crowe and Stempel draw from the 2007 survey is that two-thirds of Americans think it is "possible" that the feds had speccific warnings of 9/11 and chose to ignore the warnings. Wikipedia puts a finer point on it, reporting the following responses regarding the likelihood that the feds had specific warnings but chose to ignore them: 32% -- very likely 30% -- somewhat likely 30% -- unlikely 8% -- don't know/other Note that there is no breakdown by party affiliation. Nor is there any indication, indeed it apparently was not asked, whether any respondent believed that Bush participated in the attacks. Note also that, if, as you claim, 51% of respondents identifying themselves as Democrats believed it possible that the feds were warned of 9-11 and chose to ignore the warnings, then to get to an overall percentage of 62% you would need something like 70%-plus of Republican and other non-Democrat respondents to express the same belief. Maybe you can clarify this by providing the actual survey you are referring to, and have apparently reviewed yourself.

- dhurtado

September 21, 2009 at 8:48pm

Lobo, I asked for evidence for your assertion. You have none. Now you've just tweaked your assertion (from called for death of president to "intended to kill a President") and are claiming that it was something else. I find it extremely strange that you can't simply say, "ok, I went over the top there, sorry." People do now and then on this board, but most of the people one takes seriously would just admit their moment of hyperbole and move on.

- ironyroad

September 24, 2009 at 1:30pm