No grades will be given. We'll do this on the honor system.(Are there any liberals out there who understand the concept of "honor?")
Feel free to comment. If you take the time to watch the video at the end, you'll find all of the answers therein.
Name a nation that has survived once its tax burden reached 1/3 of its national income.
For how long can any entity, including the government, spend millions more than it takes in from revenue or taxes?
List the advantages of a nation having a balanced budget.
List the disadvantages.
Is there any limit to what our debt limit should be?
Should the U.S.’s debt continue to be larger than all of the combined debts of all of the nations of the world?
How much gold does the U.S. have in its treasury?
How much of that gold do we own?
What will happen to the U.S. if we lose the War on Terrorism?
Do we still have the freedoms that were intended for us by the founding fathers?
If we lose freedom in America, where will those of us who revere it go?
Where did the idea that government should be beholden to the people and not the people to the government come from?
Name two or more other countries that have tried such a thing.
Do you believe in the U.S.’s citizens capacity for self government?
What did the American Revolution accomplish and why?
Do you consider totalitarianism a goal to be achieved by our government?
Is security a good trade for freedom? Why?
Do we need to just accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people?
Has any American politician ever adopted the viewpoint that we should accept “a not undemocratic socialism?”
Has the profit motive become outmoded? Must it be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state?
What senator said, at Stanford University, “…the Constitution is outmoded,” and referred to the president as our “moral teacher,” and that he is hobbled in his task “…by the restrictions imposed on him by this antiquated document?”
What senator defined liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government?”
Did or did not the founding fathers of the United States seek to minimize the “full power of a centralized government?”
Does the government control things, or people?
List six things the government does as well or as effectively as the private sector of the economy.
OK, list four.
How about two?
Has the government involvement in the farm program of the U.S. which it forced upon farmers growing certain crops resulted in an increase or a decrease in the number of farmers interested in growing those crops?
Did the government threaten jail for those farmers who grew those crops but did not follow federal guidelines?
If government help to the needy has been so good to them, why does the number of needy as a percentage of the U.S. population keep going up? Shouldn't it be going down?
Are we spending enough on poverty through government programs that if we just directly divided the money up among the poor they would then be above the poverty level?
Do you think that President BO’s idea of a “volunteer” youth force is a new one?
For what he is proposing to spend on them, couldn't we send each one to Harvard for free?
Given that President BO is a Harvard graduate, is that even a good idea?
Isn’t the problem with liberals not that they’re ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so?
According to Democrats, is Social Security an insurance program or a welfare program?
Is there a Social Security trust fund into which your “dues” are paid for your use when you are old?
How long has Social Security operated in the red, and is that OK with you?
List the government programs once launched that have outlived their usefulness and therefore have been eliminated.
Can federal agents invade YOUR property without a warrant?
Can federal agents impose a fine on YOU without a formal hearing?
Can they seize YOUR property to enforce the payment of a fine imposed on you?
After pledging to stop the advance of Socialism in the U.S., was Barry Goldwater elected President?
Did Democrat Al Smith ever complain that the leaders of his Party were taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin and Stalin?
Are our natural, unalienable rights a dispensation of government or are they endowed by our Creator?
If we avoid any direct confrontation with terrorists, will they forget their hatred for us and learn to love us?
Wanna bet?
If we prefer disgrace over danger, are we therefore prepared for a master?
If we don’t want to fight terrorists, why don’t we just surrender to them?
Is the U.S. stronger morally, spiritually and economically than we were between 1776 and 1960, or are we weaker?
Do you believe in the maxims: “Peace at any cost;” or “Better Red than Dead” or “you would rather live on your knees than die on your feet?”
Is anything in this world worth dying for?
Is there a point at which we will say to terrorists, “There is a price we will not pay. There is a point beyond which they must not advance?”
After you have answered these questions, take the time to watch this video, taking note of how current it is, given when it was recorded: Economic Swim Video (H/T to CB)
26 comments:
Thank God we have patriots such as Dick Cheney.
You know in a way, Obama brought this on himself. Since he keeps blaming Bush for everything that is happening RIGHT NOW on Obama's watch, then it is not unreasonable for Cheney or Bush to respond. If you say things are still Bush's and Cheney's fault, then best step aside to let them fix it. And that is the problem, Obama has stepped aside from the beginning and seems desperately to need the guidance. Keep criticizing Bush and Cheney and you will keep getting these responses. Now I fully realize this is what Obama hopes for because in his view he is responsible for nothing he does, and it is all Bush's fault, so the more Cheney speaks, the more Obama can continue to blame all of his inadequacies on Bush. So goes Obama's thinking (I believe). But I think Obama is misguided in this effort (as with almost everything he does). The reality is, by having Biden do the talk show circuit to rebut Cheney makes Obama look weak, to afraid of someone that, basically, he doesn't need to be afraid of. If Obama was a strong leader, he would just ignore Cheney and take responsibility for everything that is happening on his watch. He does neither and this just enshrines Obama as a wimpy weak leader. Sorry libs, only you guys view him as a strong leader, the rest view him as weak. But the first step to fixing a problem is recognizing it. That recognition is still eluding the liberals.
List six things the government does as well or as effectively as the private sector of the economy.
1. Wage War, care for veterans
2. Build infrastructure, i.e., the highway system, etc.
3. Maintain national treasures, i.e., national parks
4a. Regulate the food and drug industries to protect citizens from harm
4b. Regulate the transportation industries to protect citizens from harm
4c. Regulate many other industries
5. Settle disputes between citizens, i.e., the court system
6. Enforce laws, put out fires
7. Respond to national disasters to aid citizens, i.e., FEMA
8. Expand scientific research, i.e., NASA
9. Provide economic "safety nets", i.e., Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps
10. Provide stimulative loans, i.e., small business, student
I suppose I could continue if I put some additional thought into it. Many of the things that government does compliments the "private sector", rather than one being "better" than the other.
I do like the "Are there any liberals out there who understand the concept of 'honor?' ad hominem though.
Tom: Your grade is 20%, an "F".
1. Government does wage war fairly well, but it does NOT take good care of its veterans. My father was one and had to fight for every treatment he got, had to wait weeks for an appointment with the VA and could not choose his doctor. Every veteran we knew had similar issues. +5%
2. The government has never built a single road, except for those used by the military, especially in wars. They contract road building to states, counties and cities who then farm them out to PRIVATE contractors such as Asplund. 0%
3. OK...not TOO bad, although they managed to deplete the wolf population until they realized what was going on and dropped the bounties on them and insituted ex post facto reintroduction programs. +10%
4. 4a. Regulate the food and drug industries to protect citizens from harm. Very poorly and very inefficiently.
4b. Regulate the transportation industries to protect citizens from harm. Boo! Hiss! I wouldn't ride on Amtrack if you paid me. Most "metro" systems operate at a HUGE loss and offer very poor service.
4c. Regulate many other industries. Like banks, finance businesses and auto companies?
Regulation is not something government does well. Almost all heavily regulated industries functions poorly, cost too much and are less safe. Remember regulated airlines? Tickets were three times what they are today, many planes flew almost empty (like Amtrack runs trains today), and safety was not nearly what it is today in the less regulated airline environment. 0%
5. Tort is totally out of control. The courts think they have the right to usurp the Constitution, especially the Supreme Court, which makes up law as it goes along. I'll give you credit for the legal system as it relates to criminal offenses, but I do so reluctantly and with reservation. +5%
6. The government enforces laws well? Like Waco? They put out fires? Like California? 0%
7. Like they did for Katrina and Charlie and Wilma? Here in southwest Florida, after Charlie, FEMA was a filthy word, 'cause the trailers were late arriving, sat empty for six weeks, were finally placed in mud holes and were almost unlivable.(Shouldn't they have been able to learn from at least one of them and get the next one right?) Like they have for Haiti? Like they have for recent floods in the US? Like they have for tornados? 0%
8. Think "Challenger," cost overrun, flight delays, etc. The Russians started well, got real bad, but now are much more dependable than we are. 0%
9. You're talking to the wrong guy about Medicare. It is poorly run, ineffecient and way too expensive for what you get. Social Security? My payments have been missed...made up incorrectly and finally fixed only to then be overpaid, which I was required to pay back WITH INTEREST FOR PETE'S SAKE...OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! 0%
10. A total FLOP with a capital "OP". The stimulus has provided 0 new permanent private sector jobs, saved 0 jobs, failed to "rescue" Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, both of which are back in trouble, and on it goes. 0%
"Ad hominem" means an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the PERSON advocating the premise.
There was no premise, no link and no person involved, only a question. I did not say there were no liberals with honor, nor did I say there were. You inferred your own projected meaning to the question.
Tom, old buddy, old pal, you need to go back to school. (That, by the way, does NOT qualify as an ad hominem attack. The word sounds good and makes you seem highly intelligent, using the Latin and all, but it just doesn't apply here.)
the malcontent: I don't think "misguided" is the right word, unless you count the totality of his education and experience. I think he is deliberate and knowing about where he is leading the country. His constant blaming of Bush and Cheney is a result of his stinkin' thinkin'.
Well lets look at what Steele actually said, which was: "“The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain -– President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”. Yeah he's attacking the Nobel committee for ignoring people who have actually contributed to peace. So that Obama could get it for not accomplishing anything. He's undermine democracy in Honduras, he's allowed democracy to be killed off protester by protester in Iran with barely a protest. Whats hilarious is that if you go to the Nobel site they mention their protest of the treatment of someone at the hands of the Burma government, the same government Obama is courting.
In criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize" They are not criticizing the President, they are criticizing the idiotic Noble committee who awarded him it..
He should get an award for the constant lying and his arrogance. That would be deserved.
Having to split this up into 2 comments to fit;
Okay.. so no "ad hominen", but just generic insults. Alrighty, that's fine. As long as they can go both ways. I always find it amusing when conservatives insult people in a generic sense, and then get their sensibilities offended when the favor is returned. I do like the "I was only asking a question" bit, while insisting on there not being any inference. That's just playing silly words games. If you want to accuse Liberals of having "no honor", at least have the minerals to say it.. not just infer it.
1. You are making that up. Because your father had a bad experience with the VA, the VA gives substandard care? That's not evidence, that's a ridiculously thin argument based on nothing but "some guy said".
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560
DOD - VA Outranks Private Sector in Health Care Patient Satisfaction
2. Again, not true. The Federal Highway System would not exist if not for the Federal Government, which paid for 90% of it, and state governments which paid 10%. Each state built their own sections. Some used state employees, and some contracted it out. To say that "The government has never built a single road" is flat out not true. In any case, it's a roll of government to coordinate the building of infrastructure through collection of taxes and management of the project.
http://www.generalcontractor.com/resources/articles/interstate-highway-system.asp
Some states built their roads through their various transportation departments and some contracted out the job
3. The issue is not whether or not the government is perfect, or mistake free in it's actions. It is a fact that if not for the federal government, many of our national parks would be inaccessible to American citizens, and their condition not maintained. It is also a fact that FDR used federal monies to employ the unemployed during the depression in order to build much of the infrastructure of the parks that people enjoy today, i.e., trails.
4. Again, the issue is not whether the government agencies that perform various regulatory functions are performing those tasks to your standard. The issue is whether or not the government does it as well as the "private sector". That was the wording of the question. Because the private sector does not regulate itself, by definition, the government does a better job of it. Of course these agencies could improve performance, but it's not true that they have not contributed to the betterment of these industries for all Americans. If you don't like Amtrack, don't use it. Don't get on a passenger airliner either, because federal employees are preventing your plane from crashing into another on a daily basis. I know your urge is to cite some plane crash as evidence of the failure of the TSA. Fact is, flying is safer than driving by a wide margin. Finally, the bank fiasco was a direct result of de-regulation, not over-regulation.
5. Tort laws are a state issue. Take it up with your state government. Fact is, the court system does many good things to help protect Americans, and settle disputes. Again, the issue is NOT how well the government does it, but the question asked what governement does as well or better than the private sector. Seeing how there is no private sector for the court system, it seems rather obvious.
6. Again, the issue is not how well the government enforces laws. The question asked what government does as well or better than the private sector. Seeing how there is no private sector law enforcement, it seems rather obvious. You can cite specific actions of individual law enforcement officers as evidence that law enforcement does not do a good job. You do realize that cherry picking individual events is meaningless in the context of the broader theme of law enforcement, right? For every one event that goes wrong, how many go right? How many government employees (police officers) save the lives of American citizens on an average day? How many burning homes have firemen saved? How many children have they pulled out of burning apartment buildings?
I find it disgusting that you would dishonor the police and firemen that way. They are national heroes on a regular basis, and they risk their lives trying to put out those fires in California, while you do NOTHING. You have the temerity to critize them that way? Unbelievable.
7. See #6.
8. Again, critizing men and women who have contributed more to this nation then you could ever dream of. Much of the technology developed in the space program is in use today. NASA has been a source of pride in this nation for decades, and it's an inherintly dangerous profession for the people who risk their lives for it. You risk nothing, but baselessly criticize just out of your deranged hatred of governement. NASA can do better, but to write off the marvels of accomplishment by citing crushing disasters is, again, disgusting. Do let me know when a private company lands a man on the moon.
9. Again, your anecdotal evidence is not evidence. The fact is that nationally, Medicare scores higher in patient satisfaction than the private sector. Because YOU don't like Medicare does not mean that Medicare is not a good program that Americans like. It's really strange the way you prefer to use your own observational data to come to a conclusion on a national program rather than, you know, actual data.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_062209.html
10. I could link data about the "stimulous", but you'd write it off as some conspiracy theory. Regardless, the Small Business Administration does some fine work in helping the little guy get his company off the ground.
Tom: As it happens, I LIKE word games.
Here are my responses to your assertions:
1. No, I'm not making it up...it really happened.
2. Yes, it IS true.
3. What are you whining about? I gave you full credit for that one.
4. I haven't flown for a few years, but I never thought TSA had anything to do with my safety other than keeping underware bombers off my plane. I love to fly and consider it much safer than car travel. You're wrong about the bank fiasco...think Community Redevelopment Act of 1977.
5. That's a good point, but an awful lot of judges make an awful lot of different decisions on the same issues.
6. I don't dishonor firemen. I respect them. I have a best friend who is a fireman. But if you ask him, he'll tell you that once a fire gets hold of a structure or a forrest, there is not much hope of saving either. Most homes fully involved in fire are destroyed in spite of heroic efforts by firemen. I concede that they DO, however, rescue a lot of people from those fires, and for that they deserve the highest praise.
7. What has respect for firemen and police got to do with government's response to Katrina, Charlie and Wilma? It wasn't the firemen's or policemen's fault that the government couldn't get its act together.
8. I dream well, and you have no idea what I risk.
9. Actual data like spurious, made up and manipulated climate change data?
10. Ever try to get a small business loan from SBA? I have. Helps to be poor, black, female or unqualified. In fact, you have to be turned down by three financial entities to even be considered by SBA.
You still get an "F."
But study up...I have no doubt you can improve.
Tom: You can raise your grade by answering more than just one test question.
Joe,
You ask too many questions man!
Ok will take 4 and 5 as a combined question-advantages of a balanced budget.
far as I know the only times we've had balanced budgets we've gone into recession;Clinton and LBJ being the two most recent examples.
Unless we made a major change towards increasing manufacturing and trade, that throws the spending upon the private sector. Without an increase in wages which might be inflationary, that further presupposes private sector debt. So unless we had a current acct surplus balancing the budget would throw debt upon an already deeply in debt private sector. So IMO a balanced budget is deeply disadvantageous.
question 3,how long can a govt spend millions more than revenue:
Far as I know except for a few brief recessionary periods the US has always been in deficit. So I would assume in perpetuity, with the caveat the nation issues non-convertible or fixed debt in it's own currency and it's private sector spending is wage-based rather than debt-based.
Joe, I have absolutely no doubt it actually happened. My point was that annecdotal evidence is not really evidence. You base many of your arguments on personal experience, where a broader point is relevant. It's silly to claim the VA provides substandard care because somebody you know received substandard care. There is more to the VA than that one example.
In any case, I think I made my point, even if you want to grade it an F.
Yes I agree with Tom. Anecdotal evidence is often hard to verify as well as influenced by circumstance and personality;oftentimes too it is used to reinforce beliefs one already has.
All sides and viewpoints do this of course.
Tom: I realize that your respect for my experience and knowledge is not all that great, nevertheless, where the VA is concerned I know whereof I speak.
Anecdotal evidence begins to become real evidence when its frequency establishes a particular trend.
Go sit at the VA hospital in St. Petersburg, FL and talk with the men while you wait for your father to get the war related care he needs. You might see a pattern emerge.
Add that to the experience of taking one of your best friends, a veteran of Viet Nam, to the vet clinic here in Ft. Myers and talk with the men waiting for care there and you might see more evidence of that same trend.
In fact, of the hundreds of men I've talked to, it is very hard to find even one who is satisfied with wait times, doctor choices, and quality of care.
It is offensive and disheartening to hear people who have no knowledge of the subject, other than the word of the very people being accused of giving poor care defend themselves, be fooled into thinking that our veterans are well taken care of when I know that it is not true.
Oso: I really like the spirit with which you challenge my thoughts. You are very good.
That does not mean I think you are correct, it does mean I think you are being honest with your thoughts and respectful of others' views...a rarity...thanks.
I think there ARE situations in which carrying a debt is necessary, and you are quite right about the superimposition of the balanced budgets with subsequent recessions. However, there have been other recessions not concurrent with balanced budgets, so we could conclude that there is not a cause-and-effect relationship going on there.
It is also true that we have spent a great deal of our history carrying some debt.
When debt becomes larger than our ability to pay down significantly we are effectively on the edge of national bankruptcy.
I cannot imagine that there is anybody who thinks this is a desirable position to be in, but I guess there are those who don't mind it.
I, for one, believe it would be to our long-term advantage to live within our means.
Right now we have a debt that will far exceed OUR ability to significantly pay down, OUR CHILDREN'S ability to pay down and OUR GRANDCHILDREN'S ability to pay down.
I cannot fathom a circumstance in which that would be a good thing.
Joe,
Thank you, and I freely acknowledge I am taking an extreme position for the sake of debate here. Not that I'm trying to be argumentative as I'm sure you understand, because I believe deficit spending is necessary and effective with a manageable (I know, hard to define)debt level. I believe in extraordinary circumstances that hypothetical debt level can be ignored until GDP can grow again but I fully understand your trepidation regarding massive debt. We are in very scary economic times.
These online debates at the very least will keep us out of trouble!
Oso: It is 12:31 AM. I can assure you that I am off the streets and out of trouble...sort of.
No knowledge of the subject? Really? Only the word of those accused?
I work for the VA as a contractor. I have a very good view of what they are about.
I'm sorry that studies done on the efficacy of the VA are not comparable to the people you know who weren't satisfied.
Again.. read;
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560
Unless you think the DoD is lying, of course. I offer objective data. You offer annecdotes. There is a difference.
Joe: In my opinion and I’m no expert, govt. has “good” intentions but when given an inch, takes a mile. I am for “smaller” govt. as I do believe govt. has its purpose but we Americans do need to keep it in check. I think that over at least the last decade we’ve been very negligent in our duties, as citizens, and govt. has grown and gotten out of control. Now we have an entity that performs on the basis of “the greater good” but sometimes that is not the case and there are many Americans that not only don’t know our Constitution but aren’t aware that it’s been translated and twisted so much that it’s meaningless. The old saying, The more things change, the more they stay the same, applies very well in this case.
Tom: I do think they are lying. That may sound harsh, but the report does not jibe with my experience.
Jeff Grahm, best man at my wedding, Viet Name vet, wounded from the knee down on his right leg. VA surgeon reattached his ankle CROOKED. Applied for second surgery. Told by VA: What are you complaining about? You have your leg. Finally agreed to fix his ankle. Three surgeries and two infections later they finally got it right.
Just a story, one of many, but true, nonetheless.
There is a pattern of incompetence with the VA, even if THEY don't want to admit it.
That DOD report is the government checking on the governmnet. Sort of like being your own supervisor.
You can site all of the "reports" you want to, though...on this matter my opinion is firm. I've seen too much and been too close to it for too many years.
Maybe in the two years since my dad died the VA has fixed everything. If it were so, the front page of every state-run newspaper would have heralded the news.
The VA is a government run entity that majors on, what else, bureaucracy.
PDH: "For the greater good" is a communist concept. Americans waged an entire war against the British to combat that very idea. Personal freedom in the context of responsible liberty is what we were founded for.
Joe: I agree that "for the greater good" has been ill-used but isn't it funny [not ha-ha] how it rolls off the tongue so easily these days?
Yes, Joe, at least you're honest about that. There are other reports measuring the efficacy of the VA, but no doubt they are lying as well.
I also appreicate your confirming my suspicion that conservatives tend to view the world from their own small window into it, rather than by utilizing the extensive array of tools available.
I've actually had conservatives say things along the lines of "I don't care what evidence you have, I won't change my mind." It's a very common trait it seems.
The reason for that seems clear. You have such an entrenched view that gov'mints bad that anything that challenges that is dismissed with a wave of the hand. I could provide a mountain of evidence that demonstrates that the VA rates higher in patient satisfaction than the private sector health care, and you will never accept that premise because it violates the rule that government can do something effectively.
In other words, it's more important to further the meme of an incompetent government for ideological reasons, then it is to simply acknowledge the truth of the matter. You must wave your hands and say "they're lying".
Well, you know.. they're not lying. You can keep insisting that the experience your father had at the VA is the basic level of care they provide, but it is not.
But I guess fixating on that one example does make it easier to ignore all the data in furtherance of a preconceived bias.
Tom, Tom, Tom: Lose the anger, OK? One of the reasons I love discussing with the fellow above, Oso, is that he is always respectful and presents his opinions and facts without malice. Read his comments and see how he says things and how he invites discussion without angst.
Sorry to disagree with you, but experience does indeed have things to teach us. Some have even said it is the best teacher.
As I said earlier, which in your haste you might have missed, these are not isolated incidents. I have spoken directily with other veterans while in the waiting rooms of clinics and hospitals in St. Petersburg and Ft. Myers, Florida.
Maybe it is different in other states, but I doubt it.
As to government, yes, government is intrinsically bad because it always seeks and moves toward control of citizens. In 68 years of life and after studying the history of our country, I have never seen the government do a single thing that moves us toward more liberty, only things to control behavior.
I do not believe all government workers or elected "servants" mean for it to be that way, nor do they see it that way, but that is what they end up doing because they do not know what else to do.
While the government was shut down by all of the three foot high global warming evidence, the country got along just fine.
The less they do, the better off the country would be, therefore: I am for smaller government.
They think they have to protect us from ourselves, while their charge is only to protect us from those who would do the country harm.
Large bureaucracies always lead to ineffeciencies and ineffectiveness, and the VA is no exception.
If you really believe that my ideology governs my thinking and my behavior, you are a fool. My ideology is a result of my thinking, not a source for it.
You seem incapable of handling disagreement without being disagreeable. You made a vallient effort at first, but then degenerated into accusation instead of discussion.
Typical, don't you think?
Good heavens that is a lot of questions...
1. No nation can survive with tax a burden of 1/3 percent. Does 3rd world countries ring a bell.
2. Ultimately a financial collapse will occur.
3. a) Work b) aiding those in dire need c) Powerful military
d) Financial independence and so forth
4. There aren't any disadvantages to a nation with a balanced budget. In my opinion.
5. Yes, our debt limit should never exceed more than what we have in the US treasury.
6. Absolutely NOT, that would bankrupt and weaken to the point of no return.
7. Good question.
8. If we lose the war on terrorism, we will be held under siege and forced to give up every single one of our freedoms.
9. No, we do not. The Obama administration along with organizations like the ACLU, CAIR and planned parenthood have seen to that.
10. I have no idea where we could move.
11. From our forefathers.
Oh gosh! I think I will have to continue this later...Great questions, Joe.
Leticia: You are the first one to actually address the actual questions. Congratulations!
When you come back, check out the link to the video at the bottom. All of the answers are there.
I'm baffled by your accusation of "anger". However, it is amusing this "degenerated into accusation". You do it constantly. Your blog is dripping with it, and when the slightest hint of it is returned, you act the shocked gentleman in a room full of barbarians.
Would you like me to gloss over your own writings and show you? It wouldn't take but a minute.
How's that for a more "civil" tone?
Tom: Cheese, man...you are easily baffled.
I'm so honored that tone is so civil.
BTW: My posts don't drip.
I had trouble recognizing the "slightness" of your return.
"...gloss over your own writings...?" That's pecular terminology, to say the least.
Thanks Joe! I love trivia. Will look at the videow now.
Post a Comment