P, maybe. Q would be a good one, if not for that pesky tail, and the whole, you know, “queer” thing. H, no way.
The conservative letters are the enclosed ones. O is the most conservative. I, although not enclosed, is conservative for obvious reasons. B is double conservative. W and M are way flip floppy liberal. H is double liberal.
Z is a foreign agent. (Code name Zed.) His demise was broadcast to his handlers by Tarantino in his landmark propaganda film Pulp Fiction. (“Zed’s dead, baby. Zed’s dead.”)
C is for Commie. Duh.
I will leave it to you to figure out the rest, although frankly, if you need any help, you are No True Liberal.
Ambushed, here’s what’s wrong with your OP. You have a perfectly valid beef with a handfull of letters to the editor, but then you start putting words in their mouth. The letters have no connection to the “Pro-Life” movement, and it is because that there is no connection that your argument is incoherent. You’re all over the damn map. Don’t employ the same type of logically weak ass arguments that Anne Coulter uses. She just uses “liberals” as her boogiemen while you use “Pro Lifers”. Let’s imagine if Anne wrote the OP:
Well, then i’m impressed at your ability to remember the names of people who right in to the newspaper. I might suggest that people could have the same name - but it seems somewhat reasonable to think they’re one and the same. Fair enough.
Er, what? You’re well aware of my writings and depraved allies? What are you talking about?
Nope, that’s just one concept of a “pro-life” view. I, unlike yourself, did not use a brush massive enough to paint the Hoover Dam; I merely suggested one idea that would make the writers-in not hypocrites.
Oh, and no, I didn’t say all people in jail are convicted criminals. I used convicted criminals as an example of how it may not be hypocritical. “Inmates”, as used in your OP, on t’other hand, does suggest long term residents whose sentences have been given.
Yes, it is. Because that’s quite possible, you moron. You seem to have collected every characteristic of pro-lifers, like taking individual pieces of straw, and built them up into some kind of giant, straw-based facsimile. If only there were some logical flaw this suggests.
Oh, most certainly I am. But i’m still able to point out the flaws in your argument - what does that make you?
As a former reader of the venerable GR Press, I can attest to their letters page editor to give a perhaps inordinate amount of space to the kooks. I have no difficulty believing this at all.
No cite for the hordes of convict-hating letter writers in Grand Rapids, but here’s one for a poster on this board who had no problem with prisoners dying because of inadequate prison health care. Scroll down to post #18.
Me, too. We’re the exceptions who prove the rule, I guess. Can’t let that stand in the way of an unsupported rant, though. I’m sure we’re hypocritical in many, many other ways (being pro-life, and all).
Are you denying that a very, very large number of so-called “pro-lifers” are mindlessly inconsistent and are not very pro-life at all outside of their forced-birth position? Such as the vast number of people who call themselves “pro-life” while still advocating the death penalty?
If so, you’re full of shit.
Bullshit. You called me and my message hateful, whereby you demonstrated hatred towards me.
What a stupidly uninformed opinion. The law the Supreme Court upheld says that no living fetus can be removed with the procedure named, in a most despicably lying manner, “partial birth abortion”. A late-term, brain-dead fetus is still alive, so that law DOES prohibit the most effective, most informative type of autopsy in such a case!
This is the PIT, Dad, not “Great Debates”. You’ve been around long enough to know that this is not “Great Debates”, where citations are required. In the Pit, the standards are far different.
As I wrote in my OP, this is a conservative-benighted city. And one main part of the definition of the word “conservative” is one who is traditional and wants to maintain the old ways and the status quo.
Thank you, Zoe, for the thoughtful way you put your entire post. But surely you’re not telling me that the Pit is no place for stridency, or even that it hurts one’s arguments here in the Pit.
I chose the Pit precisely so I can express my outrage openly, without couching them in weasel words or contrived courtesy. I’m sure you understand.
What a bunch of ignorant fuckwittery. Since you didn’t join till last month, however, I’ll let it pass with only one insulting phrase, and add this bit of information:
This is the PIT. You want “Great Debates”.
It’s almost a prerequisite to call your opponents crude, derogatory names here. That’s why it’s called the PIT.
