So I get this email yesterday:
-----Original Message-----
From: Senator Jim Inhofe inhofe@jiminhofe.com
To: UNDISCLOSED-RECIPIENT
Sent: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 9:56 am
Subject: I'm proud of my zeros.
Dear Friend,
Zero?!!
If I had come home from school with a zero on my report card, my mother would have been none too pleased! But these days I'm proud of my zeroes and other low scores.
That's because they aren't school grades, they're congressional vote ratings from various liberal special interest groups.
I think you'll agree getting a zero is a good grade... I've received zeroes from these ultra-liberal groups and others:
NARAL Pro-Choice America
the National Education Association
the American Immigration Lawyers Association
the Human Rights Campaign
Planned Parenthood
Of course, the opposite is also true. These are the scores that would have put a big smile on my mother's face...perfect scores of 100 from, among others:
the American Conservative Union
the National Right to Life Committee
the Christian Coalition
the American Security Council
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
the League of Private Property Voters
the National Rifle Association (I got an A+)
Americans for Tax Reform
the Family Research Council
I don't stick my finger into the wind to decide how to vote. I don't look at polls or run "focus groups." I vote on solid, conservative principles: limited government, free enterprise, individual liberty, a strong national defense, and traditional family values.
If you agree with me on these issues, and if you agree a "zero" from these liberal groups is a good thing, please help me keep fighting for you by signing up to volunteer in my reelection campaign today.
Please visit http://tracking.technomania.com/cgi-bin/track.cgi?11-11448-205099-49015 to learn more and to join as the newest member of Team Inhofe. We need to build the biggest and best grassroots team to win, and I'm counting on your support.
Thank you for taking the time to read this email. If you are no longer interested in receiving contact from my campaign, please feel free to click the unsubscribe link below.
Sincerely,
Jim Inhofe
United States Senator
Paid for by Friends of Jim Inhofe
Well, you guys know me ... here's my reply.
Dear Senator Inhofe,
I appreciate your excitement at getting zeroes from certain groups. However, those are groups that I support either by being a member or by regular donations both of time and of treasure. I therefore don't agree that your zero grades from them are anything about which to be overjoyed.
I'm not sure why you would be ecstatic about getting a zero grade from the National Education Association. Our teachers are some of the hardest-working people in America, and they are in our schools with our children because they truly care about our nation's future (let's face it, they certainly aren't there for the financial rewards). I know several teachers in our school district (Deer Creek, one of the "richest" in the state) who regularly pay from their own pockets for necessary supplies and rewards to promote their charges' thorough comprehension of the subject material. America pays its sports icons more in a year than most teachers will make in a lifetime; isn't there something wrong with that? Our educators struggle with decreasing budgets to meet increasing test-score requirements, and yet you cheer at the NEA saying you support them less than nearly everyone else in the Senate.
NARAL promotes a woman's right to choose and have control over her own body; it, along with Planned Parenthood, fosters education with regard to contraceptives and choices, and supports the availability of birth control to women of all social and economic backgrounds. If abortion were not legal in America, hundreds of women would die each year as a result of botched back-alley abortion attempts. Until such time as legislators come up with a way to ensure that men meet the financial responsibilities that accompany parenthood without fail and without delay or subterfuge, criminalizing abortion shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. As long as the termination of an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy is legal, it will be safe. Just because abortion is legal doesn't mean every woman facing an unwanted pregnancy is rushing out to get one; it just means that the choice is available to them. It would not be completely outside the realm of logic to state that men should have no voice in an abortion decision until men are becoming pregnant and facing the choice themselves.
The Human Rights Campaign seeks the establishment and enforcement of equal rights for all Americans without regard to sexual identity or preference. All of us are human, Senator, and we all long to love and be loved. The continued oppression of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans is nothing short of unconscionable; it belongs in the past with oppression based on one's gender and the color of one's skin. Anything less won't do.
I'm sure by now you've determined that while I am one of your constituents, I am not one of your supporters. To be honest, Senator, over the last few years you've made rather vocal pronouncements that have made me cringe. The Republican Party is not what it was under Lincoln, sir, and America is dangerously off-course, due in large part to the GOP's "compassionate conservatives" who are certainly the latter but not at all the former. Surely the Christian Coalition is aware of the Commandment that Jesus proclaimed as the highest: "Love thy neighbor." For you to receive failing marks from the nation's educators, advocates of those who would become Americans, and a group seeking to ensure that everyone is free from oppression doesn't speak terribly well of you and suggests that you pay enough lip service to Christian values to get the Christian vote, but that you are ignoring the man for whom the movement is named.
Sincerely,
Donna Sowerby
Oklahoma City, OK
(I got a mailer-daemon ... guess he's not ready to hear from me yet. How very representative of his ilk, though ... "I'll stuff my views up under your nose so you can't help but know them, yet I'm absolutely not interested in what YOU think"!!)
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Christmas Before Thanksgiving ... Argh!
Usually, I'm the kind of girl that gets downright narky when I walk into a store before Thanksgiving and see Christmas stuff on display and for sale (unless it's a place like Hobby Lobby, and then I understand that some people make gifts, so there it's okay). Today, however, after the children got home from school, Mark and I were facing the question that plagues so many families ... "What do you want to do?" "I don't know, what do YOU want to do?"
This kind of discussion can go anywhere ... but on this occasion, it ended at Home Depot. A weird place to end? Sometimes, sure, but not this time. My brilliant idea was to go look for a new Christmas tree. The one we've had since our first Christmas in this house is 12 feet tall and is a major pain in the posterior to put up, light up, decorate, and take down ... as a result, there have been more years than not when we've just left it up all year. Back in May when it finally got stuffed back into its boxes and shoved back into the storage shed, we made a shaky sort of agreement that maybe this year we'd get a new one that wasn't such a hassle.
A review of a few websites showed that none of the artificial trees available this year in the usual places really grabbed us. Mark was bemoaning the lack of any truly outstanding choices, when I said (totally without thinking, as is my wont) that the only real alternative (besides not having a tree at all, which is NOT an option when you have three children) was a *real* tree. Mark's face lit up like -- well, like a Christmas tree, and he said that would be just the thing. We'd do it this year, and if it proved more of a bummer than not, we'd buy a new artificial one next year.
The children, of course, were all in favor. I haven't had a live Christmas tree since I was a wee lass, and I had only vague memories of going with Daddy to find one that was more Christmas-y than Charlie Brown-esque, so after a telephone consultation with Mom, I rang the local Coit's Root Beer place. They always had a stand at NW Expressway and Meridian, although I couldn't remember seeing it there in recent years (perhaps because I wasn't really looking for it). The nice lady that answered the phone told me they'd start selling them on Friday ... but damitol, I'm an instant-gratification American, and I wanted it TODAY! Mark popped up a search and found that Home Depot sells real trees, so I rang them and found that yes, they had some available for purchase as soon as we could get there.
We got a really nice Douglas fir, six feet seven inches tall (the guys measured it to make sure it would be okay tied to the top of the big blue Expedition on the way home). We popped in to Target and bought some new lights and a new star for the top, and here is the result ...
It smelled so delicious, and looked so lovely (even though it shed about a pound of needles between the door and its spot in the living room ... note to self: buy a new dustbuster) that I decided to bring out The Bald Santas.
This kind of discussion can go anywhere ... but on this occasion, it ended at Home Depot. A weird place to end? Sometimes, sure, but not this time. My brilliant idea was to go look for a new Christmas tree. The one we've had since our first Christmas in this house is 12 feet tall and is a major pain in the posterior to put up, light up, decorate, and take down ... as a result, there have been more years than not when we've just left it up all year. Back in May when it finally got stuffed back into its boxes and shoved back into the storage shed, we made a shaky sort of agreement that maybe this year we'd get a new one that wasn't such a hassle.
A review of a few websites showed that none of the artificial trees available this year in the usual places really grabbed us. Mark was bemoaning the lack of any truly outstanding choices, when I said (totally without thinking, as is my wont) that the only real alternative (besides not having a tree at all, which is NOT an option when you have three children) was a *real* tree. Mark's face lit up like -- well, like a Christmas tree, and he said that would be just the thing. We'd do it this year, and if it proved more of a bummer than not, we'd buy a new artificial one next year.
The children, of course, were all in favor. I haven't had a live Christmas tree since I was a wee lass, and I had only vague memories of going with Daddy to find one that was more Christmas-y than Charlie Brown-esque, so after a telephone consultation with Mom, I rang the local Coit's Root Beer place. They always had a stand at NW Expressway and Meridian, although I couldn't remember seeing it there in recent years (perhaps because I wasn't really looking for it). The nice lady that answered the phone told me they'd start selling them on Friday ... but damitol, I'm an instant-gratification American, and I wanted it TODAY! Mark popped up a search and found that Home Depot sells real trees, so I rang them and found that yes, they had some available for purchase as soon as we could get there.
We got a really nice Douglas fir, six feet seven inches tall (the guys measured it to make sure it would be okay tied to the top of the big blue Expedition on the way home). We popped in to Target and bought some new lights and a new star for the top, and here is the result ...
It smelled so delicious, and looked so lovely (even though it shed about a pound of needles between the door and its spot in the living room ... note to self: buy a new dustbuster) that I decided to bring out The Bald Santas.
The Bald Santas are So Very Special to me, it may be difficult for me to explain.
My maternal grandfather (Thomas Emmett McGee, jr. ... but forever known to his grandchildren as Ho-De-Ho) was bald, and loved Christmas. He died in February 1978. At some point, my grandmother began collecting bald Santa figures, because they made her think of Ho-De-Ho. She would get them out every Christmas, and we little darlings were admonished not to touch them lest they be irreparably harmed (and while I couldn't swear in court that we never laid a finger on any of them, I don't believe any of them ever came to an unnatural or untimely end at our hands). When I got older (notice I didn't say "grew up" ... *g*), I bought a few for her at Christmas time, but they're very difficult to find, so there weren't many. When she gave up her apartment in the senior community where she lives and moved into the assisted living wing, she couldn't take all of the stuff she'd kept with her after selling her house. I am the lucky one to have inherited The Bald Santas, because in her words, I was the only one who seemed to care about them. I've not brought them out since receiving them, because I would be the one admonishing my little angels not to touch them lest they be irreparably harmed, but tonight I felt like it would be okay. I fetched the bags from where they were stored, and began to tell my children about our Ho-De-Ho and why we have The Bald Santas. Tears began rolling down my face (as they're doing again now), and I hoped my Ho-De-Ho could see that the family tradition is being continued.
So ... Wednesday morning is work, Wednesday afternoon is shopping and a bit of preliminary cooking, Wednesday evening is a bit more work, and Wednesday night is tree decorating. We've got friends and family coming over for Thanksgiving dinner, and while we've had people over for the last couple of years for the event, for some reason this is the first time I'm really looking forward to it.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Opting Out
So the other day I open an email from someone that I like a lot ... let's call her Lola, just to keep her nice and anonymous (and because I don't know anybody named Lola, and because it's one of the best Kinks songs ever). Lola's the kind of girl whose convictions go very deep. She and I have an agreement not to discuss sports (she's a Sooner, I'm a Cowboy), politics (she's a Republican, I'm a Democrat), or religion (she's an evangelical fundamentalist, and I'm ... not). Our children play happily together -- indeed, we've known each other since before any of them were born -- and everything's good in the neighborhood.
OR IS IT??
Like all the rest of us who have email inboxes, Lola gets emails from time to time that she shares with other people. Sometimes she sends them to me, and that's where this story starts.
During the 2004 presidential election, Lola sent out a mass email that had a rather indignant tone; it seems that one candidate's wife had the temerity to say that the other candidate's wife hadn't ever held an RJ (that's Real Job for ye uninitiated). Lola took umbrage with this for a wide variety of reasons. However, there was more to it that I thought Lola must not have heard yet, and I wanted to draw her attention to it. In my job, I must tell several people the same thing at the same time, so I'm prone to click "reply all" and then go about the telling ... and that's what I did this time, too. Lola and I went back and forth for a little while, and then it seems that someone on Lola's mailing list decided they didn't need to be privy to our squabble. Lola then emailed me and told me to stop sending mail to everyone on "her" list, because they were getting irritated. I sent out a quick apology to the list in question, and ceased and desisted.
Flash forward a bit to spring 2006, and here's Lola sending out another mass email with yet another subject that I found narrowly construed. I composed an epic and once again clicked "reply all" ... equal time, right? Wrong! Lola sent another email, incredibly huffy in nature and tone, telling me that I was spamming her friends and that I should stop immediately. (I did ponder the thought that she'd spammed me first, but only briefly.) I mentioned that if her friends were that important to her, she'd either use the blind-copy feature for the outgoing email or leave me off the list.
Everything was hunky-dory for a while, and then last week, another mass email appears from Lola. Did she blind-copy everyone? No! Not wanting to engage in a war of words at a time when work and children and life in general have me quite busy, I sent back an email asking her to PLEASE either blind-copy everyone or just stop sending me emails of this nature! The email in question was a forward of some drivel that allegedly came out of Ben Stein on some Sunday morning talking-head show ... and it wasn't that said drivel is something that mutates and morphs from being mostly real to containing only shreds of truth, it was that I'd held up my end of the bargain by NOT hitting "reply all" but Lola couldn't hold up hers by not sending me this crap (or at least not sending me all her friends' email addresses in the bargain).
The email that started this round was a variation of the one you can find here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/benstein2.asp
Lola emailed back:
"fine - I'm not sure I understand what you're objecting to though. I am confused that you seem to think our Chrisitan views are different - all Christians believe the same thing I thought. You do still believe don't you? Just asking cause I love you."
ARGH. I couldn't take it any more. Here is my reply:
I hope I can put this in a way that won't come across as offensive, but I'll give it a try, with apologies in advance in case I fail miserably!
I object to the idea that the whole world is against Christianity. It isn't. What it's against is the persecution of any one faith or creed. Nobody likes to be bullied or shouted down or made to feel as though their beliefs aren't valid just because they're different from yours.
I object to the notion that pop culture has replaced basic morality for everyone who doesn't go to church and/or wear their faith on their sleeve. It hasn't. What it has done is given people a common point of experience, and I think the writer of the original email objects to "Nick and Jessica" (which in and of itself should tell you how bloody old it is) and secular humanism replacing sectarianism.
I object to an email that says that atheism is being shoved down our collective national throat because the Constitution says it should be so. It doesn't. It also doesn't say that Christians get to shove their religion down the throats of anyone who isn't possessed of their same system of beliefs.
I object to claims that aren't true (Dr. Spock had two sons, both of whom are still alive and kicking) but get passed all around anyhow because they're about God and someone might think we're awful if we *don't* send them along.
All Christians do have one basic similar belief, that being the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and the promised Messiah. Beyond that, all bets are pretty much off, aren't they? Baptism is done when you're a baby, unless you have to wait until you're old enough to confess with your own tongue, and it's done by sprinkling water on your forehead, unless you have to be dunked all the way under in a huge tub of water. Communion is an imitation of the Last Supper -- bread to represent the body of Christ (unless it's crackers or wafers) and red wine to represent the blood (unless it's grape juice). Women can be senior ministers (unless they can't), but they can't wear jewelry or make-up and they must wear skirts all the time and they can't cut their hair. Only men must lead the church, and they may not marry (unless they can). That's not even scratching the surface, either. Add in so many different "translations" of the Bible, and it's no wonder people get confused.
What I believe isn't at issue here, and it's truly none of your business anyhow. I don't lie, and I don't cheat, and I don't steal ... in short, I do my best to comply with the notes that Moses allegedly brought down from the mountain (although I must admit to being human and boffing up royally once in a while). Since you asked, though, I'll tell you. I don't go to church because I don't think God made me so stupid as to have to be told what to think. The last few times I've been in a church for a service other than a wedding, christening, or funeral, I was told to dig deep and vote for this one or that one and to shun the other ones because they want to destroy America. I don't believe that, and even if I were so gullible as to fall for it, I don't think it's the pulpit's duty to engage in that sort of coercion. (Yes, it is too coercion, because it implies that if I don't do as I'm told by that human being up there, I'm on the fast-track to hell no matter what else I do.) I take the Bible with a whole cup of salt (maybe it's Lot's wife?) because a bunch of men got together at the Council of Nicaea and decided that this bit of writing will go in, but not that one. (Ever notice there are exactly two books written by women in the Bible? What about the Gnostic Gospels and the Nag Hammadi scrolls? The Apocrypha? What are they, chopped liver?) I also take issue with it because it was mostly retold legend until somebody wrote it down, and it's been translated and "revised" umpteen zillion times until it's watered down and says exactly what some certain bit of "Christianity" wants it to say. And really, how about folks like Oral and Richard Roberts, Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson? Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, Jack van Impe? Oh, and my current favorite, Ted "I am not gay and I didn't have sex with a guy and he's lying except for the part where he says I bought meth from him and used it with him" Haggard. What in the world is all that about, anyhow? Send me all your money so I can promote the Lord's work (right after I buy a nice new Rolls Royce and a massive house and a new mink for my wife and pay off the city council and that cute little honey I hung out with at the convention a few years ago) ... yeah, super. What I believe doesn't matter; it's what I *don't* believe that matters.
I don't object to getting email from you, just like you don't object to getting email from me. I know, though, that if I send you something going on about how the conservatives are doing nothing but enriching themselves and their cronies while trashing the environment and killing our sons and daughters in an illegal and unjust war and lying and stealing and cheating and perverting the Constitution (and W *did* say it was a "goddamned piece of paper" ... so put that in your "he's such a wonderful God-fearing man" pipe and smoke it) to pursue and achieve their own selfish ends, you're going to throw a hissy fit of the first order.
It's about RESPECT, my friend, which you seem to only want to receive, although (in your own terms) it is more blessed to give.
Just learn to use the fucking BCC feature, would you? Pretty please? That's all I asked.
Hope you and the family are well ... love you muchly, see you soon!
Love,
Donna
So why am I posting this here? Because I don't think Lola cares enough to bother reading through my reply, that's why. It seems that the right-wing types only want to say their piece and aren't all that fussed about anyone else's views or feelings. If you're sick of people shoving their religion down your throat, perhaps you could use some of these arguments next time you get into it with someone who's determined to convert you. Good luck.
OR IS IT??
Like all the rest of us who have email inboxes, Lola gets emails from time to time that she shares with other people. Sometimes she sends them to me, and that's where this story starts.
During the 2004 presidential election, Lola sent out a mass email that had a rather indignant tone; it seems that one candidate's wife had the temerity to say that the other candidate's wife hadn't ever held an RJ (that's Real Job for ye uninitiated). Lola took umbrage with this for a wide variety of reasons. However, there was more to it that I thought Lola must not have heard yet, and I wanted to draw her attention to it. In my job, I must tell several people the same thing at the same time, so I'm prone to click "reply all" and then go about the telling ... and that's what I did this time, too. Lola and I went back and forth for a little while, and then it seems that someone on Lola's mailing list decided they didn't need to be privy to our squabble. Lola then emailed me and told me to stop sending mail to everyone on "her" list, because they were getting irritated. I sent out a quick apology to the list in question, and ceased and desisted.
Flash forward a bit to spring 2006, and here's Lola sending out another mass email with yet another subject that I found narrowly construed. I composed an epic and once again clicked "reply all" ... equal time, right? Wrong! Lola sent another email, incredibly huffy in nature and tone, telling me that I was spamming her friends and that I should stop immediately. (I did ponder the thought that she'd spammed me first, but only briefly.) I mentioned that if her friends were that important to her, she'd either use the blind-copy feature for the outgoing email or leave me off the list.
Everything was hunky-dory for a while, and then last week, another mass email appears from Lola. Did she blind-copy everyone? No! Not wanting to engage in a war of words at a time when work and children and life in general have me quite busy, I sent back an email asking her to PLEASE either blind-copy everyone or just stop sending me emails of this nature! The email in question was a forward of some drivel that allegedly came out of Ben Stein on some Sunday morning talking-head show ... and it wasn't that said drivel is something that mutates and morphs from being mostly real to containing only shreds of truth, it was that I'd held up my end of the bargain by NOT hitting "reply all" but Lola couldn't hold up hers by not sending me this crap (or at least not sending me all her friends' email addresses in the bargain).
The email that started this round was a variation of the one you can find here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/benstein2.asp
Lola emailed back:
"fine - I'm not sure I understand what you're objecting to though. I am confused that you seem to think our Chrisitan views are different - all Christians believe the same thing I thought. You do still believe don't you? Just asking cause I love you."
ARGH. I couldn't take it any more. Here is my reply:
I hope I can put this in a way that won't come across as offensive, but I'll give it a try, with apologies in advance in case I fail miserably!
I object to the idea that the whole world is against Christianity. It isn't. What it's against is the persecution of any one faith or creed. Nobody likes to be bullied or shouted down or made to feel as though their beliefs aren't valid just because they're different from yours.
I object to the notion that pop culture has replaced basic morality for everyone who doesn't go to church and/or wear their faith on their sleeve. It hasn't. What it has done is given people a common point of experience, and I think the writer of the original email objects to "Nick and Jessica" (which in and of itself should tell you how bloody old it is) and secular humanism replacing sectarianism.
I object to an email that says that atheism is being shoved down our collective national throat because the Constitution says it should be so. It doesn't. It also doesn't say that Christians get to shove their religion down the throats of anyone who isn't possessed of their same system of beliefs.
I object to claims that aren't true (Dr. Spock had two sons, both of whom are still alive and kicking) but get passed all around anyhow because they're about God and someone might think we're awful if we *don't* send them along.
All Christians do have one basic similar belief, that being the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and the promised Messiah. Beyond that, all bets are pretty much off, aren't they? Baptism is done when you're a baby, unless you have to wait until you're old enough to confess with your own tongue, and it's done by sprinkling water on your forehead, unless you have to be dunked all the way under in a huge tub of water. Communion is an imitation of the Last Supper -- bread to represent the body of Christ (unless it's crackers or wafers) and red wine to represent the blood (unless it's grape juice). Women can be senior ministers (unless they can't), but they can't wear jewelry or make-up and they must wear skirts all the time and they can't cut their hair. Only men must lead the church, and they may not marry (unless they can). That's not even scratching the surface, either. Add in so many different "translations" of the Bible, and it's no wonder people get confused.
What I believe isn't at issue here, and it's truly none of your business anyhow. I don't lie, and I don't cheat, and I don't steal ... in short, I do my best to comply with the notes that Moses allegedly brought down from the mountain (although I must admit to being human and boffing up royally once in a while). Since you asked, though, I'll tell you. I don't go to church because I don't think God made me so stupid as to have to be told what to think. The last few times I've been in a church for a service other than a wedding, christening, or funeral, I was told to dig deep and vote for this one or that one and to shun the other ones because they want to destroy America. I don't believe that, and even if I were so gullible as to fall for it, I don't think it's the pulpit's duty to engage in that sort of coercion. (Yes, it is too coercion, because it implies that if I don't do as I'm told by that human being up there, I'm on the fast-track to hell no matter what else I do.) I take the Bible with a whole cup of salt (maybe it's Lot's wife?) because a bunch of men got together at the Council of Nicaea and decided that this bit of writing will go in, but not that one. (Ever notice there are exactly two books written by women in the Bible? What about the Gnostic Gospels and the Nag Hammadi scrolls? The Apocrypha? What are they, chopped liver?) I also take issue with it because it was mostly retold legend until somebody wrote it down, and it's been translated and "revised" umpteen zillion times until it's watered down and says exactly what some certain bit of "Christianity" wants it to say. And really, how about folks like Oral and Richard Roberts, Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson? Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, Jack van Impe? Oh, and my current favorite, Ted "I am not gay and I didn't have sex with a guy and he's lying except for the part where he says I bought meth from him and used it with him" Haggard. What in the world is all that about, anyhow? Send me all your money so I can promote the Lord's work (right after I buy a nice new Rolls Royce and a massive house and a new mink for my wife and pay off the city council and that cute little honey I hung out with at the convention a few years ago) ... yeah, super. What I believe doesn't matter; it's what I *don't* believe that matters.
I don't object to getting email from you, just like you don't object to getting email from me. I know, though, that if I send you something going on about how the conservatives are doing nothing but enriching themselves and their cronies while trashing the environment and killing our sons and daughters in an illegal and unjust war and lying and stealing and cheating and perverting the Constitution (and W *did* say it was a "goddamned piece of paper" ... so put that in your "he's such a wonderful God-fearing man" pipe and smoke it) to pursue and achieve their own selfish ends, you're going to throw a hissy fit of the first order.
It's about RESPECT, my friend, which you seem to only want to receive, although (in your own terms) it is more blessed to give.
Just learn to use the fucking BCC feature, would you? Pretty please? That's all I asked.
Hope you and the family are well ... love you muchly, see you soon!
Love,
Donna
So why am I posting this here? Because I don't think Lola cares enough to bother reading through my reply, that's why. It seems that the right-wing types only want to say their piece and aren't all that fussed about anyone else's views or feelings. If you're sick of people shoving their religion down your throat, perhaps you could use some of these arguments next time you get into it with someone who's determined to convert you. Good luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)