Comments on: Tax the churches…

By: J. Alva Scruggs

J. Alva Scruggs — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:24:06 +0000

RW, I know. It's awful. What Frank is getting goes even deeper than taxing people who disagree with him. He's indulging in inflammatory hate speech. It's not as though the SUV religionists support killing real Americans, after all, or torturing them. They just want to be happy and think happy thoughts. Sometimes that involves killing a very few people here and there, some of them in other countries, and torturing them too, but it's a perfectly respectable point of view. Shame on him for calling them ignoramuses! They've thought it out and arrived at a rational opinion. But getting back to Frank, he's effectively tampering with the fabric of space and time themselves, and undermining the Constitution. I happen to be a strict constructionist in these matters. Frank knows this. I can only assume his post was meant to get my goat.

By: Kate

Kate — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:08:41 +0000

YES!!!

By: RW

RW — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:25:57 +0000

Yeah, good one. All those stupid people who disagree with you.
They’re all stupid. I know that because internet lefties keep telling me how much smarter they are than all those “ignoramouses”, so it must be true.

By: Cowtown Pattie

Cowtown Pattie — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:23:25 +0000

Good one, Frank!

I did have a side chuckle (moan?) when a
friend pointed this out:

“Of course, The New York Times is fairly laughable when they talk about other people’s loopholes, having themselves utilized the “public use” part of eminent domain law recently to get prime city real estate practically given to them at city expense. (I wonder if that means that bloggers, who in a way publish newspapers, can now become real estate barons. Somehow I don’t think so.) Still, this doesn’t invalidate their points.”

Thanks for the link!