Hap .. do you have any motive in bringing up this book from 1981 .. other than to intro your political site that trashes Bush with a lot of foul language?
Yes, we know you are very far left, and you take every opportunity to trash Bush ... why did you think this would be of interest in the open forum?
go ahead and kick me Rocky, I did it again. but my excuse for unignoring Rhino's post is that it was on a thread I started so I felt it proper to see if he had anything worthwhile to say. He didn't :P
Rhino (aka Attila the Hun)- it is a book about women's roles, lives and personal relationships in the west. Why would it belong in the political forum? Just because it is written in a scintillating style by the "second lady"? I don't think so. I posted the link from this site because the book can be read there. "WE" know you have disdain for women with strong minds, wills, and ideas which differ from yours, but fortunately "we" all don't share your noxious ideas.
The last line of your post is demonstrative of your typical buffoonery and does not belong on this thread. You know nothing, and you know even less about my political views. You wrongly describe my views and make stuff up to stroke your ignorance. Please take it to the other forum where I WILL continue to ignore your lies.
But why would Sisters be of interest here? And why would you need to check to see if it was a spoof?
And you didn't answer my question ... though you did give quite an imaginary description of me. But can you answer my simple question? Why did you put a book by a Republican here, whose husband you most likely feel should be impeached ... oh, and during a time they are starting talk about Cheney's impeachment ... can you honestly answer that?
The only thing you noted about the book is that it was by the vice president's wife. And your link is to a profane "Hate Bush" site. The quotes from the book are chosen by the "Hate Bush" site people apparently ... how did you decide to read this book that you are so fascinated with .... HAP? Did you gain some insights about strong women, and how they overcame obstacles in the early West?
I would gladly vote for a woman president if she held more conservative political views. I'd vote for Tammy Bruce .. but I don't think she is running. But just because I won't vote for Hillary doesn't mean I "disdain women with strong wills .."
But again Hap .. you said nothing about what you gleaned from this book ... you sent people to your profane "HateBush" site to find out anything. And you said the "Hate Bush" site was fun to peruse around. You said more about your opinion of the "Hate Bush" site than you said about the book that was supposedly your topic.
And for those of you playing along at home, it is because I point things like this out to Hap, that he has such a vile opinion of me. But if you want to discuss the literary value of this book, that supposedly Hap found so intriguing, but had no comment on, fine by me.
The point Garth, is this is all political, and the site is political, and it is pretty nasty political at that.
Hap intones that I bring this up because I despise strong women, which is absurd. Even the quotes from the book at that site are to try to prove Lynne had explicit sexual content in her book, which she explicitly denies. The quotes don't seem all that explicit, but that is the intent of the "Hate Bush" site putting them up. They also have the interview with Wolf Blitzer accusing her of this, while supposedly interviewing her about a children's book. (too bad Wolf turned into pus kitty cat when questioning Hillary)
Hap gave no commentary on anything of interest about strong women from the book, .. this is a political attack plain and simple. It belongs in the political forum. Hap is trying to be too coy by half ... I guess you could say. Why would he not answer my question?
But since Sisters if is about the strong role of lesbians in the west, it would seem Tammy would fit in, as she personifies that.
Rhino (aka Attila the Hun)- it is a book about women's roles, lives and personal relationships in the west. Why would it belong in the political forum?
THAT (the blue) is why I put it here. I answered your question but you did not see it, perhaps because of your blind hatred for anything contrary to your opinion. Women's issues and roles are a valid discussion here in open. (see also the introductory page I posted) YOU are the one who mentioned her party affiliation, not me. I only identified her noteworthy position as the wife of the VP which gives here some prominence and interest. You are also the one who brought up the allusions to sexual identity in the book.
The link I posted goes directly to the page on the book and there is no Bush bashing directly on the page, nor any Lynn Cheney bashing. Nor any profanity. (unless you consider the exerpts from the book itself profane- is that it?) For that matter, there is no direct editorial comment on the page by the website people. You must have followed a link from THERE on your own. I also told everyone how they can find other articles on the book (from CNN, USA Today and others I saw) Are you making this an issue because YOU want it taken to another forum? I'd rather eventually discuss the book, which I have not yet read. This thread is not a discussion about "whitehouse.org", nor did I pose it as such. You can start that thread on your own in the other forum and discuss it there without me. I owe you no explanation.
Women's issues and roles are a valid discussion here in open.
The link I posted goes directly to the page on the book and there is no Bush bashing directly on the page, nor any Lynn Cheney bashing. Nor any profanity.
But Hap you made no mention of women's roles, no thoughts .. you just gave the link. Yes there is plenty of Bush bashing directly on your link. And other profane items, like Lynne reading "lezbo erotica" to a child. Or maybe you don't consider "diesel dy*ke" around a picture of lynne cheney profane. And there is plenty more just like that ...maybe you have them blocked.
And there is the youtube of wolf interviewing lynne, trying to show her as hypocritical because her book is explicit. That is editorial comment The quotes are only picked to try to show she was explicit. That amounts to more editorial comment. Are you saying those quotes represent what you admired about the book? Oh, you wouldn't know ... you haven't even read it.
They have the book presented to try to attack Cheney ... and you haven't even read the book, so of course can't discuss it ... maybe you should consider who is being disingenuous here ... tell us why you suddenly felt compelled to share this in this open forum. You certainly have offered no insights into women's issues and roles.
Your charade is up Hap ... give it a break. And Garth, don't roll over so easily ...
This is like casting out spirits, they won't usually leave without wailing and gnashing of teeth ... so go ahead Hap, rail on about your true intent here is to use Sisters to expound on women's roles and issues, just as soon as you read it ... that will be a funny little act to watch.
But Hap you made no mention of women's roles, no thoughts .. you just gave the link. Yes there is plenty of Bush bashing directly on your link. And other profane items, like Lynne reading "lezbo erotica" to a child.
This discussion appears to be a bit one dimensional. Are there no lesbian ladies in the audience who would care to comment on this subject of 'bush' bashing?
This discussion appears to be a bit one dimensional. Are there no lesbian ladies in the audience who would care to comment on this subject of 'bush' bashing?
Ha ... inciteful as ever Mr. Bump ...
I entirely missed the double meaning .. and so fitting for the subject matter ...
... This is like casting out spirits, they won't usually leave without wailing and gnashing of teeth ...
:unsure: Casting out spirits, are we now? What are they called, ... 'liberal spirits'?
I can see where Hap4me's focus is, even if you can't (or won't). Yeah, the site has Bush bashing on it (like you would really make that kind of 'outraged' distinction if it were a Clinton bashing site. And please spare me any claim to the contrary, I just ate my lunch. ) Yeah it has 'profane statements that might impurify one's 'virgin ears'.
But the main focus on the link that Hap provided ran in accordance with what he said about women's roles in the old west. Ie., that it wasn't exactly "Little House Full of Fairies---errr, I mean On the Prairie" during that time. ... But n-n-o-o-o, one anti-Bush comment, ad, or picture, and you go ape. Well, sometimes you're going to find things on a webpage other than what the main theme indicates. Such is the nature of the beast called the 'Net.
Now, try to focus on the book itself, and comment on that, ok?
Hells bells! Hap could have given a link to 'Curious George and the Man with the Yellow Hat', and Rhino probably would have launched into how it is Bush bashing because the term 'Curious George' is Yet Another Slur on Dubya. <_<
:unsure: Casting out spirits, are we now? What are they called, ... 'liberal spirits'?
HA ... I thought of the "we're all gone now" line ... like just because Hap says it is about "women's roles" we should ignore that he said nothing about what he claims is the topic, and neither did the site that he linked to. And the quotes were selected to support Wolf's attack on Lynne ...
But the main focus on the link that Hap provided ran in accordance with what he said about women's roles in the old west. Ie., that it wasn't exactly "Little House Full of Fairies---errr, I mean On the Prairie" during that time. ... But n-n-o-o-o, one anti-Bush comment, ad, or picture, and you go ape.
In accordance with what Hap said about women's roles? He said nothing on the subject ...
The main focus of the link is NOT about women's roles in the west ... it is only trying to prove that Lynne was lying when she said the book was not sexually explicit. It is not one iota about women's roles in the old west ... it only pulls a few selected quotes from the book to trash Cheney ... it is a hate Bush parody site ... you really think they are discussing the roles of women in the old west?
It is fun to watch you guys do your little crab walk, and ask me to discuss the book, that no one here has read or discussed. Shell offered the only good quote, and that was not from the book or the site.
Now, try to focus on the book itself, and comment on that, ok?
Excuse me here...but since there appears to be no lady "bush" whackers in the audience commenting on this subject, has anybody in fact ever read or heard of this 1981 collectors item?
And who is it 'signed' by, Ms Cheney or Annie Oakley?.
Update! Update! Befrore anyone starts treating this like a Snopes proven urban rumor, try the following links to see that the controversial book does indeed exist:
Yeah, the site has Bush bashing on it (like you would really make that kind of 'outraged' distinction if it were a Clinton bashing site. And please spare me any claim to the contrary, I just ate my lunch. )
Hells bells! Hap could have given a link to 'Curious George and the Man with the Yellow Hat', and Rhino probably would have launched into how it is Bush bashing because the term 'Curious George' is Yet Another Slur on Dubya. <_<
Well since the charade appears over ... I'd like to add that despite how Garth and Hap tried to paint me as blindly loyal to Bush, I hate George Bush ... largely because of his push for amnesty for illegals, but on several issues.
And as to the Attila reference …I've taken a few tests of where I am at politically and find myself smack dab near the middle. I'm not sure where Attila would test.
And while Hap accused me of telling lies ... It seemed quite obvious Hap's motive here is not what he stated ... He states he brought this book up with the motive of discussing women's issues and roles. Yet he offered not one thing on his supposed subject, and his site offered nothing on the subject. I'm not the one being dishonest.
This obscure book has been part of a line of attack against Cheney from the left for some time, as Garth's "research" shows ... which is certainly how Hap heard of it, and that is the motive for it being presented here. It is ludicrous for Hap to claim otherwise, and yet he does, when I pressed him on the issue.
The book appeared to have a lot of research and may well contain some insights. But they are not in the "sexually explicit" quotes from Hap's site. Since the Cheney's daughter Liz, is a lesbian, it would seem likely that has something to do with Lynne's interest in this subject, and perhaps in making a lesbian the "hero."
I found one person that had read it from the pdf ...
Anyway, the book wasn't that hot, I read it cover-to-PDF-cover. It did touch on a lot of taboo issues. I thought she did it in a very dignified way, personally, not soft-porn at all. Posted by Kate on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 01:42 AM
But less dignified is Hap's page, where it has a picture of Lynne with the words "Diesel Dyke" ... and offers to sell you the T-shirt. :blink:
whatever Rhino, you are wrong about your opinion as to why I started this thread, unless you are a prophet of the ilk of Karen Gr@@s#r. (referring to your casting out devil spirits line) gag, is this what you righties plan for the upcoming election?
But since nobody else wishes to discuss the topic, I am done with this, and more, perhaps, since you chose to turn it into politics. (a certain thread killer tactic) I worked 14 hours yesterday hence did not take time to play here. I will yield to your infinite power and wisdom. You are all-knowing and I am just a dishonest piece of pooponastick as I have been called by others.
by the way, since Mary Cheney was 12 when the book was published, and written before that, it is possible but very unlikely that her sexual preferences were the impetus for the book, but you may know better. Actually, I applaud Lynne Cheney for taking the topic and using it as the focus of the book especially at that time, and in her position. This was not an attack on her by me, That would not fit with my political views which include support for gay marriage.
You have assserted claims that I heard of this as some part of a long standing attack on Cheney. I never made any such attack, nor is that where I heard it. Perhaps you wish to tell how you know my motives. Revelation? Masturbation? are you part of Homeland Security? - they seem to get stuff wrong as much as you do. Enjoy handling this or whatever else by yourself.
you are wrong about your opinion as to why I started this thread, unless you are a prophet of the ilk of Karen Gr@@s#r. (referring to your casting out devil spirits line) gag
that was just a goof Hap ... I never cast out spirits even in twi days ... certainly not now. But you did get awfully noisy and ugly when I cast doubt on your motives.
But since nobody else wishes to discuss the topic, I am done with this, and more, perhaps, since you chose to turn it into politics. (a certain thread killer tactic)
You didn't even discuss "the topic" ... it was really only about politics to start, I didn't turn anything.
You have assserted claims that I heard of this as some part of a long standing attack on Cheney. I never made any such attack, nor is that where I heard it. Perhaps you wish to tell how you know my motives.
Well you haven't come up with a story on where you did hear of this book. The only places found are sites that use it as an attack. It is so rare that your hate site is selling their copy for $1500. One sold for around $800 on ebay. And Lynne didn't want it reprinted, so I doubt this pdf is really even legal.
But you lauded the hate site as interesting, while making no comment on the book which was supposedly your topic .. which you had not even read. You could hardly be more transparent, but your "deny, deny, deny" policy is in full force.
Since you never once discussed your alleged topic, and your site was a vile hate site, I am choosing to not believe you. No I don't have any connection with homeland security. I doubt that declaring solidarity with violent black panthers would get anyone on a watch list, but you never know.
As to handling myself, hey, you are the one that put up the link to lesbian erotica.
I didn't find any sites free of political opinion and editorial comments, but I did find a couple favorable "reviews" ...
Showalter thought the book did a "wonderful job" of dramatizing "the role of women in the West … she'd clearly read [the historical research] and wrote sympathetically. It's about women breaking away from the dollhouse and striking out on their own." If Cheney ever did allow a reprint, Showalter would probably be delighted to write a jacket blurb.
Cheney, who earned a PhD in literature — that's one of the liberal arts — set the book in 1886 Wyoming, a rough paradise where women got the vote in 1869 and used it. When the territory was invited to become a state in a nation that barred women from voting, Wyoming thumbed its nose at Congress — "We may stay out of the Union 100 years, but we will come in with our women" — and kept state suffrage. The West led the way for women, and Wyoming led the West. Soon Colorado, Idaho, Utah and Washington gave women the vote; so, in 1911, did California.
The cover describes the heroine as "beautiful, strong-willed," which is book-jacket code for an uppity woman about to be tamed by some man. Not this time. The lesbianism, the adultery, the contraception would offend some Bush voters, but it's the frank, uncensorious feminism that's really astonishing. Cheney's women do what has to be done. No divine bolt splits the heavens to punish lesbians and fornicators. Life happens.
Recommended Posts
Shellon
Thanks Kenneth, I'll enjoy this one!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FaintWhispers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Hap .. do you have any motive in bringing up this book from 1981 .. other than to intro your political site that trashes Bush with a lot of foul language?
Yes, we know you are very far left, and you take every opportunity to trash Bush ... why did you think this would be of interest in the open forum?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Shell- I am sure you will!
go ahead and kick me Rocky, I did it again. but my excuse for unignoring Rhino's post is that it was on a thread I started so I felt it proper to see if he had anything worthwhile to say. He didn't :P
Rhino (aka Attila the Hun)- it is a book about women's roles, lives and personal relationships in the west. Why would it belong in the political forum? Just because it is written in a scintillating style by the "second lady"? I don't think so. I posted the link from this site because the book can be read there. "WE" know you have disdain for women with strong minds, wills, and ideas which differ from yours, but fortunately "we" all don't share your noxious ideas.
The last line of your post is demonstrative of your typical buffoonery and does not belong on this thread. You know nothing, and you know even less about my political views. You wrongly describe my views and make stuff up to stroke your ignorance. Please take it to the other forum where I WILL continue to ignore your lies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
But why would Sisters be of interest here? And why would you need to check to see if it was a spoof?
And you didn't answer my question ... though you did give quite an imaginary description of me. But can you answer my simple question? Why did you put a book by a Republican here, whose husband you most likely feel should be impeached ... oh, and during a time they are starting talk about Cheney's impeachment ... can you honestly answer that?
The only thing you noted about the book is that it was by the vice president's wife. And your link is to a profane "Hate Bush" site. The quotes from the book are chosen by the "Hate Bush" site people apparently ... how did you decide to read this book that you are so fascinated with .... HAP? Did you gain some insights about strong women, and how they overcame obstacles in the early West?
I would gladly vote for a woman president if she held more conservative political views. I'd vote for Tammy Bruce .. but I don't think she is running. But just because I won't vote for Hillary doesn't mean I "disdain women with strong wills .."
But again Hap .. you said nothing about what you gleaned from this book ... you sent people to your profane "HateBush" site to find out anything. And you said the "Hate Bush" site was fun to peruse around. You said more about your opinion of the "Hate Bush" site than you said about the book that was supposedly your topic.
And for those of you playing along at home, it is because I point things like this out to Hap, that he has such a vile opinion of me. But if you want to discuss the literary value of this book, that supposedly Hap found so intriguing, but had no comment on, fine by me.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Attila--errr, Rhino,
If you don't like the 'Bush trashing site' and the link thereto, ..... don't read it.
Simple, no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
The point Garth, is this is all political, and the site is political, and it is pretty nasty political at that.
Hap intones that I bring this up because I despise strong women, which is absurd. Even the quotes from the book at that site are to try to prove Lynne had explicit sexual content in her book, which she explicitly denies. The quotes don't seem all that explicit, but that is the intent of the "Hate Bush" site putting them up. They also have the interview with Wolf Blitzer accusing her of this, while supposedly interviewing her about a children's book. (too bad Wolf turned into pus kitty cat when questioning Hillary)
Hap gave no commentary on anything of interest about strong women from the book, .. this is a political attack plain and simple. It belongs in the political forum. Hap is trying to be too coy by half ... I guess you could say. Why would he not answer my question?
But since Sisters if is about the strong role of lesbians in the west, it would seem Tammy would fit in, as she personifies that.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
THAT (the blue) is why I put it here. I answered your question but you did not see it, perhaps because of your blind hatred for anything contrary to your opinion. Women's issues and roles are a valid discussion here in open. (see also the introductory page I posted) YOU are the one who mentioned her party affiliation, not me. I only identified her noteworthy position as the wife of the VP which gives here some prominence and interest. You are also the one who brought up the allusions to sexual identity in the book.
The link I posted goes directly to the page on the book and there is no Bush bashing directly on the page, nor any Lynn Cheney bashing. Nor any profanity. (unless you consider the exerpts from the book itself profane- is that it?) For that matter, there is no direct editorial comment on the page by the website people. You must have followed a link from THERE on your own. I also told everyone how they can find other articles on the book (from CNN, USA Today and others I saw) Are you making this an issue because YOU want it taken to another forum? I'd rather eventually discuss the book, which I have not yet read. This thread is not a discussion about "whitehouse.org", nor did I pose it as such. You can start that thread on your own in the other forum and discuss it there without me. I owe you no explanation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Well said, Hap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
But Hap you made no mention of women's roles, no thoughts .. you just gave the link. Yes there is plenty of Bush bashing directly on your link. And other profane items, like Lynne reading "lezbo erotica" to a child. Or maybe you don't consider "diesel dy*ke" around a picture of lynne cheney profane. And there is plenty more just like that ...maybe you have them blocked.
And there is the youtube of wolf interviewing lynne, trying to show her as hypocritical because her book is explicit. That is editorial comment The quotes are only picked to try to show she was explicit. That amounts to more editorial comment. Are you saying those quotes represent what you admired about the book? Oh, you wouldn't know ... you haven't even read it.
They have the book presented to try to attack Cheney ... and you haven't even read the book, so of course can't discuss it ... maybe you should consider who is being disingenuous here ... tell us why you suddenly felt compelled to share this in this open forum. You certainly have offered no insights into women's issues and roles.
Your charade is up Hap ... give it a break. And Garth, don't roll over so easily ...
This is like casting out spirits, they won't usually leave without wailing and gnashing of teeth ... so go ahead Hap, rail on about your true intent here is to use Sisters to expound on women's roles and issues, just as soon as you read it ... that will be a funny little act to watch.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
This discussion appears to be a bit one dimensional. Are there no lesbian ladies in the audience who would care to comment on this subject of 'bush' bashing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Ha ... inciteful as ever Mr. Bump ...
I entirely missed the double meaning .. and so fitting for the subject matter ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
:unsure: Casting out spirits, are we now? What are they called, ... 'liberal spirits'?
I can see where Hap4me's focus is, even if you can't (or won't). Yeah, the site has Bush bashing on it (like you would really make that kind of 'outraged' distinction if it were a Clinton bashing site. And please spare me any claim to the contrary, I just ate my lunch.
) Yeah it has 'profane statements that might impurify one's 'virgin ears'.
But the main focus on the link that Hap provided ran in accordance with what he said about women's roles in the old west. Ie., that it wasn't exactly "Little House Full of Fairies---errr, I mean On the Prairie" during that time. ... But n-n-o-o-o, one anti-Bush comment, ad, or picture, and you go ape. Well, sometimes you're going to find things on a webpage other than what the main theme indicates. Such is the nature of the beast called the 'Net.
Now, try to focus on the book itself, and comment on that, ok?
Hells bells! Hap could have given a link to 'Curious George and the Man with the Yellow Hat', and Rhino probably would have launched into how it is Bush bashing because the term 'Curious George' is Yet Another Slur on Dubya. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
HA ... I thought of the "we're all gone now" line ... like just because Hap says it is about "women's roles" we should ignore that he said nothing about what he claims is the topic, and neither did the site that he linked to. And the quotes were selected to support Wolf's attack on Lynne ...
In accordance with what Hap said about women's roles? He said nothing on the subject ...
The main focus of the link is NOT about women's roles in the west ... it is only trying to prove that Lynne was lying when she said the book was not sexually explicit. It is not one iota about women's roles in the old west ... it only pulls a few selected quotes from the book to trash Cheney ... it is a hate Bush parody site ... you really think they are discussing the roles of women in the old west?
It is fun to watch you guys do your little crab walk, and ask me to discuss the book, that no one here has read or discussed. Shell offered the only good quote, and that was not from the book or the site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Excuse me here...but since there appears to be no lady "bush" whackers in the audience commenting on this subject, has anybody in fact ever read or heard of this 1981 collectors item?
And who is it 'signed' by, Ms Cheney or Annie Oakley?.
Signed, "Insightful"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Update! Update! Befrore anyone starts treating this like a Snopes proven urban rumor, try the following links to see that the controversial book does indeed exist:
Lynne Cheney, Wolf Blitzer, and ‘Sisters’ … oh my...
J-Walk Blog (Near the bottom of the page.)
Museum of Hoaxes?
Apparently not! ;)
Ahhh, but we are just a bunch of Bush-whackers, ehhh?
..... If that is the best rebuttal you can come up with, you can just quit right now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Well maybe you are missing the comedic genious that is Bumpy ...
I don't think bumpers was saying it didn't exist, but that it is indeed rare ... it ranks
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,606,203 in Books ...
perhaps it is a great book, we'll probably never know, as no one here has ever read it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Well since the charade appears over ... I'd like to add that despite how Garth and Hap tried to paint me as blindly loyal to Bush, I hate George Bush ... largely because of his push for amnesty for illegals, but on several issues.
And as to the Attila reference …I've taken a few tests of where I am at politically and find myself smack dab near the middle. I'm not sure where Attila would test.
And while Hap accused me of telling lies ... It seemed quite obvious Hap's motive here is not what he stated ... He states he brought this book up with the motive of discussing women's issues and roles. Yet he offered not one thing on his supposed subject, and his site offered nothing on the subject. I'm not the one being dishonest.
This obscure book has been part of a line of attack against Cheney from the left for some time, as Garth's "research" shows ... which is certainly how Hap heard of it, and that is the motive for it being presented here. It is ludicrous for Hap to claim otherwise, and yet he does, when I pressed him on the issue.
The book appeared to have a lot of research and may well contain some insights. But they are not in the "sexually explicit" quotes from Hap's site. Since the Cheney's daughter Liz, is a lesbian, it would seem likely that has something to do with Lynne's interest in this subject, and perhaps in making a lesbian the "hero."
I found one person that had read it from the pdf ...
But less dignified is Hap's page, where it has a picture of Lynne with the words "Diesel Dyke" ... and offers to sell you the T-shirt. :blink:
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
whatever Rhino, you are wrong about your opinion as to why I started this thread, unless you are a prophet of the ilk of Karen Gr@@s#r. (referring to your casting out devil spirits line) gag, is this what you righties plan for the upcoming election?
But since nobody else wishes to discuss the topic, I am done with this, and more, perhaps, since you chose to turn it into politics. (a certain thread killer tactic) I worked 14 hours yesterday hence did not take time to play here. I will yield to your infinite power and wisdom. You are all-knowing and I am just a dishonest piece of pooponastick as I have been called by others.
by the way, since Mary Cheney was 12 when the book was published, and written before that, it is possible but very unlikely that her sexual preferences were the impetus for the book, but you may know better. Actually, I applaud Lynne Cheney for taking the topic and using it as the focus of the book especially at that time, and in her position. This was not an attack on her by me, That would not fit with my political views which include support for gay marriage.
You have assserted claims that I heard of this as some part of a long standing attack on Cheney. I never made any such attack, nor is that where I heard it. Perhaps you wish to tell how you know my motives. Revelation? Masturbation? are you part of Homeland Security? - they seem to get stuff wrong as much as you do. Enjoy handling this or whatever else by yourself.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
that was just a goof Hap ... I never cast out spirits even in twi days ... certainly not now. But you did get awfully noisy and ugly when I cast doubt on your motives.
You didn't even discuss "the topic" ... it was really only about politics to start, I didn't turn anything.Well you haven't come up with a story on where you did hear of this book. The only places found are sites that use it as an attack. It is so rare that your hate site is selling their copy for $1500. One sold for around $800 on ebay. And Lynne didn't want it reprinted, so I doubt this pdf is really even legal.
But you lauded the hate site as interesting, while making no comment on the book which was supposedly your topic .. which you had not even read. You could hardly be more transparent, but your "deny, deny, deny" policy is in full force.
Since you never once discussed your alleged topic, and your site was a vile hate site, I am choosing to not believe you. No I don't have any connection with homeland security. I doubt that declaring solidarity with violent black panthers would get anyone on a watch list, but you never know.
As to handling myself, hey, you are the one that put up the link to lesbian erotica.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Last night Nightline did a piece on Obama... maybe some of you knew this, but I didn't, turns out Cheney is a distant relation of his...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowtwi
I've downloaded the pdf file and will read it this week. I'm interested in discussing the book if others are reading it too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I didn't find any sites free of political opinion and editorial comments, but I did find a couple favorable "reviews" ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.