On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:10:38 -0800 (PST) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Collins Richey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:45:18 -0500 (EST) > > Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > This so desperately should be on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > anyway, welcome to Bush & Ashcroft's America, where if you're not > > > supporting the 'regime' you muswt be a terrorist. i hardly think > > > it > > a > > > coincidence that the most intollerant are those who are most > > > closely alligned with the Bush regime. > > > > > > > And I suppose you find the demonstraters in NY, SF, and in Europe > > who are blocking traffic, ambulance service, etc. because they don't > > approve > > of administration policy to be the epitomy of "tolerant"? > > hardly. there are extremists on both sides of the fence. > unfortunately, one side happens to be running the govt of the United > States. > > > Webster's definition. > > intolerant, adj. > > 1. Not in agreement with my point of view. > > Certainly not Daniel Webster's: > 2. Not tolerating difference of opinion or sentiment ... I think you missed the point. My definition was meant to be a mildly humorous definition, but Nr. 2 from Webster serves just as well. The point is that our current elected and appointed officials happen to be of a different political persuasion than yours, and you (and certainly not you alone) choose to label that difference "extremist," which labelling demonstrates definition Nr. 2 in a most excellent manner. I personally find Mr. Bush to be pretty middle of the road for a Republican, but that probably labels me as an extremist too. -- Collins _______________________________________________ General mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/general
