Right-wing media shamefully try to pin Discovery Channel bomber's actions on Gore
The right-wing media have shamefully attempted to tie James Lee, who created a hostage situation in a Discovery Channel building, to former Vice President Al Gore, due to Lee's statement that he was "awakened" after reading Gore's book An Inconvenient Truth. In fact, Lee, who criticized Gore's book for not providing "solutions," holds a number of views Gore does not, including extreme opinions on population control and immigration.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Right-wing media attempt to blame Gore for Lee's actions
Hoft: Lee "saw Al Gore's junk-science movie and says he decided he had to do more." In a September 1 Gateway Pundit post, titled, "Gunman, Bomber, Leftist Activist -- Holds Hostages at Discovery Building," Jim Hoft posted a picture of Lee and wrote: "James Lee- behind the Save the Planet Protest. He saw Al Gore's junk-science movie and says he decided he had to do more... So he packed on bombs and took hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters."
Fox Nation: "Environmental Militant 'Awakened' by Al Gore?" Under the headline, "Environmental Militant 'Awakened' by Al Gore?" Fox Nation posted a section of a blog which stated:
Maybe the media is right. All the political vitriol, all the hate out there is spawning crazies capable of anything. We all need to stand together and send a message of unity and tell provocateurs like Al Gore to tamp down the rhetoric.
[...]
Who could have inspired such a maniac?! We know that he must have been influenced by someone. We've been told by countless lefty pundits and politicians that such craziness can usually be attributed to evil right-wing commentators who have whipped tea partiers into a seething, violent frenzy.
Well, this time it is clear. James Jay Lee has named the things that most inspired him -- some cultish book about an ape called "Ishmael" AND chief executive greeney Al Gore.
Fox Nation also ran side by side pictures of Lee and Gore on its homepage:
Drudge Report: Lee " '[a]wakened' by Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth.' " The Drudge Report linked to an MSNBC article about Lee under the headline, " 'Awakened' by Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'..." From the Drudge Report:
Fox & Friends: "[T]he gunman's extreme environmentalist views may have been sparked by an Al Gore documentary? Where's the media outrage there?" On the September 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade teased an upcoming segment by saying: "Now we know the gunman's extreme environmentalist views may have been sparked by an Al Gore documentary? Where's the media outrage there? Would they be silent if the tables were turned with a different documentary with a different point of view?" Later in the show, co-host Gretchen Carlson noted that "he apparently became some sort of an environmentalist junkie after he watched vice president -- former vice president's movie, Inconvenient Truth [sic], Al Gore's movie. He became a radical environmentalist."
Big Government: "An Inconvenient Truth: Enviros' Doomsday Rhetoric Breeds Eco-Terror." In a September 2 Big Government post, Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Christopher Horner wrote:
In the wake of yesterday's terrorism outside Washington, DC by Discovery-network hostage-taker James J. Lee, let's consider the position articulated by, say, radio host Glenn Beck to not attribute responsibility to Al Gore's eco-ranting. The latter is of course larded with assurances of a certain eco-catastrophe brought about by dark forces impeding salvation, and disturbing utterances like "the tide in this battle will turn only when the majority of people in the world become sufficiently aroused by a shared sense of urgent danger to join in an all-out effort." (Earth in the Balance, p. 269)
[...]
Beck's (somewhat backhanded, I understand) rationale for exculpating Gore of partial responsibility is that the terrorist was not a sane person. Yep. But the two -- culpability by Gore and other radical green imams, and acting out by mentally unstable members of their targeted demographic -- aren't mutually exclusive. We know that individuals bear responsibility for reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions, both the instigator and the instigated.
One might not like the connection, what with environmentalism being as chic as a Che Guevara handbag, but you can't deny it. Take the quiz, "Did Al Gore say it? Or was it the Unabomber?". I dare you to score better than 50%. That should make you uncomfortable. Then read Lee's manifesto, and really squirm at the similarities.
[...]
Eco-terrorism is terrorism. Stop waving it away as a different kind of terrorism, each incident in the pattern of behavior merely an isolated one. Willful or not, these incidents are the logical consequence of the doomsday rhetoric.
Environmental radicalism has been mainstreamed, the latest poisonous "radical chic". But there are consequences to this indulgence. Stop Gang Green before they harm again.
But Lee was also critical of Gore's book, and Gore does not share Lee's views on immigration and population control
Lee promoted living "WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children" and "programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility." In his manifesto against the Discovery Channel, Lee wrote that "[f]ocus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution." (emphasis in original) Lee demanded that the Discovery Channel promote this goal by creating "programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility."
Gore promoted "stabilizing" the human population through literacy, access to contraception, and reducing infant mortality. In Gore's book Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, he advocated stabilizing the populations of Third World countries to guarantee access to resources. Gore recommended achieving this goal through literacy and education, access to contraception, and reducing the infant mortality rate:
A more careful analysis suggests that rising per capita income is also associated with several of the basic causes of demographic transition. High literacy rates and education levels are important, especially for women; once they are empowered intellectually and socially, they make decisions about the number of children they wish to have. Low infant mortality rates give parents a high level of confidence that even with a small family, some of their children will grow to maturity, carry the family name and genes (and in the belief of some societies, the spirits of ancestors), and provide physical security for their parents when they are old. Nearly ubiquitous access to a variety of affordable birth control techniques gives parents the power to choose when and whether to have children. [Page 311; italics in original]
Lee criticized An Inconvenient Truth for not providing "real solutions." In a post on his MySpace page, which has since been taken down, Lee reportedly wrote that Gore's book "was very enlightening" but "he didn't offer any real solutions":
I finished reading Al Gore's book, and [sic] inconvenient truth a few days ago. It was very enlightening. However, at the end he didn't offer any real solutions, as if changing a lightbulb would even put a scratch in the global warming epidemic. The book was half good, which means the part about science was good. The rest seemed like a commercial for sainthood.
Lee promoted "solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that." In his manifesto, Lee wrote, as one of his "demands":
Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)
Gore has been supportive of less restrictive immigration policies. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Gore expressed support for less restrictive immigration policies. For instance, an October 21, 2000, Des Moines Register article (accessed via Nexis) reported that Gore "pledges to make the INS 'more efficient and user friendly.' He supports expanding to Haiti and all of Central America a law that allows immigrants fleeing human-rights abuses in Nicaragua and Cuba to gain immediate asylum. Gore opposes legislation that would make English the official language" and "support[s] increasing the number of H-1B visas, which are six-year work permits." An October 8, 2000, Austin American-Statesman editorial (accessed via Nexis) further noted that "[b]oth Gore and [George W.] Bush advocate keeping families intact" and that "Gore wants the immigration applications speeded up." A September 4, 2000, San Diego Union-Tribune article (accessed via Nexis) quoted Gore as saying, "Every country...has a duty to protect its borders, but it must be done with compassion and the kind of respect for human life that is crucial to what we stand for as a country."
Some right-wing media figures denounced drawing links between Lee and Gore
Malkin: "Al Gore is not responsible for this." Later on the September 2 edition of Fox & Friends, guest Michelle Malkin said:
MALKIN: I'm going to do something that my enemies and opponents on the other side rarely do, and that is to make clear that Al Gore is not responsible for this. An Inconvenient Truth certainly is an incitement to stupidity and an incitement to massive, costly government intervention, but it is not, and it was never intended be, an incitement to violence.
Malkin also wrote on her website:
The gunman was reportedly motivated by Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth eco-propaganda. Guess what? I'm not playing that opportunistic blame game here. It's not Al Gore's fault when an enviro-nut goes off unhinged (and I've said that before). The blame in this case lies with the crazy man who terrorized the Discovery Channel employees. Period.
Beck: "You know what caused this guy to do these things? He was sick and twisted and crazy. Period." On the September 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, Glenn Beck attempted to use the bomber to revive attacks on White House official John Holdren but noted, "You know what caused this guy to do these things? He was sick and twisted and crazy. Period." Beck further noted that "these people do exist, and they exist on the left and the right."
Beck: Gore and Holdren are "not responsible in any way for the Discovery nutjob guy." On the September 2 edition of his radio show, Beck said: "So let me just be very clear here. Al Gore and John Holdren have a ton of really bad ideas. But they're not responsible in any way for the Discovery nutjob guy."
Pathetic.
Now look at the army of right-wing talkers on the television and radio. There are numerous statements along the lines of taking up arms and violent revolution.
If folks cannot see this, perhaps they don't want to.
Yeah, O'Reilly was merely trying to protect the lives of unborn babies from people who would stick a sharp surgical instrument through the back of their heads to kill them.
The battle cry of the left, "save the whales, kill the babies"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_W75zh1j2I
http://suewidemark.netfirms.com/shafer2.htm
It IS a fetus.
Ouch. That is quite a shot at O'Reilly and Fakeliberal. Any response Fakelib?
This is NOT rocket science. My post was 100% indisputable, yet you tried to dispute it! What a fool.
Not ALL human life is a HUMAN. It is a POTENTIAL human being until such time as it CAN survive outside the womb AND leaves the womb. Until that time, it's a fetus. It's either a viable fetus, if it could survive outside the womb, or it's not a viable fetus if it couldn't survive outside the womb.
But it's NOT a human being. It gets that label once it leaves the womb and can survive on its own, sometimes with significant medical intervention. If it's a fetus that can't survive outside the womb, it NEVER BECOMES A HUMAN BEING. It remains a potential human being for its entire existence.
From where do get that definition? If the human life "CAN survive outside the womb," why must the human life actually leave the womb to be deemed a human being? In other words, why is a "viable fetus" not a human being?
Much like your other ramblings, your definition makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Doofus!
I also like the new chant of those on the right who are trying to get elected.
"Vote for me, and when I get to Washington I will make sure the Government is so weak that it can't help anybody. I'll make sure that the job of politicians in Washington is to do nothing."
Finally, fakelib and O'Reilly are begininng to admit they wanted Tiller killed and asked for it on many occasions. Finally, an ounce of honesty.
Please point out any instances where Al Gore spewed hatred over and over and over for a single individual who was subsequently shot. Please point out any instances where Al Gore directed anger toward the Discovery Channel.
You are attempting to compare apples and pomegranates.
Nice try, but you fail.
Exactly what is the "hateful message" that the left defends?
Please be specific.
At what point did rka mention Rush? I think you may be replying to the wrong post. Please re-read what you think you're replying to and send another. But, that is typical liberalism at work ... read something that isn't there and use it to promote your ideals.
Or you're just an idiot.
And this is typical of a wingnut: Make a broad generality with no basis in fact. This part of the thread -- the one you responded to, remember? -- is about Limbaugh. I mean, duh.
Yeah, repeat that to yourself. The part I responded to was about the unabomber. Are you completely dense or just a little? That shows how little intelligence liberals have, they can't even understand simple conversations.
Any more than you can describe feeling good about democrats in positions of authority.
Why does Glenn Beck have to tell his audience to "reject violence"?
An this from one of Mr. Boelerts write-ups:
And why would anybody think there was a connection between Fox News' hate speech and the recent police blotter of violent and frightening political incidents:
•Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-VA) brother's address was erroneously posted online by a Tea Party blogger who invited activists to descend on the house. A gas line outside the brother's house was cut.
•Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) was the target of threatening faxes and phone calls, including death threats. Some of the faxes included "racial epithets used in reference to President Obama," according to CBS News.
•A brick was thrown through the window of the Democratic Party office in Rochester, New York. The note attached read: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice," roughly quoting 1964 Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater.
•Rep. Anthony Weiner's office in Kew Gardens, New York, had to be evacuated after suspicious white powder was found in an envelope mailed to the office.
•A thrown brick smashed a window at Rep. Louise Slaughter's district office in Niagara Falls, New York.
•Slaughter also received a message claiming that "snipers were being deployed to kill those members who voted yes for health care," according to Politico.
•A tossed brick demolished a window at the Sedgwick County Democratic Party headquarters in Wichita, Kansas.
•There were confirmed accounts of Tea Party protesters hurling anti-gay slurs at Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) on the eve of the health care vote.
•"Vandals also smashed the front door and a window at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' office in Tucson early Monday, hours after the Arizona Democrat voted for the health care reform package," reported the Kansas City Star.
Fox News' response to the mayhem? "This happens all the time," shrugged paid contributor Stephen Hayes. His colleague Charles Krauthammer added, "I'm sure a lot of this is trumped up."
It's a chilling prospect, but one that seems more and more plausible: What if Fox News actually wants mob violence?
Absolutely not. I think James Lee specifically did what he did because of his liberal teachings. There wasn't a coincidence involved in this action of terror and hatred. It is the message that liberalism teaches. The only reason this doesn't happen more often is because liberals have a 'thing' about guns. You can see evidence of that by the use of a toy gun by Lee. But, it's obvious the mental derangement is there.
You say he was specifically taught a liberal ideology that made him do this, so surely you can provide us with what those lessons are, specifically.
What? Can you be specific, here? I am not aware of doctors killing millions of people. Have you fallen victim to rumors?
Of course you're not. You're a liberal who does what he is told to do and says what he is told to say. Bahhhh
Yes, but an insult doesn't count as an argument. Again, what are you talking about, some crazy conspiracy theory?
When in your last post you wrote:
>>You're a liberal who does what he is told to do and says what he is told to say. Bahhhh
Troll much? Do you really expect to be taken seriously? And you still haven't answered my question about what you are talking about, except to keep issuing insults.
- You can't give me an example of the liberal "hateful message" because you still have not responded to that question
- You can't give me one example of a "lesson" that teaches this supposed message (that you can't seem to define) apparently in some sort of school
- You are however, some how convinced that this man was a student of these "lessons" and a practitioner of this message... for which you can neither define nor provide examples for.
Do I have this right, Floyd?
- Oh, and then you somehow toss in the abortion argument
... you should however know, flyd, that I am a liberal and I am pro-life... I just don't force that choice on others.
The next time he writes a cogent, intellectual thought will be the first time.
1. God is love
2. Love is blind
3. Stevie Wonder is blind
4. Steve Wonder is God
Being dependent on someone else is immaterial.
Life can be sustained is the ONLY criteria.
On fetuses born too early, life CANNOT be sustained, even with all the medical intervention that one can use.
If you haven't been able to make sense of that argument, it's because you haven't been trying hard enough. It's pretty simple. Able to sustain life DOESN'T mean able to do so without any help.
A 15 week old fetus can't sustain life outside the womb. If it leaves the womb at that time, it doesn't become a human being - it remains a fetus, an nonviable fetus to be specific. It never becomes a human being.
If a 36 week old fetus leaves the womb, it becomes a human being when it leaves the womb because it can sustain life - its organs are well-enough developed to do so, whereas a 15 week old fetus organs can't do that, can't sustain life, even with a ton of medical intervention!
Human beings needing love, attention, and sustanence as newborns is a separate issue. Disabled people needing a variety of levels of outside interference/interaction to survive is a separate issue too - WITH that help, they CAN survive. A nonviable fetus can't survive, even with a lot of medical intervention.
And that's the dividing line between when someone can be classified as a human being and when one can't.
We know, Floyd, we know. Play some of your classics. Do the one again where you brag about your complete and utter laughable ignorance about the absolute basics of our progressive tax system and then use that ignorance to attack what you perceive to be your political opponents. That's my favorite.
Or how about the one where you try to defend Exxon by showing us that they paid millions in taxes internationally even though your actual link specifies that they paid zero taxes in the United States by using a Caribbean tax shelter. I love when you play the good oldies.
Why do you continually whine about a tax code I'm not required to know. But you, being an accountant, ARE required to know the tax code, yet YOU cannot answer why VP Biden paid less taxes than the US Government says he should have (according to YOUR chart).
You make yourself sound extremely dumb every time you ignore that question. Especially considering YOU are the one who continually brings the subject up. You might want to grow a pair and actually attempt to answer it this time. But, I doubt it. Your pair are pretty small ... or you would answer it.
You keep whining about me not understanding a complicated system, yet you won't answer the simplest of questions regarding how the system works. That's nice.
For the rest, how hard did they have to try to show violence from the rightwing?
Response from a wingnut is rare enough. I'd hate for him to think I was ignoring him.
I did give your post a thumbs up.
That you don't see the difference, isn't surprising to me, whereas we have Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, et all, using violent rhetoric almost on a daily basis.
I am having dificulty finding the quote, so please provide it here.
Really? Calling someone a liar in a message board leads to violence? Are you really serious?
Perhaps you should look up the word "hyperbole."
Okay, so now it is established: you really are trolling.
The irony is lost in little Pinky. You are trolling. You come and insult, distract and without the intention of debate. If your idea of debate is "liberals are
___negative noun___" then i hope you debate like this to the police or somebody who can break your jaw.
That requires a good faith effort to explain one's points, backing them up with evidence to support one's assertions. That requires a rejection of unsupportable opinion that is not fact-based. That requires the intent to carry on that debate, to acknowledge the good points that the other side makes and admit when one of YOUR points fails miserably.
A known troll, from previous behavior, said
"While I'm flipping through Al Gore's book, I'd like to see what you consider "violent rhetoric". Examples please. Oh yea, and while you're at it, go ahead and prove that "almost on a daily basis" claim too."
This was said in reply to a post that asserted that one can find all kinds of examples of violent rhetoric coming from the right.
That violent rhetoric has been repeatedly documented here at MMFA and elsewhere, over and over again. The idea that it needs to be repeated here before it can be believed is a dishonest tactic of a dishonest troll.
That's first.
Then, that known troll wrote that he'd be looking for the evidence of violent rhetoric in Gore's book. Except, everyone knows that it doesn't exist there, and so, yet again, we see a dishonest effort to participate in a fair debate by someone suggesting that it's necessary to LOOK in that book NOW to know that the violent rhetoric doesn't exist. That book has been around for a while - if violent rhetoric existed in it, one wouldn't need to find it TODAY - it would have already been uncovered.
And there are so many times that we see violent rhetoric coming from the right, many days with more than one example, some days with none, that it's not much hyperbole to suggest that it happens nearly every day. Again, this is well-documented.
And so, given the above, what was CLEAR was that the poster was NOT interested in a fair and reasonable debate on the actual topic being covered, as I said.
You got nothin', doofus.
I'm no fan of "hate speech" legislation. Gore is allowed to spread false AGW propaganda and such alarmism will cause some among the fringe to act as Lee did. Free will's a you-know-what. We have the freedom to speak as we wish, but a lunatic has the freedom to finally snap. There will always be some who come unhinged and I actually agree with MMfA's characterization of some of the Lee coverage as "shameful." Likewise it's shameful when MMfA does it, like this Boehlert column so this would have been a good opportunity for MMfA to come clean and denounce blaming the actions of the lunatic fringe on the right's "hateful rhetoric."
Speaking of unhinged, Delly, troll ferret extraordinaire, there seems to have been some debate on this thread about whether or not you spew violent rhetoric. I think you know what's coming next. Floyd, RK, Delly is in fact violent in her rhetoric. She once wished for my death and RK, you don't realize how classic it is that you defend her by conjuring the word "hyperbole."
Troll.
You're not even a good one, because your message constantly changes based on time of day, presumably what specific type of episode you've had, and what you ate for breakfast.
They LIED when they say that they wanted an answer to their question. They lied when they pretended that they had an honest question.
This isn't rocket science.
Mr. I'll Just Leap in Here and Insult Somebody to Help the Arguement Along.
Are you posting while drunk? I mean the links you provided (two minutes befor this post!) to previous mmfa posts shows the examples you are asking for. Such as...
I mean do you even understand what you are arguing about or what your links demonstrate?
"Murfreesboro arsonist inspired by protests against 'Ground Zero Mosque'?"
For some reason, I don't think holding my breath would be a good idea...
Beyond being scared and angry, any further speculation on the man rests on large amounts, of shaky ground.
I think he is saying when that association is done by the left-wing, but you can incorrectly read that any way you want.
It makes sense that you find blaming liberalism for the actions of James Lee to be irrelevant, but right-wing association to violence is totally acceptable. Hotwings is absolutely correct in pointing out the hypocrisy of the left on this aspect of the story.
Except, as has been pointed out ad nauseoum, Gore didn't advocate violence in his book. Just an inconvenient fact you find it hard to get around.
I don't remember the last time I logged onto this site and didn't see one of the wingnuts crying "Liberal hypocrisy!" about something where they couldn't show any actual hypocrisy.
This is no different than say the "guild-by-association" tactics that were used by the extreme left of say Michael Moore or Keith Olbermann. Their hyperbolic and wildly reaching connections that they made during the previous administration were just as wrong.
The problem is, you are looking at one extreme and painting the entire movement with the same wide brush. Throughout this thread you have made references to "liberal teachings" and accused an entire movement because of the rhetoric of a few and the actions of an extreme minotity... and you are shouting these things from the other extreme.
And isn't that what you're doing by blaming all the woes of the world on right-wingers who only watch fox news? Of course I'll label the entire liberal movement as something when the examples from your extreme minority seem to overpower your "kinder message". Does liberalism even have a 'kinder message'? Or is it all 'hate this/hate that'? Your extreme liberal examples speak the loudest and they are the ones who I hear the most. That gives your entire class of people the tag of being moronic sheeple. A few bad apples ruined the entire liberal mentality. Liberals do not use logic when they think, they use emotions. That is why dell (and others) simply use name-calling as their major debate tactic.
But, you still have yet to define or even describe what that message is, Floyd. You have responded to multiple posters on this thread but, you still have yet to tell me what that message is.
We don't know Floyd. You still haven't told us what that "message" is and yet you go on and on about how this message defines us... so define it.
Such as? are you refering to my own examples of Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann? Should I judge the right by the examples of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich?
But, your entire post is based on emotion. How about you logically explain to me what this "liberal message" is.
But that is your entire modas operandi. I have not approached you with a single insult nor have I resorted in calling you names in a single post in this entire thread. Not once. I have asked you repeatedly to please provide for us an example or a definition of this "message" that you keep refering to, and you have shown time and again an inability to do so. I think the problem is that you have listened to some very influential people that have told you that there is some kind of a liberal "message" or "agenda" that you should be afraid of, but they haven't done a very good job of explaining to you what that message is because you cannot provide a single example... except for the fact that you are pro-life, which as I have already explained I am pro-life as well, we just differ on the role of government on "pro-life vs. pro-choice" issues. To be honest, I am glad that I have the right to choose to be "pro-life."
Calling a troll a troll is not namecalling, just like calling Son of Sam a murderer after he's been convicted of murder is not namecalling.
But calling an abortion provider a murderer IS namecalling. And saying that I use namecalling as a major part of my debate tactics is namecalling too.
So, the NAMECALLER here is YOU, doofus. And calling a doofus a doofus AFTER you've proven that they're a doofus is not namecalling either!
I'm open to debate on the various wierdness that is Mr. Lee's life.
I stand by my ealier post. He was scared and angry.
I do not accept that the part of him that scared was about the envirenment automaticly paints him as much of a liberal. Believe it or n*ts envirenmental comcern crosses political boundries. Conservation has fans that are in fact conservative.
My blushes.
That's why in some instances, it's fair to assert that something that the "Ground Zero Mosque" opponents or that Bill O'Reilly said might have influenced someone to commit violence, and in other instances, like the Discovery Channel threat, it's NOT fair!
See, those of us who don't suffer from binary thinking can understand these kinds of things!
If YOU can't understand it, Hot Wings, that's YOUR failure, not ours.
LOL!!!
Nice to have seen her feign reasonableness for all of, what, twenty seconds?
Pot - Kettle - Black