Re: Pete oppressed by conservatives

["Mark R. Leaman" <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>]

>No coverage only because there are no new facts to report.

Kevin:

Maybe. Fans supporting Pete would be a fact to report.

>Are you saying we fans are the cause of continued media attention?
Do we have *that* much power?

Yep.

>It is also a fact that Pete said himself that he takes full responsibility 

Jon:

Yeah...isn't it funny that that sort of thing goes uncommented on?

> Ha! Mark's funny. I think he's the most optimistic of the bunch!

Scott:

I do tend to be optimistic. But I think in this case I'm being realistic.

>Semantics.

Leslie:

I'm going to keep my response short in regard to Rick and others here. I understand semantics. I am being very precise about what I say here, and mean exactly what I write.

>Maybe if you listened more carefully, you'd hear more of that. Really.

Really, I listen carefull and comprehend fully. I don't get my opinions from others.

>Actually, Lott was repudiated by the President and the party.

Guess that's why they gave him such a sweet chairmanship. Actions speak louder than words.

>former KKK Kleagle Robert Byrd from his party? Hell, they *knew* that

He should go too. Both should be out of office. No racist should be in Congress.

>As for Bush's amicus filing, I think he's right -- telling people that

He's not. He himself benefited from the same point system in Yale, thanks to his dad...and has reduced all 20 factors considered to just one, race, and that's utterly dishonest (no surprise to me).

      NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

            Cheers         ML
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now