BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!

Subject: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Jul 03 - 09:50 PM

Meanwhile, off the deep end, Pat Robertson has decided to blur church and state in a new way, by asking God to intervene to kill off 3 Supreme Court judges -- delicately suggesting that one has cancer, one has a heart condition, and one is 83. Why God wouldn't decide to strangle Clarence Thomas on some used video tape is just one of those mysteries.......

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: LadyJean
Date: 15 Jul 03 - 11:56 PM

Did you read my thread on your right to privacy? Told you so!

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 12:34 AM

Gaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh. Can't stand the man.

Judging by the picture that accompanies the story, Robertson himself appears to have a heart condition. You suppose God is calling him home?

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Mark Clark
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 03:01 AM

Found a reference at morons.org.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 08:46 AM

Can the Supremes pray for Pat Robertson's demise or retirement? I'd join them for that prayer breakfast, if they paid for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Hollowfox
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 05:59 PM

As I recall, some years ago Pat took credit for turning away a hurricane from (I think) Virginia through his influence On High. This pissed off the people of New York and New England no end, as that's where the storm hit.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 07:08 PM

He certainly is a a righteous bastard for someone who was liquor control officer for the 1st Marine Division during the Korean War, isn't he? I can only pray the he enjoys the same rewards as Swaggart and Bakker.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 07:27 PM

Typical for the same idiot who claimed Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

I would simply ask that he be removed from the public realm or something better, for the highest good of all concerned! Oh, and ask for blessings on the Supremes!

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 07:46 PM

See, that's what Pat Robertson and the rest of the Right Wing Christain Coilition have in common. Not one danged clue about Christainity or the teachings of Jesus. Praying fir God to kill folks ain't nothing that Jesus taught. Period. End of discussion. Hey, as much as hate Bush's policicies, I would never pray for Bush's death. God would let me know instantly that He don't appreciate that kinda crap...

But these Right Wingers will pray for misery and harm to be brought down on their adversaries. Well, not one danged Christain in the bunch as far as I can see. Not one...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 07:58 PM

The article linked says he prayed for the Justices to retire, not to be smitten.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 08:06 PM

Oh Pleeeeeeease, PLEEEEEEEEEEEASEEEEEE, PLEASE don't let Bush die. The thought of Chaney being prez just makes me want to jump the border! Hey Rick, could I bunk in with you for awhile if need be?

Howcum Pat wants 'em to die? Being a bit like Saddam and Osama isn't he? Why, I wouldn't wish death on even Pat. Ass**le that he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 08:33 PM

Yo, Walking Eagle, in case you ain't heard, Cheney really is the president. Don't think so? Check into just how many US tax dollars are going into Halliburton. There was a report this morning on Democracy Now (democracynow.org) that went into some of the details...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 09:27 PM

I noticed that the headline a couple of weeks ago on "News of the Week" or the "Weekly News" or whatever it's called proclaiming "Osama and Saddam in Love" and a picture of Saddam Hussein lying in Osama Bin Ladin's lap. (I only buy food so that I can read the headlines.)

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: NicoleC
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 09:32 PM

Anyone is surprised? This is coming from the same guy that said 9/11 was caused by gays.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 09:53 PM

Everyone knows that hurricanes will destroy Disney World because Disney World is encourages the gay lifestyle, just as the Supremes are doing, playing right into the Gay Agenda. Since the Supremes have now signed on and will, by their decision, undermine America's White Christian Nuclear-Family-Centric European way of life, gays couldn't have caused 9/11. Just look at Osama and Saddam -- what's really happening here is to open the door to Islamic gays, and everyone KNOWS that Islam is the religion of Satan. Next year, you'll go to Disney World and find Mickey Mouse hand-in-hand with Donald Duck, Daisy Duck and Minnie Mouse hugging, Goofy and Horace Horsecollar doing the dirty in Uncle Scrooge's vault, while Huey, Dewey, and Louie pray to the East. YES! Walt would turn over in his grave if he were alive today! The only way to save Disney World from the hurricane is to send all that you have and more to the 700 Club.

QED.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 10:33 PM

Another latent homo-sexual contimplates coming out of the closet....

Good luck, Rapster. It's a hard (opps, din't mean to get you exciticated there..) world out there...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: LadyJean
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 11:11 PM

Pat Robertson's given name is Marion. 'nuf said.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: rangeroger
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 11:39 PM

So was John Wayne's.

rr

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 12:25 PM

So, John Wayne was gay???? (*BG*)

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Pseudolus
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 01:20 PM

I think that someone why truly believes that God exists, someone who truly believes that he/she will meet their maker on judgement day, wouldn't feel the need for man made laws to intervene against "wrongs".   If God will pass judgement in the end, why does Pat needs the courts to intervene now? OK, if it's a crime against another person (murder, rape, etc.) I can see that, but personally I think that if God were here and if in fact this act was gonna send souls to the firey depths of hell, he would say, "Uh, Pat, dude, I got this one covered....."

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Gerard
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 01:35 PM

There is a distinction which the Bible enjoins us to make when regarding people who do not practice such things as a Christian would practice. Pat Robertson is correct in condemning sodomy, however, St. Paul wrote in his letter to the church at Corinth "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside (the church)? Do you not judge those who are inside (the church). But those who are outide God judges." 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. Robertson needs to worry about those who are inside the church who practice such things as do not glorify God.
The Christian stance towards homosexuality is that the persons are protected under the Constitution; their rights are protected, and gay-bashing is not an attribute of the life of Jesus Christ "for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God." However much this is true, the Bible also says: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
At one time during the era of Calvinism, all of the crimes listed in the above quotation were vigorously condemned. It was felt that if these such things were not condemned, then the person committing such actions would be deprived of a good thing, which is, the correction of their actions which would deny them entrance to the kingdom of God. However, because true Christianity does indeed respect the separation of Church and State, Calvin and Robertson are wrong for wanting to use church discipline in the arena of civil matters.
There are, no doubt, individuals who practice covetousness and idolatry who are protected under the constitution. There is a difference, then, between a person's public life and their private life. The idea that God "invented" Sodomy is ridiculous. Our bodies are to be temples of the Lord Jesus Christ, that we may not be slaves to our lower passions, the constant craving for affections and pleasures, but rather, all those cravings are instantly satisfied upon the new birth. If such person argues, then, that they were "born" a certain way, the Lord Jesus Christ says to all men that they must be "born-again"; all men, indeed are sinners, for they proceed from the root of Adam and Eve and as such, look at the things they can see, smell, touch and taste for the satisfaction of their desires. But these visible and tangible things are created things, our souls are never truly satisfied with them.
However, when it comes to sexual sins, be they between an unmarried man and woman or between same-sex partners, the Bible does indeed place these in a more tragic, and serious level: "Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought (by the death of Jesus Christ) at a price (Christ's life) therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's" 1 Corinthians 6:18-20.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Peter T.
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 01:42 PM

I severely doubt that the true Christian stance is that homosexuals are protected by the American Constitution. It has been a long time since I read my bible, but I don't remember America being mentioned (except obliquely under the Sodom and Gomorrah chapter,and their Constitution is a real eye opener, believe me!!!!!).

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 01:55 PM

One might suggest Rescuing the Bible from fundamentalism by John Shelby Spong.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Amergin
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 02:20 PM

I think mr gerard and mr robertson should go out and start burning some crosses....or maybe get some of their fellows to force the gays and lesbians into the showers...

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Gerard
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 02:27 PM

Peter T: You write: "I severely doubt that the true Christian stance is that homosexuals are protected by the American Constitution."

To begin with, A Christian is, as the song Poor Wayfaring Stranger says, one who "travels through this world of woe." My citizenship, the citizenship of Christians, is not in this world, it is in heaven. Let me see if I can explain this a little better than I did in my last posting. To begin with, I live in a world where most of the people are not Christians. What then, do I do when I recognize that throughout history, even today, different sects of religions, Shiite and Suni's for example, whenever they get in power, tend to persecute the other, and strip them of their rights? John Locke wrote in his treatise of 1660 "A Letter Concerning Toleration" that true religion can never be coerced. If an apparent evangelist needs to force people to believe in his understanding of Christ's work, he has indeed violated the convert's conscience. In Paul's day, wherever he preached "some believed, and some believed not". May I ask you what you believe about civil rights of humans? No true religion can ever strip a person of his civic rights, or the rights that the State grants him.


To Katlaughing: I have read the book you mentioned, though not in it's entirety. The author makes a tragic mistake in his reasoning. The portion is where he scoffs at the idea that is written by the Apostle Paul in the first chapter of Romans where Paul writes: "(therefore) because (mankind) knew God (for his invisible attributes are clearly seen) they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful...(and) God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves...(giving) them up to vile passions. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:18-27) There are difficulties in living a pure and holy life, but they are made possible by the receiving of the Holy Spirit. There is only one person who can live the Christian life, and that is Jesus Christ Himself; He will give Himself to anyone who wants to follow Him.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Gerard
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 02:29 PM

To Amerigin:

I do not hold the same views that Robertson does. If you understood my message you would see that Robertson is making a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 03:00 PM

Bingo, kat! Read it awhile back. Good stuff! In fact, my church had a really good discussion of it in our adult forum. We also discussed the writings of Karen Armstrong, A History of God, The Battle for God, others. She's an ex-nun. Been there, Done that. Has a whole drawer full of T-shirts. Knows what she's talking about. More good stuff. Of course, the church I belong to (Central Lutheran Church in Seattle) is pretty weird. I don't think Pat would approve. . . .

Remember Spong's speculations about the nature of the "thorn" in Paul's side and the possibility that it might have a lot to do with some of the things he was especially against? I wonder if that might not be Pat Robertson's problem too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Marion
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 07:28 PM

Re: Pat Robertson's given name is Marion. 'nuf said.

Hey! What exactly are you implying here?

Marion

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 08:31 PM

Garard:

While Paul's letters are indeed well worth reading, Paul's own biases are not fully disguised. He is "rule" oriented and tends to be a tad on the dogmatic side. I don't recall anything in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John where Jesus made any reference to homosexuals. Yet, they seem to do a good job of telling and retelling the lessons of Jesus.

Don't get me wrong, I read Paul but with a less trusting heart than when I read, like Matthew.... who just happens to be my favorite in the Gospels.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 09:48 PM

Hi, Bobert.

Matthew 25:35-40. That's pretty much the guiding doctrine of the church I go to. That's why I go to it. Less talk. More do.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Frankham
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 11:04 PM

Gerard,

You mentioned, "What then, do I do when I recognize that throughout history, even today, different sects of religions, Shiite and Suni's for example, whenever they get in power, tend to persecute the other, and strip them of their rights?"

This has been precisely the position of Christianity in the Crusades and of Torquemada's Spain. Even under early Islam, in the history of Budapest, Jews were tolerated and thriving. When Christians moved in defeating Islam, they buried the synagogues and temples and placed their own churches and cathedrals over them.

The history of Christianity is not free from repression and subjections of the religions of others. This is unfortunate because this is not how I read the teachings of Jesus especially personified by the Sermon on the Mount. This leads me to the conclusion that many Christians today do not inherently practice their religion.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 11:27 PM

I do remember, Don! Exactly! I also do not believe the Bible was written with the intention that it be taken literally. I would also highly recommend the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary by Charles Filmore, founder, with his wife, Myrtle Filmore, of Unity School of Christianity at the beginning of the 20th century.

I am sorry you feel that way, Gerard.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jul 03 - 11:54 PM

gee..I somehow missed this thread (perhaps I imagined the singing group)when I started that other one titled "Lord, you know their names"...I am late as usual, the clones have closed the other one and I am enjoying THIS one.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 12:12 AM

0



A

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Hrothgar
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 07:04 AM

Bill, that's your punishment for channel surfing.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Deckman
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 09:52 AM

Hmmmm ... Gawd speaks in mysterious ways! Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 10:21 AM

True, but I do not think Gerard is one of them...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 12:08 PM

Please read title of topic. Asking three justices to retire is not a threat! Maybe we should think about the demand made to all Americans by worldwide Muslim leaders that we must convert to Islam or face the Consequences. That sounds like a threat!

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: NicoleC
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 12:15 PM

"Every time he opens his mouth he's an embarrassment to Christianity. ... This notion that he can manipulate God by praying and getting God to accomplish whatever his political agenda is, is reprehensible. ... Not only is that arrogant. It's just simply inappropriate to use the spiritual life as a bludgeon on people with whom you disagree."

Rev. Joseph C. Hough Jr., president of New York City's Union Theological Seminary.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Gerard
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 12:23 PM

Frankham:

You write: "This has been precisely the position of Christianity in the Crusades and of Torquemada's Spain."

Recall that Spain was/is Catholic, and that Locke's "Letter Concerning Toleration" was written in response not only to the inquisition he saw in Spain but also the great number of deaths and persecutions in England between Catholics and Protestants and then the Puritan revolution.

Separation of Church and State is a Christian doctrine, although throughout history, men under the guise of Christianity, whom I would include Torquemada, Falwell and Robertson, have not wanted that boundary to exist. I certainly do not go along with persecuting anyone for their religious beliefs and I don'think that it is within the domain of the Church to do so. It was Rhode Island founder Roger Williams who said that "It does not matter to me if the captain of the ship (of the state) is Christian or non-Christian, the question is whether or not he can navigate."

I find it rather amusing that even though I support the Supreme Court's decision, there are readers here who have either wholly neglected what I wrote, or distorted it.

The Inquisition was a disastrous policy, the idea that a country needs to purge itself of different religious sects, even though such people, as the Jews in Spain did, were thriving, competent, able professionals, is totally absurd. There is a perversity in every religion that does not tolerate other beliefs. This may be fine for one's own conscience, one's own private life, but to make it a public policy is genuine evil.

You write: "The history of Christianity is not free from repression and subjections of the religions of others. This is unfortunate because this is not how I read the teachings of Jesus especially personified by the Sermon on the Mount. This leads me to the conclusion that many Christians today do not inherently practice their religion."

I agree with this statement. The truth is that whenever Christianity or any religion for that matter, tries to link itself with the power of the State for it's own purposes, at that instant, no longer follows Christ. I think in my statement about the Suni's and Shiites I should have included "Protestants and Catholics".

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 02:20 PM

Gerard:

You are making a big mistake if you look for open minds here. There are very few. Do not change your beliefs to match the prevailing rant.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 02:30 PM

Gerard, contrary to what GUEST just said, there is little I could find in your most recent post to disagree with. If GUEST is the GUEST I think it is, you'd be hard pressed to find a mind more closed than that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 02:32 PM

Oh horsepucky, Guest. I submit to Gerard that what he encountered was not a reaction of closed minds as regards his views on Christian history, but a reaction of annoyance at his pedagogic, pedantic and somewhat authoritarian voicing about what Christianity is. Personally I think this forum, like the government, should steer clear of religous discussions of the sort Gerard began, not because I don't respect his views, his right to them, or even his right to communicate them, but because they are not about music, not of great interest to many poeple on this forum, and tend to be more divisive than otherwise.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Gerard
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 05:38 PM

I guess I should say that both Robertson and Sponge are wrong. There is something about finding the Vital Center in politics as well as religion that perhaps not everyone wishes to locate; not that I always find it myself, but it is worth looking for. I am not above suspecting some Christian leaders as playing to the conservative and liberal biases of people in order to receive financial support from them. I certainly do not agree so-called Christian Conservative Right-Wingers nor do I agree with the liberal left side that Sponge has attracted....

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Gerard
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 05:48 PM

Typo from previous message: should read "I certainly do not agree WITH THE so-called Christian Conservative right...."

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jul 03 - 06:11 PM

" Asking three justices to retire is not a threat!"...sure, right...but that is not exactly what he said!!!

In the other thread, I note that Pat, in his 'prayer' asks God to "lay a heavy hand upon them.." (YOU can go listen!)

of course he would never explicitly make a threat, nor would he explicitly ask God to smite 3 old men...but he DOES ask good Christians to "storm the gates of Heaven" with prayer, hoping to lobby God to 'quote' DO something 'unquote'. You read that any way you wish. I understand it to mean Pat doesn't particularly care whether God inspires these deluded old Justices to retire, or whether they all 'get called home' within days of each other.

Pat Robertson is NOT a genteel pacifist...he invokes biblical references to war on unbelievers and moral backsliders constantly. THe man seems to think that if enough 'good' people beg God for a favor, why, the Almighty will take notice and make sure we are not troubled by this blight on our judicial system any longer!

Remember the guy who shot the abortion doctor? Could there possibly be someone among Pat's listeners out there willing to 'help' God with this task?........hmmmmmmmmm.....but, clearly, 'ol Pat never made a threat, no sir!

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 01:48 PM

Amos:

"because they are not about music, not of great interest to many poeple on this forum, and tend to be more divisive than otherwise."

I could say the same thing and be excoriated. Thanks!

Falwell, Robertson and Bennett are targets because they make moral judgements. They must be destroyed. Like weeding a garden. The title of the thread says plenty: "no alternate opinions need apply".

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 02:38 PM

Guest, don't forget to add Oral Roberts to that illustrious lexicon. Remember when he said that God was going to call him 'home' if we didn't come up with the money he needed? I do. These men are power-glutted, trivial lightweights of insanity...

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: NicoleC
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 03:09 PM

No, they are targets because they are men who make moral proclamations while personally promoting immoral actions. One need only look at Robertson's financial involvement in Liberia to see the content of his moral character.

"Judge not lest ye be judged." A devout Christian does not make judgements about others -- they seek to lead them down another path.

When faced with moral excrement like Robertson, it is easy to forget that there are many religious leaders who make statements about morality everyday by their actions. There's a good chance there's one in your neighborhood -- a man or woman who devotes their life to making the world a better place. Mother Theresa was a highly political woman, but she didn't sit in a TV studio and live in a fancy mansion. Her politics came from the trenches.

If there are people that God listens to (if you believe in one), they are people like Mother Theresa, not televangelists who are more concerned with lining their pockets with bloody money than any notion of morality or righteousness.

Subject: RE: BS: Pat's Supreme Threat to Supremes!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 03 - 03:32 PM

Oh, those Supremes - I opened the thread thinkinmg it was about the real Supremes.

After the way they landed the planet with Bush, the sooner all that bunch of superannuated lawyers retire, or emigrate to some distant planet, the better.