What am I?

[cali]

A liberal? A centrist? A progressive? A moderate?

Here are my positions on some of the more important issues:

Iraq: I was always against going into Iraq. I organized and marched against the U.S. invading Iraq. I want U.S. troops out, and the U.N, Iraq's neighbors and other interested countries to work together to help Iraq recover from the damage we've inflicted. I also want a transfusion of aid.

Iran: I do not see Iran as posing any threat- even if they do develop nuclear weapons. I'm adamently opposed to any hostile action against Iran. I want to see active
diplomacy.

Domestic Spying: I oppose any domestic spying withour warrants. I oppose immunity for the telecoms.

Economic policy: Stronger regulation of big business, increasing taxes on wealthy Americans. I'm opposed to corporate control and corporate money influencing laws and elections.

Health care reform: Ideally, single payer, but I recognize that that's not going to happen over night. I suport expanding current programs such as SCHIP as well.

Trade: I support trade pacts with strong protections for workers. I support cancelling NAFTA and starting over from scratch.Ele

Minimum wage: Support raising the minimum wage to a living wage- or close to it.

Education: Get rid of of the ineffective and damaging NCLB. Make college truly affordable. Same with good trade schools.

Environment: A muscular plan to fight climate change, ensure that the poor don't continue to suffer the most from environmental degradation, invest in non-polluting renewable energy, raise fuel standards, invest in public transportation.

Impeachment of Dick Cheney: Pro-impeachment, but I do listen to those who aren't, and don't automatically dismiss them as "collaborators" or "cowards".

Elections: Support transparency and getting corporate money out of the mix. Support a paper trail and IRV.

And yet, I've been accused of being a "Straussian" here. And a centrist, and a "good german".

This is why labels are nigh on useless.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I agree with you almost entirely, but...

I've been called a closet freeper because I don't jump on bandwagons here.

Don't worry about what the peanut gallery here calls you-- it's only a bunch of electrons that have no effect at all on what you're doing out there in the real world.

[kellenburger]

2. whatever you are..

so am I.


:applause:

[SammyWinstonJack]

19. Me three!

[Labors of Hercules]

26. Me four!

:grouphug:

[Naturyl]

3. Progressive

Ignore the haters. Those are solidly progressive positions. You might not support my preferred candidates (I don't know), but I see little that is centrist about those positions and certainly nothing "good German" about them. That sort of thing is pretty ridiculous and should simply be ignored, in my view. I suspect people who shout such things could perhaps up the meds a bit.

[cali]

4. I suspect we support the same candidate.

I support Kucinich. Having said that; I support him more as a vehicle to send a message to my party, that his positions are in synch with what a lot of people want. I know that he won't be the nominee.

[Naturyl]

8. Same here, actually.

I can't even vote for him because he missed the primary fliling deadline in my state, so Edwards will get my primary vote. Nor do I have any belief he will be nominated. For me, it's all about which way we want to move the debate. For decadces, it has been moving steadily to the right. Supporting Kucinich could help move it back to the left a bit.

[H2O Man]

5. Interesting.

I suspect that most people, during their lifetime, will find some issues that they feel one way about, and others that they feel another way about. It is possible to be liberal on some issues, and conservative on others. More, a person can find their opinions on issues change over the years. If a person thinks exactly the same on everything today that they did ten years ago, I suspect that they have wasted a decade of their life.

How we define ourselves is not how others will define us. That sounds too obvious to even have to mention, but a few recent threads on DU:GD suggest otherwise.

I would respectfully disagree that "labels are nigh on useless." If we took that to the obvious extreme in the context of those "recent threads," then why bother with silly labels such as "democrat" and "republican"? Why, indeed? Perhaps because they help us to identify very real differences in people. These include differences in values that translate to different goals that can result in very different policies, depending on who is elected and appointed to office.

[cali]

7. I should have qualified that by saying that labels are

nigh on useless here at DU, where labels are clearly used as weapons to bludgeon people who may disagree.

[H2O Man]

10. Though it is mere

speculation on my part, I suspect that people would disagree to about the same degree even without labels. The words that are used to identify one group from another do not seem to be the issue. It's that people here have very different values, and very different beliefs on what direction the country should go in. Of course, that is just my opinion.

[cali]

13. I don't agree that people here

have very different beliefs on what direction the country should go in. Generally, most DUers agree on fundamentals. It's how to get there that people disagree about. And yes, people have very different values. I submit that people who rule out compromise of any sort, and who dismiss any form of incremental movement, but want everything now and their way, are extremists of the left, who psychologically share a lot with people on the far right.

That is, of course, merely my opinion.

[H2O Man]

14. Sure.

And you are as entitled to your views as I am to mine. But I think we are a fair example of two DUers with very different values and goals.

[cali]

17. Respectfully, I think instead of simply repeating that,

as you have now on several occasions, it would be helpful if you elaborated and pointed out what goals you think we differ on and how our values differ, as well.

Repeating an assertion without any explanation of the assertion, doesn't really mean much.

I'd appreciate it if you could explain where you think we part company on goals and values.

Thanks,
cali

[merh]

22. Respectfully, compromise has had little effect

In terms of "finding common ground" in congress, the trade offs are harmful to our system of government. Checks and balances no longer exist, instead of doing their duty, doing their jobs, congress is too busy seeking the "middle ground" and too worried about the "politics" involved.

You have been vocal about what a waste of time impeachment proceedings would be, you have incorrectly labeled impeachment as a political endeavor thus making it political. You have refused to recognize that every elected federal official takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution and that the avenues available to do so with this administration are narrow given its total disregard for legislation as passed.

IMHO, congress has such a poor approval rating because of the "compromise" position you advocate. The time for compromise and turning the other check and "waiting out this admin" is long past gone, if our elected officials don't start doing their job their jobs will matter less and less. I don't care which party is in charge, neither one of them should be allowed to ignore their constitutional duties and/or the fact that they work for us. Both have been doing that for far too long.

[cali]

39. Respectfully, mischaracterizing someone's positions is not

a valid or noble thing to do. I didn't support impeachment until about a year ago. That much is true, but for over a year, I certainly have NOT been vocal about impeachment being a waste of time: Far from it; I've stated repeatedly that it would be worthwhile to to forward with impeachment regardless of whether it succeeds or fails, because the precedent set by not impeaching is dangerous. I have never "refused to recognize that every elected federal official takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution and that the avenues available to do so with this administration are narrow given its total disregard for legislation as passed." I have stated that I can disagree with those who see that differently than I do, and still respect them. That means I still respect Bernie Sanders and others, despite my being pro-impeachment. I'm not a dogmatist. Others are, and that's certainly their right.


Of course, I don't advocate a "compromise position". I am staunchly against compromise in many areas. I support compromise sometimes on some specific issues. That's wholly different from the claim you make. And you make all these accusations- yes, that's indeed what they are- without a single shred of evidence. Sure, if you want to go back over a year ago, you'll find that I was undecided about impeachment. And that's all you'll find to support your claims.

Interesting that you who are so against compromise, are so willing to compromise the values I've seen you profess, and the quotes you rely so heavily upon. And rather sad.

[merh]

42. Hogwash

Go check your own OPs and posts, you have said impeachment is not viable, is not practical, is a waste of effort, is purely political, there is no duty to impeach, yada yada yada

And the dishonesty of editing your post to remove the "compromise" language is laughable. I'll remember now, should I ever decide to post to you again, that I should quote your post verbatim so that the context of my reply won't be missed by others reading it.

I haven't compromised any values and to try to allege that I have is just a pitiful effort to make yourself appear superior. You seem accustomed to accepting failure so it is no surprise.

[H2O Man]

43. Okay

Fair enough. It sounds like your opinions on impeachment has changed.

I'm wondering if you could your view on impeachment, in terms of President Bush, VP Cheney, what specific issues you think one/both should be impeached for, and your beliefs on when this should happen?

[cali]

45. this is weird. Don't you recall that we had this same conversation within

the last couple of weeks? And you actually made the same assertion, I said that I'd supported impeachment for some time, and you said just what you're saying now.

I agree that Cheney should be impeached first. And honestly, I have't really given much thought to the case against bush, because I've been more focused on Cheney.

I think the grounds for impeachment of Cheney are rooted in the lead up to the Iraq war and Cheney's actions at that time; his seeking to subvert the intelligence process, to deep six intelligence unfavorable to his goals, his lying about the threat, in the yellowcake incident and in his instigation of the outing of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent. I also think that his participation in illegal warrantless wiretapping is germane, but as I recall, that's not included in Kucinich's articles.

I think the same charges- sans the piece about Cheney actually going to the Intelligence community and impressing his will in order to suppress intelligence that gave the lie to his case, are probabley valid, but as I said, I haven't thought much about the impeachment of bush.

[H2O Man]

50. Sure I remember.

Now, when would you think this should happen?

[cali]

56. When would I think what should happen?

And respectfully, I find it a bit odd that you remember that we had the same exchange within the last couple of weeks, yet chose, despite that, to suggest that I don't support impeachment, and repeat the same questions. Really, I find that pattern of behavior most curious, but carry on. I'm sure you have a reason for it.

You asked me a specific question. I answered, in specifics, and yet you seem to be not interested in my response. I'm confounded as to why you should ask something, and then not respond to my answer.

Oh, well. I look forward to the next occasion on which you ask a question which seems to indicate that you've forgotten a positition that I've clearly stated. No problem, I'm glad to clarify for you.

[H2O Man]

60. Well, yes,

there surely is a reason. Of course there is.

Now, when I asked "when?", it was in regard to impeachment.

[cali]

67. I don't really see the point in

holding off on impeachment. That's why I've emailed all the members of the house judiciary, thanking those on board, like Rep.Cohen, and urging the others to support impeachment. Not sure what your point in asking that question, but there's your answer.

[H2O Man]

69. Now, one more

small question, if you don't mind. Maybe two, but each will be at most half a small question. How long have you believed that the congress should impeach VP Richard (Dick) Cheney?

(I appreciate your patience. The movie "The Untouchables" is coming on, and so I may have to wait to finish the other 1/2 a small question.)

[cali]

71. sorry, I honestly can't remember.

It was actually a slow process, because of my concern about the repercussions of a failed impeachment or failed conviction. I think I've been pro-impeachment for a little over a year. I don't know when I came to believe that impeaching Cheney was the wisest course of action.

[H2O Man]

73. Fair enough.

Ever see "The Untouchables"? Matthews quotes from it in his new book.

[cali]

74. Is that the movie with Costner made in the early nineties?

I think I may have seen it, but it would have been years ago.

[H2O Man]

76. It is.

Sean Connery is in it. He delivers a line to Kevin Coster, which is approximately, "How far are you willing to go to accomplish your goal?" I think it is a classic line that defines values .... rather like Malcolm's "by any means necessary."

This week, of course, marks fifty years since the 11-14-57 bust in Apalachin.

[H2O Man]

78. Slow processes

can be good. Perhaps in some small way, my asking similar questions can help identify the answer to that question "when?"

The second small question would have to be "why?" ..... why would a person who did not think VP Cheney should be impeached for criminal offenses and abuses of power change their mind? That may be a key in answering the riddle of what defines "progressive" for different people on DU.

[bettyellen]

64. ironically, you don't answer the when, yet again .

fun to watch the squirming.

[cali]

68. sorry, muffin. you're wrong.

that's what's know as wishful thinking, poopsie.

[bettyellen]

62. you forgot to address the when, dear.....

[OHdem10]

6. I, too hold very similar positions as yours---I consider myself

liberal.

This is not to cast dispersions in anyway. How you could be called
a Strausian is beyond me. Could it be that there are some people
who are Anti-War and this is their only issue. There are some people
who are anti-war and this never war. For persons, holding this type
positon, perhaps the fact that I believe in a strong military and,
hope we never have to use it, creates doubt as to my Liberalness.
My two favorite Presidents, FDR and JFK both both supported a strong
military. Diplomacy is by far our strongest weapon in my book,
but I want a Military there--just in case we are attacked. Pre-
Emptive War creates great concern for me. I have not seen it work.
Strausian's are pre-emptive warriors.

The reason I chose to spend time on this war bit--my observation
is that many on DU use this as a Marker. It is unfair but life
is unfair.

Under FDR and JFK, the Democratic Party were never considered
"WIMPs". So there, hee hee.

[Naturyl]

9. Yes, there are anti-war people on DU who support Ron Paul.

I can't even begin to understand it, but there are at least a few such people out there. What can you do with something like that? Not much, in my view.

[sufrommich]

11. You most likely will get a lot

of interesting answers to your OP title. Not all of them pretty. I agree more than disagree with your general principles,although I would not be OK with a nuclear armed Iran. I do believe any of our Dem candidates would be able to handle the situation without going to war.

[LeftishBrit]

12. Sounds very liberal to left!

I find I tend to agree with you on most issues, and I would regard myself as pretty left (British/Europaean-style socialist).

I think that sometimes people have very strong views on a few issues, and if people don't agree with them on those issues, they're considered as RW. Also, I sometimes see a phenomenon which I call 'mirror-image-ism': some people appear to agree with Bush that the world is divided into Good Guys and Bad Guys, and that there is an axis of evil, and 'if you are not with us, you're against us'; but they invert the roles, so that America and its allies become the Axis of Evil, and their opponents the Good Guys. If you reject this whole Good Guy/Bad Guy approach, some people will assume that you're a conservative or Bush-lover.

[countingbluecars]

15. I hold many of the same positions,

but I see no progress being made on these issues. How long are you willing to wait for these things to be addressed by our Democrats in Congress? Recent actions seem to indicate that they are going in the wrong direction on issues such as domestic spying, Iraq, Iran, trade.

[cali]

20. I can give you a specific answer to that:

It's not really about waiting, as there is no other viable option to supporting the dem party, while trying to change it. At least there's no viable option on the national level, and let's face it, our system of government makes it difficult for third parties to be viable.

I do have hopes that an increased majority in both house will enable the party to move in a more progressive direction. If we have 55 to 58 dems in the Senate, you'll immediately see things like Habeas restored- remember less than a month ago, every single dem in the Senate voted for the Senate Habeas Restoration Act. SCHIP would be passed with a veto proof majority. So, it's not really about waiting for me, but continuing to support progressive candidates and to plug away at pushing for progressive legislation.

[countingbluecars]

27. I am curious.

How are you pushing for progressive legislation? What is working? How have things changed for the better on Iraq, Iran, privacy, trade, etc.?

[cali]

33. I vote for Progressive candidates at a local level, that is Progressive

Party candidates. I vote for my Democratic Socialist U.S. Senator. In my state, I've worked actively on issues, big (civil unions then, gay marriage now) and small (keeping high tension towers from going through my neck of the woods, stopping the spraying of certain chemicals by companies, etc) In my state we have made progress. On the national level- not so much. But I never had the expectations that Iraq would be easy to end with a psychopath in the White House. I know damned well that even if Congress did what I wanted them to; provide no funds for the war, bushco would simply take the money from elsewhere. You know he can do that, right? So, I don't look for instant gratification or instant solutions. Much as I long for them, I recognize that they rarely exist.

[Lord Wortherington]

16. Humankind has asked this question since time immemorial.

[Lerkfish]

18. a solipsist?

:shrug:

[cali]

21. Forgive me if I don't ask you to elaborate.

I'm not terribly interested, as you've made it clear that you simply want to harass and smear me. You may try and deny that, but I suggest you don't. In fact, let me suggest that you not respond to me or make comments about me to others in threads on DU. I'll happily do the same for you.

[Lerkfish]

24. I was repsonding to the question in your OP

:shrug:

if someone asks that question, in this forum, making an entire thread about themselves, I would consider that solipsism.

If you only wanted a limited number of definitions, you should not have asked to be defined.

[cali]

29. Let me again suggest that

perhaps, given the circumstances, it would be best if you didn't post responses to either my threads or individual posts I make. I will, of course, do the same for you. Do you think it's possible that we could come to that accomadation? And as I said, we both know exactly what's going on here. Do I need to elaborate?

[Lerkfish]

31. so, it is your mission to control how or where I post?

okay, then.

"given the circumstances" of you trying to get the mods to have me tombstoned, then perhaps I should listen to your advice.

[cali]

34. i have never tried to get you tombstoned.

no of course I don't expect that you'll believe that, but it's the simple truth. I wish you could see every correspondence I've ever had with the administration. I have alerted on a very few of your posts. That's it. And I don't want to see you tombstoned now, despite the recent little "love letter" you penned to me. I simply think it would be best if we stayed off each other's threads and didn't address on another at all, unless we can do so without trying to trash one another. I don't particularly like this dynamic. I would hope that you don't either.

[Lerkfish]

37. I've already stated I will listen to your threat

but you keep posting back to me.

ok, let this be the last one: I will bend to your overpowering will ....okeydokey?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. You are Popeye The Sailor Man and you eats your spinach and says "I yam what I yam".

And, you're right labels are nigh on useless.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. On the issues listed you are a "left wing looney"

by the standards currently in practice here, with the exception of healthcare where you pay lip service to single payer universal healthcare, but then take a big waffle that would appear to actually support the corrupt mandate schemes being proposed by the 'centrist' candidates.

On the other hand you seem to take positions against the progressive left here on this board on a fairly consistent basis. So perhaps it is you who needs to figure out where you stand, and not us?

[Lerkfish]

28. watch out: you're not supposed to define someone who's asking you to define them

on that road lies madness!

:)

[cali]

30. Nope. Recognizing the realities isn't the same as

waffling. And I don't support any of the plans put out by various candidates. And no, I don't take any positions against progressives. I am a social liberal and an economic progressive. I take stands against extremist purists. Pity you can't see the difference between a progressive and an extremist purist. I know where I stand. I've held much the same pov for years.

Perhaps you fit the category I described: extremist/purist? That's not for me to say. You need to figure that one out.

[Lerkfish]

32. "I don't take any positions against progressives"

but you do take stands against purists.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

40. I support all of the OP's agenda

but because I am not as extreme as some, I've been villified. We don't just have an extreme right in this country; we also have an extreme left. I'm not there.

However, if you don't tow the most leftist/purist line according to them, you're a freeper.

Doesn't bother me. I know their agenda is never going to happen, whereas the agenda I support is more likely to occur incrementally and over time. Hopefully, we'll get some changes in the next few yearas. Just look at it this way: If you knew your causes were doomed from the start, you'd be cranky, too. :rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

54. I'll byte. What exactly are 'extreme left' positions here?

Please list some. I'm fascinated.

[seemslikeadream]

35. I don't see polite on that list

[midlife_mo_Jo]

36. I agree with every one but making the minimum wage a living wage

The minimum wage should be hiked and tied to inflation, but I don't think it's realistic to expect that someone working in a coffee shop is going to be able to support anyone but himself. However, the minimum wage should allow two people working to support a small household on minimum wage if they had healthcare, childcare, and affordable housing. I realize not everyone has a partner, but I just don't think it's realistic for someone making coffee to make a living wage. That coffee shop would go out of business. And so would a lot of other businesses.

[slowry]

38. .

[Toots]

41. Do you believe Government should support the Health and Welfare of the Nation

If you believe that, do you feel allowing cigarettes to stay legal in public fulfills that goal? I have come to loggerheads with you on many occasions and it always seems to be the people you support and not the positions you say you hold. Do you feel Hoyer and Peloisi are doing the best they can for America? I do not.

[cali]

46. Huh? I've never given a moment's thought as to

whether cigarettes should remain legal. Sorry, it's not high up there on my list of concerns. I'm sorely disappointed in Pelosi, though I must confess, she always rubbed me the wrong way. Can't say why exactly, but I never caught much sincerity off her. I plain out can't take Hoyer. I'd like to see a change in leadership in both the House and Senate. They simply aren't leading effectively.

[fascisthunter]

44. I'm Sure You Are...

cough

[Blue-Jay]

48. Braaaainssss...

Check out the zombie, everyone.

[fascisthunter]

57. Do I Have to Believe the OP?

Zombies don't really think for themselves right? So if I disagree with.... I think you get the picture. Next time, don't use portraits of yourself and the word brainssss in the same post.

[Blue-Jay]

59. Braaaaiiiinssss....

[fascisthunter]

61. lol (nt)

[Lurking Dem]

47. I have been called

a "right wing Likudnik", a "Bush supporter", a "liar", and an "apologist".

I've also been called a "guy" but that's a subject for another thread. :)

The fact is, there is a subset of people for whom one single issue is going to be the sole basis for defining you.

Some will take one statement out of reams of things you have said on a particular subject and ignore all the others to fit you into the little box they want to create in their head.

It doesn't matter what your views are on a gazillion different political issues because holistic thinking is apparently passé.

[LeftishBrit]

52. Yep.

I have seen the view expressed that you can't be progressive if you don't use alternative in preference to conventional medicine. I have seen it stated that smokers are by definition not liberals (I'm anti-smoking, but that is not a good argument!) I was once personally accused of 'not really being left-wing' and 'supporting a war based on lies', because I objected to an accusation against American Jewish politicians of 'dual loyalty' to Israel. And I probably receive/ observe fewer such comments than many, because on the whole I don't post on 'candidate'' threads.

Mind you, this is less of a problem with DU than some other boards - and I don't mean just political boards. I belong to hobby-groups on children's literature, and you can get plenty of dogma there too!

[Blue-Jay]

49. Your pragmatism is a sore spot for a few people.

You know the ones who like to type "_________ NOW!!!!" all the time? You know the ones...

It's not that you disagree with people on the desired end result, it's that you recognize that demanding it NOW!!! on a message board doesn't do anybody any good, aside from making someone look as though they don't have a good grasp on how things actually work in politics.

[cali]

51. I recognize that pragmatism is yet another dirty word to some here

and that they refuse to allow that someone can be both pragmatic and idealistic.

What's really interesting to me about the atmosphere of GD today, is that what led it off was the highly divisive attack post entitled "Gimme back my message board". Interesting that that wasnt perceived as an attack by the majority of posters, but as some transcendant "truth to power" message. And just to be even more heretical, let me note my lack of affection for that lazy piece of sloganeering.

[Balbus]

53. Farther left than me.

[Odin2005]

55. My positions are pretty much the same as yours, Cali!

The only difference is that I have a bit of a socialist streak. That's sad, I'm an F-ing socialist yet the ideological purists have the tenacity to call be a DLCer just because I don't think Republicans and Centrists are evil subhumans that deserve to be liquidated.

[ThomWV]

58. You are to the right of me and I consider my self moderate

[Forkboy]

63. LOL... talk about a straight line.

And I love how you tend not to post personal threads about yourself. :P

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3683216#3683341

[mdmc]

65. x

o

God bless

[MadHound]

66. Perhaps the reason that you are finding people reacting in such a manner to you

Is because you simply don't come across as a liberal, leftist or progressive. Rather, you come across as your standard brand centerist, and at times a rather hostile one at that. I've seen your stated reason for acting as you do, that you dislike people "piling on" or making unfair attacks on candidates, but yet you still jump in and start ravaging posters when none of these conditions are present. Hell, more than once I've seen you get bent out of shape over semantic issues simply because a comment or criticism wasn't worded in a way that you thought was right(and judging from your past posts, very few critiques are right according to you).

In fact your vociferous attacks have become almost predictable. I can take a look at the boards and correctly predict which ones you're going to jump in on or not. Anything critiquing Hillary is bound to see you show up, though it seems as though Hillary is the only candidate that you defend, despite your claim that you're a leftist, I never see you defending Kucinich or virtually any of the other candidates. If it is a post criticizing the Democratic party, no matter how mildly or factually, you're going to be in there swinging, no matter how odious the action of the party happened to be. But if it is an ad hoc, ad hominem attack on the left, well, crickets.

So perhaps the reason that the concept of labeling is failing in your regard is because your actions belie your own self-labeling. You know, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . . You are letting your actions define you cali, and that's OK. Just don't be surprised when people tend to disbelieve your own self labeling.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mass]

72. Because some people here confuse pragmatist and centrist.

Your ideals and what you see as possible to achieve are two different things.

Sometimes, people have difficulties making the difference between defending somebody and agreeing with him/her.

[PassingFair]

75. You are contentious and rude.

THAT is what you are.

Always.

Nothing wrong with your positions, just the way you
attack others.

But you MUST be used to acrimony, you're a PRO!

[bvar22]

77. Well, since you asked:

Judging by your thread posted on an anonymous bulletin board, you are clearly self-absorbed and thrive on attention.

No charge.

If you are interested in a more in-depth analysis, I will be happy to schedule an appointment for you.
My rates are reasonable.

Cheers.

[MrMickeysMom]

79. I won't even charge for the obvious

descriptions you've analyzed so well.

(with no license to practice, how could I? ... :-) )

[stimbox]

80. I would be tombstoned for saying it...

:rofl:
:spray:
:popcorn:

This should get good.