My wife brought up such a great point this morning it deserves to be posted.

It appears today at the inaguration of George W. Bush....that security will be the highest it has ever been since 1973 (the inaguration of Richard Nixon....another Republican).

Now let's see.....I thought it was the gun-toting, militia minded, right wing extremist like myself that were a threat?????

And yet....in the last 8 years Clinton has not needed the level of security that is required for Bush today.

So I ask you.....who is the real threat??? Who are the really violent people?? Who are the real "hate mongers?" Who are the real dividers??

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Answers

Well Mark....at the risk of sounding trite....you know what they say about great minds!!!

:)

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

Or how about this one Ben...."Don't answer a fool...according to his folly."

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2001

No...I would have accused the Democrats of being consistent...(which Lord knows no one accuses them of being that).

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2001

Funny,

I had that same thought myself yesterday - this is getting scary..........:~)

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

I've been accused of a lot of things over the years..........

But that has GOT to be the first time I has been accused of having a great mind!

{:~)

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2001

I take it you two gentlemen -- who seem to agree on so much I've sometimes wondered if you are not one person writing under two names -- have never heard the corollary to the quotation about "great minds...."?

It goes like this, "Fools seldom differ."

I do not like those little "smilies" or "winkies" done with the colons or semi-colons and parentheses, otherwise this might be a good time to use one to show I'm not serious. So how about "JJ" (for "just joking") or "Grin!"

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001

Touche', Benjamin.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2001

Seriously, though, isn't this sort of thing what you would have expected? That the party that promotes better control of weapons would have LESS of a show of force at their shindigs, while the party that believes everyone should arm him/herself for "protection" would also have a greater show of armed strength? If it had been the other way around, wouldn't you have accused the Democrats of hypocrisy?

Having said that, let me reiterate again that I am NOT a Democrat or a "Liberal". I am VERY conservative (both small "c" and capital "C") and almost always vote Republican. But I would only be a "sheep" and not an independent thinker if I agreed with them on EVERY policy, and gun control is one area where I don't agree with the Republicans.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2001

Ben,

I can assure you that Danny & I are definitely 2 different people - I'm much better looking!.......Ha! . :~)

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001

Talk about paranoia....

If someone hides in a bunker and surrounds himself with guns, does that mean that people is out to get him? No. It might mean that it means the person is nuts!!

A couple of additional trolls....

1) Perhaps Clinton knew that he was secretly so loved by the "vast right wing conspiracy" that they were providing protection for him without the government.

2) W loves guns and it make the conservative gun nuts giggle with joy to see all the firepower.

3) Maybe it is a ploy to get additional support from the NRA.

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2001