Searching around the net, trying to find something interesting to read, I came across your web site.
Now, being there are dozens of e-mails listed, I couldn't find any that I should write to to express
myself about After all, it's not as if you have an e-mail address saying
'Tell us what you think about the web site-send e-mail to:'.
Although finding an link to send you money wasn't a problem.

John, are you saying I should put a link on the upper right of the front page that says "Contact us?"
That's a good idea.

I'm always amused to see Al-Quida expressing itself on the Internet.

Gee, willikers, John!
How did you know?
What gave me away?

I knew it all along.
I can smell Al Qaeda.

After all, it's not as if anything you've posted on your, ahem, web site is worth
a dollar of truth or facts. Mostly it's just propaganda, from my observations.

Webster defines propaganda as : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor
for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
so yes, I'm trying to help America thru the illegal occupation of the Bush Family Evil Empire.

You'd be surprised how many people don't see/don't care what the B.F.E.E. is doing.

But I did come across this useful bit of information:
Contribution standards for!

Truly, in a world without much scruples, you people are above the rest!

Why, thank you. Maybe you're not entirely lost.

Let's take a stroll through your 'standards':
> "If you're male, white, rich, straight and healthy - no need to contribute."

Wow, quite a lot of people you're excluding there!
What if they're just white, rich and straight, can they contribute?


What if they are white, straight, and healthy, is that OK?

OK? ...why sure!

I want to make sure when I write my check, I'm not one of these guys.

Make the check to

Incidently, do I have to include my checking account balance, so as
can determine if I'm 'rich' or not.

No, if your check clears, that's good enough for me.

Because, while the other descriptions are pretty objective,
the term 'rich', which you use quite frequently, is never defined.

Webster's defines "rich" as : having abundant possessions and especially material wealth
BTW, you seem to have some difficulty with word definitions.
Here's a link for you:

Let me ask you this, then, if a person is black, rich, straight and healthy, should HE contribute?

Should he?
If you remember, it says "no need to..."

Guess I'm curious if you hate ALL of those groups of people individually,
or do you whittle down to only those that are 'male, white, rich, straight and healthy.'

Just between you & me?
I'm male, white, straight and healthy, but I'm still working on the "rich" part

The really funny thing is, the guy you claim to be supporting, Al Gore Jr., is in fact, Male, White,
Rich, Straight and Healthy. Would you suggest he don't contribute to, also??

ha ha
I claimed to support Gore?
I'm more anti-election theft than I am pro-Gore.
But to answer your question, "Would you suggest he don't contribute to, also??"
I would not suggest Gore don't contribute.

Another standard I seem perplexed about is this:
> "If you think liberal web sites shutting down is no big thing - no need to contribute."

I guess it would depend on WHY they are shutting down, wouldn't it?

Sure, ...I suppose, ... I guess.

Are they shutting down because of lack of interest, because they seem
hypocritical (see above), or because someone is purposely shutting them down.

Is that a question?
Many sites can't maintain the beat-your-head-against-the-wall stamina required
to take on an illegal, unlawful (not to mention stolen) federal government of America.
Is that what you meant?

If it's due to lack of interest, I can't understand anyone really being perturbed about it.
Web sites come down everyday, due to lack of interest.
Is this the result of some Bush hidden agenda?

I find very little of Bush's agenda "hidden."
He openly states that we're at war until the end of time, that the Constitution will now apply on a
"we'll-let-you-know" basis, tax cuts for billionaires and wealthy corporations who pony up and
massive oil drilling everywhere except where it might harm brother Jeb's re-election chances.

If you have proof that the Federal Government is closing these web sites,
I'd be very interested to read them. If they're porn sites, don't waste my, or your, time.

You want to read "them proof?"
I didn't say the government was shutting sites down, you said that.
Odds are, this is the only liberal web site you've encountered.
Many of the others are no longer here for you to run into, my friend.

And further on, you write:
> 'If you think TV and radio are "fair and balanced," then there's no need to contribute.'

Who really cares if it's 'fair and balanced'? From the title part of your web site, my opinion
of fair and balanced is obviously light years away from your idea of fair and balanced.

Yes, but in America, you're entitled to be as wrong as Rush Limbaugh.
 It's called "freedom:"

Webster defines "freedom" as:  the quality or state of being free:
the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
You are therefore free to be light years away from my idea of fair and balanced.
I don't support censorship in anyway, even if it's in the name of 'fair and balanced' TV or radio.
Just because Rush Limbaugh has a huge audience on the radio, doesn't give anyone--even crusading
liberals out to 'save the children', the right to hijack a radio station and start presenting there ideas.
If Rush Limbaugh is popular on the radio, it must mean people are willing to, and desire to,
hear his message--or his style of entertainment.

It could be that, or it could be that America's meanest and most ignorant racists 
need a cult of personality to rally around to justify their boorish behavior.
Think that could be it?

Then you wrote:
>'If you think the next election will be fair and the people's choice will prevail - no need to contribute.'

And so it ends, with the dismal, emotional plea for the future: No more fair elections. Because, as we all know
from, a fair election is when Democrats are elected, and an unfair election is when Republicans are elected.

No, an unfair election is when the guy with fewer votes has his crooked brother's girlfriend certify
a "quick count" and then watch as his daddy's crooked appointees return the favor by installing a moron.

Already, is throwing in the towel, and admitting defeat.

You read that on  did you?
There are 822 issues of "admitting defeat" here?

Because, as we all know, if Al Gore was elected (he means re-elected) President in 2004
--or really any would be the first to exclaim it was a fair election.

The guy with the most votes, (and without a crooked brother) should win.

But, if somehow, Bush were to be re-elected, (he means elected) it would have nothing to do
with his handling of the war on terrorism, his massive tax cuts, the economy, or his handling
of the office of President, in the opinion of the voters. It could only be an unfair, and
fraudulent election Bush would have won.

Bush has done nothing on the war but steal money and kill goat-herders.
The oil companies were super-rich before Bush's unearned windfall to them.
The economy is his fault - he killed the Clinton Miracle.
...and what has he done as president, beside read the scripts of others?

In short, I'm glad you have this web site on the Internet. I'm glad the hate from the liberal left
is put into full view. When people used to think 'liberal', they thought of flower children, free love,
good herb, and 'mood music'. Thanks to all of you, a real example is set of what being a liberal is
really about--it's about hate, propaganda, and jealousy. It's about 'getting even', it's about half-truths
and it's about distorted cartoons, with captions based solely on emotions, meant to harm and incite.

Hmmm, spoken like a man willing to get in the ring for a live debate,
but then, ...the others sounded that way, too - at first.

Clearly, from what I've read on your site, it's not about issues, it doesn't seem to be about presenting
opposing view points, and it doesn't even seem to be about protecting anyone's rights but your own.


Show me any GOP site on the entire web that prints letter from the other side, like I'm doing.

It's not as if you're screaming about the infringements on the 2nd amendment, just those you agree with,
apparently. Take your forum for example--where's the freedom of speech there? It must be approved
for posting by the moderator? You might as well have Himmler as you're moderator!

Being new, your ignorance is understandable.
When not moderated, ditto-monkeys focus on Hillary's reproductive system and post dozens if not
hundreds of nonsensical masturbatory fantasies about the former First lady.
By the way, why would you, John Currier, want to read that filth?

No wonder there are so many requests for money,
and so few links to express our view of your web site.

Well, your e-mail, every idiotic word, is printed on this page.
If it had been shorter, I would've run it on the front page.

Again - you can't name a conservative web site that would print a letter from me.
I've been searching for one (and daring people like you to find one),
but there aren't any.

There's no conservative issue I can't deflate, and no ditto-monkey to whom I can't give the red-ass.

It's all about the money!

ha ha

Yeah, that's why I'm a Democrat.

...because it pays so well...

Privacy Policy
. .