She also doesn't seem to like our (mine and Canadian Cynic's) recent postings about Major Hasan and the Fort Hood shootings. I haven't read Canadian Cynic's post, so I can't comment about it one way or another, but I imagine it didn't take on the racist flavoring she would have liked on that tragedy .
"This blog belongs to a Conservative woman who believes in total freedom of speech. If you cannot bear to hear it, buy a set of ear plugs and stop whining. Also, I happen to hate anti-semites and anti-gay idiots. If you are not in sync with my mind-set, please keep away from this blog, and I "Thank you" for not polluting it with your presence." From YOUR Subtitle. What a walking contradiction you are!! You believe in 'total freedom' of speech, until someone disagrees with you and then you don't want them to 'pollute' it." Who is this Shrew?
My posting was based on a New York Times article that same evening I posted mine: Nicotine Deprived Blogging... is what this shrew is referring to.
This brings me to revisit my old question, I really wish some of these Neo-Cons would answer this. I asked this question when writing about Kathy Shiddle's persecution complex. Why is absolute Free speech only applicable to you and your idiocies and not to anyone else who dares to disagree with you??
Beware, Neo-Cons, it just so happens that making fun of you is becoming an ideal replacement for nicotine!! And gotta say; the quitting smoking thing is pretty damned difficult.