Unspun Logo

Pestilence: We Can Do Better

Posted by Rick · September 14th, 2004 · 8 Comments

I often comment about how this blog itself is a microcosm of what’s going on, politically, in the United-States-at-large. Thanks particularly to one Floridian named Nat Dawson, we often get a graphic demonstration of the main reason I have trouble writing about some of the other things that interest me, instead of always writing about the reasons why a Bush Administration is bad for America.

Today is no exception. For the last week, Mr. Dawson has been testing the limits of free speech through his postings on this blog and his near-schizophreniform writings to me in personal emails.

I’m of the belief that he’s either psychologically ill, or just enjoying himself — which, because of the way he’s enjoying himself, I guess, would also mean he’s got psychological issues. He’s managed from time-to-time to get a few people’s goat here, including mine, before I figured out he was either sick or not serious (but, as I said, even this would mean he’s got problems).

At any rate, he provides me another opportunity to talk about serious political issues. Frankly, if Mr. Dawson didn’t exist, I’d wish I were smart enough to invent him.

Mr. Dawson’s Wild Ride

First, some background on Mr. Dawson. Those who aren’t interested in him can skip to the next section. I write this primarily because if I didn’t, he wouldn’t feel any sense of importance. For the moment, he will be the center of this universe. Since I’m not a doctor, I’m unable to dispense medication; this is my best-effort at easing the pain of his existence. Since I’m not his regular therapist, though, I only do this one time — and only because it provides the background for the next section of the article which is not about him. (Sorry, Mr. Dawson.)

Today, Mr. Dawson posts another vacuous and mean-spirited comment — you can read it in the non-political article I wrote about a trip I recently took to watch a football game and visit with members of my law fraternity in the Los Angeles area. The article is titled “Dog Days of Delta Theta Phi?” and has nothing whatsoever political to say; it’s one of the rare purely personal articles I’ve written on the blog.

Mr. Dawson’s comments posted at the end of that article demonstrate about the most obvious example of a lack of ethics that I’ve ever seen in my life. At least as much — if not more — the comments there show him to be one of the most pestiferous, mean, and ignorant writers who has ever written a word on this blog. He has been nothing more than a disruptive force. He has never posted a cogent argument, instead posting vile ad hominem attacks on others. And it doesn’t matter whether I write a political post to which such an attack might, in some loose sense, be “appropriate,” or a purely personal note about a trip to Los Angeles to watch a football game. Mr. Dawson’s commentary is more a spewing than a response, so the same things are routinely posted regardless of the content of the article to which they are posted. He does try to connect them, in some way. The post in question, for example, proves that “Lieberals” are all “liars” because “socialists” — and apparently he means Mark King and me — don’t like football; they (by which he means me, and Mark King) only watch soccer.

During the last week, he has also written me numerous nasty emails calling me and my friends all kinds of names.

Mr. Dawson had stopped writing on my blog from the first week of June until last week. He wasn’t completely gone, though. Leading up to and during his “absence”, he was writing me very polite and kind letters, telling me what wonderful writing I did — something which, naturally, made me chuckle every time I got another such note. The main thrust of the letters, though, was to ask questions about how to start a blog, or how did I set up such-and-such a thing on my blog — all questions obviously geared towards learning how he could get a blog of his own. Since I really believe in trying to be helpful and polite even to people such as Mr. Dawson, I gave him information and pointers; I also secretly hoped he’d start his own blog and be too busy writing there to write here.

Because, you see, I have had a policy about posting virtually everything people write, except for “blog spam.” And while Mr. Dawson’s writings are frequently worth less than blog spam, I have posted everything he’s ever written anyway. It’s part of my commitment to the belief that, even though I’m not a government, the principles of the First Amendment mean something. This is the number one difference between people like me and people like President George “There Ought To Be Limits To Freedom” Bush.

And then Mr. Dawson returned to the blog. In private emails, he also told me he now had his own blog with a thriving readership. Somehow — although I’ve never seen a blog take off this quickly — in the short time he’d been up and running, he was getting between 100 and 250 (well, actually “249”; see below) comments to the posts he was writing there, he said.

Now, I had promised him once before that if he created a blog, I’d put a link for him on my blog — this is a relatively common courtesy to offer someone who frequents your blog. Political agreement isn’t a requirement; I’ve seen numerous other conservatives posting links to liberal blogs and liberals posting links to conservative blogs. It’s another one of those differences that Bush doesn’t like: It promotes free and open discussion.

So I asked Mr. Dawson to provide me the link to his blog. He responded by saying “Kick King off your blog and publicly denounce him and I’ll be glad to comply with your request.” In other words, if I did to Mark what I never would do to Mr. Dawson, that is, silence his speech, I would be privileged to read more unsupported bull than what he manages to spatter on Unspun™.

His emails also included such facts as this:

  • On 9/9 at 10:17 a.m., he said he’d written an article blasting Kerry that had 110 responses. As I noted above, for a brand-new blog, that’s pretty incredible. I don’t say it’s impossible, but particularly since it’s not advertised and he refuses to tell people about it because he doesn’t want “us” writing there, it seems phenomenally unlikely.
  • On 9/10, he wrote to tell me he had posted an article blasting Dan Rather and CBS — or was it Kerry? He couldn’t seem to make up his mind on that one. At the time he wrote to me (timestamp on his email was 1:59 p.m.), the article, he said, received 249 posts in response and “the vast majority in agreement.” Then, in a follow-up email about an hour later (timestamp: 3:07 p.m.), he said that he now had “243 responses . . . 239 outrightly CONDEMN Rather and CBS.”

Oh, I should probably tell you that Mr. Dawson lives near Jacksonville. Florida. What more do we need before we pass a federal law requiring that they import mathematicians from outside the state during each election to count the votes?

And, as near as anyone here can tell — and a couple people spent a little time googling for it using clues Mr. Dawson had fed us, including the title of one of his article — there is no blog. This provides another potential explanation for the shifting numbers of responses. Fantasy numbers wouldn’t be at all unusual for a made-up blog.

According to Mr. Dawson, the name of the article that got the 249 — uh, 243, uh, “what comes after four?” — responses was “Hollow Man.” Until sometime in the next day or week, a search for it on Google turns up mostly movie pages — for the movie of the same name — and, interestingly (but this is most likely a red herring) a blog by Lawrence Auster, a conservative writer who could be Mr. Dawson, except that he doesn’t appear to be living in the right part of the country and he sometimes says “bad things” about George Bush.

After next week, you’ll see references on Google to this blog entry on Unspun™. Because that’s what happens when you have a blog. Google spiders find it. And then, when people google for titles of articles — or even for sentences that appear in the articles — that have been written on your blog, they find you.

Chances are that Mr. Dawson doesn’t have a blog.

The Mirror

Well, the background here took longer than I would have liked — hopefully, most of you took my advice and skipped it. For those who read it, you realize it’s of no real consequence. Just doing my part to assuage Mr. Dawson’s existential angst.

As noted, it provides an interesting look at why the Bush Administration should not get your vote in November.

  1. Republicans want, to the best of their ability, to ensure that only their “message” is heard. Mr. Dawson, here, repeatedly offers the same comments about John Kerry, even though I’ve never once on my blog endorsed John Kerry. Because my blog routinely points out the problems in the Bush Administration, though, Mr. Dawson has to insist upon blathering about Kerry and the Democrats. (My defense of the truth is not the same as a Kerry endorsement. If you check the blog, you’ll see I’m anti-Bush, and I’ve corrected falsehoods about Kerry and the Democrats written by Mr. Dawson. But I’ve never actually endorsed Kerry.) This is like the conservative wonks on Fox or CNN who, when they are talking, will constantly berate the “liberal” head for interrupting them if they try to correct a false statement. They will then turn right around when it is the “liberal’s” turn and constantly interrupt with more of their spew, even if what the “liberal” is saying is true. It’s like the Bush campaign which wanted to clear not only their convention hall (which they had a right to do) from protesters, but also the rest of the surrounding city (which they did not have a right to do). It’s like Fresno, where Mayor Autry sponsors an anti-gay, pro-Christian marriage rally, but a silent man holding up a protest sign is told to leave or be arrested. In a democratic republic, though, it’s imperative that every voice is heard. Without it, we not only cease to thrive, we eventually degenerate into a fascist state.
  2. Adherence to the truth is irrelevant to the Bush Administration. Not only has Bush routinely lied to the American people — and the prime, but not sole, instance of this is the lies he told to get us to Iraq — he has also worked hard to re-write history. First, his military records “disappear” and then they’re found again. Then voting records in Florida “disappear” and are miraculously found again. And, of course, whenever such records re-surface, there’s nothing in there that would indicate anything unfavorable to Bush. Was it ever unfavorable? We don’t know. I certainly don’t. Yet I’m disconcerted by disappearing and reappearing records. When people want them because they suspect it will show something unsavory about Bush, they have disappeared; when people start pointing to the loss as evidence of a problem, they miraculously reappear — with no blemishes for Bush. Maybe the blemishes were never there. But isn’t it odd that these type of records disappear and then reappear? In a democratic republic, it’s important that we, the People, have access to the truth even if it’s unflattering. Freedom requires access to truthful information that allows an appropriate response on the part of the electorate to keep that freedom alive and the republic thriving.
  3. Voting to re-elect Bush means electing an Administration that is shameless in its perversion of the truth and “patriotism” in its suppression of the rights of the people.
    • Just as Mr. Dawson’s comments are frequently unsupported personal attacks, so, too, are the comments of the Bush campaign frequently unsupported personal attacks on others. You want to vote for Kerry? Oh, you can’t do that! If you vote for Kerry, Republi — er, I mean terrorists — will attack you.
    • Bush needs to be re-elected because he will keep you safe, just as he did in September 2001.
    • People speaking out against the President are providing succor to the enemy.
    • People speaking out against the President hate America.

    In order for our nation to thrive, we need leaders who will run campaigns based on real issues, not schoolyard bullies reminding us that the boogey-man lives under our beds and will get us if we vote for or listen to anyone except them.

And, speaking of “terrorists,” isn’t it odd that every time things get really hot for the Administration, another “terrorist” plot is uncovered? Frankly, it seems to me Americans should be thinking, “You know, my life wasn’t consumed by terrorists until George Bush became President. Maybe it’s time to get my life back and vote for someone else.”

It’s time for a change. It’s time to think. It’s time to put our heads together as Americans have done for more than 200 years. Launching personal attacks on people who disagree with you may sometimes be fun, but it doesn’t result in a better America. It just makes us all look like Mr. Dawson.

And what a pitiful sight that has proven to be.

Categories: Blogs & Blogging


8 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Nat // Sep 14, 2004 at 3:06 pm

    Oh puleaaaze.

    That’s a reach of sophistry even for you.

    Face the facts:

    1) Your candidate, John “effing” Scary, is as exciting as a Styrofoam cutout

    [Editor’s Note: As I’ve repeatedly stated, I’m an independent. I don’t often vote for Democrats. Mr. Kerry isn’t my candidate. I simply believe George Bush is a criminal and should not be given another term in office. Whether Mr. Kerry is “my” candidate or not, the ability to “excite” people isn’t important when selecting a President. My wife excites me. If Mr. Dawson wants to find someone else to excite him, that’s his bailiwick. What matters to me in a President is, among other things, will he uphold his oath of office, or will he sell out the American public to corporate cronies? Will he trick people into sending their sons and daughters to die so Halliburton, Bechtel and Worldcom can enjoy the spoils of war? Will he lie, if necessary, to get us there? Will he, recognizing that he cannot possibly provide what the American people want, distract them from that by name-calling and scaring them into thinking the boogeyman is going to get them if they listen to someone who tries to talk about what they want? Will he support, or dismantle, the Constitution of the United States? Does he believe the Constitution limits the government, as our Founders did, or does he believe that the Constitution was meant to limit people? Does he believe “there ought to be limits to freedom,” including that people who have websites that make fun of him should be silenced? (Note: George Bush believes that and said so to a bunch of reporters in 2000.) In short, is he fit to be President? I don’t know about John Kerry, but I know for a fact that George Bush is not fit for that job. He starts wars; he rails about terrorism, but does little about it; and since he took office, our economy has faltered, our children are to be burdened with massive deficits where Clinton had given us surpluses — those children who aren’t killed in a never-ending war into which we were tricked, that is — and we are consumed these days with political rhetoric which refuses to discuss what’s important to us, because, well, primarily because the Republicans don’t want us to discuss it.]

    2) These forged documents that John “effing” Scary’s campaign created are the Democrats’ Watergate. It is over for them in a big way. Dan Rather may have committed Federal crimes. A bunch of DNC people are going to jail for this. This is huge.

    [Editor’s Note: Again, since I’m not a Democrat, this isn’t a huge concern for me even if it’s true. However, from what I’ve seen, it doesn’t appear to be true. CBS continues to stand by their story and no one yet has shown it isn’t true. Do a Google search for a story showing that “DNC people are going to jail for this” and you will find . . . nothing. But, again, even if it were true and even if the documents were forged and even if every Democrat in the world went to jail, this would not show that George Bush is fit to be President. These are disconnected issues. It would be entirely possible for John Kerry to be a bad candidate and for George Bush to also be a bad candidate. The world — and particularly the world of politics — does not have a “one bad person only” quota. Continue to think Kerry is bad; that’s fine by me — he’s not my candidate, no matter how often Mr. Dawson says he is. But while you’re buying into the lying about Mr. Kerry, consider also the reality of the world around you. Look at what Mr. Bush has done and look at how your own lives have been impacted by that. If you’re stupid enough to think Bush is good for you, then by all means vote for him. But don’t think it’s because Mr. Dawson actually gave you reasons for anything. He has repeatedly shown that he wouldn’t know a reason if it bit him on the hindquarters. And if he somehow recognized a reason, he wouldn’t know what the reason was for.]

    3) By making his faked war record the basis for his candidacy, John “effing” Scary opened a scab that should have been left well alone. Now we learn that his “war record” was created by none other than himself and there are lots of people – who were there – who have called his claims flat out lies. He brought this on himself.

    [Editor’s Note: Heh…this one is too good to be true. Much of this has been handled by my article, “New York Times re Kerry.” ‘Nuff said.]

    4) He’s a LIBERAL! He is the most leftwing member of the Senate. To the left of the murdering scumbag “the swimmer from Masschussetts”. He is out of touch with Americans. His sort of talk may go over big with you effete Liberals but it is nonsense to Joe Lunchpail.

    [Editor’s Note: If only there were some facts to substantiate these claims. If I call Mr. Dawson “ugly” and tell you he smells funny, will you believe me? You shouldn’t. I’ve never seen him, nor met him. (Frankly, that wouldn’t be possible, since he’s not who he claims to be; Mr. Dawson is a made-up character. “Mr. Dawson” is the identity he’s chosen because he is too ashamed or embarrassed (as well he should be) to use his real identity. “Mr. Dawson” only lives here, on this blog; he doesn’t exist anywhere else.

    Not just once, but repeatedly, it has been shown that the Democrats score big on issues with the American public. In other words, the things they say are not “nonsense to Joe Lunchpail.” This is the reason you will never hear a Republican actually discuss issues; the Republicans always lose on the issues. Americans believe in the “liberal” issues, many of which are also issues Democrats believe in. Even Republicans think so. The problem isn’t that Joe Lunchpail isn’t concerned about his retirement and Social Security, the problem isn’t that Joe Lunchpail isn’t concerned about his ability to have access to good health care; the problem isn’t that Joe Lunchpail likes to pay through the nose for gasoline; the problem isn’t that Joe Lunchpail likes to see his lunchpail go empty because his job has been shipped overseas; and the problem isn’t that Joe Lunchpail likes seeing his house go empty because his kids have been shipped to die in a war we were tricked into for G-d-only-knows-what-the-real-reason-is (note: it wasn’t the non-existent weapons of mass destruction or Osama bin Forgotten, who is still running around loose). The problem is that Joe Lunchpail has been relentlessly beaten down with distractions and lies, including false “news” stories about those who oppose the Republicans and Joe Lunchpail is unaware of what is happening because the Bush Administration is busy silencing or working to smear critics while simultaneously operating the most secret government the United States has ever seen. This is why you will never see a Republican discuss the issues. This is why even now George Bush is working to avoid debates and “when the time comes,” to change the format of the televised debate he cannot avoid with John Kerry. George Bush, in particular, cannot discuss the issues because he keeps changing his mind — or at least his words — on what he thinks about them.]

    Face reality, it’s over for you. You people have waged the ugliest, meanest, dirtiest campaign in American history and then you turn around and say you’re concerned about the Constitution blah blah blah!!

    [Editor’s Note: Since I’m neither campaigning nor actively supporting any particular candidate who is, it’s difficult to see how I can be included in “you people,” but I must be, since this is my blog and the comments are usually posted in response to my articles. My concern is the Constitution. And I’m pretty sure that I understand what it stands for a lot more than anyone living in America who says “there ought to be limits to freedom,” just because someone poked fun at him on a website. (George Bush believes that and said so to a bunch of reporters in 2000.)

    What a crock!

    You’re trying to pretend that we haven’t had 4 very good years under Bush. You’re trying to act like the wonderful job he has done as President somehow happened without him. You give him no credit for anything good. You just want to sneer and smear.

    [Editor’s Note: Near as I can tell, we’ve seen ballooning deficits, big tax cuts for people who make greater than $257,000 and little tiny tax cuts for anyone making less (19% and 4% respectively; but if you make less than around $58,000, don’t even hope for that 4%!) and — oh yeah, war. And do you know why we went to war? Maybe it was weapons of mass destruction? Maybe it was because we were after Osama bin Laden (remember him?)? Or, maybe, it was oil. Speaking of oil, over the last four years, I’ve seen California raped by energy companies. I’ve seen the Vice-President refuse to allow the American people to know which energy corporation CEOs drafted the energy policy for the United States. I’ve seen gasoline price go crazy. I’ve seen Halliburton and Bechtel and Worldcom get no-bid contracts worth millions just because they were owned by friends of the President. I’ve seen the Constitution placed part-way through a shredder with the threat that the rest of it will follow. I’ve seen the President consider the possibility of postponing the election because he might lose. I’ve seen talk about how if you vote for anyone else you are inviting Republi — I mean “terrorists” — to attack. I’ve seen Abu Ghraib. I’ve seen Mr. Dawson claim that Abu Ghraib was not a problem because “people in the United States have lightbulbs shoved up their backsides every day — we call those colonoscopies.” I’ve seen people at the highest levels of the Bush Administration stoop to the same techniques that Mr. Dawson uses on this blog, because there’s no other way to distract the American people from reality long enough to ensure a Bush victory. I’ve seen the same forces that always lead to fascism begin to appear in America. And I’ve seen the same excuses for why fascism is needed in America offered by the likes of John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, Tom DeLay, and others like them. I’ve seen jobs offshored at a rapidly increasing rate. I’ve seen grocery stores in my neighborhood close down because the economy is booming. (Only I’m confused, because I thought when the economy was booming, the stores would do better.) And I’ve seen more and more people who have to choose between driving their kids to school or eating because of soaring gasoline prices while Chevron and other oil companies post record profits while a failed oilman sits in the White House. And I see an Administration that has done more to operate in secrecy than any in the history of our existence as a free country.]

    Fortunately the American public is made of much sterner stuff than that. They see that Bush is a very decent guy and someone who puts the country first. Americans love George W Bush and they resent it very greatly when you and your leftwing ilk come along and start LYING about him and throwing mud at him. It hasn’t worked for more that a year now yet your response is more of the same.

    [Editor’s Note: If America sees what you say they see, they are seeing an illusion. If America sees what you say they see, it’s because the current Administration will brook no dissent and will not allow us to see how they operate. (Who was on that energy commission, anyway?) Show me one lie I’ve ever told about George Bush. Show me one truth that you’ve told (about either him or anyone else). Let us see if you can build an argument, or whether you will simply make more unsupported assertions.]

    Instead of you carping about something 30 years ago, why aren’t you talking about the future? I’ll tell you why. Because you have no agenda. You just want to hate the President. You have nothing to offer but raw, undiluted hate.

    [Editor’s Note: Thirty years ago? You threw me for a second on that one. After all, my article — as my comment here — was about what’s happening right now and what it means for our future. Then I realized you’re probably talking about Kerry again. After all, you have to talk about Kerry; I don’t. You don’t have a choice, because you cannot talk about Bush’s policies. I have a choice, because I’m concerned about my country and my Constitution, not merely a guy who has hoodwinked me into thinking that because he screwed an entire country (and those areas of the world his foreign policy has touched) instead of an intern, he’s a great guy.]

    Tell me – will you be leaving America on November 3rd? Where will you go? Do you think there’s another country in this world that has a better government than we do? If so, then go there.

    [Editor’s Note: Near as I can tell, I’m staying right here. Why would I abandon what was a great country, when I can stay put and fight to restore it?]

    Gee, I sure wouldn’t want you to be unhappy for the next 4 years. Go whine in some other country. I bet you’ll be back here in 2 weeks.

    [Editor’s Note: Back? I wasn’t planning to leave. Or were you expecting my deportation because I don’t agree with dein Leader’s “vision”?]

  • 2 Rick // Sep 14, 2004 at 11:47 pm

    An email I received from Mr. Dawson (see below) tonight is why I love him so. Seriously. I mean, without him, I couldn’t prove how ridiculous some Republicans are. Frankly, he’s such a find for me that I keep expecting someone to accuse me of inventing Mr. Dawson.

    His message is why when I left for the weekend, I posted a note telling people I would be gone. I figured Mr. Dawson would complain that I was censoring him, and I wanted to avoid hurting his feelers.

    I guess I should have done the same thing when I went to the library today to research — something with which Mr. Dawson is unfamiliar — and then went to class tonight.

    Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
    From: nattyd@cashette.com
    To: Rick Horowitz
    Subject: Four more years!!

    I see you haven’t put two posts, I created earlier, on your blog.

    Way to go, “Mr. Constitution”!!!

    Censorship is only a bad thing when it seems Republicans are doing it. But when Liberals censor free speech – why that’s just fine.

    Funny, I only posted because your Communist pal attacked me and the President simultaneously (what’s new with that) and then you chose to attack me, personally, in one of your cheap shot editorials. I actually have better things to do than try to boost your failing blog but, nonetheless, I replied to refute your ugly ad hominem attack.

    And now, you don’t have the balls to post my response to your attack on me. Yes, you truly are a champion of the First Amendment. NOT!

    But that’s OK. The great thing about America is that there are plenty of other blogs who welcome posters and debate them on the merits of their arguments instead of personally insulting them and then trying to impose speech codes on them.

    Also I’m sick of reading your constant unjustified vilification of President Bush. Your blog is like a broken record. All you can do is sneer and jeer at the President. You offer no solutions. Only Liberal pap.

    Where is your comment on the OBVIOUS forgeries that CBS were given by the John “effing” Scary campaign? Where is your outrage on the abuse of position by Dan Rather? Nothing. Instead you continue your Socialist dirge by repeating the same mantra over and over.

    Now here’s the interesting part. It’s people like you who have made Bush supporters like me volunteer to help the President be re-elected. You’re succeeding in one way – your vile attacks on the President have stiffened our support for him.

    I hope he buries Kerry this November. That would only be justice after all the filthy dirty tactics that Kerry has employed.

    Thanks for reaffirming my support for our great leader, George W Bush. Thank you. Thank you.

    God Bless President George W. Bush. God Bless America.




    No, Mr. Dawson, thank you!

  • 3 Mark // Sep 15, 2004 at 8:43 am


    Is there any way we can get what Nat writes in front of a larger audience, especially in battleground states? I am confident his writing would drive the “swing” voters to Kerry in droves!

  • 4 Rick // Sep 15, 2004 at 8:56 am

    I wish.

    Some people have actually written asking me to stop allowing him to post. (Obviously, you’re not one of them. I point this out explicitly because, ironically, Mr. Dawson has asked me to silence you while you agree with me that we should let him be heard because he makes Republicans look bad and liberals — including Democrats — look better. And isn’t it ironic, by the way, that although Mr. Dawson has tried repeatedly to get me to “expel” or “fire” you, in this very set of comments [see above] he has accused me of failing to defend the First Amendment because I went to school instead of sitting here waiting to approve his posts yesterday afternoon.)

    Some good arguments have been made for silencing Mr. Dawson. As has been pointed out — and I’ve said it myself before — I’m not a government. I’m a private blog owner. The argument that has been made to me is that Mr. Dawson keeps others from commenting because they’re not willing to expose themselves to the same abuse he dishes out to you and me. That is a sad thing and I’d like to fix it. I’m just not sure I want to get into the business of picking and choosing what gets posted in the comments section.

    And, of course, so far my permitting him to rant and rave here not only makes the rest of us who write look even better, it also provides a stark contrast to what the Bush Administration — which, incidentally, is subject to the First Amendment — does.

    For now, at least, I’ll let him continue bleating. The more he bleats, the more Republicans bleed.

  • 5 Rick // Sep 15, 2004 at 9:45 am

    The following email sent to me is posted with permission from the sender.

    Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:03:46 -0700
    From: Nick Meyer
    To: Rick Horowitz
    Subject: RE: Tonight

    How long do you give it before Mr. Dawson attacks me? I predict that unless
    he is out or away two hours. What you say mister?

    Good question, Nick. He definitely appears to adhere strictly to the view that if you aren’t 100% for him, you must be 100% against him. His world is either black, or white. And, as we know, in Florida, where Mr. Dawson lives, blacks aren’t allowed to vote. 😉

  • 6 Rick // Sep 15, 2004 at 9:52 am

    By the way, Nick, keep thinking straight and recognizing that folk like Mr. Dawson are over the edge and you’ll either end up as a liberal, or I’ll start saying nice things about Republicans.

  • 7 nick meyer // Sep 15, 2004 at 4:00 pm

    I never said that Nat, or people like him are over the edge. Nat, as we are, are entitled to our opinions. I just have a problem with the way Nat expresses his views.

  • 8 Rick // Sep 15, 2004 at 6:45 pm

    “[T]he way Nat expresses his views” is what I was referring to, Nick.

    You’ve made it pretty clear you endorse the politics of the Republican Party.

    Heck, you even have an elefink on your front lawn!

Leave a Comment