« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Gay Reich Movement Strikes Again

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 16th, 2008 at 09:37 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

You know, there is nothing wrong with a protest. There is nothing wrong with a boycott. But hounding people out of work, harassing people who refuse to go along with the boycott, etc. crosses a line that should not be crossed.

In the latest escapade of the gay reich movement, the Los Angeles Times chronicles the fall of El Coyote. The Times notes

Margie Christoffersen was a manager at El Coyote, the Beverly Boulevard landmark restaurant that’s always had throngs of customers waiting to get inside. Many of them were gay, and Christoffersen, a devout Mormon, donated $100 in support of Proposition 8, the successful November ballot initiative that banned gay marriage.

She never advertised her politics or religion in the restaurant, but last month her donation showed up on lists of “for” and “against” donors. And El Coyote became a target.

A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting “shame on you” at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob.

Ironically, as El Coyote fails, its employees, many of whom are gay, are out of work in a down economy. One of those employees put it best:

“You can express yourself as a citizen,” said Archila. “Not everyone has to believe the same things.”

No Mr. Archila. You can’t. Not as long as the gay rights movement operates as a Gay Reich Movement.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Pippin

    Would you be as upset if a group of devout Christians boycotted a restaurant with a manager who donated to planned parenthood? I think this a case of the gay movement overreacting drastically, but let’s face it, she donated to a cause that a good 50% of her client base viewed as an attempt to take away their civil rights. How can she possibly turn around and act surprised that they took offense?

  • AceInTX

    Name me one Christian group that has destroyed restaurants, hounded people out of business, or harrased their employers till they we fired and I’m sure Erick will be one of the first ones standing up to condemn it…I know I would!!!

    You can make apologies for these vermin if you wish but the truth remains that we are seeing the modern day equivalent of the NAZI Brown Shirts destroying Jewish businesses, taking away the rights of the Jews and other groups targeted by the SA and enforcing through intimidation a uniform view of the world on an unwilling populous!

    One of the things that lead to Hitler’s regime was Baron Von Hindenburg failure to deal with the SA and NAZI thugs terrorizing the citizenry! This needs to stop NOW.

    My attitude is this…if they want to keep pushing…and the government won’t deal with them…the time is fast approaching when we need to fight fire with fire!

  • Gengisdon

    I seem to remember a boycott against all things Disney over….wait for it…same sex partnership employee benefits.

    Not that it was particularly effective.

    And the folks that protest abortion clinics, well let’s just say they may have more in common with those you call the “gay reich” than they might wish for.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    ,

  • zuiko

    Targeting a business over their actions versus targeting individuals over their political contributions… two different things.

    Targeting a business over their actions when you disagree with them makes perfect sense. The business is doing something you don’t like and by focusing attention on them, maybe you can get them to change their behavior.

    Targeting someone over their political contributions, on the other hand, seems pretty unamerican to me. The intent there is to silence people who don’t agree with you through intimidation. You’ll know you better stay quiet and politically inactive, or you might lose your job or business as a result. I would never target someone because they gave money to Obama or the ACLU. I might think less of them, but I’m not going to try to get them fired (as has also happened over Prop 8 disclosures) or run them out of business.

  • exitsfunnel

    It seems to me that Christians are boycotting something different every other day. I do think that the anti-proposition 8 groups are going a bit further, but the difference is only one of degree and, in my opinion, the difference is not nearly so large that the one group deserves no criticism at all while the other is accused of being tantamount to the Nazis.

    -exits

  • zuiko

    Not the same thing.

    You want to boycott Wal-Mart because you think they are unfair to workers? Go right ahead. You won’t be alone.

    You want to target an *individual* because of the political causes he personally supports? That is plainly unamerican. It is an attempt to intimidate everyone else who might feel the same way. Reich is right.

  • mbecker908

    an attempt to take away their civil rights. Is a totally ignorant – and totally trollish – comment.

    “Marriage” is not a civil right. Homosexuality is NOT a civil rights issue.

    Your attempt to link Prop 8 to civil rights, and your attempt to link the actions of the homosexual community (there’s nothing “gay” about those folk!) to “Christian boycotts” are ignorant, ill conceived and an insult to the civil rights movement and to Christians. It belies a total misunderstanding of the issues.

  • AceInTX

    and none of the tactics we are discussing that this bunch is doing was done by the Religious Community…We didn’t patronize Disney or it’s products…that’s a world away from harassing business till they fire specific employees, going to sites and deliberately driving down ratings for the business for product, atmosphere etc. and the Religious Community as a whole didn’t picket individuals and try to destroy them because who they donated money to!

    Nice try but foul ball!

  • AceInTX

    NT

    “

  • AceInTX

    NT

    :

  • AceInTX

    _

  • AceInTX

    and I’m unclear what Whoosh means and who it’s directed at?

    Please elaborate .

  • Pippin

    [i]?Marriage? is not a civil right. Homosexuality is NOT a civil rights issue.[/i]

    It’s not ME you have to convince, it’s the protesters. I’m not making the case for gay marriage as a civil rights issue, I’m just pointing out that the protesters view it as one, my point was that she certainly should have known that her clientele would view her donation as a personal slap in the face.

    [i]Your attempt to link Prop 8 to civil rights, and your attempt to link the actions of the homosexual community (there?s nothing ?gay? about those folk!) to ?Christian boycotts? are ignorant, ill conceived and an insult to the civil rights movement and to Christians. It belies a total misunderstanding of the issues.[/i]

    As I just pointed out, I didn’t link proposition 8 to civil rights, I pointed out the link in the protesters’ minds between themselves and civil rights activists. As for the “Christian boycotts,” I was just picking an issue where there is a conservative base with strong opinions about a particular issue. Feel free to substitute in the story about Dan Cooper, the gun company founder who donated to Obama, and was subsequently forced out of his position as CEO of the company he had founded (you can find the story here: http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/11/10/news/local/zznews02.txt).

    Unlike our friends on the left, I was not outraged by what happened to Dan Cooper, because, frankly, while I thought it was a case of gross over-reaction by pretty much everybody involved, I respected their constitutional right to go ahead and boycott whoever they wanted. The same principal applies in this case. I think the gay rights movement is waaaaayyyyy overreacting, and I’d say they’re making quite a mountain out of a molehill, but it is within their rights to do so.

  • Finrod

    I pointed out the link in the protesters? minds between themselves and civil rights activists.

    I could make a link between myself and the Queen of England, but that doesn’t make me royalty.

    Also note that the guy who posted about Cooper’s stance got threatening email, and the right to keep and bear arms is one that’s been enshrined in the Constitution for 200+ years, unlike gay marriage.

  • Pippin

    “the right to keep and bear arms is one that?s been enshrined in the Constitution for 200+ years, unlike gay marriage.”

    So you’re fine with people acting this way when people donate to Obama, but not when people donate to proposition 8?

    I personally think both groups were being ridiculous, but I accept that they were within their rights. As a conservative, I happen to think that just because I don’t really like what they’re doing, that doesn’t make it illegal, and they can boycott whoever the hell they want to.

  • Finrod

    The right to keep and bear arms has been in the Constitution for 200+ years. Gay marriage is a recently-invented extra-Constitutional right that the gay lobby is trying to impose by judicial fiat.

    If you can’t see the difference between those, then you need to read more.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    ,,,

  • mbecker908

    But I won’t tolerate others showing up and trying to hammer their point. Which is exactly what you did. Don’t conflate the two situations and don’t compare “boycotts” – of any kind – to this crap.

  • Pippin

    This is a boycott. Erick’s first point is that the boycott shouldn’t be going on, and I agree with him, but I disagree that what the protestors are doing violates Ms. Christoffersen’s freedom of association.

  • Pippin

    It doesn’t matter what the difference between the ISSUES is, what matters is whether there is a difference in the actions taken by the protestors, which there isn’t. In neither case was the target’s freedom of association violated.

  • mbecker908

  • Pippin

    In what way does the action taken by the protesters violate Ms. Christoffersen?s freedom of association or freedom of expression? I have yet to see ANYBODY make an actual constitutional argument about this, you’ve all resorted to pretending I’m supporting the protest, rather than the right of the protesters to behave in this ridiculous way.

  • zuiko

    n/t

  • Pippin

    That Erick’s last quote and sentence suggested the gay “rights” movement was violating the freedom of expression of the restaurant employees.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    But I’m in the ivory tower of the Front Page these days, so maybe I’m out of touch.

  • zuiko

    Unless you want to end up on the growing Proposition 8 supporter blacklist. There is no constitutional issue here. Just an issue of some scumbags who think it is their duty to try to punish and make an example of anyone who dares to disagree with them.

  • Pippin

    Well Neil, look at it this way:

    Either Erick WAS making a constitutionally-based claim in his last paragraph, in which case I was correctly interpreting what he wrote and everybody else was misinterpreting my argument.

    OR

    Erick was NOT making a constitutionally-based claim in his last paragraph, in which case I was misinterpreting Erick’s argument, and everybody else was correctly interpreting Erick’s argument but misinterpreting mine.

    If you agree that one of these two is true, then you have just advocated invoking the Hinz rule on me because people misinterpreted my argument.

    If I misinterpreted what Erick was saying, I apologize, but there’s a far cry between that and being a troll.

  • Pippin

    That’s a reading that I hadn’t thought of, but it certainly makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

  • Aaron Gardner

    You know, there is nothing wrong with a protest. There is nothing wrong with a boycott. But hounding people out of work, harassing people who refuse to go along with the boycott, etc. crosses a line that should not be crossed.

    Erick’s point is not “that the boycott shouldn’t be going on”, and if you had the reading comprehension of a third grader you would have known that. I went ahead and put bold on Erick’s point so it will be easier for you to read, even though I am sure you still won’t get it.

    Erick’s point, I believe, is that a protest or a boycott would be fine, but they have crossed the line of simple political speech and have gone on to derision of anybody not also willing to protest or boycott. This is the point I saw. The homosexuals have every right to boycott but they don’t have the right to expect everyone else to boycott as well.

  • Pippin

    Is the “line that should not be crossed” a socially acceptable line, or a constitutional line? It would seem to be the former, but then you say “they don’t have the right…” which implies that they have gone beyond their constitutional grounds. Please simply state whether or not you believe this “protest” violates federal or constitutional law in any way. If you don’t think it does, then we’re in agreement that the protest is ridiculous and a little hypocritical.

  • exitsfunnel

    I don’t see how anything that anti-proposition 8 crowd is doing is any more heavy handed than the letter I’ve linked to which is essentially political extortion.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/7505187/Prop-8-Threat-Letter

    Hopefully you’ll be just as quick to condemn ProtectMarriage.com as the equivalent of Nazis.

    -exits

  • zuiko

    The difference between action by a business and action by an individual that happens to work there seems to elude you.

  • exitsfunnel

    The letter was in response to a private donation made by Jim Abbot in his own name. Do you have some other information?

    -exits

  • zuiko

    It’s about a $10k donation from Abbot and Associates and the organization even put the Abbot and Associates logo on their site as a supporter and contributor of $10k or more, along with AT&T, Comcast, etc. They all probably got the same letter.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I said they don’t have the right to expect everyone else to boycott, if you think I am making a constitutional argument you are an idiot.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    and Amen.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    After reading this thread.

    Thanks guys for the support. Pippin is wrapped in non sequiturs plagued by an enigma.

  • exitsfunnel

    Which is strange because I distinctly recall Abbot stating that the donation was made privately in his own name several weeks ago when the letter was first published. So, in your mind, then the fact that the donation was made in the name of his business is all that matters? You see nothing offense in the ProtectMarriage tactics?

    -exits

  • zuiko

    Now, it is a stupid letter… nobody is going to give them money after giving to the other side, so why bother with the letter? The best they could hope for is that the business would ask to be removed from the website.

    But they are not targeting an individual there based on his personal expression. They are targeting a business based on a business decision they made to contribute to a controversial cause. That is perfectly fair.

  • olsmithie

    Cooper found , as many employees who embarrass their companies have found,
    that the reflection of their conduct on the company’s sales does not go unnoticed.

    In this case it was the CEO.

    Often it is a lesser employee caught up in the public eye for conduct totally unrelated to job performance, but for bringing bad PR on the company, they are dismissed.
    Nothing new here, it just usually isn’t a CEO.

    Regards

  • Martin Knight

    Does anyone have the right to follow (or ambush) you to your place of work calling you names, personally target you as an individual, scream at your customers, publish your personal information (including your address) and generally try to ruin your life?

    Simply for contributing to a political cause you believe in?

    Isn’t this harassment? Can I stand on the public street outside your house and yell at your visitors?

    Can’t you actually take someone to court for that?

    Do you now get why Erick is saying these b*****ds have crossed the line?

  • 1SGinTN

    is the difference between trying to intimidate and trying to influence. I would have thrown this two cents in much earlier had the comment function operated correctly. Oh well,

  • AceInTX

    It’s wrong and I don’t think it should occur…

    Now…would you like to condemn the fascistic tactics of these people who are combing through donor lists and going after individual citizens, (as opposed to choosing not to patronize a corporation in protest) engaged in the exorcise of their rights to free speech and freedom of association?

  • AceInTX

    and by Whoosh are you agreeing or disagreeing with the person you are replying to and why…

    I’m not trying to be a smart aleck…I’m just confused by the reply and what it meant.

  • Pippin

    For using precise language, it makes actually communicating so much easier.

    As for the answer to your question…well, ordinarily I would say yes, I get what you’re saying. But if you look 3 posts above you, you will see Aaron Gardner calling me an idiot for thinking that Erick was saying the protesters broke a law. Can you see why this is confusing me?

  • mbecker908

    Erick made exactly zero references to lawbreaking. Zero references to anybody being charged with anything – although I think a decent DA could gin up a harassment charge without too much trouble. And zero references to anything other than “a line that should not be crossed”.

    I’m sure your local community college offers remedial courses in reading comprehension. Take one. Heck, take them all. Maybe you won’t make a complete fool of yourself the next time you comment on something.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Whoosh is the sound of the point flying over the person’s head at 30,000 feet. That’s how badly he missed Erick’s point.

  • AceInTX

    you can obfuscate the issue all you want but anyone with a modicum of common sense can see the difference between choosing not to patronize a restaurant and or buy a corporations product and going after individuals in a personal manner in an effort to destroy them personally and financially and using threats and intimidation to scare people away from patronizing the restaurant!

  • Pippin

    If the protesters are guilty of harassment then they have, in fact, broken a law.

  • Aaron Gardner

    because you were proposing that others were trying to make a constitutional argument. At this point I should just call you a lying little troll as well since you have purposefully taken quotes out of context and changed your arguments to fit your desired ends.

  • AceInTX

    It seems like a dumb question to me when I write it but it’s the question whether the line goes beside on or the other or if it goes to the bottom of the top post to the top of the bottom…

    Now I made it REALlY confusing!

    :>)

  • AceInTX

    cause we want you to be….at least for a while

    LOL

  • mbecker908

    1. With respect to harassment, please keep in mind that even if charged, it’s a misdemeanor.
    2. There is no probability that a DA would bring a harassment charge in virtually any jurisdiction in the US, and certainly not in the one where this restaurant is located.
    3. Point out Erick’s text where he is pressing for criminal charges.
    4. The heat you are taking here is for several specifics:
    * Equating homosexuality with civil rights. And don’t give me the same load of crap you tossed in parlor above, it’s BS.
    * Equating the actions of the homosexual groups in question with “boycotts” of Disney, etal.
    * Misrepresenting Erick’s post.

    Now, go away.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    All replies to the same comment are in line with each other, below the comment they’re replying to.

    I wasn’t aware you were unclear on that point. It works the same as RS 3. :-)

  • Pippin

    My argument has changed as the arguments of others have changed. You will notice that my responses have all been directed at different people, all of whom made different arguments. For example:

    Martin appears to be arguing that Erick’s “crossed a line” comment was directed at the behavior the protesters have committed, in which they are guilty of harassment (which is a crime). I agree with him in that this is what I think Erick was talking about (I originally thought he was making a reference to freedom of expression because the quote refers to ?You can express yourself as a citizen? and then Erick suggests that the gay rights movement is preventing this from happening).

    HOWEVER, in a reply to me, mbecker simultaneously argues that the protesters ARE guilty of harassment, but that Erick was not actually referring to that. This is also a legitimate position, but one that requires a different response, because they aren’t making the same argument. See what I’m saying?

    By the way, you accuse me of changing my arguments to fit “my desired ends.” That’s ridiculous. What are my “desired ends”? Why would I be hanging around having this discussion if I wasn’t interested in what people had to say?

  • mbecker908

    Nowhere did I make the argument that you are parsing off on me.

    I’m calling Hinz Rule on you.

  • AceInTX

    Boycotts involve the free exercise of one person’s or group’s right to not patronize an establishment or purchase the goods of another…

    The other involves:

    trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting ?shame on you? at customers.

    Trashing the restaurant on review sites boarders on fraud…and I would say could be considered slander. The other is a violation of the peace and civic order….Neither are considered constitutionally protected activities which is why there are laws against them and a good case can be made as such that Margie Christoffersen’s rights to freedom of speech, Freedom to engage in commerce, and I would argue her right to religious expression are being violated.

    If you can’t make the distinction you should have the Hinz Rule invoked!

  • AceInTX

    nt

    >

  • Pippin

    1) I agree
    2) I agree
    3) Isn’t pointing out that a law has been broken pretty much advocating criminal charges unless you specify otherwise?
    4) As you will see I pointed out below, my original belief was that Erick was arguing that the “Gay Reich” was attempting to stifle freedom of expression (apparently this was not an accurate reading of his post, I get that), so I was arguing that it was not a freedom of expression violation, just as any boycott is not a freedom of expression violation. You appear to agree with me on that, as does Aaron.

  • Aaron Gardner

    s

  • Pippin

    Me: “mbecker simultaneously argues that the protesters ARE guilty of harassment…”

    You: “I think a decent DA could gin up a harassment charge without too much trouble”

    So far, no problems…

    Me: “…but that Erick was not actually referring to that.”

    You: “Erick made exactly zero references to lawbreaking. Zero references to anybody being charged with anything”

    This looks like an accurate representation of your argument to me. I would be pleased to be corrected if it is not.

  • olsmithie

    of scorched earth.

    The left is not content to disagree with others.

    Over and again I have observed the left’s desire to destroy anyone who does not agree with them.

    From the White House travel office episode to this travesty, it is a pattern.

    This, I think is what most sensible people find revolting.

    Regards

  • AceInTX

    There are laws against disturbing the peace, committing fraud and maliciously working to purposely destroy a person’s right to make a living…if you can’t see the difference in these twoo situations you’re simply dense or trying to get a rise out of us which you’ve done pretty well!

  • AceInTX

    seriously…get a grip!

  • Pippin

    “a good case can be made as such that Margie Christoffersen?s rights to freedom of speech, Freedom to engage in commerce, and I would argue her right to religious expression are being violated.”

    “Ohh…and I forgot her freedom of association and petition the government for rederess of greivences”

    I agree with you that this case can be made. You will find me being trashed up and down this thread for thinking that the case was already being made.

    Now, I don’t actually agree that those rights are in fact being violated, but I certainly would be willing to debate the point and be convinved, which is what I was trying to do when about 20 people started accusing me of misrepresenting Erick’s argument.

  • zuiko

    You should really follow it.

  • Pippin

    I thought I’d leave you with some of my favorite comments so far:

    AceinTX: a good case can be made as such that Margie Christoffersen?s rights to freedom of speech, Freedom to engage in commerce, and I would argue her right to religious expression are being violated.

    Aaron Gardner: No Pippin I called you an idiot because you were proposing that others were trying to make a constitutional argument.

    Bonus:

    AceInTX: There are laws against disturbing the peace, committing fraud and maliciously working to purposely destroy a person?s right to make a living

    Martin Knight: Isn?t this harassment? Can I stand on the public street outside your house and yell at your visitors?
    Can?t you actually take someone to court for that?

    AceinTX: You are an idiot because they did break the friggin law…thus the police showing up in riot gear!

    mbecker908: Erick made exactly zero references to lawbreaking.

  • Moe Lane

    Answer his question. Yes, or no.

    Arguing with me is contraindicated.

    Moe

    PS: Life isn’t fair. Yes, or no.

  • Jack_Savage

    These win the “Gutless Quotes of 2008″ award:

    Pippin: It?s not ME you have to convince, it?s the protesters.

    Pippin: As I just pointed out, I didn?t link proposition 8 to civil rights, I pointed out the link in the protesters? minds between themselves and civil rights activists.

    Translation: I am trying to last as long as I can around here, and using Clintonesque evasions is the tactic of choice for me at this time. I am going to pretend to be a conservative, using terms like “us” occasionally, even though I vomit a little bit when I do so. So I will defend people threatening other people and ruining their businesses and lives because we can’t seem to jam gay mariage down everyone’s throat, and because I am committed (and perhaps obligated) to waste other people’s time and energy as much as I possibly can before I am called on the carpet.
    Thank you and good night.

  • Aaron Gardner

    nn

  • mbecker908

    I don’t play with ignorant children and my patience as a babysitter has run out.

  • $peciallist

    np

  • Pippin

    n/t

  • Pippin

    Yes if his question was “Do I think they broke a law?”

  • Moe Lane

    Blam.

    Sheesh.

    Moe Lane

  • mbecker908

    nt

  • Gekster

    Ive been reading this little tit for tat.
    I could say a bunch of things, but I won’t engage a dog chasing his tail for fun, as Pippin is doing.
    Changing his argument to fit the response.
    The main point of the article I believe is that in America, you have the right to agree or not agree with anyone.
    Is this easy for you to understand, Mr. Pippin?
    In so much as the protesters were harrasing the costermers, whose views could have or not agreed with the owner, crossed the line of letting people go to, assemble at, or participate in, an endever of thier choosing, in this case, eating at a resterant of thier choice.
    When you start to tell people what to do, and take actions against them for not doing what you desire, then you step over the rights of that person.
    If you have a beef with some individual, you can’t harrass individuals who won’t participate with you for what ever reasons.
    That is not what this country was founded on.
    The very basics of America started when people came here to worship as they wanted, and not to be “harressed” by the Government for not believing the Government way.
    Wether you are for or against the wrongfullness of gay rights, is irrelevent. Its taking actions against others for not believing and doing what you want.
    No disrespect to the other comments, but this is the only comment for me on this one, as I will walk away from the dog chasing his tail.

    ____________________________________________________

    Every deer hunter in Michigan still likes to take a shot at a squirrel, rabbit, or even a troll every now and then.

  • mbecker908

    Occasionally a poster like Pippin shows up and some of us who are having a slow day will play with him. If there was a lot going on he would have been ignored.

  • mbecker908

  • Mark Malcolm

    n/t

  • $peciallist

    non-working trolls have had their ISP’s disconnected…

    sigh

  • mbecker908

    My picture of the kitty pounding the spoon and sending the mouse flying didn’t come up. I hate HTML. Neil, preview please!!!!!

    I’ll try one more time…

  • $peciallist

    lol

  • Gekster

    OK, you can teach old dog new tricks.

  • AceInTX

    most of the time it’s easy to tell whose being replied to based on content…but every once in a while one will come up like yours and I can’t remember…and end up second guessing my basic understanding..

    Oh well at least you weren’t directing that one at me so it’s cool

    :>)

  • AceInTX

    It’s given me one too and I’ve been a part of it…so I’m done…LOL

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    ,._

  • $peciallist

    Atrocious Speling is Hot!

  • $peciallist

    .

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit
  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/ Brian Simpson

    Dude totally skated right into that one. You gotta wonder what was going through that guys mind thinking it was a good idea to be putting all the effort into skating towards the guy who is trying to punch you that fast.

  • AceInTX

    I’m generally against calling people names…but Pippen is clearly out of touch with any sense of reality and reason!

  • mbecker908

    playing with real mice and the end is exactly as you might think. I almost posted one, but upon reconsideration I was concerned that I would offend Moe’s delicate sensibilities. And heck, I live by three simple rules:

    1. Attempt, at any cost, to keep Mrs.908 happy. Or at least content.
    2. Don’t mess with Franz.
    3. Don’t mess with Moe.

    In that order.

    For Ace, and Ace only: click here for real action video. NSFMDS.

  • streetwise

    other pairings are also possible.

  • AceInTX

    because I’m uncomfortable with Dogs that have so much hair when I don’t have any.

    And of course where Mrs. 908 is concerned…well…it’s obvious aint it…

    LOL

    :>)

  • E Pluribus Unum

    Dallas Stars are on the wrong end of that, and that simply won’t do. . Here is the corrected video.

  • mbecker908

    sport breaks out.

    Actually, they should designate an area where there is no ice, make the guys take off their skates and let them have at one another.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit
  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit