Oh, I get it now; Ashcroft's statement doesn't bother you; you hate Ashcroft.Oh good ... a definitive example of your ability to detect the inner motives of FrancisandBeans and assign to "hate" what I read as a distaste for duplicitous statements.
For reference purposes:
Here, let me lay it out for you. John Ashcroft says he fights terrorism. Bill Clinton says he works hard. People SAY alot of things. It doesnt make them true. John Ashcroft has said more things that seem to be anti-freedom than things he has said that are pro-freedom. This statement shows that. The statement of his underling shows that. The fact that he consumes himself with petty worries about a statue with exposed breasts being in a picture with him speaks volumes about his insecurity.
Can you point out for me the exact portions which evidence a "hate crime" for you?
We know full well that liberals in this nation are apt to view criticism as "hate" and discerning as racism, sexism or some such passing of judgment based on appearances. That's pretty standard.
But your ability to think and argue like a liberal is particularly intriguing ... I'm very interested in a Conservative's ability to detect the "hate" and -- since you're so good at it -- perhaps you would be so kind as to share your analytical methods with us.
Feel free to just highlight the pertinent "hate" remarks of Francis with use of either <em></em> or <font color= red"></font>
Thanks ever so, Howlin.
The fact that he consumes himself with petty worries about a statue with exposed breasts being in a picture with him speaks volumes about his insecurity.
That's probably WAY too involved for "common people" like you to understand. You are now portraying yourself as a "common person," aren't you?