Two can play that game. It's Ted Bundy.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/bundy2/change.htm

>>
Outwardly, Ted's life in 1969-1972 seemed to be changing for the better. He was more confident with high hopes for his future. Ted began sending out applications for various law schools, while at the same time he became active in politics. He worked on a campaign to re-elect a Washington governor, a position that allowed Ted to form bonds with politically powerful people in the Republican Party. Ted also performed volunteer work at a crisis clinic on a work-study program. He was pleased with the path his life was taking at this time, everything seemed to be going in the right direction. He was even commended by the Seattle police for saving the life of a three-year-old boy who was drowning in a lake.

In 1973, during a business trip to California for the Washington Republican Party, Ted met up with his old flame Stephanie Brooks for a night out. Stephanie was amazed at the transformation in Ted. He was much more confident and mature, not as aimless as he was when they last dated. They met several other times afterwards, unknown to Meg. During Ted's business trips he romantically courted Stephanie and she once again fell in love with him.
<<

You forgot to add:
GOP wraps up serial killer vote!

Drat! What was I thinking?

As a ruthless killer, Mr. Bundy had to do everything possible to convince potential victims he was a normal, trustworthy guy. Thus, he became an active Republican. It was all part of his devious facade.

Ironically for him, it's Republicans who support the death penalty.

Sounds like you've stumbled onto some great slogans, William:


1) Pretend to be trustworthy -- join the GOP

2) Fake Normalcy as a Log Cabin Republican

(all political commentary always done with tongue in cheek, smiley faces, and all other tension breakers)

[quote]Originally posted by MCMikeNamara:
1) Pretend to be trustworthy -- join the GOP
2) Fake Normalcy as a Log Cabin Republican

---

I'm a staunch repub -but I'm ROTFLMAO!

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]

copman, you're not a staunch republican -- i've read your posts -- you're a thinking republican. there's a world of difference! (and before the dems chime in, the same difference exists between staunch and thinking democrats.)

[quote]Originally posted by MCMikeNamara:
Sounds like you've stumbled onto some great slogans, William:


1) Pretend to be trustworthy -- join the GOP

2) Fake Normalcy as a Log Cabin Republican

(all political commentary always done with tongue in cheek, smiley faces, and all other tension breakers)

---

Very good! How about this one:

3) If our economic policies dont kill you, one of our members might.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


Very good! How about this one:

3) If our economic policies dont kill you, one of our members might.

---

Huh-huh. You said member.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
As a ruthless killer, Mr. Bundy had to do everything possible to convince potential victims he was a normal, trustworthy guy. Thus, he became an active Republican. It was all part of his devious facade.

Ironically for him, it's Republicans who support the death penalty.

---

Is everyone clear on the fact that I was being a little bit sarcastic here? I don't really give a f**k what Ted Bundy was - and I think terrorists who are alive are slightly more dangerous to us today than a serial killer who is dead. But hey, that's just me.

Considering Democrats adoration for all things abortion, it's too bad Bundy didn't kill a few unborn children. You guys would love him then.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


Is everyone clear on the fact that I was being a little bit sarcastic here? I don't really give a f**k what Ted Bundy was - and I think terrorists who are alive are slightly more dangerous to us today than a serial killer who is dead. But hey, that's just me.

Considering Democrats adoration for all things abortion, it's too bad Bundy didn't kill a few unborn children. You guys would love him then.

---

Democrats may ADORE abortion, but Republicans don't hesitate to rush out and get them when they need to....

BTW, a pair of right wingers issued a report several years ago that noted that the rising tide of abortions in the years after Roe v. Wade were one reason why crime had dropped in the 1990s. I personally think abortion should be avoided if at all possible by educating women AND men on birth control methods, but I also feel it should be an available option when necessary.

If we can just get more RU-486 out there, since people will never stop having sex and since many seem incapable of preventive measures, there'll be no more need for abortion clinics at all!

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:

Considering Democrats adoration for all things abortion, it's too bad Bundy didn't kill a few unborn children. You guys would love him then.

---

I guess this is sorta the way that right wing republicans adore the "pro lifers" who shot and kill abortion providers.

People get abortions a lot more than pro-lifers kill abortion providers, which is hardly ever. And at least abortionists, unlike the unborn, can defend themselves. But I didn't mean to change this thread to an abortion debate. I really just wanted to point out that Democrats are baby-killers and move on.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
People get abortions a lot more than pro-lifers kill abortion providers, which is hardly ever. And at least abortionists, unlike the unborn, can defend themselves. But I didn't mean to change this thread to an abortion debate. I really just wanted to point out that Democrats are baby-killers and move on.

---

As opposed to adult killers?

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


As opposed to adult killers?

---

I suppose that in some sort of technical sense killing adults is the opposite of killing babies. To refer to Democrats as baby killers, however, is in no way intended to disparage their efforts at killing adults (Vince Foster, etc.). Again, though, adults can defend themselves (especially if they are blessed enough to live in those regions where Democrats have not jeopardized law-abiding citizens by implementing ineffective "gun control" laws), while babies cannot.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Considering Democrats adoration for all things abortion, it's too bad Bundy didn't kill a few unborn children. You guys would love him then.

---

I find this quote to be extremely distasteful and despicable. Equally despicable is that when objections to this and other vitriolic statements are raised, the reply is that "I was just being sarcastic." Sorry, son, that dog won't hunt.

About the title of this thread: Serial Killer Shown to be Prominent Republican. If he was so prominent, why did he have to be exposed -you known, "shown" to be a Republican. I would think if he was so prominent people would say, "Oh, yeah, Bundy, he's that Republican. Real prominent, too." But maybe not, I don't know.

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:


Sorry, son, that dog won't hunt.

---

Whatever, dad! Sporting animals (dogs, ravens, orioles, etc.) never seem to do what their supposed to in Baltimore.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I don't really give a [naughty word] what Ted Bundy was....

---

In that case, you really owe it to yourself to find out whoever it is who has:

1) hacked into your computer,
2) stolen your nick and password, and
3) used them to post seven, at last count, replies to this thread.

[quote]Originally posted by twin58:


In that case, you really owe it to yourself to find out whoever it is who has:

1) hacked into your computer,
2) stolen your nick and password, and
3) used them to post seven, at last count, replies to this thread.

---

Why not make it eight. I do give a rat's ass that some dead guy is being used to prove some weird point about Republicans. That I care about. Living, Breathing Terrorists Being Democrats: Bad. Dead serial killers being ex-Republicans: Doesn't really matter in the whole scheme of things.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Ding! Ding! 8!

And it's great to see W1865 splitting semantic hairs. Funny how the extremely broad brush you like to tar people with gets whittled down to a wisp when your side is being mocked.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
Funny how the extremely broad brush you like to tar people with gets whittled down to a wisp when your side is being mocked.

---

It's called hypocrisy, and they're the undisputed heavyweight champions of it.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


I suppose that in some sort of technical sense killing adults is the opposite of killing babies. To refer to Democrats as baby killers, however, is in no way intended to disparage their efforts at killing adults (Vince Foster, etc.). Again, though, adults can defend themselves (especially if they are blessed enough to live in those regions where Democrats have not jeopardized law-abiding citizens by implementing ineffective "gun control" laws), while babies cannot.

---

Newsflash: Every single investigation (including Ken Starr) concluded that Vince Foster killed himself. Do you know something that we don't?
Also your concern for babies is soooooooooo heartwarming. Interesting that you said this in a previous posting:
"I don't really like children anyway, unless they're related to me, so this whole pedophilia thing is really over my head. To paraphrase Florence King (I can't remember her exact words): I don't understand pedophiles because I don't see how they manage to stay in the same room with the little brats, much less molest them."

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


Newsflash: Every single investigation (including Ken Starr) concluded that Vince Foster killed himself. Do you know something that we don't?
Also your concern for babies is soooooooooo heartwarming. Interesting that you said this in a previous posting:
"I don't really like children anyway, unless they're related to me, so this whole pedophilia thing is really over my head. To paraphrase Florence King (I can't remember her exact words): I don't understand pedophiles because I don't see how they manage to stay in the same room with the little brats, much less molest them."

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

---

Well, geez. Just because I don't particularly like children doesn't mean I want them killed.

As for Vince Foster, again this is a situation in which I was being sarcastic and didn't bother to put on a smiley face - this time because I just assumed that anybody with the slightest knowledge of politics would know that suggesting Vince Foster was murdered is a self-evident joke. In retropect, though, .

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


Well, geez. Just because I don't particularly like children doesn't mean I want them killed.

As for Vince Foster, again this is a situation in which I was being sarcastic and didn't bother to put on a smiley face - this time because I just assumed that anybody with the slightest knowledge of politics would know that suggesting Vince Foster was murdered is a self-evident joke. In retropect, though, .

---

Im glad you made yourself clear.
It seems like alot of right wingers are real concerned about "babies" when they are a glob of cells but their interest wanes when they are born.
Clearly, you are not one of those people.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:



Im glad you made yourself clear.
It seems like alot of right wingers are real concerned about "babies" when they are a glob of cells but their interest wanes when they are born.
Clearly, you are not one of those people.

---

To whom, exactly are you referring? I'm just curious.

Gack! All those emoticons! Is this a New Dawn for the P&R thread, that *shudder* we're going to be nice to each other?

I sure as hell hope not.

Anywho. I think that Razorback was referring to the Republican's oddly recurring ability to appear callous and mean-spirited even when their policies are not intended as such, i.e. welfare reform. Close, RB?

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
I think that Razorback was referring to the Republican's oddly recurring ability to appear callous and mean-spirited even when their policies are not intended as such, i.e. welfare reform. Close, RB?

---

I won't hazard a guess at what RB was getting at, but there's a difference between appearance and perception. Those who dislike Republicans per se will automatically perceive whatever they propose as callous and mean, just as those who dislike ideas adopted by Republicans will feel the same way. Welfare reform is an excellent example. The concepts of law and order, tough love and personal responsibility, which Republicans hold dear, are seized upon by our opponents and labeled as heartless and cruel. While the objects of such reform - criminal and welfare cheats - might well perceive them as such, those who would benefit from them - crime victims and taxpayers - perceive them much differently. Note also that these critics usually resort to arguments based more on emotion that facts, which is one more reason - or should I say lack of reason - why they've yet to convince me that they're right.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
I won't hazard a guess at what RB was getting at, but there's a difference between appearance and perception. Those who dislike Republicans per se will automatically perceive whatever they propose as callous and mean, just as those who dislike ideas adopted by Republicans will feel the same way. Welfare reform is an excellent example. The concepts of law and order, tough love and personal responsibility, which Republicans hold dear, are seized upon by our opponents and labeled as heartless and cruel. While the objects of such reform - criminal and welfare cheats - might well perceive them as such, those who would benefit from them - crime victims and taxpayers - perceive them much differently. Note also that these critics usually resort to arguments based more on emotion that facts, which is one more reason - or should I say lack of reason - why they've yet to convince me that they're right.

---

You're soooooo right. A statement like "Considering Democrats adoration for all things abortion, it's too bad Bundy didn't kill a few unborn children. You guys would love him then" is completely based on facts.

As the Gipper would have said, "Now, there you go again, JIPper." If you've got beefs with others on this board, keep them there and don't drag me into your squabbles. If you're still smarting over our discussion of Mark Bingham a few months ago, get over it. Frankly, as a strongly pro-choice GOPer, I have no idea what you're talking about - and don't really care to know!

I simply want to know what the facts are in that statement, since the person who said it is aligned with your party and not that of your "critics." These are your words--"Note also that these critics usually resort to arguments based more on emotion that facts, which is one more reason - or should I say lack of reason - why they've yet to convince me that they're right." So since the other statement is from someone aligned with your party, I want to know where the facts are.

It's a fact that the Democrat Party officially supports abortion. But for what it's worth 1) the statement was made with tongue slightly in cheek, and was certainly not intended to win anyone over to the pro-life side, 2) since, as I understand it, we are not under oath when we post to Outsports and thus not subject to perjury charges (I know liberals just hate perjury), I didn't consult any sort of legal or ethical scholars before making this statement, thus it might not fall in accordance with any universally recognized guidelines of factuality or truthfulness (I wholeheartedly apologize for this), and 3) I certainly did not make this statement for the benefit of Mr. San Francisco who, as a member of Log Cabin Republicans and from what I can tell a pro-abortion Republican, might very well find me among his critics. So I don't know that he should be expected to defend it.

(Feel free to put this wherever you would like it.)

William, "Pro-abortion Republican" I can handle. "Mr. San Francisco" I cannot.

Don't sweat any "unanswered questions." To quote Gromyko, you're "not in an American courtroom." Instead, take a look at the dangler directed at Friend Fantomas, still lingering at the end of the "It's the economy, stupid!" thread. His silence is heartening.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
William, "Pro-abortion Republican" I can handle. "Mr. San Francisco" I cannot.

---

Wow, I'm sorry. I say some pretty crazy things around here, but that was really low. I apologize.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
William, "Pro-abortion Republican" I can handle. "Mr. San Francisco" I cannot.
Don't sweat any "unanswered questions." To quote Gromyko, you're "not in an American courtroom." Instead, take a look at the dangler directed at Friend Fantomas, still lingering at the end of the "It's the economy, stupid!" thread. His silence is heartening.

---

What's in the air out there, gmginsfo? COMRADE Fantomas answered your question, as did others. You offered no response; you simply started studding your comments with German. Und Sie nicht meine schlechte Deutsche antworteten. Shall we try in French now, the language of those people who are our pseudos-amis? Ils nous ont donné RU-486, n'est-ce pas? Ou était-il le pais de Grande Bretagne? Je ne peux pas me souvenir.

Timing's tout, mon ami! The responses - I can't really call them answers - came after my prompt was posed. And I even gave you a merci! Fin?

Deiner* Deutsch ist nicht so schlect, ma quando scriva piu veloce, senza aspettando a pensare, sembla una minghia. Versteh?

Oh, the tragedy of overeducated gay men with too much time on their hands!
___
*Schiess mich, wenn ich den du-form nicht brauchen.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
It's a fact that the Democrat Party officially supports abortion. But for what it's worth 1) the statement was made with tongue slightly in cheek, and was certainly not intended to win anyone over to the pro-life side, 2) since, as I understand it, we are not under oath when we post to Outsports and thus not subject to perjury charges (I know liberals just hate perjury), I didn't consult any sort of legal or ethical scholars before making this statement, thus it might not fall in accordance with any universally recognized guidelines of factuality or truthfulness (I wholeheartedly apologize for this), and 3) I certainly did not make this statement for the benefit of Mr. San Francisco who, as a member of Log Cabin Republicans and from what I can tell a pro-abortion Republican, might very well find me among his critics. So I don't know that he should be expected to defend it.

---

I didn't ask him to defend the statement. The statement is indefensible, and entirely typical of your behavior on this board.

I merely wanted to know, seeing as how in his view all Republican viewpoints are well-reasoned and thoughtful but anyone who criticizes Republicans are simply letting their emotions run away with them, whether or not a statement that Democrats would love Ted Bundy if he killed unborn children is a rational, fact-based statement.