Fiscal conservative and socially libertarian, that's pretty much where I'm at as well. I don't care about gay weddings as long as I'm not being taxed to pay for them.

Get ready for cut-and-pastes from every unhinged commenter on every conservative blog. "See, you guys do it too!" Kos isn't a commenter. He's the public face of your movement. As in bowel.

What a fucking moron. I bet he's talking militia and uber-religious groups who advocate for getting rid of the government and hate cops. Sorry, those people are by definition not conservative.

Elderly white women don't plant terrorist bombs, and conservatives don't advocate killing cops. But if a liberal advocates these things, they have to extrapolate and assume all others do too. It's their world-view.

You're not really socially libertarian, Amy. If you were, single mothers and welfare kid-machines wouldn't draw your ire. Nor would parents who divorce for their own fulfillment instead of doing what's best for the kids. You're pretty darn conservative across the board except for gays. And conservatives aren't really anti-gay, except for the religious wing. We're anti-gay-marriage. Come join us, we let atheists in!

Amy -

Because the left embraces its lunatics, they expect that we do as well.

Remember, projection isn't just a river in Egypt.

Funny, I didn't see the Kostards embracing that Mixon fellow after he shot four cops.

Because, I mean, all that anti-cop rhetoric for all those years couldn't possibly have influenced that guy, right? Nah. The cops must have had it coming.

Fuck this planet. Will someone send the asteroid please?

The Question: "When's The Last Time You Heard A "Conservative" Advocate Cop-Killing?"

The answer: when the subject is goons from a police agency breaking the law itself, violating the rights of the ordinary citizen.

Unfortunately, that happens too often. When the choice is "do this raid or lose your job", even ordinary cops with no desire to raise an issue get swept along - and sometimes killed.

I am amazed the New Haven city council is still alive.

The category is: Name times when conservatives advocated cop killing or took part in domestic terrorism?

I'll take that for $100 Amy, "Who said Well, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." (Answer: G. Gordon Liddy)

Now I'll take "Conservative terrorists for $200 Amy, "Who was Tim McVeigh?"

And more in "Right wing domestic terrorism"

What does the Michigan Militia want to do, What are the Turner Diaries, Who is Eric Rudolph?

Which North Carolina Senator named Jesse Helms said of Bill Clinton, the President "better have a bodyguard" if he ever visited his state."

What are the Nuremberg Files?

Sadly Amy, and I thought you knew better than this, both sides do have their complete a*hole "let's kill the other side types."

Kos was wrong, conservatives don't advocate killing cops, they blow up Government Buildings and blow up churches and assassinate doctors who perform abortions.

Ditto what Radwaste said.

Its the raids on a mayor's house whose dogs are shot dead (they were a threat you know) all over some pot that ultimately the cops planted themselves on shaky evidence said mayor was an evil druggie. The cops who shoot small dogs in broad daylight on an OK farm for no reason other than they felt threatened (and the cop was just asking for directions..). Cops who ruin a guy's life over again, pot that they had no concrete evidence existed and got one of their own killed in the process. The grannies who get shot in the middle of the night because she had a gun ready to defend herself. The family that gets raided by a swat team who hits the wrong house and nearly kills a kid by firing blindly down a hallway. Then there is the TSA's shenanigans or the border patrol's 4th ammendment violations with traffic stops 50 miles away from an actual border.

Sadly Amy, and I thought you knew better than this, both sides do have their complete a*hole "let's kill the other side types."

Kos was wrong, conservatives don't advocate killing cops, they blow up Government Buildings and blow up churches and assassinate doctors who perform abortions.

"Both sides are bad, but the other side is worse."

I agree that Liddy is a creep, though. Not to mention a C.R.E.E.P.

Momof3: You are explicitly anti-gay. Do you not see that what you are saying is essentially similar to someone 40-50 years ago saying "We're not racist, we're just pro-segregation?" If you deny a group the same rights you enjoy, you are opposed to them as a group. You certainly aren't doing them any favors.

> You just don't get to deny them
> marriage to the consenting adult
> partner of their choice

Says who? Seems like you're the one making up new rules.

Jerry - you're an asshole.

Name for me one major conservative group that came out in support of Eric Rudolph. Oh yeah, NONE. Ditto McVeigh and the Michigan Militia. Fucking ACORN is marching in the street to defend cop killers all over this country.

Liddy is a bomb-thrower. He says shit for the attention. And there aren't any rallies in HIS defense either, so far as I know.

There hasn't been an abortion doctor killed in over a decade because the few nuts that were into that shit are all in jail now.

franko -

Marriage is not a right. Please stop trying to make it one.

Note to all: no agent, government or not, has "rights", and none of them have the power to do things to you automatically, simply because they are a member of an agency.

The trick is living through the encounter - and information control after any event.

BATF Agent Davy Aguilera falsified the warrant on which the Branch Davidian raid was based. How many people do you think know that, as opposed to those convinced Vernon Howell was a child molester?

"Note to all: no agent, government or not, has "rights", and none of them have the power to do things to you automatically, simply because they are a member of an agency."

YOu can say that, but acting in accordance with that will probably get you killed. As I always heard growing up-you cooperate with the cops. If their actions aren't warranted, we'll deal with that later in court. Dealing in court won't help you if you're dead, but if they were out to kill you and you fight back, you've just made it easier on them. Given that stopping a car for speeding has an actual likelihood of the cop getting killed attached to it, I can understand them and their actions very, very well.

I think it's OK to shoot a police officer in self-defense, and I doubt I got the idea from a liberal. It's still a tragedy (one way or another) and it's not self-defense if you're in the process of committing a crime. My vague recollection is that the (surviving) Branch Dividians had their use of force OK'd by the courts.

Should a police officer ever try to kill me, I plan to assume the fetal position and wet my pants.

I think it's OK to shoot a police officer in self-defense

Tell it to Cory Maye.

Yes, Mom, read the second sentence?

Texas law specifically allows private citizens to resist attack wih deadly force.

It's not like the cops can't starve you out.

And, of course, since anyone can shout, "Police!", it makes no sense to believe police are actually there. You have to be alert in all cases, or you pay the price.

And you have to choose your company wisely.

Cory Maye, I think you got railroaded.

While it's true that both sides of the political spectrum have their lunatic fringes. It's not true that they both treat them as lunatic fringes.

Eric Rudolph and Tim McVeigh are not darlings of the right. They were condemned by every mainstream right-wing organization for their attacks.

A better comparison than Kos for Rudolph and McVeigh would be Bill Ayers.

All three committed crimes, advocated killing the representatives of the government, and believed in using violence to achieve political ends.

And how does the modern left-wing political establishment view Bill Ayers. They consider him to be nothing more than an outspoken college professor who was once a "political activist" and helped the current president get his early political connections.

So...which side is it again that thinks killing the police is the proper way to behave when out of power?

Again Rad, what you might can do according to the law, and what is almost certainly going to get you killed, CAN be the same thing. I'd rather tuck my tail and live, personally, than go down fighting in a stupid small situation. Now, be expected to accept Sharia law on the other hand....

Well, there certainly aren't any major conservative columnists (like the ones that appear on Creators.com) who advocate cop-killing.

Even so, a fair amount of cop-killing rhetoric goes on in ultra-right wing groups, specifically those involved in white supremacy, and such talk has increased significantly since the election of Obama.

One of these right wing "advocates" (if by advocacy you mean posting heavily on various websites) just killed three cops. Here's the NY Times story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/us/07pittsburgh.html?_r=1&ref=us

It's important to remember that, prior to 9/11, the act of terrorism that generated the most fatalities was the 1995 Oklahoma city bombing, committed by an ultra right-wing "patriot" group.

And don't forget that there were the cries of "kill him!" from the crowd when Sarah Palin surfaced the infamous canard about Obama "palling around with terrorists."

If there is a threat to the social order from internal to the United States, it certainly isn't coming from the lefties, who have been all talk and no action since the early 1970s.

On the other hand, the far-righties are armed, dangerous and paranoid, and have shown a willingness to take potshots at the police when provoked. And that's a fact.

If there is a threat to the social order from internal to the United States, it certainly isn't coming from the lefties, who have been all talk and no action since the early 1970s.

The far lefties have been much more successful in getting pieces of their agenda enacted than the far righties.

How much political clout did Tim McVeigh or Eric Rudolph actually have (outside their own little circles)? None. How much political clout does Bill Ayers or Ward Churchill have? Way more.

And, they're considered socially respectable. Ayers and Churchill get invited to mainstream events, get their rants published by mainstream publishing venues, and are invited to appear on mainstream political talk shows.

When was the last time a high-ranking white supremacist got anywhere politically (not including Robert Byrd)?

Armed and violent does not equal politically effective.

"If there is a threat to the social order from internal to the United States, it certainly isn't coming from the lefties, who have been all talk and no action since the early 1970s."

Well, genius, count the blue states and blue cities, and see what their crime and graduation rates are. Check their budgets.

Look at the Bureau of Justice crime statistics.

I'm not Draco, but to pretend that "leftist" policies have not made a Dark Mark over their territory is simply stupid.

Who do you think made single motherhood acceptable?

Geoffrey James

It's important to remember that, prior to 9/11, the act of terrorism that generated the most fatalities was the 1995 Oklahoma city bombing, committed by an ultra right-wing "patriot" group.

Yeah, the McVeigh/Nichols Two. Real big influential hate group, them. Their supposed reason was payback for "Waco and Ruby Ridge". Which is kinda ironic since Waco and Ruby Ridge were both Democratic terrorist operations against civilians, but I digress.

Geoffrey James

And don't forget that there were the cries of "kill him!" from the crowd when Sarah Palin surfaced the infamous canard about Obama "palling around with terrorists."

There was no cry of "kill him". NONE. Fabricated by the one person who claimed to have heard it. Who happened to work for the AP.

Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are admitted terrorists. Barack Obama launched his political career in their living room. That's "palling around with terrorists" by any definition you care to use.

And although they haven't killed anyone yet, the terrorist collective ALF/ELF has caused more property damage than any other domestic terrorist organization in the United States. They're leftists, by the way.

RFK was killed by a leftist. JFK was killed by a leftist. MLK was almost certainly killed by a leftist (Ray didn't do it).

Leftists turn to violence and intimidation as a first resort.

In point of fact, red states have a higher crime rate, higher divorce rate, higher numbers of unwed mothers, higher low birth rate, pretty much higher everything that's socially undesireable, including (probably not coincidentally) much more religion. Red states also suck up far more federal dollars per dollar expended in taxes than blue states. Essentially the two coasts subsidize the midlands.

As for conservatives... you had your chance and you elected an idiot to be president, and a republican congress that was more corrupt and more ineffective than the democratic congresses that preceded it. An accomplishment of sorts, I suppose. All this breast beating about Obama is, of course, just because the guy is twice as smart as any of the pinheads that your team has been able field, including that dingbat Palin, who made GW Bush sound like Cicero.

Geoffrey -

Which paper do you work for? That was an almost word-perfect recitation of the standard leftist lies and slander of the last 8 years. Not the careful avoidance of any facts.

This whole "red-state blue-state" bullshit is exactly that: bullshit.

Of course, if you'd take your head out of your ass and analyze reality yourself instead of taking your talking points from Kos and JournoList, you wouldn't even be talking like this.

But this is what I've come to expect from the modern American liberal. A room-temperature IQ, and an ego bigger than God's dick.

in 856pm comment change last sentence of first paragraph to read:

Note the careful avoidance of any facts.

We thank you for your support.

All this breast beating about Obama is, of course, just because the guy is twice as smart as any of the pinheads that your team has been able field....

I'm not convinced that Obama is all that smart.

As one goes through life, one picks up a collection of facts, insights, and experiences. These things then color one's speech, writings, stories, and conversations. Witness the various posters here.

Obama has demonstrated none of those things. He just doesn't seem to have that internal library which most of us have filled to the rafters by the time we're 35. He's a little too generic for me to buy the claims of stratospheric intelligence.

Conan - I had completely missed that.

Obama is an idiot. I said as much last year - on this very blog, no less.

With each passing day he is proving more and more that I was correct.

We're so lucky we dodged a bullet with that ignert snowbilly, eh?

Brian:

You have lost this argument. At the risk of trying to get you to understand what is probably a very foreign way of thinking, here is some brief instruction in formal logic.

My argument can be summarized as follows:

===
SUMMARY: If you define "advocate" as "somebody who posts widely on the net" then there exist right wing radicals who believe in killing policemen. As evidence for this statement, I cited a recent article and an historical event. I then draw the conclusion that the right wing is armed, dangerous and paranoid, and therefore the original article was essentially correct.
===

The weak point in any evidence-based argument always lies in the premises by which the evidence is interpreted. Therefore, the best way to attack my argument is to attack the first statement, which (if the attack is successful) causes the entire argument to crumble. Something like "white supremasists don't represent the conservative movement any more than Kim Jung Il represents the liberal movement" works quite nicely.

Rather than taking that obvious approach, you take approaches that are either impotent, irrelevant, or actually strengthen my case:

1. The attempt to marginalize the Oklahoma bombing is impotent because I cited recent evidence of cop-killing -- a current news story. And, in fact, it's fairly easy to find similar stories.

2. Bringing up Ayers and Dorn simply strengthens the case that the left wing is not longer a threat, since they are indeed part of the mainstream at this point.

3. Bringing up the property damage of a leftist group also strengthens my case, because it illustrates that leftist groups aren't killing cops.

4. Asserting that liberal philosophy has damaged blue states is irrelevant to the argument, which is about cop killing.

5. Your fictional reconstruction of my employment history and reading habits is doubly ineffective because 1) both assumptions could be (and in fact are) incorrect, and 2) if even they were correct, your attack would still be "ad hominem", which is logically bankrupt, because my argument doesn't depend upon who I am for its validity.

6. Your citing of fringe conspiracy theories (e.g. Ray didn't assassinate King, the anit-Obama cries were fabricated, etc.) without substantive collaborative evidence strengthens my conclusion that the right wing is paranoid.

7. Resorting to insult and obscenity simply serves to spotlight the weaknesses in your argument, since you wouldn't need to resort to them if you could marshal logic and evidence on your side.

So, once again, Brian, you have lost this argument, not because my argument was so brilliant but because your argument was so glaringly weak.

2. Bringing up Ayers and Dorn simply strengthens the case that the left wing is not longer a threat, since they are indeed part of the mainstream at this point.

The argument is that not only does the fringe left advocate cop killing, the rest of the left mainstreams the cop killers.

3. Bringing up the property damage of a leftist group also strengthens my case, because it illustrates that leftist groups aren't killing cops.

Wasn't that property damage done when groups influenced (and, most likely, directed) by Ayers and Dorn were trying to blow up police cars and police stations? With the cops inside. Failure of execution does not negate intent.

Conan:

The "left" can't mainstream anything; only the mainstream can do so. And the mainstream has largely forgiven and forgotten all that hippy/dippy "revolutionary" BS from 40 years ago. Let's face it: aging hippies teaching Chicago and housewives hiding in plain sight aren't much of an existential threat to anybody, much less a police force.

By contrast, far right wing nuts with guns are very real. Today, not 40 years ago. (As the white parent of two black children, I keep an eye on such things.) There are dozens of organized groups in the U.S. that advocate killing minorities and are committed to overthrowing the government. And they do sometimes kill cops. I could easily list half a dozen, but I'm sure you know how to use Google.

In short, the premise of your argument -- that armed right-wing groups active today are comparable to senior citizens who were in armed left-wing groups 40 years ago -- is frankly rather silly. It's like saying that we ought to nuke Vietnam because of all the U.S. soldiers that died in that war. Time changes things. That was then, this is now.

But even if your comparison were valid, your argument would still be invalid, because even were our cities full of tweedy professors toting AK47s and plugging away at men in blue, the right wing groups that advocate cop-killing would still exist, making the original Kos article (accepting my perhaps over-broad interpretation of the term "advocate") substantially true.

In other words, the existence or non-existence of threat "A" has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of threat "B".

My, my.... Don't they teach logic in schools nowadays??

My, my.... Don't they teach logic in schools nowadays??

Apparently not. Because you use A BOMBING OF A BUILDING AS EVIDENCE THAT RIGHT-WING GROUPS ARE VIOLENT. You use fringe groups that nobody takes seriously as evidence that the right-wing broadly supports cop shooting.

And then when I point out TWO MAINSTREAM MOTHERFUCKING LIBERALS WHO ACTUALLY KILLED FUCKING COPS and say that their only regret is that they didn't do more, you use that as evidence that liberals don't advocate killing cops.

Get your head out of your ass. This mental midget in Pennsylvania kills three cops while muttering about Obama taking his guns, and it's evidence of a right-wing conspiracy of hate that needs regulation to stop people from killing cops.

A street thug and child rapist in Oakland kills four cops, his neighborhood has a rally in support of him and uses his death as evidence that the cops are out to get black people.

the right wing groups that advocate cop-killing would still exist

Name one. One mainstream group advocating the killing of cops. One mainstream commentator advocating the killing of cops. Especially if there's ever been a respected politician proud to be affiliated with him or her.

You can't. Because they are a figment of the fever dreams of liberals.

I've said before, and it bears repeating - to a typical conservative, a liberal is misguided and wrong. To a typical liberal, a conservative is evil.

My, my.... Don't they teach logic in schools nowadays??

Now who's twisting the argument? Your argument was Kos was right in saying that left-wing groups don't commit or advocate violence against the authorities and right-wing groups do.

My argument was that both sides have fringe groups that have in the past and do today advocate and/or condone violence against the authorities.

The difference is that the mainstream right-wing condemns the so-called right-wing hate groups. The mainstream left-wing does not condemn the so-called left-wing hate groups, instead calling them "revolutionaries" and trying to understand their pain.

And, yes, there are left-wing groups advocating or condoning violence against the police today. We just watched one of them march through Oakland last month to celebrate the life of a child rapist and cop killer.

Brian,

Once again, you surface completely irrelevant arguments that serve to strengthen my case rather than prove your own. To wit:

1. You make the same mistake of bringing up an irrelevant counter-argument. What happened in Oakland is irrelevant, because that's not the matter under discussion.

2. I never said there were mainstream conservative groups supporting the killing of cops, so asking me to name one is simply a weak attempt to change the subject.

3. You resurface an argument that I've already pointed out is irrelevant. The Weather Underground ceased operation decades ago and constitutes a threat to nobody.

4. You compound your faulty logic by adding inaccuracy. Neither Ayers nor Dohrn killed cops, a fact that you seem to have forgotten since your previous post.

5. Finally, you once again resort to profanity and insult, apparently under the impression that it strengthens your argument. It doesn't. Quite the contrary, it simply calls your sanity and integrity into question.

Your writing makes you come off like the chick who, when her boyfriend breaks up with her because she's "crazy," attempts to prove him wrong by slashing his tires. Because you write like a crazy person, you make conservativism seem crazy.

You seem incapable of understanding that yelling an opinion doesn't transform it into fact. And profanity simply makes a writer seem immature. In your case, the overuse of both "techniques" simply suggests that the emotional content of your inner dialog is so strong that you have problems differentiating evidence from opinion.

Conan,

You fall into the same logical fallacy as Brian, but without compounding your error with childish behavior.

My comment did not address the Kos article, but Amy's comment on the Kos article. In it she said that there were no conservative "advocates" of cop killing. My comment was that, if you interpret the term "advocate" broadly, there are individuals and groups who are avowedly right-wing and who definitely advocate this kind of violence.

I fail to see why admitting that this is the case is so difficult for you and Brian. Instead, you seem obsessed with the idea of "proving" that the left wing is either as bad or worse. But that's all completely irrelevant to my original comment.

The problem that you and Brian share is that you're so caught up in hating "liberals" -- whoever they are -- that you can't follow a logical argument without injecting your politics into it. That's a type of blindness that, frankly, is rather sad.

My argument was that both sides have fringe groups that have in the past and do today advocate and/or condone violence against the authorities.

What part of this is me failing to admit that there are right-wing groups advocating violence against the authorities?

Your comment was made on a thread about Kos making the assertion on twitter that the [entire] left wing organizes for peaceful elections and the [entire] right wing shoots cops. No doubt from which side of the political spectrum that comment comes.

In posting your comment, you weren't positing a position, you were trolling for a political debate, hoping to shoot down them ignorant redneck right-wingers. You knew the response your argument would generate. And now you plead that you were simply making an innocent comment and we're injecting politics into it?

That's usually the cry of someone who invited a debate thinking he'd easily win, but finds himself losing badly.

Personally, I have little use for political extremists of any stripe. But, on occasion, I've had the need of a cop.

It's so easy to win the argument when you get to define what all the terms mean.

Conservatives and Republicans disavow these freaks. They aren't in our club. If someone in Africa calls himself an American, that doesn't make it so.

Democrats and Liberals, however, embrace such things.

It is incorrect to say that "right wingers" encourage cop killers. There is no evidence of such behavior except for far outside the mainstream. Mainstream liberal organizations like ANSWER and ACORN, however, incite violence on a regular basis, but you've got nothing to say.

You came here to prove a point. When you were proven wrong, you decided to call me an idiot.

I have a rule - I don't treat douchebags with respect. I treat them with public humiliation.

Neither Ayers nor Dohrn killed cops, a fact that you seem to have forgotten since your previous post.

Not for lack of trying.

And the mainstream has largely forgiven and forgotten all that hippy/dippy "revolutionary" BS from 40 years ago. Let's face it: aging hippies teaching Chicago and housewives hiding in plain sight aren't much of an existential threat to anybody, much less a police force.

"I realize this is ancient history. As a friend who doesn't see why I am raking this all up argues, it's not as if today's left is bristling with macho streetfighters. It's hard to imagine anyone now applauding the Manson murders, as Dohrn notoriously did in l969, or dedicating a manifesto to, among others, Sirhan Sirhan. But just because it's ancient history doesn't mean you get to rewrite it to make yourself look good, just another idealistic young person upset about the war and racism." - from http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing/388681?rel=hp_picks

Amy,

That's all beside the point. The question, as I see it, is which poses the greatest threat today, the radical right or the radical left.

In the United States there is currently no violent wing of loony left. (It exists in Europe, but not here.) A hundred years ago, there were anarchists blowing up building, but no more. The last time we saw anything like a violent wing of the loony left was in the late 1960s, and it was pretty much the gang that couldn't shoot straight. As I recall, the most violent group, The "Symbionese Liberation Army" had to recruit a debutante in order to pull off a bank heist. While "Tanya the Revolutionary" might make a great prequel to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" it doesn't exactly inspire much terror in real life.

By contrast, the loony right has a VERY active (and reasonably organized) violent wing, as evidenced by numerous cop killing and one very major terrorist attack.

Amy, think of it this way. Which group is most likely to cause some real damage: a bunch of red-neck ex-commandos who grew up around firearms, or a bunch of college kids who've been reading Che Guevara? Seriously, now?

Now, as for the notion that there aren't people on the right who advocate cop-killing, this thread itself provides easy evidence to the contrary. Check out Brian's comment that "Waco and Ruby Ridge were both Democratic terrorist operations against civilians."

There you have it. In Brian's eyes, the police and the FBI are "terrorists" when there's a democratic administration -- and apparently deserve being shot at. Now, I'm not saying that Brian is a credible advocate, but he does represent a way of thinking that is simply no longer characteristic of the radical left. At no time during the disastrous Bush administration was there any rhetoric for the left along similar lines. Protests, yes. But always within the accepted boundary lines.

So, Amy, as much as I love you, you're wrong about the relative dangers of the loony left versus the loony right. Ayers may be a prime ass, but he's simply not a credible threat to anybody, except maybe his female students.

Brian,

I feel that I've been a bit amiss in not being more specific about insulting people in blogs. I may have given you the impression that such insults are never appropriate, when in fact my opinion is that insults can be appropriate, provided that they're delivered with a certain sense of style.

For example, if I were to insult you (that's subjunctive mood, not a typo), I might imply that you don't understand simple grammar.

Or, rather than saying something trite like "Get your head out of your ass", I would probably say something like "You might want to stop making a close-up, first-hand assessment of your polyps." Or even "It's a good thing you talk so much, because your head is inserted so far up your digestive tract that the only time there's a possibility that you'd see the light is when you open your mouth."

Of course, there's always the popular technique of insulting a person's parentage. The trick in this case is not letting the insult degenerate into something tawdry (like a "Yo Mamma" joke.) I think that the best way to accomplish this is to use a timely literary reference. For example:

"The 18th century author Lawrence Sterne, in his immortal work 'Tristram Shandy' attributed his foolishness to the fact that, at the moment of his conception, his mother said to his father: 'hast thou remembered to wind the clock.' Something similar happened in Brian's case. However, the exact words were 'Git up, grandpaw, you're crusin' my cigarettes.'"

Needless to say, I am not providing these examples as insults, but simply as illustrations of how this business is conducted, should one wish to be insulting. (Subjunctive mood again.)