"Why did you post a link to the picture but not the thread"
Simple, my entire post was deleted. I have no-where to copy from. "It never happened".
The thread was "The Democrats are poised to strike Bush"(?). My comment was (can't remember verbatim, not a conspiracy Mike) "That's because the Democrats have so much to work with considering Bush's incompetent/ineffective leadership. They should run a political cartoon/ad featuring Elmer Fudd (with hair) as Bush."
http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/15967.JPGConsidering what has passed TFL and other sites WITH NO OBJECTIONS against Clinton in the past and even the present, why does Mike and Rich object? Too much anti-Bush posting? I beg to differ, my views on Bush has most often been the minority view on the conservative TFL and yet I guess a minority view is too much. I'm sure it's not what I say BUT how I say it (red herring?). My posting style has not changed (I spell better) but Mike is convinced that it's not the subject matter (anti-IRAQ War and anti-Bush) and not censorship. Is TFL Rich's personal web page or a forum? And you really want anti-gunners and Democrats to visit TFL and gain a better image of gun owners. A good logical argument (research ?)is more effective against dissension than censorship!