By Beauty Damned

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You make me laugh.

Did we ask this of other administrations? Has security ever been tighter in our history? What about all of the protestors? Should they not be allowed to because we are saving money on security? The country is not getting billed for $40 million. Private donations were raised.

Pam, that's irrelavant to Maria; partying like a rock star because your party won the national election isn't reason enough.

Maria, I could see you getting your panties all bunched up if all of it was paid for by the government, but that isn't the case.

You need to get over yourself and your self-righteous indignation about this; Bush won and private donations are what is funding this event.

And as Pam pointed out, if there wasn't going to be a massive bum's rush on the capitol to protest/whine/nashing teeth over Bush winning, there wouldn't be such a need for the increased security. It's called Cause & Effect....check it out in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

(I bet you didn't complain about the increased overtime paid to NYPD during the GOP convention, huh?)

And finally, if this is too much to bear there's always Canada to the north.....

.
You're 100% right, Maria.

Except that, as demonstrated above, this giant dog & pony show is for the Kool-Aid drinkers, only. Let's face it, once they're on that stuff, they lose all moral values.

Here's the official song of the 2005 Inauguration. Kool-Aid for EVERYONE!
.

Just like 9/11, Bush knew this Tsunami was going to happen, yet he forged ahead with his plans to throw his inaguration!!!!

You might want to do a little bit more research on Clinton's Inaguarations before you continue to shove that foot in your big mouth.

But anyway, the world endures the worst natural disaster in the recorded history of mankind and all you can focus on is partisan politics?

How weak, petty, and VERY small of you.

not the worst, 1970 bangladesh flood, 300,000 died.

and i've yet to see your slop of a site post anything but insults and petty accusations while this horrific event ensues.

but that is typical gordon.

Mad- I'm not attacking Maria for her beliefs. As a die hard Bush fan, I will say had the government picked up the $40 Mill tab, I would have been angry. But this is the donars money and they can spend it as they wish. These same people will probably be making private donations to the relief effort. As for security..I guess I don't understand why paying for this is a story.

"As a die hard Bush fna....I guess I don't understand why paying for this is a story"

Bravo Pam. You just answered your own question.

But, I will try to 'splain a little. Perhaps as people continue to round up more and more dead bodies of women and children, perhaps as people contract more and more diseases from the disaster, perhaps when the death toll reaches upwards of 300,000 and perhaps when children are dying because they don't even have clean water to drink, then maybe having a 40 million dollar party does not look so good to the rest of the world. Regardless of where the money comes from. A caring person would say "ya know guys, this was a great idea and I appreciate everyone pitching in for me to do this, but now is not the time becuse of what is happening. Please, use this money to help the victims of this disaster." Imagine the respect he would earn back not only from his own people, but the world. Hell, even I would have to give kudos to the guy.
But, in the immortal words of his father he is "notgunnadoit"

not the worst, 1970 bangladesh flood, 300,000 died.

Sorry, I should have said in MY lifetime. I was born in 78.

As for the rest of you Bush lapdogs, you can justify it to yourself any way you want. It still makes me sick to know that Exxon and other shitty corporations can contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bush's inauguration and then rest easy knowing their interests will be carefully looked after for the next four years. That's why each and every one of you schmoes who voted for him should have to pitch in equally to pay for his inauguration.

As for security, PUHLEEEEAZE. Bush is the most self important president I've ever witnessed in action. He doesn't want security to keep him safe. He needs it to shield him from the sight of those who oppose him.

The rest of the drivel here is laid out in typical presumptuous rightwing fashion and unworthy of thoughtful response.

[claps]

I guess I don't see what you're upset about. You're upset that the President, like every other, is having an inauguration? You're upset that the inauguration, like every other, is going to have security?

What are you? Retarded? Or just a man who's clamped his hands firmly over his ears while shouting "what's that you said!?!?!?!"

Does that mean you can't answer the questions?

It means I already did dilhole.

I take it that's a "no". If you're just crying to cry, go ahead. I can't stop you. I just wanted to make it clear that's what you were doing, "dilhole".

You are thick man. I'll leave you to your perpetual confusion. It's just too bad that you lapdogs require so much handholding.

Lots of insults.....no content, though. Like I said, crying just to cry.

Carry on, and enjoy.

My last name ain't Carreon for nothin.

HA!

Who exactly is making a big deal about the inauguration Nunya? So far, the only people I see complaining are those on the left. I just saw the New Years celebrations from Thailand. There are people sunbathing on the beachs where bodies are washing ashore. Are you going to sit home tonight out of respect for the dead?
As for the 40M;
As long as it is not illegal, it really isn't any of your business how these people spend their money. Nor is it any different than funding for the parties in past inaugerations. This is the night for the POTUS, regardless of his or her party.

Pam, those people on the beach in Thailand didn't send our soldiers to war. Those people on the beach don't spend a billion a day to kill other human beings and to create more suffering in the world. Those people on the beach in Thailand aren't responsible for projecting the appearance to the American people that they feel humbled by tragedy. Those people on the beach in Thailand aren't giving breaks to global oil and defense companies in exchange for the money that their vacation cost them. Those people on the beach in Thailand didn't give a tax break to the same wealthy Americans who paid for their vacation at the same time that they told middle class Americans to make a sacrifice for our soldiers. Those people on the beach in Thailand aren't responsible for doing right by the American people. George Bush is.

I'm glad that you can be so understanding about his shameless, exorbitant spending and feigned remorse. I'm glad that you feel he doesn't hold any more responsibility to you or I than those people on the beach in Thailand. Perhaps we should just make him King.

George Bush is doing right by me in more areas than his opponent.

I tend to think he has more than just one opponent.

I was referring to Kerry.

Of course you were. Not that it holds any relevance whatsoeverrrr...

As much as anything else posted in this thread.

Maria, you're acting as if those big corporations aren't sending any money to the relief effort. a friend of mine here in Houston works for one of the "evil oil companies" and they are donating $5 million as well as matching any donations made by their employees. not to mention that the government has now bumped up their aid to over $300 million. but I suppose you'll say that's b/c they were "guilted into it" right?

Probably.

Maria- I guess I don't follow the arguement. GWB should give up the parties because it will look good in the eyes of the world? Or is it in the eye's of the troops? A majority of whom voted for the man. Or out of respect for the dead? Or is it that you are just mad that it is GWB and not JFK that is having the parties? Again, it is not the world calling for this, just the democrats in this country. This is nothing more than a political argument. This has nothing to do with the disaster or the war. I forgot how poor the folk were that attended the 2 inaugerations of Clinton.

This one's for Geoffrey and all those guys he'll be with at the Inauguration Ball. I know he's got great tickets. Maybe he could read this poem to your friends to celebrate how good it is to be an American today, and to have a clear view of our National Destiny:

The Lemming National Anthem
by Charles Carreon

All hail the One-Party System,
So well-organized that no one can doubt it’s
The best, most logical system that’s ever been
Devised by the smartest brightest guys.

All hail the One-Party Leader,
The man with the robotic sighs,
With handlers, and helpers and programmed
Responses that don’t need to be scrutinized.

All hail the One-Party Loser,
The man who ran as one a-terrorized;
His voters felt like dopes, when he scuttled all their votes
And fell in with the One-Party Line.

All hail the Great Corporate Leaders,
Who have made the world their own swimming pool
Filled with toxic sewage and cool designer luggage --
You know that Paris Hilton is no fool.

All hail the Great Wall Street Bankers,
Making plans to get and spend it all,
Sending freight trains stuffed with loot to their friends
In big black boots, who will send them back an even bigger haul.

All hail the Great Iraqi Warriors
Who staunchly defend their foreign sands,
Who give us names for terrorists, and target practice for our kids,
And help our friends the Saudis keep clean hands.

All hail the Great Attorney General,
The baddest goddamn Mexican of all;
He don’t need no stinking badge, cause torture’s not that bad,
And he’ll explain it in that room right down the hall.

All hail the Free Press that’s freely
Publishing nothing at all, but the latest profile shot
That proves that Condoleeza’s hot
Which just proves nothing at all.

All hail the Fake Politicians
Who are wondering who to sell out today.
If you haven’t got a lobbyist then you’re not on their Santa’s list,
And won’t you kindly just go away?

All hail the Great Entertainers,
Who thank heavens have nothing to say,
Made of silicone and methadone, their voices big as megaphones
Keep all unpleasant news so far away.

All hail the Brave Media Lawyers
Who sue children and ancients one and all,
Since copyright is God, it doesn’t seem so odd
That piracy should cause the nation’s fall.

All hail the One-Party Voters,
Who didn’t even really have to vote,
We knew that we could count on them, and figured all those
Stray votes in, and things came out just like we knew they would.

So all hail the Great Manipulators,
Who turned us to a land of pimps and whores
Who taught our kids to kill, to do it with a will
To the sound of a heavy metal score.

And all hail the Holy Excuse Makers
Who sell insurance from the Great Big Man
Who hawk incense and repentance and talk in great
Big sentences about how moral folks must take a stand.

‘Cause God is a lemming,
And He made us in his image, of this there is no room
For reasonable doubt -- So when you see that cliff a looming
Just get your feet a pumping – you always knew that this was your way out.

Jesus, how many beers do you need to drink to write that nonsense?

I don't need to drink at all. It gets me off just to think how much it will annoy people like you. Because it's just such a false accusation. You're not a lemming! No sir, not you!
Cheers,
Chas

Annoy me? People with mental illnesses don't annoy me, they invoke my pity.

The neocon administration is totally consistent, reaching out and embracing bad taste wherever possible. What's to get so worked up over?
RGE

I was referring to Kerry.
Posted by Geoffrey at December 31, 2004 04:46 PM

Of course you were. Not that it holds any relevance whatsoeverrrr...
Posted by Maria at December 31, 2004 05:38 PM

How true Maria. Your candidate is just that - irrelevant. When you're right, you're right.

Bitter and Bile

Bitter and Bile
Often would while
The hours away together.
Come rain or shine
Their thoughts would entwine --
Irrelevant was the weather.
Nothing disturbed them
As much as a thought
Unapproved by their mutual censor.
So when new thoughts come up
They just say "Shut up!"
And for hours they feel so much better.

Geoffrey, it's always interesting to come across a commenter whose remarks are driven by no discernible logic and who thinks that insults are argumentation.

George Bush has given us an unwarranted pre-emptive war which will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. He is taxing the poor and the middle class in order to give the rich massive tax cuts. And that's just for starters. More depravity is ahead.
RGE

Geoffrey, it's always interesting to come across a commenter whose remarks are driven by no discernible logic and who thinks that insults are argumentation.

RGE, I agree, but it's Maria's father, so you have to cut him some slack. I suggested he join one of the PEST support groups.

More depravity is ahead.

I hope so. Anything you consider depravity is a great deal for America.

Geoffrey, you just perfectly exemplified the truth in RGE's comment with your own. Funny how that happens...

Actually, he perfectly portrayed my comment before I had to.

Funny how that happens.

Well that was a sorry attempt at a comeback. But I suppose you had to try...There's no hiding those stripes.

That's funny. I was thinking the exact same thing about your foundationless quip, but I suppose you had to try.

There's no hiding that mental illness.

Geoffrey, in a former life you were one of those little girls whose only rejoinder to almost anything with which they disagreed was "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah,nyah." Your level of discourse and degree of logic hasn't increased significantly since then.
RGE

Because you've offered so much? Everything you posted I could get at moveontocommunism.org.

If I were so inclined to have a good laugh. I love watching distraught moonbats shake their fists and cry.

That's the first time, even obliquely. that I've been called a communist since the McCarthy Era. You can't even keep your slander current.

I'm not shaking my fists and crying and I'm certainly not distraught. Silly neocons are kind of fun to watch, but one should never get too close.
RGE

Ahhhh, you must be the child left behind Hanoi John kept talking about. Reading comprehension just isn't your strong point.

I understand neither the babbling of babes nor the diagrams of Richard Feynman and believe me, buddy, you're no Feynman.

When there is something to comprehend I can comprehend it. I comprehend that you would rather call names (Hanoi John) than talk logically.
RGE

Like that shining star of educational brilliance you initially graced this thread with?

Moonbats have short memories.

The harder you try the more predictable you become.

I am not always brilliant, but I can usually make myself understood. You, on the other hand, write in the cryptic code known fully only to those of the truly strange rightwing. Watching you marshall your thoughts is like watching someone herd cats.

Maybe I'll be back and do this again sometime but not with you, Geoffrey. I have too much respect for the English language as a conveyor of thought to watch you mistreat it so.
RGE

When did the government of The People become the government of The Corporations? Should there be stigma attached to a giant inauguration party funded by Bush's corporate friends? You bet there should be stigma. Revolutions full.

That is the problem with all politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, though. They all have corporate friends, no matter who they say they are fighting for, ultimately they are fighting for themselves and their own best interests. The best The People can do is find the one whose interests come close to their own. It will never be perfect because power and money always corrupt.

The real problem is that people accept it with total complacency. I think it's funny that republicans, as has been shown in this thread and others, believe that just because a person doesn't like Bush, that must mean they loved Clinton or whoever else and are willing to overlook the same faults in a democrat that they are unwilling to accept in republicans, and are therefore hypocrites. Wrong. The whole system is completely fucked up and it needs fixing. I'm not about to sit back and say "well, that's the way it is, it's the way it's always been and the way it will always be so we must just accept this corrupt system..." No. We must fight for change. Even if we must fight to our last breath.

I agree. That is why I love it when people like Nader and other third party candidates run. I can't stand it when people complain that Nader is ruining so and so's chance. If so and so was so darn great, Nader wouldn't feel compelled to run.

I wish the lesser parties got more exposure and were taken more seriously by the media.

Ralph Nader gave us George Bush, Oh, there were other things that went wrong in Florida, but it's been a long time since Nader served as an example of anything but Narcissism.

Until we have a system such as instant runoff, third parties serve no purpose whatsoever. It shouldn't be, but we are bound to the two-party system and I grow ever more tired of those who do not seem to understand this simple fact. Perhaps they deserved George Bush, but I didn't. There is much to be said for pragmatism.
RGE

Ralph Nader wasn't a factor this time. America gave us George Bush and that is that. The fact is that Ralph Nader and other third party candidates represent those that the major two don't. They shouldn't have to settle for voting for someone that doesn't represent them just because YOU don't want Bush. I can make a better case that Perot gave us Clinton but it still isn't relevant. Clinton won it based on the rules that exist and that was that. Just as Bush did. That is the way our system works and even with its flaws - it is better than many others.

Better you are stuck with Bush than me gettin' stuck with Kerry. :-)

Bush would not be president today if we'd had an honest election and no Ralph Nader in 2000. George Bush won in 2000 because of what was basically a crooked Supreme Court. He wouldn't even have been running in 2004 if the 2000 election had been properly carried out. Another point, Clinton won a plurality. In 2000 Gore won a plurality.

George Bush synonomous with pre-emptive war, huge deficits, tax the poor, the middle class and future generations to give tax cuts to the rich. Use the constitution as toilet paper George Bush. Not one redeeming feature George Bush. Rosemary, even you don't deserve him.
RGE

So it goes and will keep on going. Perhaps in 2006...

Richard, if that remark immediately above was intended for me, I think you should know that I'm not a doll nor am I particularly volatile. The R stands for Richard, and this Richard doesn't think he's seen anyone here who was especially volatile, wrong, yes, but under reasonable control.
RGE

*RGE, the post you are referring to has been deleted. Sorry to lose your frame of reference, but the Richard you are talking to is in a nasty mood and I'm not in the mood to tolerate it. - :o) Maria*

Why not just "personally combust" Maria??

You're so full of shit you can't tell you ass from you elbow. Oh.. and by the way "Nunya". Maria (for all your loyalty) slanders you in personal email to me but defends the Dog Slot boys.

If you'd care to read .. please email me.

Richard

Maria, after I posted the one above, I tracked Richard to what I believe to be his lair. Such use of metaphor on his part makes me proud to be a member of the human race, since he certainly isn't.
RGE

RGE,

I'm pretty sure that this country has never had a truly honest election, we just do the best we can with what we have. I'll concede that in 2000, if not for Nader we would have had President Gore. I disagree with your assessment of Bush but that is what is great about living here. We can disagree. Plurality isn't relavent an Electoral College win is the key. Clinton had both in 1992, even though his plurality was a minority of the country. Bush had both this time and won with a majority.

For the record, I voted for Clinton. I liked him quite a bit actually so his win was a pleasant result for me. Just as Bush's was this time.

Also, Bush hasn't taxed the poor. The poor don't pay income taxes. Bush cut income tax rates and that is why the poor didn't get much of a break - unless you feel they should get free money because they are poor. That is a different discussion though, isn't it?

It's irrelevant, QOAE. Vitriol doesn't have to be accurate.

You're quite right, though. Our elections will never be 100% honest. No election will ever be while dishonest people exist. That's why we have checks and balances. That's why we have courts. Our election system may not be ideal, but it's the best.

Thankfully, we didn't get President Gore. Even though I voted for him.

Our elections will never be 100% honest. No election will ever be while dishonest people exist. That's why we have checks and balances...Our election system may not be ideal, but it's the best.

It's by no means the best that it could be or anywhere close. I find it sad that you so readily accept such a faulty system and that you have resigned yourself to dishonesty and downright dirty tricks being pulled in the process of electing those who represent us in country, state and community. You would think that would carry a little more weight and importance for the citizens of what fancies itself the most civilized nation on earth. (Depending on your own definition of civilized...)

I didn't mean the best that it could be. I meant existing.

It's like computers, though. As soon as you fix one problem, they find another to exploit. There isn't, nor will there ever be, a perfect system. We just have to try to keep up.

What I wrote was incorrect. What I should have said was that mamy or even most of the working poor pay a larger percentage of their income through the payroll tax than the rich pay through both income and payroll taxes. One way to both save Social Security and give a tax break to the poor would be to make the payroll tax apply to entire income and adjust the rate acccording to income level.

I am neither a poor man nor a Christian, but, nevertheless I think I have a duty to help my fellow man have a decent life. If this requires me to pay and others in like situations to pay higher taxes, so be it.
RGE

That's where we differ. I don't think anyone should be required to give their money to another person. I thought you guys were against legislating morals?

It has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with having a functioning society, supportive community and caring about your fellow man. That should not be about morality, but about the difference between human goodness/caring for the wellbeing of your fellow man and human greed/caring only for yourself. The latter, in my opinion, is what causes an unfathomable amount of war and suffering in this world. If you were ever a member of a primitive village where community and shared responsibility were valued, you would just be killed off for being selfish and useless to anyone other than yourself.

Again, you are attempting to force your morals/values on others. I thought you guys were against that?

It is up to you if you choose to view it that way, but I do not view it as an issue of morals. I view it as an issue of humanity.

It's not "up to me". That's exactly what it is. It's YOU thinking that is what is good for humanity, then trying to force everyone else to do it. What about mandatory sterilization for poor people? Some people view that as good for humanity. What about making abortion illegal? Some people view that as good for humanity.

You support legislating morals and values when you agree with them. That's fine, just understand it's hypocritical.

I disagree. Do you feel that paying taxes is a moral issue? Do you feel that you should have the right to choose or not to choose to pay taxes and that if the government forces you to pay taxes, they are legislating their morals upon you?

I feel that being forced to pay taxes beyond the amount necessary to run and defend the gov't is the result of other people legislating their (whatever) on me. It isn't always morals and values.

However, YOU saying that I should pay more for humanitarian reasons is. You believe the gov't, with tax money, should be philanthropic. That's you believing your morals and values should be legislated upon those who do not share them.

Wrong. I do not believe they should be "philanthropic" as you like to call it. I believe that the government is responsible for doing what is good for the whole of society. That includes helping the disadvantaged.

I feel that being forced to pay taxes beyond the amount necessary to run and defend the gov't is the result of other people legislating their (whatever) on me.

Sorry to hear that you feel that way. "Run and defend the government..."??? What does that mean? The government is not the only thing that taxes were created to "run and defend." Taxes were created to support the needs of each and every community. Roads? Public restrooms? Schools? Firehouses? Police? Affordable housing? Environmental conservation? You would prefer to live without those things I suppose. All of those things were created to benefit the whole of society. My federal tax dollars pay for someone in an entirely different state to have the roads and security and whatever else they need. I'm okay with that.

If you don't like the system Geoffrey, perhaps there is someplace you could go where you would be permitted to horde every twig and berry that you come across all for yourself.

I believe that the government is responsible for doing what is good for the whole of society. That includes helping the disadvantaged.

That is philanthropy. Helping the disadvantaged is a morals/values based belief. You can spin it however you'd like, but the fact remains you are completely fine with legislating values you believe in.

"run and defend the gov't" probably should have been substituted with "country", as my definition includes roads, schools, firehouses, etc. Not affordable housing, though. Again, that's charity.

I'm even fine with legislating some philanthropy. It makes my community a nicer place to live. I'm just pointing out another hypocritical view you have. You don't mind moral legislation when you agree with it.

If you don't like the system Geoffrey, perhaps there is someplace you could go where you would be permitted to horde every twig and berry that you come across all for yourself.

Heh, now you sound like a Republican. See, you're catching on.

I still disagree. You are comparing apples and oranges. Legislating that each person is responsible for paying taxes so that money can be used to do whatever is determined to be a benefit to all is far different from legislating what each person is or is not allowed to do with their own bodies.

It certainly isn't different. It's money that comes out of my pocket. Would you feel diffently if instead of food banks, your money went to buy hunting rifles for rural poor folks so they could hunt for themselves?

It certainly isn't different. It's money that comes out of my pocket.

You just made my point for me. It's money. Taxes. A thing created to benefit everyone. I could just as easily say "you can't legislate your morals on me and make me pay for road maintenance in Alabama! Who says I have to do anything for those fucks? My money is staying in New York where it belongs! Those Alabamans can fend for themselves! Just because that state doesn't have as much money because they pay fewer taxes than any other state in the union, I should have to compensate?" "Yes, because it benefits everyone in the long run" "a-ha. That makes sense."

However, here is the argument that you are trying to compare: "I am not ready to have a baby. I am 15 and I accidentally got pregnant. I'm going to have an abortion" "But Maria, you CAN'T!" "Why?" "Because abortion is WRONG. The bible makes that clear." "But I do not believe in the bible." "Well I do, and since I say it's for your own good, you have to do what I say." "So you're saying that I have to have a baby right now, whether I want to or not, even though the decision doesn't affect you or anyone else?" "Yes."

Please tell me how those two scenarios are the same. Legislating with regards to something that effects EVERYONE is the responsibility of the government. Legislating with regards to something that effects ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL is not. When you really boil it down, none of it has anything to do with morality.

Would you feel diffently if instead of food banks, your money went to buy hunting rifles for rural poor folks so they could hunt for themselves?

No I wouldn't feel differently. If that were determined to be the best way to help those people put food in their mouths, I would be fine with it.

"Yes, because it benefits everyone in the long run" "a-ha. That makes sense."

Sure, that makes sense if we're talking about roads, hospitals, or the military. Not when we're talking about a single, uneducated mother of 6 in the Bronx. That isn't "running the country", that's charity.

Legislating with regards to something that effects EVERYONE is the responsibility of the government. Legislating with regards to something that effects ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL is not

Welfare affects only the individual. Unless, you want to argue that it betters the community as well. If that's the tack, then so wouldn't mandatory sterilization, and it would cost me much less.

Again, it's hypocrisy. You think it's ok to take money out of MY pocket, to help someone else. That's fine. It's also charity. You can spin it any way you'd like, but you are condoning legislated morals and values that YOU agree with. Then you denounce legislating morals and values you DON'T agree with, like homo marriage and religion.

Well we've clearly established that we heartily disagree on the subject. I think that's as far as we're going to get on resolving that issue.

I think your entire analogy is completely warped and disorganized. Apparently, you think mine is hypocritical. So what's new?

Absolutely nothing. I'll tack differently, though.

You believe it's perfectly ok to take from one person and give to another for the good of the community, so long as it's your version of "for the good of the community".

Maria, you seem to be a very nice person. How did you manage to attract so many crazies (and here I'm being charitable) to one spot?

I will never make a comment at any site that I would not be willing to say directly to the person involved. The remark made to you by Richard is the work of a fool who is cowardly to the utmost. I would be happy to teach him that it is possible to use the English language as a vehicle of communication rather than as a way of sending only abuse and obscenity.
RGE

How did you manage to attract so many crazies (and here I'm being charitable) to one spot?

Haha! RGE, this is a question I've often asked myself. I've come to the conclusion that I'm just lucky. And I mean that in the most painful sense possible. For some reason, I've always been one of those people that others either love to love or just looove to hate. A natural conflict magnet I guess and I don't back down a lot.

I would be happy to teach him that it is possible to use the English language as a vehicle of communication rather than as a way of sending only abuse and obscenity.

I would like it if you could teach him. In fact, we could have a weekly class here at BBD. "How Not To Act Like A Shitstick in the Blogosphere 101." Course taught by RGE. Please, teach them.