Waiting for Fitzgerald

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
That living with his very pissed off wife was punishment enough.

I picture Hilary as far less terrifying than Mrs. Not Bob.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I picture Hilary as far less terrifying than Mrs. Not Bob.

But better looking.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
That living with his very pissed off wife was punishment enough.

Without getting into the whole Hilary thing here, I think she would be the wrong wife to get really, really pissed. I can't, at all, picture her hugging someone and saying "aww, that's okay, snookums, I forgive you."

More to the point, no one - no one at all - has reported seeing Bill Clinton's penis since he had to admit to Hilary about Monica. I think she still has it somewhere.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How would you describe Rove's prickishness?

Rove is like a nasty dork... like some sort of awkward mean goth kid who hates everybody. He strikes me as the sort of person on the continuum toward a Columbine-type killer. Luckily, he found politics instead of guns.

Scooter is just a huge dickhead. He's the Bobby Hurley of the adminsitration - cocksucking, annoying, crying for a foul little prick who thinks he's smarter than anyone else on the Court.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
But better looking.

I don't think Hillary/Hilary is a hag, and my image of Mrs. Not Bob is that she is pretty attractive. That said, from your comment, I couldn't figure out which one you were saying is better looking.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Rove is like a nasty dork... like some sort of awkward mean goth kid who hates everybody. He strikes me as the sort of person on the continuum toward a Columbine-type killer. Luckily, he found politics instead of guns.

Scooter is just a huge dickhead. He's the Bobby Hurley of the adminsitration - cocksucking, annoying, crying for a foul little prick who thinks he's smarter than anyone else on the Court.

Now I know from where the substantive concerns about Bolton came.

And Cheney.

And Rumsfeld.

And Ashcroft.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Bob
But better looking.

Uh, flip that. I think.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't think Hillary/Hilary is a hag, and my image of Mrs. Not Bob is that she is pretty attractive. That said, from your comment, I couldn't figure out which one you were saying is better looking.

Doh. Mrs. Not Bob is more terrifying, but better looking, than HRC.

(I don't think the senator is a hag, either.)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Not to put too fine a point on it, but, if the standard is to be "good taste", posts will go unposted and there will be less entertainment throughout the land. The social contract here is to avert eyes from offense, even when it would be easy not to.

All of those tasteless Terri Schiavo jokes, at a time when my mom was lying on her gurney in a coma, and did I jump in and protest my offense? No. That would be unfair to the board. You guys had no way of knowing, and I can't hold you to a standard that assumes malice without evidence.

(Of course, that's all bull. Right?)

Civil discourse has its place.

Waaaaaayy over there, preferably . . . It's no fun to have to watch yourself all the time.

I do not assume malice in Penske, but asshole is asshole and there's nothing wrong with calling him on it. (I know, begs the question, doesn't it.)

That said, I'm not an eggshell plaintiff.

Also -- I know this was not your point, but --

I don't think I ever made jokes about Ms. Schiavo -- and I don't remember seeing any/many on here (but I had no reason to be too sensitive to the issue).

While there were certainly sharp clashes of opinion, the lovely photoshops, et al. and hyperbolic rhetoric demonizing the other side seemed to flow mostly from one direction as usual. [Except for the days when Sebby posted -- but he's technically one of yours.]

S_A_M

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Uh, flip that. I think.

Yeah. Fringey caught it, too. Thanks.

Sorry, honey.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Yeah. Fringey caught it, too. Thanks.

Sorry, honey.

Been nice knowing you, Not Bob.

[Replaced_Texan]

We have an inane double secret no homos can get married amendment coming up on the November ballot. Of course, they can't get married now under state law, but this is a "just in case some asinine judge can't read the state law" amendment.

I don't have any clue why they're doing this now, since there aren't any other major election issues going on this cycle.

Anyhow, the amendment got a senate sponsort at the very last second of the legislative session, and it's worded very funny: (scroll to the second amendment)

"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Several questions, especially for those of you who haven't seen this before and are looking at it with fresh eyes.

1.) Doesn't it look like, reading the language of the amendment, that they're trying to ban ALL marriage? I mean, currently, the state is creating and/or recognizing legal status identical or similar to marriage. It's called marriage.

2.) What about common law marriage? Common law marriage has been recognized in this state forever. In fact, the wedding that I was part of in January was a common law marriage.

3.) Can you believe the work product of the idiots that are drafting legislation for this state? Is it no wonder that they can't get school financing worked out?

No need to answer #3. It was rhetorical frustration.

But really:

Isn't this an asinine, poorly written amendment that could eliminate marriage in the state of Texas if read on it's face?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
We have an inane double secret no homos can get married amendment coming up on the November ballot. Of course, they can't get married now under state law, but this is a "just in case some asinine judge can't read the state law" amendment.

I don't have any clue why they're doing this now, since there aren't any other major election issues going on this cycle.

Anyhow, the amendment got a senate sponsort at the very last second of the legislative session, and it's worded very funny: (scroll to the second amendment)

"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Several questions, especially for those of you who haven't seen this before and are looking at it with fresh eyes.

1.) Doesn't it look like, reading the language of the amendment, that they're trying to ban ALL marriage? I mean, currently, the state is creating and/or recognizing legal status identical or similar to marriage. It's called marriage.

2.) What about common law marriage? Common law marriage has been recognized in this state forever. In fact, the wedding that I was part of in January was a common law marriage.

3.) Can you believe the work product of the idiots that are drafting legislation for this state? Is it no wonder that they can't get school financing worked out?

No need to answer #3. It was rhetorical frustration.

But really:

Isn't this an asinine, poorly written amendment that could eliminate marriage in the state of Texas if read on it's face?

Uh, where's the verb in that statement?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan

"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

The quoted language is the "description", but the actual language of the amendment (below) makes your reading seem the best--i.e. It defines Marriage as b/t one man and one woman and then prohibits the recognition of marriage as a legal status, or any legal status similar to marriage, in Texas.

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't have any clue why they're doing this now, since there aren't any other major election issues going on this cycle.

From the language it seems to me that they are trying to ban civil unions or any other sort of special relationship between people of the same sex.

Isn't it pretty clear what they are up to?