Waiting for Fitzgerald

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
If this is a PoPD shot at me, ftr, fwiw, fyi, I don't wear makeup and my skirt hits me at the knees.

FWIW, FYI, your skirt hits me right at the knees, too. Hard.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
As I noted before, from Merriam-Webster:

identical
1 : being the same : SELFSAME <the identical place we stopped before>


Does not require reference to something else. Ignore newish people much? Sheesh.

Be glad you did not get the Thurgreed welcome I got. :-)

[nononono]

Originally posted by bilmore
Quiet. I'm closing on a San Antonio house right now. And I don't think it's ambiguous at all . . . .

What! Of course it is ambiguous. That is why we can argue about it so easily. This is classic.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by nononono
What! Of course it is ambiguous. That is why we can argue about it so easily. This is classic.

I'm sorry. I should have used one of those cutsie winking avatars at the end of that statement.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I bet if the Ds were willing to stoop as low as the Rs, they could find evidence that he raped someone as credible as the rape allegations against Clinton.

As the Ds (in toto) are absolutely willing to stoop as low as the Rs (in toto) -- the issue is more whether anyone cares to spend the time and resources to do it to Scooter.

In other words . . is the target worth it? In the absence of a run for high political office, the answer is generally "No."

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
Mercy. If you believe in marriage as a benefit to society, you should want the government to sanction it and reward it. There are few things, perhaps, you might want the government to weigh in on, but don't you want it to be the essential, fundamental things? Or the opposite?

BTW, there's an article at NR today outlining some common points that conservatives may have re marriage. In th econtext of finding common ground re gay marriage.

I believe a private right to contract for a marriage partnership, based on the terms and conditions of the contract are a benefit to society, and would look forward with approval to the state upholding the private right to contract for the same, much as they uphold the right to contract for other private endeavours. Outside of that, I don't think the state needs to sanction marriage as some sort of greater institution.

eta: cite on the article, please?

[nononono]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm sorry. I should have used one of those cutsie winking avatars at the end of that statement.

Oh, smartass, eh? <deleted emoticon>

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
Be glad you did not get the Thurgreed welcome I got. :-)

Thurgreed was retroactively banned from this board. His ability to engage in cooperative, compassionate political discourse of a bi-partisanal nature is severely handicapped by his ideological myopicality. No offence.

Also he called me fat, when, in fact, I'm phat.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Thurgreed was retroactively banned from this board. His ability to engage in cooperative, compassionate political discourse of a bi-partisanal nature is severely handicapped by his ideological myopicality. No offence.

Also he called me fat, when, in fact, I'm phat.

Is that sort of like Hank calling me a boy, when, in fact, I'm a girl?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
As the Ds (in toto) are absolutely willing to stoop as low as the Rs (in toto) -- the issue is more whether anyone cares to spend the time and resources to do it to Scooter.

In other words . . is the target worth it? In the absence of a run for high political office, the answer is generally "No."

S_A_M

The thought that any Republican or any politician of an opposite stripe has a history of sexual criminality is absurd and as usual (from the liberals) dilutes the concept that Clinton really did anything wrong. "Sure Clinton raped someone, but if the Ds looked really hard, we would find out all the bad Rs really raped women too", i.e. rape by political leaders in America is commonplace, i.e. not really that bad.

I can't stand Biden, but I would be willing to bet that given all the resources in the world, a history of serial sexual abuse could not be uncovered to pin on Biden (as a perpetrator of the same). Kennedy, otoh, uhm, maybe.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
As the Ds (in toto) are absolutely willing to stoop as low as the Rs (in toto) -- the issue is more whether anyone cares to spend the time and resources to do it to Scooter.

In other words . . is the target worth it? In the absence of a run for high political office, the answer is generally "No."

S_A_M

Scooter Libby raped me.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The thought that any Republican or any politician of an opposite stripe has a history of sexual criminality is absurd and as usual (from the liberals) dilutes the concept that Clinton really did anything wrong. "Sure Clinton raped someone, but if the Ds looked really hard, we would find out all the bad Rs really raped women too", i.e. rape by political leaders in America is commonplace, i.e. not really that bad.

I can't stand Biden, but I would be willing to bet that given all the resources in the world, a history of serial sexual abuse could not be uncovered to pin on Biden (as a perpetrator of the same). Kennedy, otoh, uhm, maybe.

Dick Cheney, whose daughter, Mary Cheney, is a lesbian, raped me.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
This bothers me on a fairly deep level, and I'm not quite sure I can define it well. I had the same sort of feeling watching NOW defend - hell, lionize - Clinton as the rape and harassment allegations were all coming out.

It bothers me because, on the one hand, I can understand it. NOW knew that, in Clinton, its aims and goals could be more profitably sought - it knew that the major societal changes it wanted had a higher chance of realization with Clinton as Prez than with the other choices. Because of that cost/benefit analysis, NOW had to, most likely, stifle an urge to condemn the guy doing exactly those things that it professes to hate.

But what do we, as a society, give up when we make such a choice? I understand that there's no perfect leader - but how far down are we willing to draw the line of acceptability in order to fight for our positions?

This isn't just a Clinton/Dems issue - I'm not just addressing his past crimes - but do we accept a Hitler who can deliver cheap, universal medical care? A Saddam who can stop crime? Exaggerated examples, both - but illustrations of the scary idea that we make a moral choice to allow unacceptable conduct if it profits us.

It doesn't lead to admiration of what we've become.

Its our own fault. We're so fucking childish that we can't even discuss sex. A decent candidate with a divorce or an affair is dead in the water because thousands of hyprocrites will call him immoral and band together against him.

In that vacuum of talent, we see things like W, Clinton and Bush I elected. None of them are worthy of the title they held. And what did they run against? John Fucking Kerry? Al Gore?

DAN QUAYLE???

Until we grow the fuck up in this counttry and act like adults about sex and personal mores, we're going to get more and more shit in the Oval Office. Decent, intelligent people tend to experiment a bit in life, and they make mistakes, and they have moral shortcomings. Until we address those shortcoming as a normal, excusable human foibles, we'll only get the idiots the religious right will tolerate.

I don't want to sound like some Berkeley douchebag, but WTF is wrong with this nation? We just excused gunmakers from lawsuits. We tolerate insane violence in our media. We have scumbags stealing our tax money for polictical gain (I hope Ted Stevens loses his sight for that goddamned bridge to nowhere). Yet we're debating whether abortion should be legal, and whther there's moral deficit on the Left?

There's a huge deficit in this country we ought to deal with before our economic or moral deficits, and thats the deficit of fucking brains in the political arena. Until we have some honest discourse, instead of sumbags who play to their idiot constituents, we'll never get anywhere. I hate to say it, but a temporary monarchy run by practical, sensible thinkers would be a very nice thing right now.

Off with the heads of all the idiots (about half the country).

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
Is that sort of like Hank calling me a boy, when, in fact, I'm a girl?

Word! I would ban Hank too, but what little is left of his mental stability depends on his having access to the boards, plus it distracts him from the heartbreak of my affair with his wife, which I feel some small responsibility for.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Scooter Libby raped me.

Your expulsion from the Insurgency has really pushed you off the deep end, no?