Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. - Page 230

Sexual Harassment Panda · 07-12-2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Missouri thinks it may have executed the wrong guy. Whoops.

Penske's culture of life at work. Good job, Jesus freaks!!

Sexual Harassment Panda · 07-12-2005, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am pro-life, even for criminals.

That puts you at odds with the rest of the Jesus freaks. Get with the program! Christ is coming, and boy is He pissed!

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-12-2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
In America anyone can take ownership of their own life. Its both a gift and a responsibility, with the latter item being the thing many liberals have a tough time with.

Except women. Who don't get to own their own bodies.

I listen to all these hard on cowboy wanna bes talk about "property rights" as though their deed is some god given compact. They're so fucking quick to say they can shoot people for intruding on their "property."

But when it comes to a woman's own body... well, shit. She's got no right to control it.

Seems pretty fucking inconsistent, even to me.

Penske_Account · 07-12-2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So could his family pursue a wrongful death claim against the state? Or not so much?

And what does penske have against the vagina? I know sebby hates them, but I thought Penske was better than that.

I am pro-vagina.

Penske_Account · 07-12-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
. Call me crazy, but shifting the bases for going to war indicates lack of a decent basis. If he had a good reason to go, he'd have stuck with it, and it would have convinced us. All the repackagings show manipulations.

You are crazy and myopic. I have 5 reasons why I want a new car, I would imagine that something commensurately more complex like going to war would have at least as many reasons.

Replaced_Texan · 07-12-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Now that you mention it, a friend of a friend is a lawyer at the CIA. She's the exception. Otherwise, I know (directly and indirectly) of perhaps 8-10 people who work(ed) there. They simply can't say what they did (nor would I press them). I have one or two friends who I suspect work there now, but its hard not to suspect anyone who says they are in the State department... as it seems like the most likely cover for all kinds of people.

The broader point though is that the public perception of this is not going to be good, even if she was a non-covert employee. And this is simply something I'd rather Rove not have done. He could have couched it in different (very different) terms, without ever mentioning this. But I'm dying to hear what he actually has to say about it directly, rather than through his attorney (who makes statements that are open to misinterpretation... or possibly accurate interpretation that reflects poorly on the speaker).

Hello

I've had to fill out background forms for two friends who applied /were recruited for analyst positions at the CIA. I presume I would have known if they got in, though I guess I don't really know what they're doing now so maybe.

I suspect one friend has been working for an intelligence service for a long time, but I'd never ask. He's one of the smartest people I've ever known, so I hope so.

My best friend used to live around the corner from Langley. She highly, highly recommends not accidently turning into their driveway. It takes awhile to get out of there, even if you go in by mistake.

Penske_Account · 07-12-2005, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
That puts you at odds with the rest of the Jesus freaks. Get with the program! Christ is coming, and boy is He pissed!

Vengeance is His, sayeth me.

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-12-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So could his family pursue a wrongful death claim against the state? Or not so much?

No damages. He's in a "better place" now. The state will be calling St. Peter as an expert.

Penske_Account · 07-12-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Except women. Who don't get to own their own bodies.

I listen to all these hard on cowboy wanna bes talk about "property rights" as though their deed is some god given compact. They're so fucking quick to say they can shoot people for intruding on their "property."

But when it comes to a woman's own body... well, shit. She's got no right to control it.

Seems pretty fucking inconsistent, even to me.

Not really. the right ends right about the place where another's right starts. Not that complicated.

bilmore · 07-12-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You are crazy and myopic.

I don't think he's myopic.

Penske_Account · 07-12-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Penske's culture of life at work. Good job, Jesus freaks!!

Keep mocking the faithful, the Republicans would like to hold the WH for the whole of the 21st century.

bilmore · 07-12-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Except women. Who don't get to own their own bodies.

I listen to all these hard on cowboy wanna bes talk about "property rights" as though their deed is some god given compact. They're so fucking quick to say they can shoot people for intruding on their "property."

But when it comes to a woman's own body... well, shit. She's got no right to control it.

Seems pretty fucking inconsistent, even to me.

One of the strongest arguments raised by the southern slave-owners who fought to keep their slaves was that they had invested lots and lots of money in them, and they owned them - they even had titles, and registries. Any attempt to divest them of their own property was unconstitutional. Taken on its face, alone, that assertion was correct.

They missed the fact that sometimes rights collide, and then we need to decide which one, in justice and fairness, trumps the other.

In that case, it was decided that, contrary to the slave owners' assertions, the slaves were actually people, with their own rights, and a claim of property right had to yield to a right to freedom from slavery.

bilmore · 07-12-2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No damages. He's in a "better place" now.

Not a high threshhold. He had been in Missouri.

Penske_Account · 07-12-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
One of the strongest arguments raised by the southern slave-owners who fought to keep their slaves was that they had invested lots and lots of money in them, and they owned them - they even had titles, and registries. Any attempt to divest them of their own property was unconstitutional. Taken on its face, alone, that assertion was correct.

They missed the fact that sometimes rights collide, and then we need to decide which one, in justice and fairness, trumps the other.

In that case, it was decided that, contrary to the slave owners' assertions, the slaves were actually people, with their own rights, and a claim of property right had to yield to a right to freedom from slavery.

So, am I following you correctly, even if one of these slaves was dependent in some way on a third party woman, it might still be an infringement on that slave's rights for the woman to stick a tube in his/her head and suck his/her brains out? Even if it was more convenient for the woman supporting the slave?

bilmore · 07-12-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
So, am I following you correctly, even if one of these slaves was dependent in some way on a third party woman, it might still be an infringement on that slave's rights for the woman to stick a tube in his/her head and suck his/her brains out? Even if it was more convenient for the woman supporting the slave?

See, I didn't say that, because I have sworn for eternity to never discuss that subject on the internet. I was merely recounting one small portion of abolition history.

But, um, yeah.