World Politics

[buckwheat]

i'm not talking about the willing participant, i'm talking about the cheated on spouse. why would money really make a difference? i think cheating is cheating.

Morally, I'd agree with you. From the perspective of the cheater, it really doesn't matter all that much at all. I think that it can even be argued that cheating on a wife is much worse than cheating in a sporting event. I mean, if you cork a baseball bat, fiddle with the restrictor plate in NASCAR, or you jack up, like many athletes, I think it could be argued that, cheating on your wife is much worse than those things.

From the perspective of the victims of the cheater, the damages can vary greatly, from emotional distress, to large monetary losses.

Legally, I don't think divorce courts generally take marital indiscretions into account, but with public figures, I may be wrong. With such a public flouting of his marital vows, I think Tiger may have opened himself up for a world of financial hurt he might have otherwise not faced.

What put Lance Armstrong in a whole new light for me, was the cheating and divorce from his wife. After I saw his lies there, I tended to look at his other public pronouncements with a more jaundiced eye.

In the case of Bill Clinton, his indiscretions were nobody's business except his wife's, but his lying about them wasn't material at all to the issue at hand in court and the judge ruled that way after completely screwing up and playing into the hands of Ken Starr and the "vast right wing conspiracy."

Look at the people going after Clinton. Gingrich, who was cheating on his wife with a staffer at the time, and Bob Livingston who was carrying on his own affairs. Larry Flynt showed more decency than any of them when Livingston's wife asked Flynt not to publish details of Livingston's affairs because they were trying to reconcile and Flynt complied.

According to Scott, Starr could have asked Clinton if he ate at McDonalds, and if Clinton was eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner there, under oath said he never ate there, and Starr had the McDonalds security tapes proving it, he would be guilty of perjury

 

[Anonymous]

Morally, I'd agree with you. From the perspective of the cheater, it really doesn't matter all that much at all. I think that it can even be argued that cheating on a wife is much worse than cheating in a sporting event. I mean, if you cork a baseball bat, fiddle with the restrictor plate in NASCAR, or you jack up, like many athletes, I think it could be argued that, cheating on your wife is much worse than those things.

From the perspective of the victims of the cheater, the damages can vary greatly, from emotional distress, to large monetary losses.

Legally, I don't think divorce courts generally take marital indiscretions into account, but with public figures, I may be wrong. With such a public flouting of his marital vows, I think Tiger may have opened himself up for a world of financial hurt he might have otherwise not faced.

What put Lance Armstrong in a whole new light for me, was the cheating and divorce from his wife. After I saw his lies there, I tended to look at his other public pronouncements with a more jaundiced eye.

In the case of Bill Clinton, his indiscretions were nobody's business except his wife's, but his lying about them wasn't material at all to the issue at hand in court and the judge ruled that way after completely screwing up and playing into the hands of Ken Starr and the "vast right wing conspiracy."

Look at the people going after Clinton. Gingrich, who was cheating on his wife with a staffer at the time, and Bob Livingston who was carrying on his own affairs. Larry Flynt showed more decency than any of them when Livingston's wife asked Flynt not to publish details of Livingston's affairs because they were trying to reconcile and Flynt complied.

According to Scott, Starr could have asked Clinton if he ate at McDonalds, and if Clinton was eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner there, under oath said he never ate there, and Starr had the McDonalds security tapes proving it, he would be guilty of perjury

You just couldn't resist...

Clinton did eat at McDonalds. He lied about that too. Don't you see??

A different take on the whole Lewinsky thing;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_26J3sXzl3g

 

[patricknd]

Morally, I'd agree with you. From the perspective of the cheater, it really doesn't matter all that much at all. I think that it can even be argued that cheating on a wife is much worse than cheating in a sporting event. I mean, if you cork a baseball bat, fiddle with the restrictor plate in NASCAR, or you jack up, like many athletes, I think it could be argued that, cheating on your wife is much worse than those things.

From the perspective of the victims of the cheater, the damages can vary greatly, from emotional distress, to large monetary losses.

Legally, I don't think divorce courts generally take marital indiscretions into account, but with public figures, I may be wrong. With such a public flouting of his marital vows, I think Tiger may have opened himself up for a world of financial hurt he might have otherwise not faced.

What put Lance Armstrong in a whole new light for me, was the cheating and divorce from his wife. After I saw his lies there, I tended to look at his other public pronouncements with a more jaundiced eye.

In the case of Bill Clinton, his indiscretions were nobody's business except his wife's, but his lying about them wasn't material at all to the issue at hand in court and the judge ruled that way after completely screwing up and playing into the hands of Ken Starr and the "vast right wing conspiracy."

Look at the people going after Clinton. Gingrich, who was cheating on his wife with a staffer at the time, and Bob Livingston who was carrying on his own affairs. Larry Flynt showed more decency than any of them when Livingston's wife asked Flynt not to publish details of Livingston's affairs because they were trying to reconcile and Flynt complied.

According to Scott, Starr could have asked Clinton if he ate at McDonalds, and if Clinton was eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner there, under oath said he never ate there, and Starr had the McDonalds security tapes proving it, he would be guilty of perjury

i myself always thought clinton should have told 'em to f*** off on the sex thing. like you i think that was between him and his angry wife. i wouldn't have wanted to be in those shoes.

 

[Oncearunner8]

What hypocritical puritanism in some of these statements about "corruption" and the so called laws of the land. I'd agree with Alpe in prefering this type of "corruption," over that of the lobbiests.

What male isn't a "dirtbag" given the chance? Especially men of great power? Go look back at Kennedy, who for many Americans was among the "best of US presidents" and who, at the time, represented all that was "wholesome" about the country, which should have been promoted as a model of virtue for the world. The reality is he transformed the White House into a bordello, though all were totally clueless about this back then. Many still are to this day. Even in the US democracy, up until a couple of decades ago, there was a tacit agreement between the US press and the politicians to not publish a politician's dalliances which had always been the order of the day since men and power got together. Now they, the dalliances, have hypocritically been exploited for the basest of political gains; and so have been transformed into weapons of mass destruction against the opposing side by making vile use of the innocent and puritanical American ethos, to scandalize everyone who is suceptable through sensationalizing sex. The private lives of people are thus turned into a beating-stick to ruin them. I have no problem with a politician being brought down, just not when it is fundamentally based upon his extra=marital affairs, which I could care less about, and hence connected to the repugnant puritanism which still thrives in a certain segment of Americana that's childish.

In regards to the so called exploited women, this too is often unjustifiably played up. Just as the men, when opportunity presents itself, become "dirtbags," so also do many women when interested in being in the sphere of power and its men, readilly become "*****s," and are actually thrilled to have slept with the president, are excited to have given the prime minister, who is natuarally a sex crazed maniac, a blow job. Which is something as old as Cleopatra and Julius Caesar. Therefore extremely mundane and thus boring.

well I am sure Buckwheat will enjoy this.

 

[Hugh Januss]

i'm not talking about the willing participant, i'm talking about the cheated on spouse. why would money really make a difference? i think cheating is cheating.

I agree, I was speaking from a legal point. Making big money while cheating in sports is fraud. Cheating on your wife is just being a jerk.

 

[buckwheat]

well I am sure Buckwheat will enjoy this.

I do enjoy his thoughts.

You missed my response above?

I don't completely agree with his perspective.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

so what is the difference between the athlete that cheats in sport and the fan that cheats on their spouse? is one any less than the other?

You're collapsing things. Look at it this way:

If Sports Hero cheats on his wife and lies about it, it's immoral and makes him look like a jerk. But it doesn't do a lot of harm to his sport, other than tarnishing it some. If Politician cheats on his wife and lies about it, it's pretty much the same, though maybe tarnishes the office he's in more.

However, if Sports Hero cheats others to win, sort of like Rosie Ruiz at the Boston Marathon, that's more in tune with what Watergate was about.

 

[rhubroma]

Almost all of our human drama's turn on the eternal conflict of desires of the flesh and aspirations of the spirit.

I understand what you're saying but I think you're missing the forest for the trees somewhat.

People will always be fascinated by "the face that launched a thousand ships" as they will always be fascinated by power and wealth and both the opportunities and pitfalls which each present.

The conflicts between the spirit and flesh will never be mundane. It is these paradoxes that make us human.

The "sin" of the right is that they believe they are above these things and the right wingers don't realize the sins which they are always railing against, rise from the heart, even their own hearts.

The problem with the left is that they see these things as mundane.

Huxley pointed out the danger of that in "Brave New World."

I was merely being a realist, which is ironic because I have been accused, on more than one ocassion here, of being an idealist. The truth is that power is sexy, or so it has been played-out to be by the establishment and the men (mostly) who make it up and the women who see it as an oportunity to turn desire (male) into a means of self-affirmation and political capital. And so it has been throughout all history. And since we can't even expect chastity from our priests, it isn't possible to expect like asceticism from our politicians unless the nature of power itself (and men and women in their relationship with power within the political order) were to change. To think otherwise is completely naive. In any case my concerns lie beyond the sphere of the bedroom when assessing those who govern us. It is that way in continental Europe. It is not always that way in the US.

And I disdane the moral hypocrisy associated with all these so called sex scandals and the way they have, as I have already mentioned, been made mere tools for political advancement. For this reason I have no problem with the left viewing such things as mundane, though I'm not sure this is really the case, because the alternative is the right's inquisition. Funny how more people got all riled up about a blow job with Clinton, than they ever seriously did about the war crimes of Bush while things were taking place. And I gaurantee you had the republicans nailed Clinton to the wall before the end of his first term for Monacagate (even the name is a serious indication of how it was viewed in America, comparing it, as it does, with Nixon's political crime), he'd never have been elected for a second term. By contrast the Iraq war broke out during Bush's first term, and he got re-elected alla grande as we say here in Italy.

So who isn't seeing the forest through the trees in this moral conflict Buckwheat?

 

[buckwheat]

I was merely being a realist, which is ironic because I have been accused, on more than one ocassion here, of being an idealist. The truth is that power is sexy, or so it has been played-out to be by the establishment and the men (mostly) who make it up and the women who see it as an oportunity to turn desire (male) into a means of self-affirmation and political capital. And so it has been throughout all history. And since we can't even expect chastity from our priests, it isn't possible to expect like asceticism from our politicians unless the nature of power itself were to change. To think otherwise is completely naive. In any case my concerns lie beyond the sphere of the bedroom when assessing those who govern us. It is that way in continental Europe. It is not always that way in the US.

And I disdane the moral hypocrisy associated with all these so called sex scandals and the way they have, as I have already mentioned, been made mere tools for political advancement. For this reason I have no problem with the left viewing such things as mundane, though I'm not sure this is really the case, because the alternative is the right's inquisition. Funny how more people got all riled up about a blow job with Clinton, than they ever seriously did about the war crimes of Bush. And I gaurantee you had the republicans nailed Clinten to the wall at the end of his first term for Monacagate (even the name is a serious indication of how it was viewed in America, comparing it as it does to Nixon's political crime), he'd never have been elected. By contrast the Iraq was broke out during Bush's first term, and he got re-elected alla grande as we say here in Italy.

So who isn't seeing the forest through the trees in this moral conflict Buckwheat?

I agree, GWB is certainly a criminal, and Clinton is not, at least not in regard to Monica. His behavior was appalling.

I'm very far to the left of Clinton btw.

I do have a problem with calling Clinton's behavior mundane and when we restrict the conversation to Clinton, I disagree with you in this area.

Of course GWB's crimes were sociopathic and obscene. I could not agree with you more on that.

 

[buckwheat]

You just couldn't resist...]

Had to respond to your take on perjury. No I couldn't resist.

Clinton did eat at McDonalds. He lied about that too. Don't you see??

All the people who weigh 300lbs, and say they are just eating salads are lying too. Doesn't make them bad people or criminals..

A different take on the whole Lewinsky thing;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_26J3sXzl3g

She was onto something, the same way his staff knew the Lewinsky rumors were true when they got a look at her. They knew his type.

 

[rhubroma]

I agree, GWB is certainly a criminal, and Clinton is not, at least not in regard to Monica. His behavior was appalling.

I'm very far to the left of Clinton btw.

I do have a problem with calling Clinton's behavior mundane and when we restrict the conversation to Clinton, I disagree with you in this area.

Of course GWB's crimes were sociopathic and obscene. I could not agree with you more on that.

Mundane in a sense to take the sensationalist aspect out of it, and because such behavior had always been really quite common until the press realized they could make profit from it by, indeed, sensationalizing it.

And what was Bubba supposed to have done? With a wife like that? Their's was a political marriage from the start, going back to his Arkansas governorship. The first to have not taken any notice, was Hillary. And the republicans could count on everyone else. And they were, of course, right in their calculations Buckwheat.

The only people scandalized, which was basically everyone, were those who were naive enough to have taken the marriage union seriously. Or the iconoclasts who hold as sacred the presidency, as if it could be befouled by voluptas.

 

[buckwheat]

Mundane in a sense to take the sensationalist aspect out of it, and because such behavior had always been really quite common until the press realized they could make profit from it by, indeed, sensationalizing it.

Well, we obviously all got here the same way.

Anyway, in no way am I subscribing to the Republican hypocrisy on the subject.

I do, however, think there is something to be said for the sanctity of marriage.

Monogamy is a worthwhile goal.

 

[rhubroma]

Well, we obviously all got here the same way.

Anyway, in no way am I subscribing to the Republican hypocrisy on the subject.

I do, however, think their is something to be said for the sanctity of marriage.

Monogamy is a worthwhile goal.

Indeed, goal. Though not every marriage is worthwhile. It is certainly a common marriage goal, though not one shared by all married couples.

And not all marriages are to be considered within the realm of sanctity, as was the case with the Clinton marriage, of which both protagonists knew and understood the terms of the pact, of what was at stake, and so forth.

I know it sounds like I'm playing the side of moral relativism, though something as complex as human relationships can't be framed within the confines of notions like fidelity, sanctity, nor even love. In other words, the choices made must always be contextualized within the nature of each arrangement, Buckwheat. So that if I were to say marry so-and-so for romantic love, then I'd by a hypocrite to desecrate the union through my infidelity, if I were to have expected as much sincerity from my partner. Though what if I had married for social status and economic reason, or political convenience, the way all marriages used to be before the late XIX century, when a new concept of social mobilty and progress consented that romance, mere physical and emotional attraction, could become primary reasons for a marriage?

We think this something to be as old as the hills, though it is in fact a relative historical novelty. And often doesn't even work-out in the end. Yet the Clinton's are still married, which is ironic

 

[patricknd]

You're collapsing things. Look at it this way:

If Sports Hero cheats on his wife and lies about it, it's immoral and makes him look like a jerk. But it doesn't do a lot of harm to his sport, other than tarnishing it some. If Politician cheats on his wife and lies about it, it's pretty much the same, though maybe tarnishes the office he's in more.

However, if Sports Hero cheats others to win, sort of like Rosie Ruiz at the Boston Marathon, that's more in tune with what Watergate was about.

from a moral standpoint it's all really the same. gratification is the goal, be it money, fame, or orgasm.

 

[Oncearunner8]

Mundane in a sense to take the sensationalist aspect out of it, and because such behavior had always been really quite common until the press realized they could make profit from it by, indeed, sensationalizing it.

And what was Bubba supposed to have done? With a wife like that? Their's was a political marriage from the start, going back to his Arkansas governorship. The first to have not taken any notice, was Hillary. And the republicans could count on everyone else. And they were, of course, right in their calculations Buckwheat.

The only people scandalized, which was basically everyone, were those who were naive enough to have taken the marriage union seriously. Or the iconoclasts who hold as sacred the presidency, as if it could be befouled by voluptas.

Some serious lack of respect shown in this post.

 

[rhubroma]

Some serious lack of respect shown in this post.

Respect's got nothing to do with it, nor does dis-respect. We just go with with what we're given, in an objective analysis, without picking sides, always objective, and not afraid to state things as we have seen them and how we've understood them based on what we have read and interpreted; while always using our best critical judgment wthout fear of taboos and seeming ridiculous, so as not to be hypocritical Oncearunner. Should we do otherwise?

 

[Anonymous]

Respect's got nothing to do with it, nor does dis-respect. We just go with with what we're given, in an objective analysis, without picking sides, always objective, and not afraid to state things as we have seen them and how we've understood them based on what we have read and interpreted; while always using our best critical judgment wthout fear of taboos and seeming ridiculous, so as not to be hypocritical Oncearunner. Should we do otherwise?

Lessee, you savage Americans and American culture, you savage American conservatism, you make frequent use of sweeping generalizations ("the way all marriages used to be before the late XIX century"), you qualify motives for which people enter into marriage to justify subsequent actions, err, ahem, the choices made must always be contextualized within the nature of each arrangement ... meanwhile you claim to be "always objective" always using "our best critical judgment" so as "not to be hypocritical" and you preface this all with the denial of applying a moral relativism.

Should we do otherwise indeed.

 

[Oncearunner8]

Respect's got nothing to do with it, nor does dis-respect. We just go with with what we're given, in an objective analysis, without picking sides, always objective, and not afraid to state things as we have seen them and how we've understood them based on what we have read and interpreted; while always using our best critical judgment wthout fear of taboos and seeming ridiculous, so as not to be hypocritical Oncearunner. Should we do otherwise?

You seem in my opinion to have no respect for the United States or the President of the United States. You and buckwheat call for one former president to be thrown in Jail. That is just odd for me. Then again I have a good friend (maybe I can call him that) on this message board that sort-a shares your opinion regarding jail. For me I cannot think of such nonsense considering the actions of other leaders across the world even as I post this.

If the collection of people from all over the world does not work here in the United States of America then where do you suggest we start? Maybe Italia? Oh there was that little thing with Mussolini never mind. I forgot about that. Then maybe we should start with China? I hear they are seriously open to immigration.

 

[buckwheat]

You seem in my opinion to have no respect for the United States..

I have respect for the explicit ideals set out in the Declaration of Independence and the laws articulated in the Constitution.

We've been very hypocritical with respect to both of those documents.

You know, all men are created equal but MLK stating the obvious that blacks have been issued a check which has been returned due to insufficienct funds.

Illegal wars, slaughter of millions with carpet bombing, toppling the duly elected leaders of other countries and installing tyrants. Stuff like that.

or the President of the United States..

Was Nixon a crook or not? Even he recognized the possibility. GWB was far worse. I can't believe you're still on this exhibiting your curious attitude toward these things. It's a nation of laws bro, not men.

You and buckwheat call for one former president to be thrown in Jail...

He lied to start a war in which tens of thousands of human beings were killed.

That is just odd for me....

Maybe you have to do some pondering and contemplation and not act reflexivly.

Then again I have a good friend (maybe I can call him that) on this message board that sort-a shares your opinion regarding jail. ...

Well, if he's a friend, open your mind and listen to him without feeling the need to argue a point. Empathy. You still may not agree, but try it.

For me I cannot think of such nonsense considering the actions of other leaders across the world even as I post this..

GWB is supposed to be a Christian. A Christian's behavior follows moral absolutes. It doesn't matter if the whole world is going to hell, you do the right, Christian thing. This guy had no reservations at all about a war that he thinks God told him to start. It's obscene.

If the collection of people from all over the world does not work here in the United States of America then where do you suggest we start? Maybe Italia? Oh there was that little thing with Mussolini never mind. I forgot about that. Then maybe we should start with China? I hear they are seriously open to immigration.

You really should base your aspirations on an ideal rather than moral relativism. We're supposed to be the leaders here. Maybe our hypocrisy is fueling a lot of the nonsense in the world?

 

[Oncearunner8]

I have respect for the explicit ideals set out in the Declaration of Independence and the laws articulated in the Constitution.

We've been very hypocritical with respect to both of those documents.

You know, all men are created equal but MLK stating the obvious that blacks have been issued a check which has been returned due to insufficienct funds.

Illegal wars, slaughter of millions with carpet bombing, toppling the duly elected leaders of other countries and installing tyrants. Stuff like that.




Was Nixon a crook or not? Even he recognized the possibility. GWB was far worse. I can't believe you're still on this exhibiting your curious attitude toward these things. It's a nation of laws bro, not men.





He lied to start a war in which tens of thousands of human beings were killed.




Maybe you have to do some pondering and contemplation and not act reflexivly.




Well, if he's a friend, open your mind and listen to him without feeling the need to argue a point. Empathy. You still may not agree, but try it.




GWB is supposed to be a Christian. A Christian's behavior follows moral absolutes. It doesn't matter if the whole world is going to hell, you do the right, Christian thing. This guy had no reservations at all about a war that he thinks God told him to start. It's obscene.



You really should base your aspirations on an ideal rather than moral relativism. We're supposed to be the leaders here. Maybe our hypocrisy is fueling a lot of the nonsense in the world?

Perfect. I have buckwheat trying to speak on Christians and their morals, etc. WTF
Have fun with your generalizations and lack of respect.
I would say more but it would just be a personal attack against you.
Next time try not to ATTEMPT schooling someone! Now go back to your cabin.
BTW I like how you just ripped up that post in order to TRY and make your points.

 

[buckwheat]

Perfect. I have buckwheat trying to speak on Christians and their morals, etc. WTF
Have fun with your generalizations and lack of respect.
I would say more but it would just be a personal attack against you.
Next time try not to ATTEMPT schooling someone! Now go back to your cabin.
BTW I like how you just ripped up that post in order to TRY and make your points.

You're a very angry man.....Laugh bro....


Why shouldn't I speak on Christians? GWB clearly is not one, or you think he is?

Feel free to personally attack me, but back it up with substance and maybe I can learn something. Maybe not, but I'm not fragile.

I touched a nerve?

 

[Hugh Januss]

OK you guys, you know what? I feel like I am right in the effing middle here. I agree with parts of what each of you say (ok maybe not Scott so much except of course in the beer thread) but WTF. Rhubroma do you ever read over what you just typed before you hit submit? OAR do you really think being President of the USA exempts you from being indicted for lying to get us into a war? Buckwheat, I don't know, when I see one of your posts where you have broken down every point (?) that someone has made, and answered each individually, my eyes just glaze over. TFF, usually pretty right on, but what a freekin fuse you have. ChrisE, well all I can say is, stay crazy man.
Most of this post was meant in fun, but really can't we disagree without insulting? Except of course when Robert shows up with his survivalist theories. Then it's on.

 

[Anonymous]

I have respect for the explicit ideals set out in the Declaration of Independence and the laws articulated in the Constitution.

We've been very hypocritical with respect to both of those documents.

You know, all men are created equal but MLK stating the obvious that blacks have been issued a check which has been returned due to insufficienct funds.

Illegal wars, slaughter of millions with carpet bombing, toppling the duly elected leaders of other countries and installing tyrants. Stuff like that.




Was Nixon a crook or not? Even he recognized the possibility. GWB was far worse. I can't believe you're still on this exhibiting your curious attitude toward these things. It's a nation of laws bro, not men.





He lied to start a war in which tens of thousands of human beings were killed.




Maybe you have to do some pondering and contemplation and not act reflexivly.




Well, if he's a friend, open your mind and listen to him without feeling the need to argue a point. Empathy. You still may not agree, but try it.




GWB is supposed to be a Christian. A Christian's behavior follows moral absolutes. It doesn't matter if the whole world is going to hell, you do the right, Christian thing. This guy had no reservations at all about a war that he thinks God told him to start. It's obscene.



You really should base your aspirations on an ideal rather than moral relativism. We're supposed to be the leaders here. Maybe our hypocrisy is fueling a lot of the nonsense in the world?

Hmmmm. Let's play 'count the criminals'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs

Bill Clinton, check.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc&feature=related

Al "he played on our fears" Gore, check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH93UlGHBfk&feature=related

John "swiftboat" Kerry, check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDJRBOsj78&feature=related

Nancy "there all nazis" Pelosi, check.

Madeline Albright, Howard 'yeeehawwww" Dean, Sandy "I really did stuff those archives down my pants" Berger, Jay "WTF" Rockefeller, Joe "I don't do nothin' " Biden, Harry "I can make that real estate deal fly under the radar" Reid, Hillary Clinton, John "I ain't the father" Edwards, check, check and double check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjcofMFHsA&feature=related


Put all these MF'ers in jail I say... all of 'em.

 

[Anonymous]

OK you guys, you know what? I feel like I am right in the effing middle here. I agree with parts of what each of you say (ok maybe not Scott so much except of course in the beer thread) but WTF. Rhubroma do you ever read over what you just typed before you hit submit? OAR do you really think being President of the USA exempts you from being indicted for lying to get us into a war? Buckwheat, I don't know, when I see one of your posts where you have broken down every point (?) that someone has made, and answered each individually, my eyes just glaze over. TFF, usually pretty right on, but what a freekin fuse you have. ChrisE, well all I can say is, stay crazy man.
Most of this post was meant in fun, but really can't we disagree without insulting? Except of course when Robert shows up with his survivalist theories. Then it's on.

So does this mean we are no longer BFF?

I'm hurt...

 

[Hugh Januss]

Hmmmm. Let's play 'count the criminals'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs

Bill Clinton, check.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc&feature=related

Al "he played on our fears" Gore, check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH93UlGHBfk&feature=related

John "swiftboat" Kerry, check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDJRBOsj78&feature=related

Nancy "there all nazis" Pelosi, check.

Madeline Albright, Howard 'yeeehawwww" Dean, Sandy "I really did stuff those archives down my pants" Berger, Jay "WTF" Rockefeller, Joe "I don't do nothin' " Biden, Harry "I can make that real estate deal fly under the radar" Reid, Hillary Clinton, John "I ain't the father" Edwards, check, check and double check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjcofMFHsA&feature=related


Put all these MF'ers in jail I say... all of 'em.

You are not really trying to say that any of this penny-anti bullcrap compares in any way to lying us into a war that bankrupts our entire country, not to mention killing thousands of our sons.