Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

With an embrace of absolutist reasoning to further your argument? Of course you would think so.

Speaking of Clinton . . .
 

For the same reason I thought Martha Stewart got railroaded, I agree with Ms. Hutchinson here. I think that, when one is investigating a crime, it's hardly sporting to find no crime, but then prosecute one for deficiencies in answering questions posed in the pursuit of the noncrime.

Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

(a) You misunderstand, Mr. Penske.

(b) It did not change my view of Clinton much because by the time I read the Broderick interview I had long since concluded that he was a deeply flawed and in many ways probably a lousy human being. I did not vote for him in 1996, because I had long since decided that he would do or say anything to be elected.

(c) That said, there are a limited number of choices each cycle as to who can possibly be the President of the United States. You have a choice -- who do I want to govern our country from this bunch. Whether they are shitty human beings is only part of the equation. There is also the whole party that comes with them, policy issues, etc.

(d) I am very pleased that Bill Clinton was President from 1992-2000 as opposed to any of his GOP opponents or even any of the GOP primary contenders. I would have voted for him over Bush in 2000 had he been running.

(e) Let's not get into rape hypotheticals involving my family members. Of the four candidates you have listed, two of them have been violently raped.

(f) If you can truly summon such tremendous personal outrage over such 25 year old (alleged) crimes involving people you do not know [and which (as alleged), while very bad, were not near the extremes]) you are either unbalanced or have lived an extraordinarily sheltered life.

(g) If you are not truly so outraged, then your displays here are all the more tasteless, and even less excusable.

S_A_M

Speaking of Clinton . . .
 

Agreed, although poor Martha was prosecuted for a statement that wasn't even made under oath.

Speaking of Clinton . . .
 

I agree. It cheapens the whole investigation.

I hope he lets them all off, but in doing so, offers up a report stating that, based on what he found along the way, it appears the Neocons ginned up a phony basis for the Iraq War.

Fitzgerald could start the impeachment now.

Achtung!
 

where do sebby and NB stand on the Clinton perjury thingy?

Speaking of Clinton . . .
 

Careful, Bilmore, or Penske may start frothing at you too. [My sincerest apologies for lapsing into the PoPD.]

Depends on what you means by a "deficiency."

S_A_M

Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

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.

Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

On NewsMax.com, anything but missionary style for the sole purpose of having children is rape.

Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

Michael Jackson has children all the time, and I doubt his position during the act buys him any forgiveness.

Achtung!
 

Oh, it was perjury. And they were right not to bother trying to prosecute that damned silly thing.

The Clinton thing showed that the law has limits. People just won't stand for nailing a guy to cross for lying in the face of a political witchhunt over something utterly irrelevant.

For that reason, I hope nobody gets charged with perjury in this Libby/Rovegate. I don't want the Right to adopt a mantle of "We were the party rightly voted to power, brought down by conniving Democratic elitists..."

Achtung!
 

I would be good with them releasing copies of statements made by Libby and Rove that they later admitted were lies, without actually charging them with anything.

Is Scooter as creepy as Karl?

Achtung!
 

Agreed.

No. Scooter is a stumpy Napoleonish prick.

Achtung!
 

How would you describe Rove's prickishness?

Monica, you have nice hair.
 

That living with his very pissed off wife was punishment enough.

Monica, you have nice hair.
 

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

Monica, you have nice hair.
 

But better looking.

Monica, you have nice hair.
 

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.

Achtung!
 

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.

Monica, you have nice hair.
 

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.

Achtung!
 

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

And Cheney.

And Rumsfeld.

And Ashcroft.

Monica, you have nice hair.
 

Uh, flip that. I think.

Monica, you have nice hair.
 

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

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

Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

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

Monica, you have nice hair.
 

Yeah. Fringey caught it, too. Thanks.

Sorry, honey.

Monica, you have nice hair.
 

Been nice knowing you, Not Bob.

Proposition 2
 

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?

Proposition 2
 

Uh, where's the verb in that statement?

Proposition 2
 

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.

Proposition 2
 

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?

Proposition 2
 

I know what they're up to, I just don't think it's clear from what they've written.

Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

Maybe yes, maybe no.



I guess it's no. I think our country is enlightened, educated and based on a communal moral foundation to be of a collective judgment, inherently, that having a man, any man, of any party, who rapes and violently beats a woman and is a serial sexual abuser of subordinate (NPI) woman in the workplace, as president or a presidential candidate is wrong. Maybe I am naive or anachronistic in my outlook but I think we should have enough collective moral clarity to look at that one and say there is no justification for someone with so little character or such a vile immoral character to be president. Unfortunately the 4th Estate punted on its duty to raise the issues in a timely manner for the electorate to truly be able to assess them. Further, the government has never truly examined the abuse of process and intimidation that the Clintons engaged in result in Broaddrick sitting on her rights at the time of the rape.

And maybe I have too. You have no way of knowing. For my part regardless of whether I do or not, I have enough respect for the rule of law to advocate that an injustice and infringement of a fellow citizens rights,m such as occured with Broaddrick or Willey et al, has no place in America and I feely duly passionate about that.

so what you saying is that any of the prosecutions in recent times for past civil rights violations (eg Byron De la beckwith et al) are the result of people who are either unbalanced or have lived an extraordinarily sheltered life? Why? We live in a country of laws, we are lawyers, why shouldn't we advocate that justice be served?

I do not understand the process by which you arrive at such conclusions. Someone was raped and the rapist not only walks around with no conseuqence but has his spokespeople mock the victim. Again I would ask how you would like it if the victim here was a close family member? And if you would be outraged, why is your outrage limited to just family members? Shouldn't our laws protect all of us, whether they are related to us or not? Should we all, and especially lawyers, advocate for such process?

Interesting morality you exhibit. Clinton's a rapist, but it's been 25 years since he wasn't punished for it so I am a tasteless asshole for pointing it out. Maybe to reform my image I should emulate Clinton.

Poll: If I throw my secretary up against the wall of my office and thrust one hand up her skirt and one hand up blouse and fondle her feminine parts will all of all y'all who voted for Clinton vote for me too?

Proposition 2
 

I don't think it's clear at all that's what they're up to.

Or rather, clearly they want to ban gay marriage. I think there is also an effect in the language to ban giving martial-like status to non-marriages (i.e. extending benefits to heterosexual non-married life partners and/or common law spouses).

Unlike RT, however, I don't think this is accidental at all - I think it doesn't displease the religious right one bit to outlaw living in sin, hetero or homo. But then again, I'm more cynical than RT when it comes to Texas politics. While it is clearly possible, or even likely, that Hanlon's Razor applies, I wouldn't put it past a committee of Texas Republicans in a smokey room (actually, probably a clean as a whistle sunday school room in a church basement) having actually thought this through.

Proposition 2
 

Where are you getting this from the language? It talks about gov't's creating/recognizing certain relationships, not about where people live.

Proposition 2
 

"a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage"

i.e., "You, City of Round Rock, may not grant health care benefits to the non-spousal heterosexual domestic parters of your employees, because they are FORNICATORS."

ETA: Yeah, I'm a little slow. Whiff. Sin, Texas. That's just outside of Brady, right?

Proposition 2
 

do any companies grant benefits to non-spousal heterosexual domestic partners?

Proposition 2
 

I seem to recall Apple doing so in Austin, which I think also pressured Dell to do so, since they fish in the same talent pool. Of course, that was back in the heyday. I'm not sure Apple still has a significant Austin presence. And you can't swing a dead pair of Tevas in Austin these days without hitting an unemployed computer geek.

Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

What am I technically?

Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

One of the babyjesi. S_A_M has just presciently identified that you are in denial but your inner little Sebby is calling out to be saved.

Let the Lord hug you Sebby......

http://www.bismarcksda.org/Jesus-hug.jpg

Stop Rape! BREAKING!!!!
 

Dogs go to heaven? And if so, don't other animals? And if so don't they have to be thinking beings? and if so, should we be eating them?