Elsewhere on BeldarBlog -- where baiting Senators is a way of life -- Beldar is begging Senator Kerry to sue him:
I'll waive any statute of limitations defense. I'll waive service of process. Hell, I'll meet you at the federal courthouse doors for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (you have diversity jurisdiction), and I'll even pay your filing fee!I love the part about diversity jurisdiction. We need more blogging about jurisdiction....
पोस्ट्स
१०५ टिप्पण्या:
Obama said: "But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."
But someone else will have to do it, eh Barack?
Can't anyone in this government do anything principled?What really floors me is that he thinks nothing of putting this on the record. Incredible.
"We need more blogging about jurisdiction...."
Quite - but apparently, less teaching of it. CivPro is being cut down in some schools, displaced by among other things ConLaw (acceptable, but barely) and international/comparative law (astonishing). Not to worry, they'll learn jurisdiction in FedCourts! Unless, of course, that's an elective. Wait...
"Obama knew he should vote for Roberts' confirmation, but voted against for purely political reasons."
He writes that as if it's a surprising thing. The Democrats have been playing the political card to trump everything else --including sterling credentials-- ever since the Bork nomination in 1987. When it comes to Roberts, why single out Obama? He was by no means the only one. Roberts was confirmed by a vote of 78-22. All 22 nays were Democrats, so that means that twenty-one other Democrats, including Hillary and Joe Biden, also allowed petty partisanship to be their trump card in the Roberts confirmation vote.
Discredit the messenger if you don't like the message.
Count the votes, and keep counting, till your favorite candidate wins!
Althouse should make plans to move to California:
http://www.law.uci.edu/
Zeb-
Because one instance makes a story but 22 just makes statistics. And nobody cares what Biden does. Besides, Clinton, Biden, et al, could have not come to the same conclusion as Obama. They could have concluded that Roberts should not have been confirmed.
"Obama knew he should vote for Roberts' confirmation, but voted against for purely political reasons."
So in other words, he was for Roberts before he was against him.
Outside of the clueless 20 something voter who thinks he's 'so cooool!', I don't think any serious dem voter sees anything more than an empty suit. The more he opens his mouth, the better Hillary looks.
Hoosier Daddy said...
"Outside of the clueless 20 something voter who thinks [Obama]'s 'so cooool!', I don't think any serious dem voter sees anything more than an empty suit."
One hopes not. As Richard Posner aptly said of another man called Barak, his rhetoric and abstractions are "as empty as they are lofty."
SHOCKING!!!
Voting for political reasons.
I don't suppose ANY Republicans have based their judicial votes on...oh, abortion...guns...?
What a joke.
Stop the presses! Senators cast their votes with an eye on politics? Who knew! I am so disillusioned
The next thing you know...they'll be voting along party lines.
Good Lord...
LOS - I thought about commenting on this earlier, but declined; I suppose I should have done. It mischaracterizes this to say that Obama voted for purely political reasons; that's too generous to Obama. He changed his vote for personal gain. That's not politics, IMO, it's corruption; that votes rather than money was involved is of no matter. And that's the real problem here: the disconnect between a senator who touts his desire to change Washington politics who is in fact every bit as dirty as everyone else in the swamp.
Off subject but I wanted people to know that Michael Vick has found...Jesus.
Off subject but I wanted people to know that Michael Vick has found...Jesus.
If only he had found rehab first, he'd be forgiven and not have to go to jail.
I think he's a scumbag myself but until Paris and Lindsey do some time, I don't think he should spend one day in jail.
Not really surprising that Kerry is letting the statute of limitation, even in plaintiff friendly Mass. As some commenters at Beldar pointed out:
Interestingly enough I think Kerry could win such a claim in Suffolk County. It's a very liberal jurisdiction. His problem is discovery.
Jane, you're dead right. Discovery of why his citations on his medals were signed by a later Secretary of the Navy, and a final view of why a Navy Review Board granted him a discharge, years after he should have originally had one, would be fatal, and show him up to be the liar he is.
I think it hysterical that after suffering through 7 years of perhaps the most moronic president in our history some GOP loyalists try and pick a fight over Obama's speaking ability.
Get in line gentlemen. The ship of fools sets sail pretty soon.
Obama Frost:
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one most traveled by,
And that has erased any difference."
I think it hysterical that after suffering through 7 years of perhaps the most moronic president in our history some GOP loyalists try and pick a fight over Obama's speaking ability.
I don't think anyone questions his ability to articulate his thoughts. He's spot on in that department. It's the substance of what he says that shows him to be the political lightweight he is.
He may be able to pronounce nuclear and Pak-ee-stan, but outside of that he leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe leave the meatier concepts to Richardson or even Hillary. Obama is a good cheerleader but he ain't a coach.
Pogo,
I thought we were on Tennyson and now you're switching to Frost?
I'd almost finished my "Charge of the Right Brigade", too....
Pogo Spinks:
"Where be my crack?"
Hoosier Daddy,
Yeah, how could we EVER replace the genius in the White House right now?
LOS: that stubborn stain on the internet's underpants.
Hoosier Daddy,
Yeah, how could we EVER replace the genius in the White House right now?
Hey Luckster, this may come as a complete shock to you, but Bush isnt' running again. He's going to be replaced in 2008 so control yourself.
Bush may not be the smartest person to hold the office but he certainly is smarter than the two losers you guys put up against him in two elections. Two elections that were simply yours to lose and by your own admission, the dumbest man on the face of the planet beat them both.
I guess that simply means we were presented with dumb and dumber and went with the better of the two.
Seriously, what does that say about your own party? Here you claim Bush is the worst, most incompetent president to hold office, yet has pretty much done what he's wanted and after 7 years, you hold only the thinnest majority in the house after the last election. If that's what an incompetent GOP president can do, then I'd try a new line of argument cause your current one only makes your side look more pathetic.
Luckyoldson said...
Pogo Spinks:
"Where be my crack?"
I'm trying to get Luckyoldson's humor here. Racist? Classist? Or just generic juvenile humorlessness?
Well said, Simon.
Luckyoldson said...
Yeah, how could we EVER replace the genius in the White House right now?
It shouldn't be hard. Without Karl Rove, there's no way can win in 2008. He hasn't even started campaigning yet! I swear, he couldn't find his ass with both hands.
Federal Jurisdiction is much more worthy of a law student's time than is a second semester of Civil Procedure. It's easier to learn a bunch of rules later in life than to learn the entire policy behind the existence of Article III courts.
At least, that's what I'm telling myself, since Ann's FJ class satisfied my CivProII req...
Why does anyone still care about John Kerry's war record? He's not running for president. He's safe in his district, probably for the rest of his life. It doesn't make sense.
He is one ugly mofo-look at that beard and that smile....thanks' for sending the link. No one can possibly do him, can they?
Now I know about some guy name Uncle something or the other from Cheeseland and some fat f..k name Beldar.
Classy group.
Simon - One hopes not. As Richard Posner aptly said of another man called Barak, his rhetoric and abstractions are "as empty as they are lofty."
That was quite good, Simon.
The problem as I see it is that Obama is running around saying "new vision, audacity, abandoning the old guard and old ways of Washington" is why he will be a great President as well as the anti-Iraq vote Lefty activist Congresswoman and Obama mentor Jan Schadowsky urged all in her former Illinois State Senate digs to make.
Then the audacious, but inexperienced President-in-waiting articulately explains how two of his 3 most important votes -SCOTUS confirmations - were going one way, until wise old hands from the wise old guard in DC told him how to vote correctly....
Hell of a change agent this conventional "How does Teddy and John Kerry see this vote coming up??" young liberal man is.
When Biden was a young articulate man and change agent when he arrived in the Senate 30 years ago, at least he (mostly) did his own speechwriting and votes...
Justin said...
Why does anyone still care about John Kerry's war record? He's not running for president. He's safe in his district, probably for the rest of his life. It doesn't make sense.
Perhaps because it will take the last Vietnam Vet dying and being put in the ground before questions of Kerry's dishonesty and treachery against the Navy and the Country cease to be an important matter.
"Classy group."
I love that a tit-groping, foul-mouthed sexual invert is judging someone else's classiness...
Prof. A: Thanks for the links.
LuckyOlsen (@ 12:40pm): There's no doubt that both parties' presidents have, for many decades, nominated judges whose judicial philosophies matched the presidents' political preferences.
The issue is whether those presidents' political opponents in the senate are acting honorably and ethically in voting against an otherwise qualified nominee based solely on those political concerns, as Obama has admitted in this WaPo article.
Republican senators haven't been blameless in this regard, particularly with respect to some of Clinton's district and circuit court nominees. But on the other hand, compare the confirmation margins of two nominees who both had objectively superb qualifications: Ruth Bader Ginsberg (96/3) and John Roberts (78/22). Justice Ginsberg was the complete opposite of a "stealth" nominee, having served nearly a decade as a board member and general counsel to the ACLU. She nevertheless received overwhelming support from Republican senators who put honor and duty over partisan politics.
Beldar said...
"There's no doubt that both parties' presidents have, for many decades, nominated judges whose judicial philosophies matched the presidents' political preferences."
Clarification: they've tried. Not always succeeded. ;) Usually that failure's for the worse, but not always. ;)
It's worth noting at this juncture that Bush has appointed many fewer judges than Clinton.
Simon,
Eat me (if your hot)-but my sense is your not.
"Yeah, how could we EVER replace the genius in the White House right now?"
Exactly which genius candidate would be any better? Truth be known, bad as he is, the country would be better off with five more years of Bush than any one of the unqualified clowns now running.
I agree with Meade only that I wish Bush could remain president indefinitely. The country would be safer and better hands than any of the current candidates running for president.
Beldar sniveled:
"Justice Ginsberg was the complete opposite of a "stealth" nominee, having served nearly a decade as a board member and general counsel to the ACLU. She nevertheless...."
ACLU means what to you? American...hmmm ok. Civil Liberties....ok. Union...probably standing together as Americans to do something with civil liberties....hmmmm
Sounds really god-awful to me. Would you care to answer, up or down, if you are for or against civil liberties. Go ahead.
While I didn't have Althouse for Civ Pro, I recall that you can't waive diversity jurisdiction. If the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (usually either a federal controversy or diversity of citizenship + claim worth >$75K), then the court has to dismiss.
In theory, hdhouse, I would applaud everything the ACLU does based on the ideals behind their name.
In theory, I would applaud everything CAIR does based on what the words of their name mean.
In theory, I would find nothing objectionable with Focus on the Family.
In theory, a pro-life person would be behind a group called Planned Parenthood.
Nearly all of the far right radical groups include in their names or mission statements "liberty".
Andrew Dice Clay has a nice routine about the difference between theory and reality.
You might want to watch it, laugh, but also learn.
You want jurisdiction? Bates v. C&S Adjusters, 980 F2d 865 (2d Cir. 1992).
Justin said..."Why does anyone still care about John Kerry's war record? He's not running for president."
Are you kidding??????????????
You think these morons are going to talk about Bush's record??????
This is called "misdirection."
Bush good...all other...bad.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men's public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.
Why is is the Democrats like to fuck you women...and the Republicans favor young..BOYS?
Family values???
Patrick said...
" While I didn't have Althouse for Civ Pro, I recall that you can't waive diversity jurisdiction. If the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (usually either a federal controversy or diversity of citizenship + claim worth >$75K), then the court has to dismiss."
Jurisdiction is always a threshold question in federal court. If it doesn't exist, the suit must be dismissed. So throughout the litigation, you have to have standing, and you have to have either a federal question or full diversity of parties with at least $75k in contention.
Luckyoldson said...
"Why is is the Democrats like to fuck you women...and the Republicans favor young..BOYS?"
Quite a broad assertion, that... And for that matter, I assume you don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality, which largely prices you out of this argument. This is intramural, stay out of it.
Larry Craig even knows bathroom/tea room trading etiquette:
"At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot..."
I love gay sex as well as any fag but no self respecting faggot would be caught dead in a public restroom. These venues are for the self-hating republican sleaze bags who preach family values in one breath while trying to get some in a public restroom.
And who in their right mind would actually do Larry Craig? He looks like that creepy guy that came to the families door from Poltergeist.
When you republicans going to get over your self-hate and just come out. Granted, Larry Craig, would have a difficult time finding a gay partner because he is evil and disgusting looking but it is better than doing it in a bathroom for christ sakes. And what can you actually do sexually in a busy airport public bathroom?
Simon I have no problem with homosexuality. I participate in it frequently.
I do have a problem with a self hating hypocritcal republican liar trying to have sex in a public bathroom with anyone. This is solicitation and sleazy.
Get a room or at least a cab and do it with someone that is consensual. Reaching your hand under a stall is not consensual. Granted, I am not one would want to see Larry Craig naked but there are venues where he can go have sex with another man in a more consensual manner-like an adult bookstore or bath house where the individuals there go there for that shit=not the Minneapolis Airport Bathroom. He also did it with guys in Union Station as reported years ago.
It's amazing that republicans validate the behavior on behalf on scumbags like Larry Craig.
If this was a democrat they would have a field day.
Simon says: "And for that matter, I assume you don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality, which largely prices you out of this argument."
No, I don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality...period.
What does that inane comment have to do with what I said??
You're not that bright, are you?
Henhouse - ACLU means what to you? American...hmmm ok. Civil Liberties....ok. Union...probably standing together as Americans to do something with civil liberties....hmmmm
Ooooooo! So Communists and Front groups mean just what they say when they name their organizations? Like "People's Advancement Squads" of Jews and Russians liquidating Ukranians 1922-23? The "collective workers squads advancing modernism and equality" that were actually White Sea Canal slave squads?
Great!
Then the American (patriots all) Communist (equal help, justice, we are all together teamwork!!!) Party (team together enjoying themselves) - was a force for good!
Henhouse -Sounds really god-awful to me. Would you care to answer, up or down, if you are for or against civil liberties. Go ahead.
Why, Suuuure, Henhouse! Right after you do some word-parsing for me:
FinalFar better than temporary or indeterminate!
Solution Isn't it great that like the ACLU, other groups seek solutions!
to the Great use of linguistic connectors!
Jewish Ahhh, the target group that needs the determinative fix!
ProblemIsn't it great that people pitch in together to achieve final solutions to problems!
cedar-head,
Are you saying you're opposed to the ACLU?
Cedarford is an old fart that never gets it and as a result is a miserable racist, homphobic piece of grab.
Interesting, the enlightened independent voices that populate this independent site.
Did you guys all know that Althouse voted for Russ Feingold? I think her choice was some republican named....oh never mind. She's independent dammit.
It's good to have commenters like Cedarford to reinforce an indpendent like environment here.
Also, rumor has it Cedarford has a small dick that he can't see because his stomach is so fat.
Titus15 said...
"Simon I have no problem with homosexuality. I participate in it frequently."
And we care about this because...? Who you diddle isn't something that occupies much thinking time for anyone except you. So self-involved...What is it with you people? New Yorkers, I mean.
Luckyoldson said...
"No, I don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality...period. What does that inane comment have to do with what I said??"
If you don't think homosexual sexual conduct is wrong, then you can't object when someone - e.g. some yawnsome Senator - indulges in it.
Living in NYC being self interested is a state of mind. It is a competitive city and you always have to be your best intellectually and physically. Sex is incredibly powerful in this city and we thrive on it.
You call it self obsessed I call it a NYC state of mind.
You just don't understand...
But if you were hot and had a nice ass maybe I would care..otherwise, you are nothing.
And my sense is Simon who you probably look like a cross between Uncle Cheesehead and Beldhar-unfuckable in my world.
If you don't think homosexual sexual conduct is wrong, then you can't object when someone - e.g. some yawnsome Senator - indulges in it.
I don't object to just about any sexual contact, hetero- or homo-, if the adults are consenting. Well, unless it's in the loo of the Twin Cities airport.
Senator: Get A Room.
"...only that I wish Bush could remain president indefinitely," sed Titus15
You do? But not only for your desire to see the country safer, right? Is it because no other human being in history besides Bush has liberated so many Muslim women from tyranny? Okay, that's reasonable - you want to see even more freedom for one of the most oppressed classes of people on earth and Bush has a proven track record for making that happen.
Cool.
Titus15 said...
"You call it self obsessed I call it a NYC state of mind. You just don't understand..."
I would hope not! Proof positive that I am evidently still sane and relatively sober.
"But if you were hot and had a nice ass maybe I would care.."
Eh. You could try but you wouldn't get anywhere.
Simon
Christ. He was arrested for showing his dick or some shit in the stall in an airport to an obviously unwilling participant. Not for being gay.
Titus - funnily enough, being considered unfuckable by you is far from the insult you think.
Geez, when did this turn into grade school!
Simon said..."If you don't think homosexual sexual conduct is wrong, then you can't object when someone - e.g. some yawnsome Senator - indulges in it."
I could care less if he was blowing YOU.
It's things like this that I don't like: "“Meet the PressJanuary 24, 1999, Sunday 9:00 AM
MR. RUSSERT: Larry Craig, would you want the last word from the Senate be an acquittal of the president and no censure?
SEN. CRAIG: Well, I don’t know where the Senate’s going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure resolution and it’s a slap on the wrist. It’s a, “Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You’re a naughty boy.” The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy.
And I bet he'd like to blow that "naughty boy."
MM - well, quite. He can do what he wants. He's a quite useless and insufferably boring individual, and he becomes nothing more nor less by the latest reported escapade.
Simon,
Could you explain why you would want to defend Craig's behavior?
You're not very bright, are you?
Considering the fact that Brown V. Board of Education was repealed by the Roberts Court, I don't think Obama regrets voting against him.
LOS - I would rather object to his trying that.
Simon,
If I were you...I wouldn't tell Scalia or Seagal that you're using their image.
LOS - where did I defend his behavior? I just said you had no standing to criticize it.
Simon,
Could you explain why you would want to defend Craig's behavior?
Simon,
The man is a Senator.
What exactly is your point here?
LOS - the man's an idiot and a blowhard. Wait, I said the same thing you did.
Simon,
Craig is married and has adopted the three children.
Please provide your defense.
Simon said..."He can do what he wants."
You're a fucking idiot.
LOS - see my 10:11 PM comment. I'm not defending him. I'm pointing out that you can't credibly castigate him.
Simon says: "And we care about this because...? Who you diddle isn't something that occupies much thinking time for anyone except you. So self-involved...What is it with you people? New Yorkers, I mean."
Simon...explain what you mean by this.
Luckyoldson said...
"You're a fucking idiot."
Coming from you, that means next to nothing. It's kind of like being told by Al Capone that you're not his kinda guy.
Simon said..."LOS - see my 10:11 PM comment. I'm not defending him. I'm pointing out that you can't credibly castigate him."
Why???
Simon,
You're trapped like a fucking rat and resort to bullshit.
To defend Craig's behavior tells me you're a very creepy guy.
Semen,
Contrary to the straight man's stereoptype of gay guys I as well as normal gays don't "try" or "pursue" straight man.
They are generally unattractive, have awful bodies and boring.
I am the one pursued, I don't puruse others.
So now we know that Simon equates being gay to illegally trolling for sex in a public bathroom.
As if anyone needed further evidence that Simon is an anti-gay bigot.
Who wants to bet that Simon is a closeted self-loathing fag who trolls for sex in public bathrooms?
Out and proud gay people don't do that. But self-loathing closeted Republicans like Larry Craig and Mark Foley do. And I bet Simon does as well.
LOS - see my 10:11 PM comment. I'm not defending him. I'm pointing out that you can't credibly castigate him.
Just look at the picture Simon uses,,,Kung Fu Scalia?
It dark in that closet...very dark.
That's right Simon. And it proves you're an anti-gay bigot. Because your assumption is that being gay = trolling for sex in a gay bathroom.
It would be the equivalent of me saying that a straight person cannot credibly criticize Senator Vitter for hiring a prostitute, because we all know that being straight = hiring prostitutes.
Your faulty logic conveys your bigotry.
DTL, I really don't care one way or another what you, Titus or anyone else of that persuasion does. I know this is something you struggle to comprehend, but your sexuality is of little if any interest to anyone besides you. I don't care if you or LOS think I'm an "anti-gay bigot"; you seem to think that by invoking the spectre of homophobia you can shame people into silence. I'm not a homophobe, but I do have a real simple slogan to live by: I don't care about your opinion. If you want to imagine that I'm a horrible homophobe, suit yourself. Just remember that all-important reminder: I don't care about your opinion.
Simon reminds me of Bush, Gonzales, Rummy...they just don't know when to admit they're full of shit.
Simon thinks Craig's behavior is okay...and that we don't have the right to criticize.
A Senator...in a bathroom...soliciting sex...
Luckyoldson said...
"Simon thinks Craig's behavior is okay...and that we don't have the right to criticize."
I've said repeatedly that I'm not defending his behavior. I'm saying that a person like you, who has no morals, cannot raise a moral objection. Your behavior here since your arrival has stripped you of credibility to comment on such matters.
Simon,
I don't care if you're homophobic.
I do know you're an intellectual midget.
In one thread you've exposed yourself as being quite the dimwit.
Simon says: "I'm saying that a person like you, who has no morals."
Who the fuck are YOU to say something like that??
You don't know me from Adam.
Simon, you proving yourself to be a disgusting little man.
DTL, I really don't care one way or another what you, Titus or anyone else of that persuasion does.
Liar.
You favor kicking gays out of the military, just for being gay. Even if they don't "do" anything.
Here's an American hero who was just kicked out of the military for being gay. And the U.S. military broke the law by "asking" him if he's gay, which is a violation of DADT. Doesn't matter. Wimpy Simon wants the courageous gay man kicked out anyway.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070826/A_NEWS/708260313
And Simon favors laws like those in Florida which prevent gay people from adopting. But he insists he doesn't care what we do, except of course, he does care.
And he favors the repeal of Lawrence V. Texas, which would allow gays to be imprisoned again, you know for having sex in the privacy of our own homes. Something Simon says he doesn't care about, except of course he does care.
And Simon of course opposes gay marriage, which would give gay people equality.
In other words - Simon is a liar.
DTL says: "In other words - Simon is a liar."
Absolutely...and a gutless liar at that.
Simon...back into your closet for the night?
And "real" straight guys really don't care about gay sex. They are so comfortable with their sexuality, that they don't get worked up by gay people either way. If the topic of gay rights comes up, they are bored.
People like Simon, Pogo, Cedarford are obsessed with the subject.
Why?
Notice how Simon has slithered away?
You know..it is quite amusing to watch the moonbats constantly attack Republicans for acting like Democrats.......
Gahrie,
Duh.
Beldar appears to have failed basic logic. Considering voting for a nominee because of his "intellect" is a far cry from "kn[owing] he should vote for" him.
It is rare that a Supreme Court nominee lacks stellar qualifications on intellectual grounds--had Fredo made it to the nomination, he surely would have been the lone crony exception in a long time. So, clearly, other considerations play into these decisions and that's what a first-term senator has a chief of staff for--to help him understand the implications of such decisions.
Obama toyed with the idea of voting for Roberts--a rather lemming-like decision--but was dissuaded by someone who knew that he should not vote for Roberts. So the reality is quite opposite from Beldar's claims--no surprise really.
I don't expect Beldar to be able to follow simple logic, but I am surprised to see a far more intelligent individual fall for his nonsense.
Beldar, unfortunately, doesn't seem a like a very bright bulb. i've read most of his blog. I've also read the back of a cereal box. One was only slightly more impressive.
ACLU means what to you? American...hmmm ok. C
In a word? Scumbags come to mind. Yep, that's what I think of a group of people who in my state have contested a law that would ban convicted child molesters from parks and other venues which attract children. You see, the ACLU feels that those child rapists civil liberties are so much more important than the civil liberties of innocent children to be able to play in a park in safety.
I've also read the back of a cereal box.
Well...I'm glad you spent your summer so responsibly.
"downtownlad said...
And "real" straight guys really don't care about gay sex.
People like Simon, Pogo, Cedarford are obsessed with the subject."
DTL,
All you ever post about is being gay, and gay sex, mixed with statements about your hatred for straight folks. Titus mixes somewhat amusing commentary with repeated references to being gay and gay sex.
As a result, your claim to know what 'real' straight guys think is hilarious, albeit totally wrong.
Are all gay people this boring? Truth is, the average straight guy thinks "Oh man, please STFU; no one wants to hear this." It's a plea to get a room, metaphorically speaking.
A female contestant says she has 19 children "Why so many children?" Groucho asks.
"Well, I just love my husband!" the woman replies.
"Well, I love my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while!" replies Groucho"
DTL should do the same.
Luckyoldson said...
No, I don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality...period.
Your comments on this blog suggest otherwise.
HoosierDaddy
They contest evern invasion of civil liberties regardless. when your city wrote a precise law requiring convicted sex offenders never to come within 1000 feet of various places where children might congregate. It was challenged because, as was argued, it would be virtually impossible for sex offenders to travel from any two points in Indianapolis without running afoul of the 1000 foot rule, even causing them to loose jobs because their place of business was within 1000 feet of a restricted area.
Write a better law and you will relieve the problem and get the ACLU out of your hair. Write knee-jerk laws like this and you get a civil action.
I am fine with harsh laws and sentences for sex offenders. I know the curative rate is low and the repeat risk is high. The answer is to do something about it that makes sense, not headlines.
Luckyoldson said...
"Notice how Simon has slithered away?"
Notice how it was gone midnight EST?
Write a better law and you will relieve the problem and get the ACLU out of your hair.
Your example is nonsense and you know it and so did the ACLU. There was no expectation that it would be enforced because some convicted child rapist was driving past a park but rather to keep them from hanging out AT the park.
Then again the whole idea of doing something about them, such as execution (sooner the better) or locking them up for life would also be challenged as a violation of the 8th Amendment. So as for harsh laws, they seem to go out of thier way to make sure those don't get passed either.
It would be nice and I'd have more respect for this group if they'd put half as much energy in defending the civil rights of innocent victims of crime versus protecting child rapists or getting some crucifix torn down from a public park. But defending those kinds of civil rights don't jive with thier agenda.
If Craig had any sense of responsibility he would resign forthwith. I do feel sorry for his wife and children.
The rest of this thread is genuinely disgusting. What a slither through the sewer.
If the topic of gay rights comes up, they are bored.
And like all normal people, they get annoyed at those who persist in dragging the same boring topic into every conversation. :)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा