१२ फेब्रुवारी, २००८
"In pimping General David Petraeus and in the violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against..."
A Keith Olbermann rant from last September, dug up by vigilant bloggers, whom I salute. Keep up the pimpwatch!
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८२ टिप्पण्या:
link seems bad. 404 error
Sorry. Fixed.
They'll say that Olberman is an opinion pundit and the piece was satire, and after that they'll ignore it.
First "vaginal vaults," then clitoris-stimulating mustaches, now pimping. Is Althouse getting a bit lonely up in NY?
Bob said...
They'll say that Olberman is an opinion pundit and the piece was satire, and after that they'll ignore it.
And they'll be right on all counts.
More to the point, using "pimping," as Shuster did about somebody's daughter clearly has a different, quite deliberate, and deliberately offensive meaning. Not that Bob gives a crap.
You're falling into your own vortex.
"First "vaginal vaults," then clitoris-stimulating mustaches, now pimping. Is Althouse getting a bit lonely up in NY?"
Don't forget the bald head with sunglasses!
thephantomspitter: Not that Bob gives a crap.
Ah, yet another concealed profile. I smell the stink of troll, probably that "AJD" troll that keeps showing up here.
Keith Olbermann is MSNBC's fair haired boy. He can say what he wants, insult who he wants and make inappropriate and disgusting comments and nothing will be done.
Once again, this is an internal MSNBC matter; but to cave in to an elected official running for another elected office, MSNBC has demonstrated cowardice.
They had the guy apologize and that should have been the end. Mrs. Clinton demands changes in their coverage. They should tell her to go... and then remind her of the US Constitution.
Mrs. Clinton is fair game. She put herself out there and she has to take the hits- fair or unfair. To demand MSNBC to play nice is nothing more than whining- a Clinton tactic.
In spite of his job title, in what way is David Shuster not an "opinion pundit" and in what way was his comment not satirical? Its all about the target.
They had the guy apologize and that should have been the end.
They should have had him apologize sincerely, not ooze unctuously.
Here's what I would have said: Yesterday I let my disdain for a politician color my word choice in a question, and as a result I asked an important question in an offensive manner. Letting my opinions color my coverage is an absolutely unprofessional breach of journalistic ethics, and for that I am deeply ashamed. I ask for pardons from my viewers, and also from the Clinton family who are rightly indignant. No one knows how to give a good apology anymore these days. All these I apologize to anyone who was offended non-apologies that blame the victim! It's your fault you were offended! Get a thick skin!
I agree with thephantomspitter's 9:41 comment.
(btw: My apology presumes Shuster is a professional journalist, not just some skeevy pundit).
The whole pimping thing is hysterical, but not for the reason you guys think.
As somebody observed yesterday, it is beyond ironic that the same conservatives who constantly bemoan the coarsening of the culture and blame it on liberals are now in the position of defending an obviously indefensible crude vulgarism.
Primping pimps trim their moustaches just so
To satisfy de befborstelly their posse of hos.
Wouldn't it be a bit worse to violate everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly in favor of?
No one knows how to give a good apology anymore these days. All these I apologize to anyone who was offended non-apologies that blame the victim! It's your fault you were offended! Get a thick skin!
I like the kind where it's foreheads to the floor. That's a real apology. None of this mealy-mouthed rhetoric stuff -- let's see some contrition here!
a pox on both their houses.
1. Chelsea is fair game in general. she's 27 and campaigning.
2. Shuster should not use pimping to describe the activities of anybody's daughter.
3. Shuster should have given a reasonable apology
4. Hilliary went too far and should be called on it for demanding more than a simple apology. e.g. altering the coverage.
5. NBC should not have caved
6. Olbermann is an ass. His rant about Petraus was over the line. I got a kick out of his citing Mathews, another clown as his source.
7. Olbermann should have apologized as well to Petraus. He is paid to rant about Bush, I have no 1st amendment issue with that.
8. I'd just as soon not have pimp, nigger and whore in my news.
MadisonMan said...
They should have had him apologize sincerely, not ooze unctuously.
No one knows how to give a good apology anymore these days.
You cannot force someone to do anything with sincerity, especially if they personally feel they have done nothing wrong.
I do agree that no one knows how to apologize anymore. An apology should be voluntary, swift, humble, personal, and sincere. It should also be short.
No one knows how to accept an apology either. People, not just Clinton, want action. They want people punished. This is just as big a problem. Accept the apology and move on.
MCG and others here miss the point. The Clintons are fair game and they know it. Their daughter isn't fair game and the media knows it.
Patreus stepped up and tossed his body in front of Bush and allowed himself to be pimped....this is an all volunteer army isn't it? He is fair game.
And nothing Obermann said was untrue.
Silence is consent....
The whole pimping thing is hysterical, but not for the reason you guys think.
Its hysterical because you want to make it into a big deal.
As somebody observed yesterday, it is beyond ironic that the same conservatives who constantly bemoan the coarsening of the culture and blame it on liberals are now in the position of defending an obviously indefensible crude vulgarism.
We're not defending it, we're saying you've misrepresented it [redirecting the attack from Hillary to Chelsea] to feign outrage.
And of course, the Olberman/MoveOn piece just proves how hypocritical you are about it.
The Clintons are fair game and they know it. Their daughter isn't fair game and the media knows it.
So Chelsea can step up and toss her body in front of Hillary for campaign purposes and she’s not fair game?
Care to try and rationalize that other than just saying it’s so? Or do we need the hdhouse decoder ring to figure it out?
Edward R. Murrow would not approve of such language.
If pimping in the context that Shuster used it is considered sexist, then Olbermann's context should be considered homophobic.
More pimping! It should be used to describe everybody, starting with the networks.
In short anybody whose motive is not what it seems, but in mass culture first of all.
Fen said...
You could call her Hillary Clinton's daughter.
Or you could call her the one intern that Bill will never sexually abuse. We hope.
6:33 PM
That was you yesterday, right?
If so, David Shuster smells like a rose compared to you....
HD: Re Dave Patreus: thats about the dumbest thing you have ever said. Unless, of course, you regard any soldier as a pimp because we no longer have a draft. Dumb Dumb Dumb.
"...dug up by vigilant bloggers, whom I salute. Keep up the pimpwatch!"
Doesn't it seem like those vigilant bloggers are being pimped out in some weird sort of way?
Fen said...
"it is beyond ironic that the same conservatives who constantly bemoan the coarsening of the culture and blame it on liberals are now in the position of defending an obviously indefensible crude vulgarism."
We're not defending it.
Uh...yes you are. You have no objection to the phrase or its use in the context of Chelsea, you're just pissed that those goddamn liberals are making hay about it.
Their daughter isn't fair game and the media knows it.
Why not? At what point do we concede that Chelsea is a grown up woman? Is she going to be a protected infant for the rest of her life or is she accountable for her actions and accountable for how they look to the public?
It seems that Cheney's and Bush's
"children" were fair game and quite enthusiatically used by the media?
"Fair game" is a metaphor that's actually quite ugly. To say she's not "fair game" is overstating it and thus stacking the deck. She's not beyond criticism. Shuster was absolutely fine to ask the question that implied a criticism, but he used a word that upsets some people. He should have said "exploiting," which would have meant exactly the same thing. So he handed people a cudgel to beat him with. That was stupid, and he regrets it. He apologized. We should not get distracted, however. We should feel absolutely free to criticize all the politicians and we would be fools not to see that Chelsea is one too.
I absolutely agree it's an important question. It's unfortunate that a half-assed "journalist" asked the question so ineptly that it can't now be answered for a while.
Chelsea was in Wisconsin yesterday. Obama is here today. Is there some election thing coming up?
hdhouse said...
Their daughter isn't fair game and the media knows it.
That was the case when Chelsea was a minor or a student, and not campaigning.
I disagree now. To the extent that families of politicans are bystanders, they should not be attacked by the opposition or hounded by the press. Just like the old Mafia rules about "civilians" in the Godfather.
However, if a 27 year old woman investment banker (e.g Chelsea) is working the campaign trail as a surrogate for her parent, then absolutely, what she does, who she is smoozing and what she says is open to reporting and attack by all parties.
However, those attacks should show a modicum of politeness and civility.
If I was half as smart as Olberman thinks he is, I would cure cancer.
If Olberman were half as smart as he thinks he is, he would get laid more.
Trey
I am in Vegas for the clothing convention and was at the bar at the Bellagio last night. Now there was some pimping going on in there let me tell you.
None of them looked like Hillary or General Petraeus.
Only one of them had one of those hats with the feather in them. But his nickname was old school. So there you go.
What's all this talk about "Chelsea isn't fair game"? This isn't about Chelsea. It never was. The Clinton enablers want to make it about Chelsea because then they can posture themselves on the high road and play the victim card, but, sorry, no dice, this isn't about Chelsea. If somebody had said, for instance, that "Chelsea is whoring herself", then, yeppers, that'd be a statement directed at Chelsea, and it'd be about Chelsea. But nobody said that. What was said was that Hill is pimping Chelsea out. Thus, it's about Hillary, and it's her actions that are in question.
I'm just wondering for contrast and comparison sake how much outrage the Hillster feigned about Bill's actual actions with a 21-year old intern, and whether she apolgized to her parents for what Bill actually did to her. Pffff-tttt.
He did have a mustache if that means anything. Also a silver cane and white shoes. Very spiffy.
He should have said "exploiting," which would have meant exactly the same thing
Ah yes Ann, because we all know Chelsea simply cannot be doing this on her own free will. Women are just too dumb to take on such a task of campaigning for their own parents, or too dumb to notice if they're being "exploited".
We're supposed to take you seriously on feminism, why exactly?
What was said was that Hill is pimping Chelsea out. Thus, it's about Hillary, and it's her actions that are in question.
Er, right. When a mother pimps out her daughter, sure, the mother's a pimp. But the daughter's a whore. Which is what's insulting here.
When a mother pimps out her daughter, sure, the mother's a pimp. But the daughter's a whore. Which is what's insulting here
I imagine/guess/suppose that Chelsea is of her own free will attempting to help her Parent's campaign. She can do whatever she wants. BUT she is not above criticism and is no longer an innocent bystander or little girl. Can the criticism be unfair. Hell yes. Welcome to politics Chelsea.
However, when people are using people,for their own personal gain and who are emotionally connected to them and therefore easily manipulated, it is a form of pimping or exploitation. Probably the better word choice for it.
You don't have to have sex to be a whore. There are a lot of people in corporate america that are de facto whores.
I imagine/guess/suppose that Chelsea is of her own free will attempting to help her Parent's campaign. She can do whatever she wants. BUT she is not above criticism and is no longer an innocent bystander or little girl. Can the criticism be unfair. Hell yes. Welcome to politics Chelsea.
It is not so much whether this particular criticism is fair or unfair. It is indecorous. It is vulgar. It is common.
That said, none of this obviates the point that Shuster was analogising the youngest Clinton to a whore. Because you don't pimp out respectable young women. You may exploit them, perhaps. But the ones you pimp out are called "prostitutes."
hdhouse said...
MCG and others here miss the point. The Clintons are fair game and they know it. Their daughter isn't fair game and the media knows it.
Oh, bullshit, Henhouse.
Anyone who is active in the campaign of a politician, beyond showing up and waving to crowds and saying a few remarks is open to being questioned. Chelsea Clinton is out full-time on the campaign trail, being the keynote speaker at rallies, lobbying delegates, making fundraising calls.
I noticed ol' Henhouse lobbed his grenade and moved on....
The "rules" seem pretty simple. Elizabeth Edwards as Slick's campaign manager is open to scrutiny, the 5 Romney sons actively campaigning are too. So is Hillary's spouse, and Obama's because they are active players.
But McCain's trophy wife who limits herself to standing and looking pretty is out of bounds, as are the Obama kids, as Cheney's daughter should have been in 2004.
Also out of bounds should be candidate family members personal lives, unless they themselves bring it up as relevant to a campaign.
And certainly this odious new practice of reaching out and condemning candidates kids for not acting out the script of their parent's stance on issues. Stuff like Huck's son killing a dog, "chickenhawk" Chelsea for being a coward and not enlisting in the Marines when her Dad was bombing Kosovo, the Romney "shirkers", or why anti-war Richardson's sons were too cowardly NOT to chain themselves to Capital Hill steps and starve in an anti-war hunger strike to show their Dad had moral authority and was not just another anti-war hypocrite failing to order his sons about into actionable alignment with his views......
Which, as I've said, is why so it's so hilarious that it's being defended by the same folks who bewail the alleged coarsening of the culture and blame it totally on liberals.
I'm not sure what you'd call Shuster, if he's not a liberal. A leftist? I suppose that fits.
When a mother pimps out her daughter, sure, the mother's a pimp. But the daughter's a whore.
Only if the daughter knowingly takes on a trick, something we don't know. And really don't care about either. But what we do know and what we do care about is that the mother is trying real hard to make it happen. Thus, that's where the focus belongs.
BTW, sleight of hand is another Clinton calling card.
"We're not defending it."
Uh...yes you are. You have no objection to the phrase or its use in the context of Chelsea....
I haven't been following this manufactured, bullsh*t David Shuster controversy but, in case anyone's wondering, I have no problem with someone saying they think the Clintons are pimping out their daughter, and I'd have no problem with it even if I had disagreed with Shuster that the Clintons are pimping her.
It's funny how touchy the Clintonoids are about any little thing said in relation to Chelsea. They didn't much mind when Bill Clinton was using, abusing, sexually harassing, and (in at least one case) raping young women, and then sending people out into the media to slander and attack those women, calling them stalkers, nuts, sluts, and trailer trash. But those women weren't royalty like sweet Princess Chelsea. They were low-class whores who should've kept their mouths shut except when Bill needed servicing. Now, don't you dare place even a slightly uncouth word in the same sentence as the name Chelsea Clinton. She is sacred.
Balfegor said...
"Which, as I've said, is why so it's so hilarious that it's being defended by the same folks who bewail the alleged coarsening of the culture and blame it totally on liberals."
I'm not sure what you'd call Shuster, if he's not a liberal. A leftist? I suppose that fits.
What the hell do Shuster's politics have to do with my point?
Which was that the wingnuts here, who forever bemoan the coarsening of the culture caused by liberals, were somehow reduced to defending what should be, by their lights, indefensible.
Out of curiosity, is Chelsea stumping for mom on the campaign trail part of her job description working for that hedge fund? Or
or, since she is likely gonna make 500,000 this year, if Chelsea is on salary, doesn't that make it an illegal donation?
I doubt it is in her job description, but since no one knows what it is she actually does it's hard to say. We do know that the prinicpals of the hedge fund are big donors to her parents. Maybe they gave her a permission slip for absences.
and to spitter: no one is in reality calling Chelsea a whore. We are remarking on the interesting use that her parents are making of her which looks very much like exploitation (since you like that word better). Note the curious absence of Hillary's other family members, Anthony Rhodam in particular. Could it be because there is no value in exploiting or trotting him out on the campaign trail? I see her Mother isn't as prevelant either.
Your bed is what you make it. The Clinton's have played dirty politics for years and have destroyed many people's reputation in their quest for power. Maybe Chelsea doesn't deserve this negative attention, but it is her choice to jump into the cesspool with Bill and Hillary.
weirdspitterguy said...
"Which was that the wingnuts here, who forever bemoan the coarsening of the culture caused by liberals, were somehow reduced to defending what should be, by their lights, indefensible."
Just for the record, as someone who you predictably might refer to as a wingnut, I don't think I would ever bemoan the coarsening of the culture caused by liberals. I actually prefer a good honest course culture to a bland phony slick Clintonian one.
For instance, I'm fully in favor of governors and presidents enjoying all the oral sex with appropriate partners that they want and need. Coarse oral sex, if that's what they like. Oral sex that requires taking a culture, if that's what they need.
But why lie about it?
Is it because, as a lawyer and as an employer, he knew it qualified as sexual harassment? Then, as president, work to encourage Congress to change sexual harassment laws so that you're free to pimp out, er, I mean, exploit whomever you wish.
House,
Hillary is a US Senator and a presidential candidate. She has no right to tell a media outlet how they are to do anything. She got an apology and she should have moved on. She decided to write a letter demanding action, punishment, and a change in MSNBC coverage- like Harry Reid has on two other occasions. These elected servants of the people are held to a higher standard of conduct and they should act like it.
If Bill, an ordinary citizen, would have used is self rightous anger on this occasion, everyoine would have agreed with him. There would have been none of this consternation.
As to Chelsea, she is campaigning. The Romney kids took hits and no one cried foul.
As to Olbermann, whether he speaks the truth or not, it is his insulting, degrading, and chidlish style that is offensive. One can tell what they perceive to be the truth without demeaning, degrading, dehumanizing, and demonizing people. He is given the white glove treatment becasue of his ratings the ad revenue he brings in.
Middle Class Guy said...
Hillary is a US Senator and a presidential candidate. She has no right to tell a media outlet how they are to do anything.
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Of course she has the right.
Hell, when bad reviews appeared in the press following his daughter Margaret's singing debut in new York, Harry Truman threatened to punch the reviewer in the nose. By comparison, Hillary's response was utterly measured....
"By comparison, Hillary's response was utterly measured...."
Measured?!
You mean wussified, don't you?
Harry Truman's letter to the Washington Post critic Paul Hume:
Mr. Hume:
I’ve just read your lousy review of Margaret’s concert. I’ve come to the conclusion that you are an “eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.”
It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you’re off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work.
Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you’ll need to a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!
[Westbrook] Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you’ll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.
But only in the same alternate universe where Hillary killed her lesbian lover Vince Foster.
Vince Foster was a lesbian? Are we back to talking about transgendered people?
The things that some people refuse to see and the things they condone if it is done by people in their own ideological group. The Clintons have a calculated campaign of character assasination directed at anyone who stands in their way. They tried it on Obama, but failed...so far.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
The Clintons have a calculated campaign of character assasination directed at anyone who stands in their way.
Thus making them totally different from average garden variety politicians of both parties. Right.
Oh, please. This idea that the Clinton's have some all-powerful Fu Manchu-esque secret society doing their dirty work is one of the most embarassing elements of the contemporary wingnuttish belief system.
These elected servants of the people are held to a higher standard of conduct and they should act like it.
Tell that to the Senator from Idaho. I'll repeat that they can write whatever they want regarding a News Outlet; when they start proposing laws because of what a news outfit does (See: NYTimes and exonerating telecom companies), then I'll start complaining.
Re: Truman. I recall reading, when Margaret died last month, that Truman's advisors were aghast at his letter to the critic, but Truman (correctly) predicted that mail would be 80% in support of it.
Fruitbat,
Harry Truman did not demand an apology, punishment, or a change in the way the newspaper covers issues. He knew his constitutional responsibility. He just insulted and threatened physical violence- today he would probably be impeached.
A US Senator has no right to demand a media outlet to do anything as long as they are acting within the law.
The Clinton Truthers are out in force today!
Always wondered what a Truther thought was out of bounds, like over the line before they hit publish.
*Shudders*
Middle Class Guy said...
Harry Truman did not demand an apology, punishment, or a change in the way the newspaper covers issues. He knew his constitutional responsibility. He just insulted and threatened physical violence- today he would probably be impeached.
Hilarious, albeit unintentionally.
A US Senator has no right to demand a media outlet to do anything as long as they are acting within the law.
A US Senator has every right to demand anybody to do goddamn anything. Just like you do or I do.
Just stop it already. You're embarassing yourself....
I'll make that a demand, if you like.
Coarse oral sex, if that's what they like.
Which of course would require a moustache.
Sorry. Can't help myself.
MadisonMan said:Re: Truman. I recall reading, when Margaret died last month, that Truman's advisors were aghast at his letter to the critic, but Truman (correctly) predicted that mail would be 80% in support of it.
Too bad for Truman that same 80% didn't think much of his stewardship of the country considering he was tossed aside for re-election.
Oh boohoo, someone was rude to a Clinton.
Politics ain't beanbag.
A Democrat Senator has every right to demand anybody to do goddamn anything.
/fixed
"Or you could call her the one intern that Bill will never sexually abuse. We hope."
That was you yesterday, right?
Yes. What specifically is causing you to soil yourself over that comment? Lets check your abilty to reason first: was that attack directed at Bill or Chelsea?
thephantomspitter But only in the same alternate universe where Hillary killed her lesbian lover Vince Foster.
My god, the crap some people believe, let alone aren't too embarassed to post.
Oh please. You're so in the tank for the Clintons that its pathetic. Get off off your hands and knees and wipe your chin, before you choke on it.
Fen said...
"Or you could call her the one intern that Bill will never sexually abuse. We hope."
That was you yesterday, right?
Yes. What specifically is causing you to soil yourself over that comment?
The fact that you're proud to have said something only marginally less disgusting than Lucianne Goldberg's "Clinton is finger-fucking Chelsea" remark.
In other words, you can't justify your "outrage" with anything of substance. You have to assume I'm "proud" of the line and attack that. What a dishonest shill.
Hillary is a US Senator and a presidential candidate. She has no right to tell a media outlet how they are to do anything.
Agreed. And isn't it telling that the Left beleives they are justified in dictating what the media can and cannot say, or who it can interview. Situational ethics, as usual.
If it were Bush, we'd instead be hearing about the "chilling effect" it had on Freedom of the Press.
Fen said...
In other words, you can't justify your "outrage" with anything of substance. You have to assume I'm "proud" of the line and attack that. What a dishonest shill.
You know, I wish that, like you, I could just say shit and then deny I had. Obviously, it must come in very handy....
A US Senator has every right to demand anybody to do goddamn anything. Just like you do or I do.
Tell that to the Keating Five.
Shuster shouldn't have been vulgar, Hillary shouldn't have intimidated a TV network, MSNBC shouldn't have caved cravenly. A free society requires considerable self-government, especially by the powerful.
I'm not denying I said anything. I'm asking you to specifically explain what is so offensive to you re that line:
Or you could call her the one intern that Bill will never sexually abuse. We hope.
You won't because you can't.
Given Bill's inability to control his urges and jeapordize things of value to him [his job, his family], do you NOT hope that Chelsea is the one intern he wouldn't sexually abuse?
lanolin r fruitbat said...
Just stop it already. You're embarassing yourself....
I'll make that a demand, if you like.
From someone calling themself lanolin r fruitbat; I'll take that as a compliment.
Fen said...
Given Bill's inability to control his urges and jeapordize things of value to him [his job, his family], do you NOT hope that Chelsea is the one intern he wouldn't sexually abuse?
What I actually hope is that you're the only sick bastard here who would even imagine such a scenario, let alone post about it with such glee.
I'll bet I'm doomed to disappointment, however.
Wah.
Ann DOES permit trolling [raises hand]. But you can't occasionally troll here unless you are also making a good faith effort to have a civil and substantive discussion [see Dolye, Fen, hdhouse]. If you falter, she'll even give you a few warnings to shape up before she bans you.
You've been given alot of rope. You didn't use it wisely. Please go away - nothing is more pathetic than hearing a troll whine.
lanolin: What I actually hope is that you're the only sick bastard here who would even imagine such a scenario
A scenario where Bill realizes the hottie over in the corner is off-limits because its his daughter? Again, given Bill's history of abusing his patriarchal role to get blowjobs from his employees, why does that bother you? Its the third time I've asked you to explain your complaint. Why are you unable to? OBE?
let alone post about it with such glee.
It must be cool to be able to detect "pride" and "glee" through the internet...
I'll bet I'm doomed to disappointment, however.
Well, you're obviously doomed - getting wrapped around the axel over one comment, and then unable to communicate why it bothers you.
Fen said...
A scenario where Bill realizes the hottie over in the corner is off-limits because its his daughter? Why does that bother you?
What bothers me is that you're an obviously sick bastard who gets off on a scenario where Bill would be doing his daughter.
Hell, You're practically drooling over it. Just like Lucianne Goldberg did over the "Clinton is finger-fucking Chelsea" crack.
Hell, You're practically drooling over it.
Oh cool, your little internet-emotive detector works both ways:
I can sense you salivating over the image Lucianne Goldberg provided. Else, why do you keep exposing yourself with it...
What an idiot. Look, I'm going off-line. You've got until tomorrow AM to attempt an honest explanation of your "outrage", please specify why you find the prospect of Clinton having some self-control is so repulsive to you. Else, I'll deem you a troll and ignore you.
Fen said...
You've got until tomorrow AM to attempt an honest explanation of your "outrage"
Wow -- apparently, you think you're Ann.
please specify why you find the prospect of Clinton having some self-control is so repulsive to you.
Please explain why you so obviously get off on the idea of Bill doing his daughter?
Else, I'll deem you a troll and ignore you.
Wow -- you really DO think you're Ann.
fruitbat, for all you know, Fen could be an incest victim or a recovering sex addict and was being perfectly serious.
You guys remind me of the Valenti people. I explain over and over again where you're wrong, you just jam your fingers into your ears and keep parroting the same tired talking points, immune to reason and logic.
Waste of bandwidth. I'm done with you.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा