People are asking. Did you not notice that he frequently sipped water? I never noticed Biden drinking water, and at the first debate, I never noticed Romney or Obama drinking water.
१२ ऑक्टोबर, २०१२
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४६९ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 469 पैकी 201 – 400 नवीन› नवीनतम»Baron:
Well, that's low class.
First, an apology should be unadorned with self justification. When you are wrong, simply and and unconditionally apologize.
Second, it is MY vote. Mine. I get to do with it as I will. And I will answer to God, not for the outcome, which I could not control, but for the casting of my one vote, which I could control.
I will not give that one, solitary, precious vote, for which my father fought, and so many died, and which so many of my fellow human beings still cannot cast freely, to anyone I cannot, ingood conscience, have be elected, if it came down to my solitary vote.
THATwould be throwing my vote away.
You better wear two of them at least dude.
Wow, you conservatives sure know how to respect the clergy. Such fine upstanding Christians you are! Your politics trump your God.
And yes I know Harrogate isn't a conservative.
Stop while you are behind.
Was that some kind of gay reference from a catholic priest?
Inga said "Wow, you conservatives sure know how to respect the clergy."
Is that a requirement of conservatives?
I guess you have an image of conservatives. You think we cling to guns and religion and stuff. Right?
And Fr. Whatever Fox deserves respect because he puts "fr" before his name and because he's got that little white patch on his avatar?
Wow, you conservatives sure know how to respect the clergy.
Ellie, the priest is the one calling me names.
Why does Biden drink so much Cool Aid?
Father, I'm embarrassed for them and I'm not a Catholic, or even much of a believer. What has the Althouse blog become? People are insane.
Let me be clear. I want to be plain. The fact of the matter is that Fr Martin Fox is probably an imposter. Maybe he's a Friar. But I doubt it. I suspect that he's a liar. And if he's a Catholic liar, he's an even more horrible liar than we might suspect.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Calling Paul Ryan evil seems almost sinister to me in itself. no matter the motivation or reason. Anyone can be put on a sled on the slippery slope to hell and given a good push by someone who thinks they are a saint.
Who are you, "Fr Martin Fox"? Where's your church?
If you don't vote in a two man contest, you have allowed the winner to win without even trying to stop him. That's fine unless you consider one man to be more intrinsically evil than the other, and evil matters to you.
You may have essential allowed the more evil man to win through your negligence.
I don't agree with either candidate's stance on abortion, or that of Fr. Fox's, but not voting for one man or the other is passing on stopping the worst of them. It would be like being a sniper protecting your family with one bullet and seeing two enemies approaching one with a knife and the other with a machine gun. If you choose to shoot into the air and justifying it because you insist on the greater principle of stopping them both, then I think that's ineffective, illogical, and frankly immoral.
It must be a very pretty church. Nice cross in the center of the parking lot. Lots of laypeople coming every week to show how much they worship your God.
The fact of the matter is that Fr Martin Fox is probably an imposter.
I've suspected it for a while now..
Ever since the Rupert Everett tread... when Father Fox said.
This is his second memoir?
What, is he going to keep write memoirs until someone reads them?
Mr. Everett seems to be one of those people who got a buzz going in the media, that he was the "it" guy who everyone should care about; I never did.
Other than being "openly gay" and smart-mouth, what has he accomplished?
Not (as Chip would say) very nice.
Lem:
OK, we're done. I'm really sad about that, but you accused me of lying, you chose not to back it up when asked.
Now you make insinuations of immorality against me ("'Stop while you are behind.' Was that some kind of gay reference from a catholic priest?")
It is really sad that you would take this path. Disgusting.
Until you apologize, I've nothing left to say to you.
Baron:
Why must I choose between Obama or Romney?
Seriously, why "must" (your word) I vote for one of them.
Tell me why.
So, now the claim is, I'm not a Catholic priest? Seriously?
Some of you are SO dedicated to your own political views that you will stoop to this?
"OK, we're done."
Friar imposter, you should study Jesus. He did not behave the way you have.
Harrogate:
You called me a liar. I invited you to back it up. You haven't.
I'll make you the same offer I made to Lem: I'll write a $1,000 check when you demonstrate the truth of your assertion that I don't care about Romney's position on torture.
"So, now the claim is, I'm not a Catholic priest? Seriously?"
Are you? Can you name your church?
I should point out that it's not a famously fantabulous claim to be a Catholic priest. You should be careful about that. But I don't think you're even a priest at all.
What the hell is going on here?
Bob:
Are you joining the accusation chorus?
What are you accusing me of?
Since it's free and easy to type words into the comment box, it shouldn't be hard for you to state it plainly.
Lem,
What gets me is this... so called Father coming in here and talking about evil coming from Romney.. and leaving out Obama.
When Obamas infanticide record speaks for itself!
Lemmy, he's not voting for Obama either - that should be obvious.
There something that rubs me the wrong way about a "father".. man of the cloth.. telling people he is not exercising his civic duty... and seemingly using religion (Father Fox brought up evil in the context of politicians) to justify himself.
Man, he's a "Father" - how else would you expect him to approach these issues? Traditionalguy does the same thing. That's the prism they see the world through - witnessing the glory and carrying the burden. And as long as they stay true to that, showing us the best it can offer, then "Amen" to that.
But this isn't about him, but you:
This election is changing people, leaving them open to assumptions, delusions, conspiracy theories, and - yes - even lies.
The ONLY defense you have against this is what you can know - not believe, or want, or need - to be true. Nothing, and no one, can fuck with that. Even if it's not evident at a given moment. You see me live that idea every day - under unrelenting pressure - but I know what I know and will gladly rest with it, waiting for reality to finally reveal itself to others.
Don't let peer pressure come into it.
Most people simply aren't our peers,...
Bob:
Why don't you click on my name? There's this function with the internet, where you can click on someone's name, and it is actually a link. It takes you to another webpage.
Also, you can google my name.
Last time I did so, I got a dentist, an Elvis impersonator, and myself. Not sure what you might get today.
I'll leave it to you to decide if I am more likely to be a dentist or an Elvis impersonator.
But in any case, discovering a priest, named Martin Fox, with all the same identifiers as me, won't be hard.
Fr Martin Fox, you're right: it's free and easy to say things here. I've got my name there; it's my real name. You can look it up. I think you're a liar. If you're not a liar, you're a lousy friar.
Let's see, I've offered Lem and Harrogate each $1,000 to a charity, if they can back up their accusations.
I would think they'd be happy to generate that kind of money to a good cause.
It would cost me dearly to do it, but I could scratch it together.
So why don't they produce the proof of their accusations and generate some good money for a good cause?
Name the charity.
I was wrong to think you would be voting for Obama. I apologize without reservation or equivocation.
However I do think you are a fool. For that I do not apologize.
Father I do not have to explain what a sin of omission is do I? To turn away from your duty as a citizen and a devout Catholic by throwing your vote away when one of the candidates is directly attacking our church is beyond my comprehension. You might as well be Joe Paterno.
I do not sign on to the personal attacks others are making here. You are entitled to your opinion.
But you are in league with the Cracks and Inga's of this world.
That is not a place you want to be.
Just an ex-altar boys opinion.
Father Fox is only interested in "donations".
I thought we were all imposters.
Cracks is that 95lb Japanese chick selling Jurassic Technology colon chakra clenses $19.95.
Inga is in San Quentin doing life for a string of brutal murders of Mexican mafia members.
Lem is actually a high functioning golden retriever in a CIA lab in Virginia.
The Baron? Well he's under my desk chewing his toenails and waiting for me to walk away from the keyboard.
Everybody has internet these days.
Well, Bob, I'm still waiting for you to offer something substantive.
Why is that so hard?
Why is it so terrible that I should ask people to back up terrible accusations against me?
I can't help noticing you, too, choose to call me a liar.
Not very commendable.
Prove it.
Why is it so terrible that I should ask people to back up terrible accusations against me?
I'm just glad I'm not an "evil" politician.
These people wouldn't know truth if it smacked them upside the head. If what you say doesn't fit their narrative, they will rip you to shreds, no respect given for any amount of proof.
They will believe in what their "God" tells them to. Their God is their world view and woe be it unto anyone to shake it up, they go nuts.
DID YOU WATCH THE PBS NEWS HOUR WITH DAVID BROOKS, JUDY WOODRUFF AND MARK SHIELDS TONIGHT?
IT WAS AWESOME. THEY TOLD THE TRUTH: BIDEN WASHED THE FLOOR OF THE USA WITH RYAN. NO ONE CARES ABOUT SMILES, LAUGHS, ETC. ALL VOTERS WANT TO SEE IS BLOOD - OF RYAN.
COME ON, ALL, HELP ME SET UP WTH STEPHANIE CUTTER, SHE WILL BE LOYAL TO ME. I NEED TO HAVE A S.O. LIKE THAT.
Baron:
I appreciate that. Thank you.
Now, please do me the courtesy of explaining why you claim I'm throwing away my vote if I vote for someone other than Obama or Romney.
I'm paying you the courtesy of treating you like a serious man, who thinks. Please pay me the same courtesy, and consider that I have thought this through as well.
Now, if you'd rather not, that's fine. But in that case, no offense, but it doesn't matter to me that you think me, quote, a fool.
Jdiner:
Be careful. I never called Paul Ryan evil. I said he endorses intrinsic evil. There is a difference.
And he does. He endorses abortion in the cases of rape and incest, when--according to his own, stated, premises, it is morally incoherent.
You might as well be Joe Paterno.
Hit back twice as hard.
These people wouldn't know truth if it smacked them upside the head.
I know Ellie.. keep saying that.
Lem, it's Allie!
Ellie, Allie.. Inga..
Democrats never stay put.
Bagoh20:
I see that you believe you must vote for the lesser evil--if I may characterize your argument that way--in order to prevent the greater. If you adhere to the premise, voting for, say, Romney makes sense.
But stop and think; can you not consider that you are not so certain of the premise?
It's really simple: I here assert that this election will not hinge on a single vote cast in Ohio--where I live and will vote this fall. Aside from the hypothetical, do you dispute that prediction? Seriously?
Now, it is a very interesting question to pose: what if the choice of President's really were up to me, and I had to choose between Romney and Obama?
When you convince me that that scenario is more than a faint hypothetical, then let's consider the moral dimensions of that choice.
After all, remember I believe in God. Meaning, I--and my fellow voters--are not the only actors in this drama.
I'll say it again.
I will not answer to God for the election outcome, which I cannot control. I will answer for how I cast my vote. That alone is in my power. That alone is mine.
Be careful..
Says Father Fox..
You wouldn't like to see him when he is angry.
We are all over the VP Debate on Common Cents. We have the entire debate posted, an online poll, the GOP commercial and Rush's commentary...
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Father Fox says nothing using a lot more words than I'm used to seeing.
The story of how Obama is defeating Romney.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/8078825656/in/photostream/
As a gay, personally speaking, I don't find Romney or Ryan hot. I don't believe either of them would be good in bed and I would be incredibly disappointing. Like mount, thrust, cum, good night...boring.
Straight women probably do.
Gay men likely don't.
I thought Palin was hot, so it isn't the conservative thing. And that congress thing from Peoria is incred hot-and republican.
But Ryan and Romney are too vanilla.
I want hot.
I don't think Biden is hot either....too old.
I would do Obama, natch, but I am into mixed race and color and exotic muzzie shit. I like them brown with uncut hogs.
I think this is because I came from Wisconsin and everyone is white and boring. I wanted to explore the world....sexually.
I want variety.
tits.
Lem, for your soul's sake, just stop and admit you are wrong, and stubborn, and apologize. I'm not going to fight with you and I'm not going to respond to your indefensible accusations. But I would be happy to see you stop making it worse.
Fr Martin Fox,
It doesn't matter to me that you think me, quote, a fool.
"A fool for Christ." Sigh.
Now that's my kind of priest,...
bagoh20,
If you don't vote in a two man contest, you have allowed the winner to win without even trying to stop him. That's fine unless you consider one man to be more intrinsically evil than the other, and evil matters to you.
No, dude, you're missing it:
I'm not weighing who's "more evil" in this contest - I see them both as evil - each in his own way. The issue is (as the Father would say) my soul. I will not be a part of the charade that was put together when Romney won the nomination, where I must choose between two evils.
You may have essential allowed the more evil man to win through your negligence.
No, you have - you've had two years to stop this, or at least to try, and you didn't. Instead, you've made excuse after excuse for why it had to be this way. Well, this is the way it has to be, then. Don't blame people of conscious for bailing on you - you (for Romney) and Ann (electing Obama) have created an untenable situation. My hands are clean and I'll keep them that way. And if this all crumbles because of the choices you two have made, then I'll deal with that when it gets here, knowing I did what I could.
I don't agree with either candidate's stance on abortion, or that of Fr. Fox's, but not voting for one man or the other is passing on stopping the worst of them.
That's not our job - Hitler or Stalin. You're joining with one of them. Which is morally/ethically worse?
It would be like being a sniper protecting your family with one bullet and seeing two enemies approaching one with a knife and the other with a machine gun. If you choose to shoot into the air and justifying it because you insist on the greater principle of stopping them both, then I think that's ineffective, illogical, and frankly immoral.
That's not an election. This is a mob scene and nothing more. There is no "enemy" because, unbeknownst to the folks with the torches, we're all on the same side. All there is, now, is chaos and madness - and the determination to rip each other apart.
In such a situation, I can easily see the Father praying, and me standing my ground - which is what we're doing.
You - you - have left us no options,...
PLan to do the Gangnam style dance with Stephanie Cutter tonight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpZhZAr1cQU
Some of the best foreign hog I have had have been from Brazil, Columbia, Trinidad Tobago, Algeria, Sri Lanka.
What hog have you had from foreign locales have been hot?
Mexican hog is lame and small.
Puerto Rican hog tends to be larger and hungrier.
Botswana and Bulgaria hog have exceeded expectations.
Anything Asian is dismal, except if you qualify Indians as Asian.
tits.
...who knows what is...wrong or right...everyone has there own code of ethics...
No they don't. To quote Flannery O'Connor, "Everything that rises must converge."
It's all Father Fox all the time here on Althouse tonight.
You go Father Fox!
tits.
Michael
I got you to admit that you can't trust Paul Ryan with Barack Obama's money. The stroke is on you.
Hey Titus, did you perk up when Lem made his from behind statement?
Hey Titus, does Frog hog measure up?
What the heck is going on here?
Titus' idea of variety is various and sundry shades of brown. Hey, there's a title with potential -- Fifty Shades of Brown.
What the heck is going on here?
A guess who is Althouse voting for hybrid ;)
MadisonMan,
What the heck is going on here?
A discourse on ethics - who has 'em and who ain't.
And, of course, Titus' views on dick - which are always welcome - if not altogether helpful,...
What the heck is going on here?
I often wander into these comment threads and wonder the same thing.
It's like your neighbors having a drunken domestic squabble on the front lawn. Someone should eventually summon the police before one of the drunken neighbors runs inside to grab his shotgun.
I'm doing something wrong. I'm laundering money over here and ruined two wallets in a row.
No srsly, I need a new wallet because some special someone forgot to take it out before running laundry. Twice. Two wallets.
So everyone complains about wallets on Amazon except the people who bought Sports wallets as gifts. Reviewers say the people who got them went nuts. No bad reviews at all. So I bought two. To spread around the joy. I bought a team that is not my city. Does that make me a traitor? Because la la la I don't care. I guess I'm a Dallas fan now. I bought some random Bronco fan one and said re-gift it if you don't want it and claim the gift as yours.
Gretta Van Susteren said "claim" at the exact moment I typed it.
I'm on bagoh's and lem's side here (though I would take a less antagonistic tack than lem's). Though frankly I feel just as antagonistic.
Ah, the purity of a pristine spotless "conscience". A solipsistic purity (or a moral calculation that only involves you and "God"), a sanctimonious sense of your own purity, valorized over making an effective choice, a decision and action with consequences and risks, in the mixed, messy, impure, concrete, real human world. Wouldn't want to get any specks of dirt on your pristine conscience, your pure soul. After all, a "lesser evil" is still evil, right? So: it's perfection or none of the above.
Because "my vote,' after all, doesn't make any difference in the real world-- it's only all those *other* votes, by lesser beings, which decide elections. Lesser beings, dirtier souls, with impure consciences who "settle" for an impure, imperfect choice.
I have some unkind things (even unkinder than this) to say about this kind of philosophy (and its relation to "evil"), but I'm afraid I'll get more ranty than I'd like.
And I don't feel like getting into any argument involving one of the interlocutors here (not referring to the Fr.), so I'll stay out.
Anyway, this is more directed to those who see a substantial quantitative and/or qualitative difference between one supposed "evil" and another. Not those truly indifferent.
… when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.
from Evangelium Vitae Pope John Paul II
With this in mind, Father Fox, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t consider voting for Romney-Ryan as a way of at least limiting evil, whereas either not voting at all or voting for someone who has no chance of winning does nothing to limit it.
((And Baron's. I don't know if Baron's alter ego is who some suspect him of being. But if it's who I'm thinking of, hi!))
I believe had Father Fox not tried to immediately back me into a corner... I may, would have, in so far as I can recall... been more attentive to retract... after reading beyond his brief statements.
But it seemed to me at the time (as it does still) that Father Fox was more interested in getting me to apologise.
As a priest, I thought he should ask nicely ;)
Hey, lousy friar, I've got a thousand bucks, a real thousand bucks, not a pretend kind. Show me a proof, some tiny proof, that you are a Christian. I'll give a thousand bucks to the charity of your choice. Not kidding. You are a liar, friar. And if you think you're a Christian, you don't understand Jesus's teachings.
"When a wise person debates with a fool, the fool rages and laughs, and there is no peace and quiet." Proverbs 29:9.
Well put yashu.
Father Fox,
What other issues will keep you from voting for somebody?
Whoa, you ask the Priest to ask you nicely for an apology after you accuse him of being a fake? Impersonating a Priest? You people have no ethics.
I'm proud to be a liberal if this is what conservatives are.
Where are the Catholics, when one of their own needs them, or perhaps Father Fox knows Who is on his side and that Who knows what is in his heart.
What a disgusting display tonight, one of the very worst I've seen here on Althouse.
What a disgusting display tonight, one of the very worst I've seen here on Althouse.
You're just jealous that, for once, you weren't in the center of it.
Ah Palladian, you are one shallow little man.
Mamie:
Well, because I think the battle against abortion is about a lot more than one, single, race (the Presidency) in one, single year.
Consider: not very long ago, as politics go, a candidate who supported abortion in cases of rape and incest could not, credibly, claim to be prolife.
In 1980, George H.W. Bush had to switch positions, when running with Reagan--and, while I am no fan of his, he seems actually to have kept to it (the one pledge he kept). He was 100% prolife, no exceptions, when he ran as VP in 1980, and for president, in 1988. When he ran, again, in 1992, he maintained that position; and at the same time, Clinton felt it necessary to show that he was no extremist; that's when he formulated the "safe, legal and rare" language.
My point being, the 100% prolife position has been, and is, a viable political position--contrary to what is said by some here, whose tools of argument are limited to either calling people liar or making dark insinuations.
Oh, and by the way, if you examine polling data, from 1980 forward, you'll find that the prolife position polls stronger today than it did then. So it won't cut it to say that it's less workable today, than it was then. It's moreso.
Now, let's fast-forward to 2000, when George W. Bush ran for President. He was the first GOP presidential candidate, since Reagan, who didn't take a solid position. I predicted then that his sellout position would become the "de facto" prolife position.
And now in 2012, we have Romney, who is actually worse. His position on abortion changes pretty rapidly. He's prolife; then he's pro-abortion; then he's prolife again; then he makes exceptions all over the place; then he says, he won't seek any legislative changes; then his spokesman walks that back.
While on the subject, I might point out something shocking but true.
Did you know that Roe v. Wade--yes, that decision--was the product of a strong majority of Republican-appointed justices? The seven-two ruling was endorsed by five GOP nominees. Roe is a GOP ruling.
It gets better. The GOP runs every year saying they will appoint justices who will overturn Roe. Wink, wink, trust me! they say. So by 1992, the Roe case was up for reconsideration, and potential reversal. And now we would see the fruits of the GOP's promises.
In 1992, Roe was upheld--by a five-four vote, and all five votes in favor were Republican. All five.
Now, the paragraph you quote is relevant if there is a choice between a significant improvement, and no improvement. Or, to put it another way, a significant worsening, versus lesser. But exactly what is the significant difference--on abortion--that Romney will make? Please tell me.
A lot of people mistakenly focus entirely on the Presidency--as if we live in a monarchy or something--while ignoring the Congress.
If we had someone good to back for President, I'd be delighted. But, in my judgment, we don't. So I'm focusing on Congress.
What Mamie said...
If that is indeed a real Papal Letter.. which I'm not question it because it sounds like the christianity I'm familiar with.
Thanks Mamie.
This weirdo who calls himself Fr Martin Fox might even be a Catholic. Might even be a monk or a priest. How wonderful! We're supposed to care about that?
The Professor is a professor of law. That's why we come here and read what she writes? That's not why I come here. I come here because her writing and her topics are interesting and insightful.
Fr Martin Fox is an asshole. It's OK. Even men of the cloth can be assholes. It happens.
Bob:
I'll be happy to produce my baptismal certificate in order to generate $1,000 to a charity we can both agree on.
Let's negotiate this.
Name the charity. I'll be broad-minded, as long as it's not something objectionable. I'm sure we can find something agreeable.
I'll gladly scan a copy of my baptismal certificate and have it posted online. Or mail it somewhere.
But, before I am going to do that, I want to see a check; not in my hands. Perhaps in Professor Althouse's hands, or some other trustworthy, neutral party.
Who here will you send the check to? Name the person.
Let's make this deal. It's for charity.
Father Fox sounds more like a Fox Contributor than a man of the cloth.
By the way, I agree it was probably uncalled for (or unwarranted) to challenge the Fr.'s bona fides. Uncalled for, but not super offensive or outrageous (relatively speaking).
A clerical collar doesn't mean he should expect or be granted more deference than any one else around here, and I think he would agree to that.
I strongly disagree with the Fr. in this case, and his POV even angers me, but I do think he's a good commenter, a good debater, a scrappy one, who gives at least as good as he gets, to all sides. And who argues courteously and (so far I reckon) in good faith. So overall he's all right with me, even though I feel antagonistic in this case.
Exhelo:
Good question, with short and long answers.
To cite a letter my Archbishop wrote--based, in turn, on what the Holy Father wrote--there are certain issues that are "non negotiables," because they involve intrinsic evils, not matters open to differences of opinion.
There are lots of intrinsic evils that a politician might advocate--if one thinks globally--but in this country, I would cite three:
> destruction of human life;
> redefinition of marriage;
> denial of religious liberty.
Other issues, which often come up, in reality involve prudential judgments. So, for example, programs to help the poor and provide health care. The issue isn't, practically, whether to help the poor, but how. That is a matter of prudential judgment, not good v. evil.
That's pretty dense, but there it is.
The older men restrict water intake to stave off the urge to urinate.
I find this ageist, sexist joke so, so, . . .?
Oh, yeah, ugly.
Fr Martin Fox, that's an honest reply. I appreciate that.
There's no need for a scan. I give to charity, like Mitt Romney. I'm happy to give a few bucks to someone deserving. My favorite charities are the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army. I'll give them the money in any case, and in fact, I'll do that now just for the heck of it.
I'd just like to see you come up with an excuse for the disaster you've done on this comment thread.
Something smells wrong about this thread.
Father,
Then you would not have supported the U.S. and Great Britain assisting the USSR during WWII?
Disaster HE has done?! Good Lord.
Yashu:
I honestly don't think I asked for any special deference because I'm a priest. If you think I have, I'd be interested in why, because I'm not aware of it.
When someone accuses me of doing a very evil thing, I'm going to come back hard on that.
There are a lot of ways to disagree with someone well short of false--and very ugly--accusations. Others chose to go there. I defended myself.
I am happy to accept apologies and stop there. I've suggested that course several times.
Exhelo:
Those are not candidates seeking office in an election in this country. That's what I was talking about.
The question of cooperating with the Soviet Union to defeat the Axis Powers is a legitimate moral question, but a different one.
Father Fox papers over the Popes letter Mamie cites at 9:33 .. because it seems to contradict his own political views and agenda?
The more Father Fox speaks... the more I sit here scratching my head.
Bob:
I'm glad to have you donate to charity, for any reason. And I'm glad to have a more irenic response from you.
But I really don't see what "disaster" you think I am guilty of. If you'd rather not make the case, that's fine, but I don't know what you are talking about.
I honestly don't think I asked for any special deference because I'm a priest. If you think I have, I'd be interested in why, because I'm not aware of it.
I agree, I don't think you have: I specifically said, I thought you'd agree with me on that point.
It's *others* (not you) who've become IMO overly offended/ sanctimonious on your behalf, insisting on special deference. Not you. Like I said, I believe you're a good & good faith commenter (so far).
Father Fox: You don’t consider the all-abortion, all-the-time ethos prevalent among Democrats today vastly different from Romney or Ryan’s conceding some ground on rape and incest?
Lem: That’s a real papal letter--the link takes you to the Vatican website.
Father,
I disagree - it is the same underlying question.
Do you feel that it is ever appropriate to cooperate with someone that you disagree with on a basic moral issue?
Father Fox, I look at it this way:
Obama is in favor or abortion rights that allow the killing of 1,000,000 babies every year. Romney is in favor of heavily restricted abortion rights that would allow the killing of around 10,000 babies every year.
A vote for Romney could help to limit that evil by preventing 990,000 killings every year. Voting for a third party candidate will do nothing to limit that evil because the third party candidate is not going to win.
Lem: That’s a real papal letter--the link takes you to the Vatican website.
I was just covering my ass.. since I was originally calling bullshit on the priest.. I'm on a defensive/offensive position here.
What are you getting at Freeman ;)
Friar liar, I have just donated a thousand dollars to the Salvation Army, one of the most efficient charities on the planet.
What's your story?
Baron Zemo said...
Not voting for either is voting for Obama.
You are voting present.
==================
I consider the "don't blame me, I voted for Mickey Mouse" crowd moral cowards and utter tools.
Democrats, of course, had far worse words for Floridians who said "I was too pure to vote for anyone but Ralph Nader".
As for the tool Fr Fox, he's lost all credibility.
Yeah, he blathers on endlessly about the evils of abortion - but when it comes to voting for a candidate that wants to keep Federal funding for abortion and wants more Ruth Ginsburgs - vs the guy that wants more Scalias and the end of abortion funding -
The Good Father takes a pass......
Shut the fuck up, mealy-mouthed priest!!
Mamie:
Is Romney less rabidly pro-abortion than Obama? Yes, but so what?
I asked before, I ask again: what is the expected difference in policy? I think there are a few, very small, differences, Romney can be counted on to make; but which can be made, in any event, by Congress, if we focus on that. So there's more than one way to get there.
Second, let's revisit the document you cited. It's not about what some seem to think. It is NOT about how a citizen ought to vote on a candidate.
It said:
When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.
(1) Note, first, it's about what is morally permissible for an elected official to do. So, you might apply this--should Romney or Ryan be elected--to a decision they might make.
But what would that be? What is the scenario in which Romney was prevented from doing more, so it became licit to do less?
Why, if less-than-perfect prolife legislation reached his desk, and he signed it. And, I agree; in that event, he would not be a bad guy for signing a less-than-perfect law. When did I say otherwise? (I didn't. Moving on...)
The question at issue now is choosing the candidate. And what position they take.
What, in the paragraph you cited, endorses a candidate endorsing abortion ahead of time, in some cases? (Nothing. Moving on...)
Finally, what, exactly, in this paragraph says anything in support of those who insist I'm obliged to vote for a partially-pro-abortion candidate, because the other guy is even worse?
Nothing says that.
Well, being denounced by the pro-abortion Jew-hater makes my day.
Bob Ellison said...
Friar liar, I have just donated a thousand dollars to the Salvation Army, one of the most efficient charities on the planet.
================
They are a Great charity! Not just putting 95% of donations to direct use, but spending it on Americans in need, not Africans.
Crack,
All the stuff about the choice we are left with being other peoples' fault is just irrelevant now. I was never a supporter of Romney until it came down to him or Obama. Since then, what I have seen and learned of him has only improved my opinion. He's not my ideal Presidential material, but he is pretty well qualified at least.
Refusing to vote for one of the only choices that can win is just like taking your ball and going home, because you don't agree with some of the refs calls. It's refusing to play because you can't be assured of everything you want. You think it's not fair that you have to fight for less than your own personal form of victory. That's just not in my character.
It's not about me, or my principles on how what ship we should be on now - we are on it. All we can do is go to the right side or the left trying to contribute to making slight corrections in the direction we want. It's always was, and it always will be. You can lean one way or the other, or just sit in the middle and be irrelevant.
Anderson, Nader, Perot, and all the Greens, and Libertarian candidates have made no difference in the long run. Those votes were just people sitting in the middle waving flags and waiting to see which way the rest of us steer the boat. That's not my style. I see this as a responsibility to the nation, not my principles. I'm not like that on everything, but voting is just that simple.
Bob:
I reiterate: if you want to see my baptismal certificate, I'll be happy to oblige. But I'd like to see the check, or something equivalent. Digging out my baptismal certificate and posting it online is a bit of trouble, so I'd like an equivalent amount of effort on your part.
Glad you donated.
Freeman, the "libertarian' cares about abortions.
She's so Arkansas.
And non elite university caste.
But I love her to death.
Arkansas and tits...
Freeman:
Please explain to me why I'm obliged to go contrary to my conscience and vote for someone who endorses evil.
Mind you, I am not, not, finding fault with how you intend to vote; just challenging the assumption that I have some obligation to vote for anyone. Who says?
And, by the way, I am going to vote; but I'm asking those who insist I am obliged to vote for someone, please cite something other than your opinion, as to why.
Fr Martin Fox, I'm not a religious man, but please, c'mon, you stupid idiot, try and get in the game. It's like you're not even paying attention.
Cedarford:
Romney will appoint another Scalia? Really? How do you know?
What's the cash value of your assurance?
If you're wrong, how do I get my vote back?
In short, that's a worthless promise. And it's pretty ridiculous that you believe it.
Mind you, I am not, not, finding fault with how you intend to vote; just challenging the assumption that I have some obligation to vote for anyone. Who says?
I'm not arguing that you do. Just wanted to share with you my reasoning for why a vote for Romney is better than a vote for a third party candidate when it comes to abortion rights issues.
Father Fox you brought "evil" politicians into it in the context of Romney alone... I ran with that.
I'm not obliging you to vote for anybody..
I like Mitt Romney as a choice. All of the choices on my California ballot, Romney, Johnson, Barr, Obama, Stein, Hoefling, Write-in, probably enable evil in the eyes of Fr. Fox, especially regarding abortion.
Abortion is not a litmus test I hold up to my political leaders. These are modern Caesars to which I will render political fealty and no more. I appreciate and honor my parents choice in raising me in a Protestant environment as far as religion goes.
It's also obvious to me that some candidates are worse than others, especially regarding abortion, but as I said, I don't do litmus tests.
Exhelo:
Of course there are times when one might cooperate with someone you'd rather not. Such as the one you cited.
But really, how are they the same?
One is a world war. All or nothing. No tomorrow.
Do you really mean to claim that the presidential election in 2012 is all-or-nothing, last chance? Really?
Congress doesn't matter?
There's never another election?
I've been doing what I can to fight abortion for over 30 years. I've been through a lot of elections. This is one race in one election year.
I'd rather focus my energy on Congress. The Senate confirms nominees and the two houses approve legislation. They can stop spending. This is not world war with only one option v. annihilation.
Yashu, I think as a man of the cloth, he deserves more respect than what he's been sown here. Since when has it been acceptable to disrespect clergy?
Maybe I'm just old, when we were taught to be respectful to Priests and Pastors and Nuns, Police, Firefighters, Doctors and Soldiers. This libertarian ideology is messed up, big time.
Inga, the Fr. is not performing the office of a priest when he comments here. His comments are his opinions, as a man. A man among other men and women here. He engages in scrappy debates and gets his rhetorical knuckles bloody (though overall maintains a relatively high level of courteousness and decency).
I may be inclined to grant him "more respect" if I met him in real life (and yet: compared to whom?), but there's no reason for me to grant his opinions and views as expressed in his comments more respect or deference than I grant to anyone else's here. I judge commenters by their comments, not the office or authority they purportedly hold.
And he's a pretty aggressive debater (in a good way). You enter the rhetorical boxing ring of a comments section, you're subject to the same rules and blows as anyone else.
I don't necessarily owe a policeman or doctor "off duty" more respect, let alone deference, than I owe any other human being-- though they might or might not earn more of my respect/ deference. Generally speaking (and unlike others here, at least their online personas), I tend to be a pretty respectful and courteous person toward everyone I meet.
And may I say, OMG the hypocrisy at this sanctimonious notion of "respect" due to certain office holders when you've been praising Biden's outrageously scornful and disrespectful performance all day.
Lem:
Let's get down to basics. If you're going to quote people, or attribute statements to people, get them right.
I did NOT call anyone evil. I said some people endorsed evil.
It's a simple but significant difference.
As is choosing not to vote for "R" not equalling intending to vote for "O."
If you can't keep facts straight, please don't make a point of accusing others of being liars.
It's not complicated.
You could just admit you were stubborn and wrong, and apologize, instead of doubling down on being offensive.
Freeman:
Fair enough. Sorry to be combative, but at the moment, I've got several people here who chose to accuse me of being a liar, declaring my support for Obama, hinting I'm a sexual reprobate, etc.
Funny what people will do for the sake of a candidate.
While we are on the subject, my favorite charity after just giving to those in need around me, is Brother's Brother Foundation in Pittsburgh, PA. 14th largest, 145 countries, 1% goes to overhead. 99% to serving people. The only large charity I give to.
You know what sucks is that most of my charity is not deductible. It's cash or labor given directly to people within arms length. That's what I prefer to do, but I sure wish I could get the 43% discount on my taxes for it.
Fr. Fox has an argumentative style which resembles the commenter 36sfiend (someone not seen here for a while): confident, domineering, & utterly sure of his/her doctrine.
I don't think I'm getting an invitation to Father Fox's coronation.
Bob:
You know, you're not the most civil guy around. You keep calling me a liar; and now you're complaining, about...what?
Yashu, the way Father Fox has been treated by you good folks here is far worse than Biden's performance last evening, far worse. And if you don't recognize that, well I really don't even know what to say anymore. Sanctimonious I may be.
No offense taken, Father.
I don't mind if someone calls me "evil".
I think it might help me get laid. Go at it. I just ate a kitten.
By the way, if I'm so wrong in making the candidates' stances about good and evil, if evil is too strong...
Then just why is it so, terribly, incredibly important I vote for this or that candidate? Isn't that because those who insist I do, think it's about...
Good and evil?
Why is everyone so mad tonight?
Lighten up--tomorrow is Saturday. And it's fall. Everyone loves fall.
Uh, Inga, the Althouse comments section is not the same setting as a Vice-Presidential debate.
Kind of a different venue.
Though it would have been something to hear Biden go: "Tits."
Fr. Fox has an argumentative style which resembles the commenter 36sfiend (someone not seen here for a while): confident, domineering, & utterly sure of his/her doctrine.
Its hard to come to an accommodation with Father Fox because he leaves no daylight between his commands for the wrongs done to him and our mutual desire... well, at least, my desire to see a reduction in the numbers of abortions... which he stubbornly wont admit would be the case on a Romney administration.
I've been watching a lot of MSNBC lately. I'm getting addicted. Those people are hilarious. It's like a broadcast from Bizarro World. They are very creative. The ideal sponsor for them would be Sammy's Shit Sandwiches. They could sell them like hotcakes.
Lem:
Apologizing for calling me a liar...and falsely accusing me of saying I was for Obama...and falsely insinuating immoral conduct...
might be a start.
What is so funny 'bout peace, love an' unnerstandin'?
Bagoh, I recently listened to a long political discussion with someone who gets all his news from MSNBC. It was incredible, like he had a different universe in his mind, a universe with mostly the same names in it but a totally different reality.
Welcome to the Althouse blog father ;)
Lem:
I lack the power to predict the future; so I cannot make any such prediction about how many abortions there will be under a Romney Administration vs. another Obama administration.
I have a hard time believing you can know such a thing--as opposed to hoping for it, which is an altogether different thing.
And, I might point out, I never faulted others for deciding to vote for Romney. Prove me wrong! I simply explained my choice not to do so.
Lem:
What's that--permission for lying about me? You think that's a joke?
I'm trying to be gracious toward you, I mean seriously, you said not too far back I was supposed to ask you nicely to apologize for things you did wrong?
All the stuff about the choice we are left with being other peoples' fault is just irrelevant now. I was never a supporter of Romney until it came down to him or Obama. Since then, what I have seen and learned of him has only improved my opinion. He's not my ideal Presidential material, but he is pretty well qualified at least.
I heard a great quotation on the new "Battlestar Galactica" last night.
A philosopher once said, when you have two untenable choices, you decide based on the imperatives.
Economic freedom is an imperative, at least to me. So there's the decision process. This is apparently not an imperative for Crack.
Father,
Voting for Romney is more likely to at least lead to limitations on late term abortions, and hopefully to limitations on federal financial support for abortions.
It is "All or nothing. No tomorrow." for the fetuses that would be saved.
Phx, I think if there were no more liberals to hate these folks would tear each other to shreds with relish. Look what they've done to one of their own who dares to vote his CONSCIENCE.
Exhelo:
I'm willing to take that assertion seriously, but then I'll be accused of being "combative." OK? Or would you prefer I be nicey-nice like Father O'Malley in "Going My Way"?
It gets harder and harder for me to take you seriously father.
Fr. Fox, If that's really your picture, you are like from central casting for a preacher. I don't doubt your authenticity at all, but if you were a fake, that's a perfect photo.
You know what sucks is that most of my charity is not deductible. It's cash or labor given directly to people within arms length. That's what I prefer to do, but I sure wish I could get the 43% discount on my taxes for it.
I'd be careful and think that through. Remember when Bill and Hillary were talking up the economies within the household? Someday they will try to tax that too.
I realize this is more of a complaint against taxation, but I don't deduct my charitable contributions. It's a moral issue for me, not a mathematical one. I don't want my good behavior to be attributable in anyway to government.
I mean since you are a man of the cloth and all.. and you said my soul is on the line..
Should you be going on blogs and browbeating people who disagree with you?
Whoa, you ask the Priest to ask you nicely for an apology after you accuse him of being a fake? Impersonating a Priest? You people have no ethics.
On the Internet, no one really knows if you are a dog or not.
Lem:
Fact: you lied about me. You said--falsely--I was for Obama. That. Was. False.
Fact: you called me a liar.
Fact: you insinuated I was guilty of some immoral conduct.
What is wrong with you? You know you're wrong, admit it.
Inga why do you act so surprised at that? You've been coming here long enough to know what some commenters are like, haven't you?
No disrespect intended at all.
Inga asserts that the two or three people (at most) who are not just criticizing but verbally abusing Fr. Fox on this thread somehow represent all conservatives. That is deeply ignorant or dishonest or a bit of each.
I don't recall reading much if anything from 'Lem' or 'Bob Ellison' before tonight, and the latter, who brags about using his real name, has a totally empty profile. He may or may not be telling the truth about his name, which is so common that it wouldn't suffice to identify him anyway: there are at least 20 Bob Ellisons in the US. 'Bob Ellison' may or may not be a sockpuppet for some other user (not necessarily Lem).
Given the abundance of people on the web who loathe and despise religious believers, particularly Christians, more particularly Catholics, and most particularly Catholic priests, I don't see that Lem and BE's nastiness towards Fr. Fox is necessarily motivated (primarily or at all) by any sort of conservatism rather than by religious contempt.
Finally, I estimate the probability that 'Bob Ellison' actually gave $1,000 to the Salvation Army today at something less than 2%. Fr. Fox would be very foolish to comply with any of his demands.
Bagoh20:
Heh. No, I'd be thinner.
It is "All or nothing. No tomorrow." for the fetuses that would be saved.
This is the strangest priest I have never met.
Phx, you're right of course, but they've done it to one of their OWN, a Priest, no less! I guess I'm a Pollyanna after all.
Some people you can't tell if they're a dog or not on the internet, but other people you can tell their character pretty readily.
Fact: you insinuated I was guilty of some immoral conduct.
You commanded me.. these are your words..
Stop while you are behind.
I'm not familiar with that style of speech.. and I made another assumption.
I'm not going to apologise for making human assumptions based on your words... father.
However, as a Catholic, I seriously doubt the veracity of Fr. Fox. No Priest that I have ever known would spend this amount of time on the Internet, chastising people and threatening their souls.
IF you are a Priest, Father, don't you have some actual, living and breathing parishioners to deal with? Instead of engaging in fruitless and pointless political fire fights with anonymous people on your computer screen, how about interfacing with people you can touch.
Actually, DBQ, in a very real sense, the opposite is true:
On the Internet, everyone can tell you're a dog, if you act like Lem.
Or like Inga and phx, busily pretending that Lem represents all conservatives.
Fact: you called me a liar.
We have all fallen short... father.
I'm not going to apologise for that!
Dr Weevil:
I'm not planning on posting my baptismal certificate until I know to some certainty the money got to the Salvation Army.
By the way, to explain the oddness? It was Bob who said he'd give $1,000 if I proved I am a Christian. So I was simply responding to the offer.
It might seem foolish, but $1,000 to charity seems well worth it.
In any case, my offer stands. Show me the money, I'll post my baptismal certificate. I mean, that's not that hard.
Dr. Weevil, If you conservatives and libertarians don't agree with the abuse Father Fox has been getting, why the hell am I the only one speaking up for him, besides Crack, until you did just now?
Me, an agnostic and Crack an atheist. Man that is ironic.
Dr Weevil I haven't mentioned anyone in particular by name.
Tetchy tetchy.
Fact: you lied about me. You said--falsely--I was for Obama. That. Was. False.
You are for Obama... father.
In fact, you are an Obama hack.. you are no priest at all.
DBQ:
It's midnight here. Who would you suggest I take care of at this hour?
Why does my being here require more explanation than yours?
I usually find it entertaining and stimulating to talk to folks here. What's wrong with that?
And when folks are lying about me, I prefer not to run at that moment.
Fox has an active blog all about priest type things that goes back to 2005. (Seven years!) He is listed in the office he claims at the place he claims.
Were it a ruse, it would be an incredible one.
I'm sure priests like to have downtime like the rest of us. We're all on here chatting away. Not surprising that a priest might want to do that too.
Oh. Dear. God.
Lem said:
In fact, you are an Obama hack.. you are no priest at all.
And I repeat my offer: prove it.
And if you do, I'll write $1,000 check to a charity we can both agree on.
If you can prove it, why wouldn't you want a charity to get $1,000?
Salvation Army? Red Cross? Name the charity.
And prove your accusation.
I don't think this election will save a single fetus, no matter which way it goes unfortunately. The good news though is that it's not up to the President. You need to convince mothers. They have always been the deciders.
I'm not a woman, and I'm old, so I'm sure that has a lot to do with it, but if I was a woman and found myself pregnant, I would have no problem taking that child to term, whether for adoption, or to raise myself regardless of who the father was or how I got pregnant.
That's recent. My first sexual experience at 15 yrs old resulted in pregnancy of my 14 yr old girlfriend. We sold everything we had, skipped middle school, and stole my parents car (no driver's license) to drive 35 miles to the closest clinic, and did it in the first month. Nobody ever found out.
I still think it was the right thing to do, but a very bad mistake to get in that situation. A very terrible mistake. I still talk to the woman who went on to have a large family of beautiful children, when she was prepared to give them a good life. I'm very thankful for that.
Lem, yow! Abort! Abort!
In fact, I think there are a number of decent and reasonable, can I even say likable, conservatives on Althouse.
And then there are some who really stink up the joint, I would think even for the decent guys (gender neutral usage here) that I like. But maybe that's not always the case either.
DBQ,
It's Friday night; Fr. Fox is a priest. He's not Batman. Parishioners don't usually knock on the door of the rectory at midnight. Since he's on the Internet on Friday night, he's keeping his vow of celibacy.
By the way, $1,000 is a lot of money for me. It would seriously hurt; but I could do it. It's actually possible to do it.
I figure if someone has the goods, it's an easy way either to get some money to charity, or really discredit me and shut me up but good.
Seems like a hard offer to resist, if one is sincere.
I think you are right Freeman.
He was 100% prolife, no exceptions, when he ran as VP in 1980, and for president, in 1988.
I distinctly remember he endorsed the rape & incest exceptions in debate with Dukakeyed.
How does the Pope feel about industrial strength, fire-hose douching as part of a rape-kit? Is that morally different from the "morning after" pill?
You're not speaking up for Fr. Fox, Inga. You're using him as a stick to beat all conservatives with.
And your complaint that no one else is standing up for him is ridiculous. Have you noticed that there are only about six people posting here? Everyone else has gone to bed or moved on to more lively threads or decided that Fr. Fox is perfectly capable of defending himself and it's not worth getting their hands dirty arguing with some thoroughly nasty people.
Lem:
You accused me of being for Obama, and of lying, and you insinuated I do immoral things.
I think those are serious things to accuse someone of. I'm paying you the compliment of treating you like someone who is coherent, and responsible for his or her actions--and thus, holding you accountable.
Earn that $1,000 for charity. Name the charity. Prove your accusation. Why do you hesitate?
Well Father, Martin, you took one of the conservatives that I rather thought well of down a couple of pegs in my book tonight. And I ain't talkin' about Lem.
Character will sometimes out.
Dr. Weevil, I don't need Father Fox to beat you over the head with, you folks make yourselves look bad without any help from me.
Ralph:
Well, it's not so much what the pope thinks, but what the Church teaches--i.e., the pope doesn't just teach what he likes, and the Church doesn't just reflect whatever the pope thinks.
But anyway...to put it as simply as I can, the Church does not consider it immoral for someone who has been raped to prevent pregnancy. Destroying a child once conceived, is an entirely different matter.
Inga, you are not the only person who has "spoken up" for Fr. Fox.
I have, just not as sanctimoniously as you.
I also believe he's perfectly capable of defending himself.
Inga, long before you came to the Althouse blog and long after you leave, there have been and will always be intense debates, arguments, fights, and brawls among 'right-wing' commenters. The same is true of almost any other internet site where a number of 'right-wingers' congregate.
I'm very glad to have left/ liberal/ Dem commenters here (some *much* more than others). I do think it adds invaluably to the richness of the conversation. But this insufferably smug notion that without you conservatives would be relegated to an "echo chamber" is belied by your own comment. Yes, we'll "tear each other to shreds" (translation: vigorously dissent, disagree, debate). And the problem with that is?
You keep talking about "their OWN" as if conservatives were an insular tribe, and you're shocked, like an anthropologist, that they're not (why oh why are they beating up on each other?).
It's a ridiculous premise. A vast spectrum of individuals with any number of different political, ideological, cultural, psychological, moral and other views may consider themselves 'conservative' or 'right wing'. And many of them love rhetorical combat, among themselves as well as against more common foes.
Phx:
Well, honestly, that wasn't my intention. Way back, I was engaging with Garage about an argument of his I thought was ridiculous. At some point, we got onto Romney and Ryan, and I explained I wouldn't vote for Romney. And then all hell broke loose.
Ralph:
About Bush's endorsement of exceptions in 1988...
Well, I recall differently, and as sure as I am of that, my recollection isn't necessarily better than yours, so...the only way to settle it would be to "go to the tape."
Why is everyone so mad tonight
Well I am down here for a funeral. Seems like a good time to watch a Priest argue about the moral approach to voting.
I did find it cute that Garage thought he had a good argument.
Name the charity. Prove your accusation. Why do you hesitate?
Because in the US you don't do things under duress?
And Inga is too dishonest to withdraw the imputation that all the conservatives here are responsible for what two people (if they are in fact two people) who may or may not be conservatives (I mean 'Lem' and 'Bob Ellison') say.
I think the conservatives who hang out here, though far from perfect, rate tolerably high for honesty and decency, at least when compared with the likes of Inga, garage mahal, O Ritmo Segundo, and a few others I could name if I could be bothered.
Yashu, he is perfectly able to defend himself, but it's in my nature to not stand by and watch abuse happen in front of my eyes and not speak up. It's called decency.
Yes, I see the attack has now shifted to the liberals again, ashamed of what they've done to their own.
Lem:
What duress?
You chose to make accusations against me. No duress. Your choice.
I simply gave you incentive to prove it.
I might remind you I've repeatedly invite you to apologize for saying outrageous things.
So it's your choice.
Apologize. Or prove your claims and I'll write $1,000 check to a charity of your choice.
Or someone else can choose if that helps?
Hey, I'm behind on some bills because I've had to help my mother with her rent. Why not throw some charity my way?!
Or consider purchasing a print or drawing...
Father, I think Lem has dropped it.
I know the answer to the original question. Paul Ryan drank so much water so that he could keep cool when he logged onto Althouse after the debate to have heated discussions.
Ha, Freeman. I had forgotten the whole "why did Ryan drink so much" wuestion, and I have only bee on this for a little while!
Father, I think Lem may be drunk again and doesn't know what he's saying.
Palladian:
Good stuff! I am sorry, I didn't realize you were an artist.
Oh! Lem deleted it, LMAO!
Inga:
That may be. I'm fine with that explanation.
So, on that note lets all have a nice cold drink of water! :)
I don't know why Ryan drank so much, I don't think I noticed it. But I thought it was a pretty nasty swipe by Althouse to "speculate" that Biden didn't drink because "older men restrict water intake to stave off the urge to urinate."
I suppose if you're going to demean Biden what difference does it make - go ahead and demean older men while you're there.
So Lem's not responsible for his vicious abuse, but all the conservatives who haven't stood up for Fr. Fox because they're asleep in bed or not aware that this thread is still active are responsible for not defending him. So sayeth Inga, anyway.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा