Are all Repubs pervs?

It's not the perverse sexual inclination since, of course, there is no such thing among the 'left'. It's the hypocrisy!!! Come out of the closet, divorce your wife, leave your family, come down with AIDS and all will be well! Larry Craig's a putz.

#1 tom c on 2007-08-28 09:05 (Reply)

I agree. The public hypocrisy is always a problem for Repubs.

Alas, the Dems seem to hold themselves to low standards, so it is rarely an issue.

A strange world in which one can be immunized by not discussing morals...and are held to a God-like expectation if you do. I feel sorry for Larry Craig, even though he may be a jerk.

#1.1 BD on 2007-08-28 10:05 (Reply)

Alas, the Dems seem to hold themselves to low standards, so it is rarely an issue.

They don't have low standards, they just have different standards. To the average Democrat, homosexuality between consenting adults isn't immoral, but bigotry towards gay people is.

So they aren't condemning Senator Frank for being gay. They've condemned him for spewing anti-gay bigotry...and today we know that his sin is even worse than it first appeared: As a gay man himself, he would have known that he was spewing nonsense, so he can't use ignorance as a defense for his bigotry.

That said, he really shouldn't have been cruising for sex in a public restroom that other people were trying to use. He should waited until he got to his destination, and then visited one of the local taverns or dance clubs set aside for that purpose.

If you have any other questions about morality, don't hesitate to ask. After all, it's the only way you'll learn anything!

#1.1.1 chaos_engineeer on 2007-08-28 10:51 (Reply)

"Alas, the Dems seem to hold themselves to low standards, so it is rarely an issue."

Dems just have to answer for being wealthy or the actions of every company that they may be or have been invested in or members of their family have been invested in or trips they have taken in jets that polluted the atmosphere or their energy expenditures. Apparently you can't support the underclass and energy conservation without wearing sandals and a hemp robe.

Repubs have been bludgeoning us with their holiness, don't whine when the bludgeon swings back.

#1.1.1.1 gsmoove on 2007-08-28 17:03 (Reply)

The arrogance may drive the hypocrisy. Like sports stars and entertainers who have people fawn over them, politicians seem to develop the same "I'm invulnerable. I can do as I please. Screw 'em all" attitude.

So now my list of Republican Senators to get rid of fast is up to 3: Lott, Stevens, Craig.

Many people can handle failure. The test of character is to handle success.

Editing note. You may want to reword that part about Barney Frank "filling you in." Heh.

#2 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2007-08-28 10:13 (Reply)

Larry Craig .. straight as an arrow.

YES..in the great tradition of the Greek Spartans and the Ottoman Janissaries Senator Larry "Third Leg" Craig is a brave , courageous MAN, and perhaps in that special way of those ancient and brave warriors.

A brief conversation overheard at a Washington DC bar exemplifies the honor of this man. Upon seeing a young gentleman seated precariously too far from the bar to reach his drink and also blocking foot traffic the Senator approached the young man and asked, "May I push your stool in?"

Yes, Larry "Third Leg' Craig was caught practicing dancing steps known as "clogging" while dumping but honestly , don't clogging and dumping often go together..just ask your Roto Rooter man.

In a recent presss release from the Senator's office his press aide said that the Senator has no plans to resign and return to his gerbil ranch in Idahole.

Vote Larry"Third Leg" Craig ..a man who can drive home a point!!

Senator Criag will be attending the RiverDance Dinner tonight at the Kennedy Center.

#3 Mr. Renee on 2007-08-28 10:24 (Reply)

craig is gay. who cares. craig is gay and votes to deny equal rights to gay people. now that's a story. it's not about standards. if the republicans would just stay the f*** out of my bedroom then there wouldn't be a problem. but they can't because they think they are so damn righteous. foley passing child abuse laws while abusing children. congressmen voting to impeach clinton for lying about an extramarital affair while they are lying about having extramarital affairs. haggard preaching against the sins of gay sex and drug abuse while abusing drugs during gay sex. again - keep your f'ing nose out of other peoples business and you won't have any more of these problems. simple.

#4 jay k. on 2007-08-28 10:27 (Reply)

jay k. i think you've put your finger right up the problem..uh on the problem, uh exposed the problem..wait identified the problem..yeah that's it.

Gerbil Horribilus

#4.1 Mr. Renee on 2007-08-28 10:37 (Reply)

You have half of a good point there. What I do not understand is who it is who wants to invade your bedroom.

#4.2 BD on 2007-08-28 10:40 (Reply)

BD...my goodness man where have you been.

Haven't you read of the "Beyond Delta Force" "BadAss Bedroom Invaders Force"?

Highly skilled in penetrating the most secure areas of you home and videotaping parents instructing thier children in the proper placing of rubbers over bananas..

The also carry salt peter grinders to use in garnishing your veggies.

#4.2.1 Habu on 2007-08-28 10:57 (Reply)

Tonight on a Fox News Special

A penetrating examination of the innocent clogger.

#5 Mr. Renee on 2007-08-28 10:33 (Reply)

Faux Indignation

Folks, man's nature and proclivities haven't changed in like forever. Homo's, liars, tricknologists, hucksters etc. Some simply choose to get involved in politics.

Hypocracy wasn't just recently exposed as one of those human shortcomings. And lying, every person writing on this blog has lied at one time or another..every one of us. Humans lie,cheat ,steal,kill for a host of reasons, homo-around, whore around, round round get around we get around ... cut the faux indignation.

#6 Habu on 2007-08-28 10:50 (Reply)

I may whore and kill, but you'll never catch me in a deliberate lie. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "deliberate."

#6.1 BD on 2007-08-28 11:02 (Reply)

�keep your f'ing nose out of other peoples business and you won't have any more of these problems. Simple�

So no child, drug abuse or perjury laws needed? No laws on anything, then, by the logic that hypocrisy obviates the good of legal standards.

You�ve conflated all the issues here. Most of us don�t want 30 year-old men having sex with ten year-olds, mind-destroying drugs legal for our teens, or anybody, much less a sitting President, lying to obstruct justice in a lawsuit (and yes what he did in the Oval Office was fair game discovery in a sexual harassment suit.)

After certain lines are drawn, however, close the door to the bedroom and private toilet stalls, please, to keep out pruriently clucking peeping tom neighbors and officials. Public accommodations are not so legal for a reason, and are more interesting for the risk and anonymity of it all- to some people. Craig played and lost this time. No risk, no frisk by an officer.

#7 Anonymous on 2007-08-28 11:11 (Reply)

habu...
you are absolutely right, we are all fallible and all make mistakes and all lie from time to time. however someone who will act to deny the inalienable rights of others justifies all the indignation that can be mustered. again...if the republicans weren't so intent on legislating their faux righteousness then there wouldn't be a problem. the problem here is not craig's sexual preferences...although i wouldn't want him in the stall next to me. it's the right's insistence in telling the rest of us how to live our lives. keep your f'ing noses out of my business and there is no problem.

#8 jay k. on 2007-08-28 11:15 (Reply)

Well I do know that we must have standards if people are going to insist on clogging while using public facilities.

We just can't have cops sitting in stalls preying on innocent cloggers ... in fact I just heard that it was actually a Muslin clogging ritual he was practicing for the Annual White House Muslim Clogging Festival.

Who is this cop anyway and why wasn't he at the donut stand?

#8.1 Habu on 2007-08-28 11:41 (Reply)

Tell that to the IRS. Remind them of your right to privacy and the sanctity of your private business. There's no inalianable right to buggery. Keep it private and no one cares. In fact no one ever has cared until it became an imaginary 'right' and the doyens of PC began the process of equivocation. No one cares although some parents would prefer to spare their children from a premature loss of innocence and moral confusion.

#8.2 tom c on 2007-08-28 11:44 (Reply)

wow! what is up with republicans?

murder / suicide in orlando!
senators cruising bathrooms for sex!
congressman trolling after pages!
campaign workers arrested on coke charges!
pastors using meth and having sex with gay hookers!
senator's name in the DC madame phone book!
campaign workers cruising for sex in public parks!
presidential candidate married his cousin, announced his separation to his wife on tv and married his mistress!

and just look at the democratic frontrunners for president... all still in their first marriages!

i wonder which party stands for family values?

#9 sean sheer on 2007-08-28 11:18 (Reply)

Shucks, we Repubs just know how to have fun.

#9.1 The Barrister on 2007-08-28 11:46 (Reply)

you confuse ordinary politicians, of which the kind you tabulate exist in innumerable quantities, with those who are powerful enough to bury their pasts.

Your problem is that you think there are politicians who are not whores, liars, and mobsters, apparently with D next to their names. I hate to break it to you, but you are blinded by the idea that one side is better than the other.

#9.2 Phil on 2007-08-29 15:23 (Reply)

anonymous...
child abuse is a whole 'nother thing. i have a right to privacy. i don't have a right to abuse children. i have right to privacy. i don't have a right to do others injury while under the influence, or while talking on cell phone for that matter. i have a right to privacy. i don't have a right to lie in court. (and i know where you are going with the perjury comment but we all know what that was about don't we?)

#10 jay k. on 2007-08-28 11:21 (Reply)

jay k.
sorry dude but you mantra just doesn't make it so

"i have a right to privacy, oooommmm"

nope

#10.1 Habu on 2007-08-28 12:53 (Reply)

"if the republicans would just stay the f**k out of my bedroom then there wouldn't be a problem. but they can't because they think they are so damn righteous. foley passing child abuse laws while abusing children..."

You have a right to privacy as circumscribed by law. We need to make laws so that people can't abuse children, etc. with impunity. The fact that a legislator may be a hypocrite on an issue from time to time 1) isn't surprising and, 2) doesn't lead to your conclusion that a political party and government needs to keep the f*** out of your private affairs. Illicit, atrocious behavior is often "private." Your mantra of "right to privacy" is meaningless until you define it.

#11 Anonymous on 2007-08-28 11:31 (Reply)

I believe it was the bard of Oklahoma , Will Rogers who said that there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

I believe that between Barnet Frank, Gerry Studds, and Larry Craig that thin dimes difference gap has closed to zero gap.

Suddenly Bill C. is look'in damn good, I mean he at least went after a young semi pretty thong showing FEMALE. I mean let's face it he did have belt high Robert Reich around...Yep Bill Clinton..heterosexual and his lovely wife Hillary .. bi?

#12 Habu on 2007-08-28 11:35 (Reply)

anonymous...
you are correct that children need laws to protect them. in an ideal world these laws would be written by people who actually have their best interests at heart. however, that does not negate my point that the republicans should stop trying to deny rights to others in order to molify their faux morality.

#13 Anonymous on 2007-08-28 11:43 (Reply)

There is no "right of privacy" guaranteed" in our constitution.

That is a myth but one the courts have prostitutued similar to other "rights" they have discovered over the years in our constitution. Heck at one point in out history the SCOTUS was upholding slave laws, and if we adhered strictly to the beloved stare dicisis dictum of law we'd still be a slave owning country.

#14 Habu on 2007-08-28 11:49 (Reply)

"There is no 'right of privacy' guaranteed in our constitution."

You know better than that, Haba, it's right there next to the umbra, in our constitution, right there in the penumbra.

#15 bob on 2007-08-28 12:00 (Reply)

Sorry to disagree. I believe Amendment X gives all freedom to the people.

#15.1 BD on 2007-08-28 12:21 (Reply)

sean and jay, I think those points have been frequently made and given some weight. I don't understand why they keep being played as trump cards. To reject Republican policy prescriptions because some Republicans are hypocrites is just vacant thinking. Political thought is not about how you "feel" about the people involved.

It gives Democrats a feeling of great self-righteousness to point out the flaws of Republicans. I could make a similar list of criminal Democrats and well-behaved Republicans, but what would that prove?

So here's the challenge: I contend that what Democrats are calling self-righteousness in Republicans is actually something else. They can't see or understand what the "something else" is because they are projecting their own self-righteousness - leaking out all over this thread, BTW - onto others. Try and figure out what the "something else" is. You will think more clearly forever.

#16 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2007-08-28 12:03 (Reply)

Notice to all you righteously indignant Democrats worming out of the woodwork

Stop, you guys invented more of this perverse society we have to now endure than all the Republican sins ever committed.

You've got a coalition for a party composed of every egg sucking dog group on the planet.

So give it a rest or the jackbooted Republicans will have to stomp you faggot masters into a whimpering mass of something resembling strawberry jam

#17 Habu on 2007-08-28 12:26 (Reply)

Well, we banned 'judgementalism' --culturally, anyway--in the 60s and since then the social pathologies have gone sky high.

Why did we ban 'judgementalism'?

Well, probably a reaction to the nosiness that jay and sean decry.

But still, we have to ask ourselves, what are we looking for here? Utter license? Is that our preferred endpoint?

#18 buddy larsen on 2007-08-28 12:28 (Reply)

That is the Big Question for us quasi-Libertarians, isn't it?

#18.1 BD on 2007-08-28 12:31 (Reply)

We don't do much egg sucking, but Barney has this little trick he showed Jerry Studds ..wow.

BTW... my heritage is multi-ethnic, father was a Mexican and mother was a Somoan. So when I get jackbooted I'll probably end up looking like a chutney-mango jam..is that OK?

#19 Al Bolene on 2007-08-28 12:36 (Reply)

no

#19.1 buddy larsen on 2007-08-28 13:29 (Reply)

LOL!

#19.1.1 Anonymous on 2007-08-28 13:35 (Reply)

Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution ?

Well, I searched my copy of the Constitution of the United States and I couldn't find the word privacy anywhere in the document.

The Bill of Rights

The original Constitution contained no Bill of Rights, because the authors believed it wasn't necessary � since the Constitution clearly enumerated the few powers the federal government was given.

However, some of the Founding Fathers thought there could be misunderstandings. So a Bill of Rights was composed � and some states ratified the Constitution only on condition that those amendments would be added to the Constitution.

Whereas the main part of the Constitution spells out the few things that government may do or must do, the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights spell out what government may not do. For example:

The government can't search or seize your property without due process of law,

It can't keep you in jail indefinitely without a trial,

It can't enact laws abridging the freedom of speech or religion, or infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

And various other prohibitions on government activity are spelled out.

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, where's the right to privacy?

Can someone get a towel? We have a huge Constitutional penumbra leakage over here. And once it breaks open we'll have a total Katrina Constitution.

Now not only do you not have the "Right" to privacy thanks to the Kelo decision you can't even keep your property if I can prove I can produce more revenue for the FEDS.

Now that ain't right

#20 Habu on 2007-08-28 12:47 (Reply)

Mo no privacy

Having read through the amendments on the Findlaw.com web site though, I can�t find any amendment that explicitly protects a United States citizen�s right of privacy. The 14th amendment is often cited as the amendment which protects what Justice Louis Brandeis called the �right to be left alone�, but upon reading it, it appears that a fair amount of interpretation has to be allowed for in order to come to the conclusion that it inherently protects our privacy. The 1st, 4th and 5th amendments are also occasionally referred to in discussions of a right of privacy.

Of course, the 10th amendment explicitly grants authority to the individual states for any power not delegated to the United States Congress or prohibited explicitly in the Constitution of the United States. So, there may very well be provisions protecting privacy in state constitutions or state laws. There are also a number of statutes and regulations at both the federal and state levels which are based at least in part on the inferred right of privacy .

#21 Habu on 2007-08-28 13:00 (Reply)

My right to privacy is protected by the 10th and by my home arsenal. I humbly request that the govt leave me alone, in general.

Any power the govt cannot strongly claim in the Constitution is my own.

#21.1 The Barrister on 2007-08-28 13:49 (Reply)

After a tour of several liberal sites, I can report that most of them are very reluctant to make too much out of this issue, except to the extent that it shows the usual hypocrisy of Value Republicans. Quite a few Democrats, myself included, think that Craig's arrest was a stretch, not because he wasn't cruising, but because I don't think cops should be going out of their way to bust something like that.

It does sometimes seem that the leadership of the Republican party is composed entirely of ass bandits, but I expect the reality is that almost any group will have roughly the same percentage of homosexually-inclined individuals in it. To misuse a statistical term, homosexuality is very much a standard deviation. The question is, why should anybody want to get upset about it? What's next, a new campaign against self-abuse? A protest against the law of gravity?

#22 Jim Harrison on 2007-08-28 14:24 (Reply)

You can't swing a dead cat in Washington without hitting a hypocrite. On both sides of the aisle. So there's a certain kind of person vying for public office? What is it?

Firedoglake can go spit with that crap assessment of a whole category of people. It was based on what? Politicians. Me and my friends with a conservative bent aren't represented. We're more than the idiotic straw man FDG stuffed with illogic for burning in effigy in front of the choir.

Here's a hint for the lower-the-bar liberals like FDL, who want to celebrate six standard deviations from decency, six ways to Sunday: You don't help your cause when you piss off good people who welcome change that works.

Damn.

#23 Jephnol (Link) on 2007-08-28 14:26 (Reply)

Hypocrisy, shmipocracy.

The question is this: Do we really want perverts listening in on our private conversations?

#24 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-28 14:49 (Reply)

Hey CC dude, you got that tin foil hat on a bit tight. I guess you keep it on so when the black helicopters fly over it won't blow off.

#24.1 Habu on 2007-08-28 17:08 (Reply)

Actually, I wear tin foil panties. wink

#24.1.1 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-28 17:57 (Reply)

Just one question: Some of us voted for Republicans because we were persuaded that they represented our values in a number of areas.

We were wrong.

How does the Craig incident change that?

#25 Larry Sheldon on 2007-08-28 14:58 (Reply)

Whether or not Republicans are more hypocritical than Democrats seems questionable, and not particularly interesting. On the other hand, the Republican party has a history of appealing to anti-gay sentiment in many parts of the country, making it much more awkward for a Republican to be "out." One can't help wondering the extent to which legislative decisions are being biased by closeted Republicans trying to be "more homophobic than thou" to head off any possible suspicion.

#26 trrll on 2007-08-28 15:23 (Reply)

I think you'd find, if you looked, that what conservatives are against is "identity-politics", whatever particular identity it might be.

The thinking is, the principle involved is good for everybody, "everybody" being the members of the citizenry.

That thought leads to acceptance of all the personal freedom that doesn't harm the body politic. Of course, that's where the culture wars start --what constitutes "harm"?

A lot of people who couldn't care less what a person does in private do in fact object to alternate lifestyles being promoted to the young, on the principle that children first need to know the national traditions, before they can sensibly choose whether or not to deviate from them.

As with so many issues, the real divide is over whether we should live for the moment, or in preparation for the future. Identity-politics are about gaining share of what is, as opposed to growing more of everything for everybody.

#27 buddy larsen on 2007-08-28 16:21 (Reply)

i have always thought the right to privacy, although not specifically enumerated, was expressed throughout the constitution...see the first, tenth, and fourteenth, for starters. admitedly i am not a constitutional lawyer, but i did stay at a holiday inn last night...
anyway...the issue at hand is not even hypocrisy. the issue is someone legislating morality for others when they do not live by those morals themselves. i don't know the word for it...but it's beyond hypocrisy. imagine ted kennedy legislating prohibition. we are all hypocrites to some degree. forcing that hypocrisy on the lives of others is despicable.

#28 jay k. on 2007-08-28 16:29 (Reply)

Kinda like when China is on the Human Rights Board down at the UN,
Or what is it now? Iran on the racism panel? Yup just happened.

#28.1 Phil on 2007-08-29 15:33 (Reply)

The cries of "hypocrisy" and lack of morality are all valid on some level or another and I do not disparage them except maybe as irrelevant.

What scares and saddens me is this: Int eh republic (not little "r") these were supposed to be the brightest and best that we elected to represent us.

I feel irretrievably stupid when I fall for a revenue operation out on the highway.

I have traveled a lot, driven a truck, been to a lot of public restrooms and street corners(including some in "that would never happen here" places, and I've seen a number of invitations for things you would not believe by people that would surprise you.

In each case my first thought was "Yeah, right. Fall for a police sting? You bet!"

But because I wasn't interested, maybe I missed the genuine offers.

But my main point is, are these people really the brightest and best we have?

#29 Larry Sheldon on 2007-08-28 16:42 (Reply)

the breast and the bite-est

#30 buddy larsen on 2007-08-28 16:50 (Reply)

"Hypocrisy, shmipocracy. The question is this: Do we really want perverts listening in on our private conversations?"

Since when is a public toilet a private conversation?!

#31 Jephnol (Link) on 2007-08-28 16:59 (Reply)

I meant that those in power are often even more human than those not in power. That is, human but without all the self-imposed checks and balances the less ambitious usually possess. And that ever since Clinton, their ability to wield power has been steadily increasing, my fellow hot tub frog.

#31.1 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-28 18:06 (Reply)

Larry S.

Sorry dude but there ain't no "suppose" about electing the best and brightest. Sometimes the best, sometimes the brightest but way too often it's the best connected, slimy, con man backed by a big industry or the latest greatest, a foreign government. In defense of our great country I will say however that ifyou read enough of the Founding Fathers you find they too possessed the pettiness, underhanded trickery, and every other artifice to win.

What we have are a couple of catagories.
1. Rich lawyers who are also power hungry
2.Rich Wll Streeters who want more power
3. Rich businessmen that want more power
4. The occasional party hack who worked his/her way up through the Party ..the idealist , turned pit bull who wants payback power.
5. Former Student Council Presidents
6. People who are gerrymandered into the seat .
7. The bought and paid for politician/mouthpiece.

The one or two things they all share is their desire for power and to use that power to"help" us poor dumb citizens make it through life....and to bail out our economy by becoming the underwriter of all risk.

See the deal is now everything is too big to fail without taking down the entire economy. So when a private hedge fund gets into trouble it's the FED that coordinates the bail out. Do you think the US Government would let the Bank of America go belly up, even though it is a stock company? Hell no. Now PEP BOYS gets inot trouble...adios too bad stockholders your company wasn't big enough to save.

They use to say no risk ,no reward...well 99% of the fat cats are going to remain fat cats long after your 401K is zeroed out. The government won't save your 401k but they'll save an entire bank or industry...if you're invested in that area you win, if not you lose....just make sure on April 15th you are fully ready because BOHICA has arrived.

#32 Habu on 2007-08-28 17:34 (Reply)

Who ever said "best and brightest"? I thought we were supposed to have regular, ordinary citizen-politicians, who served a term or two before returning to real life.

See Wm F. Buckley's famous quote about the Boston phone book.

#33 BD on 2007-08-28 17:37 (Reply)

Now I don't want to come across as rich envy so I need to add this..as we saw from the nifty moving chart presentation yesterday...the rich and super rich pay about 90-95% of all tax revenue..somewhere in that ball park so they are doing a good deal of the heavy lifting.... on second thought it is rich envy.

I want the big boat, the jet, the six homes all over, the Playmate honey blonde trophy with an energizer bunny sex drive, a Ferrari and a Bentley .. yeah it's rich envy...

#34 Habu on 2007-08-28 17:42 (Reply)

BD..actually the recently departed David Halberstam wrote a book, "The Best and the Brightest"

and if I'm gonna be governed by the first 2000 names in any phonebook please make some place reasonable ..Radar O'Reilly's hometown, Ottumwa, Iowa.

#35 Habu on 2007-08-28 17:48 (Reply)

I know. I read it. They were neither the best nor the brightest. Just a bunch of academics.

#35.1 BD on 2007-08-28 20:02 (Reply)

no, Mayberry, RFD.

#36 buddy larsen on 2007-08-28 17:53 (Reply)

Moscow, Idhao.

#37 bob on 2007-08-28 18:07 (Reply)

That above there is an alternative spelling of Idaho.

#38 bob on 2007-08-28 18:10 (Reply)

also, "Hidao", alternative spelling proposed by especially friendly Idahoans.

#38.1 buddy larsen on 2007-08-28 18:35 (Reply)

I always find the b.s. about "no right to privacy" being in the constitution particularly interesting. In the bill of rights, there are NO RIGHTS...merely prohibitions. Only dumbass bloggers would make an argument that this means we do not infer that these prohibitions represents important "rights"...wait, bloggers and Alberto Gonzalez (remember when he eloquently argued that there is not guarantee of a right of habeus corpus, just a prohibition agianst suspending the right).

So, as a refresher, the right to privacy is derived from the 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. If the founders thought to protect your home and personal effects, presumably (i know it is a big leap for republicans) they thought you had a special right to keep those things PRIVATE.

hope you find this helpful.

try to think, before you spout off about penumbras, where would you really be if the constitution were read "literally", or in other words, without the benefit of history and context.

I would be able to put everyone on this blog in the stocks for blasphemy...and the idea suits me, so be careful what you wish for.

#39 PJ Chicago on 2007-08-28 18:34 (Reply)

"...and the idea suits me, so...."

Ok, but since when does the law stop a Democrat from Chicago?

#39.1 buddy larsen on 2007-08-28 18:40 (Reply)

PJ Chicago

Nope didn't help a bit...you just showed us your ass that's all....

the right to privacy is "derived" from ...

You must be one of those "The Constitution is really Gumby in disguise" fellas
Let's see how many "derives" we can expand the Constitution to...

I always find guys like you particularly interesting, offering refresher courses.......help me out here again..

just point out where even the WORD PRIVACY is located in the Constitution...ours by the way not Canada or Australia..you know , just ours..

OK..here we go PJ Chicago will take " Find the word privacy In the US. Constitution for $500

Ahh ...what is derives?
oops sorry PJ.

Well you didn't win PJ but we do have a framed copy of the US Constitution for you ..just as a "refresher"

#40 Habu on 2007-08-28 19:30 (Reply)

What y'all are dealing with here are the differences between the Libertarian and the Conservative (a la Russell Kirk) views of law.

I am composting a post on the subject, and composing a mini-post at this moment.

#40.1 The Barrister on 2007-08-28 20:05 (Reply)

Sweet...

#40.1.1 Jephnol (Link) on 2007-08-28 20:11 (Reply)

PJ no doubt a southside Chi person. A Dem too I bet.

redemption time PJ..the board is yours.

Thanks Mr. Renee..

I'll take" How Democrats teach their children to put on their underwear for $1000.

"What is yellow in the front and brown in the back?

Hey HEY zip zing ..right PJ !!!!!

#41 Mr Renee on 2007-08-28 20:12 (Reply)

A first grade teacher explained to her class that she was a liberal Democrat. She then asked her students to raise their hands if they were liberal Democrats, too. Not really knowing what a liberal Democrat was, but wanting to please their teacher, hands exploded into the air like fleshy fireworks.

There was, however, one exception. A girl named Lucy had not gone along with the crowd. The teacher asked Lucy why she decided to be different.

"Because I'm not a liberal Democrat," Lucy said. The teacher asked, "Then what are you?"

"I'm a proud conservative Republican" said the little girl.

The teacher, a little perturbed & red-faced, asked Lucy why she was a conservative Republican?

Lucy proclaimed, "Well, I was brought up to trust in myself and freedom, instead of relying on an intrusive government to care for me

and do all of my thinking. My Dad and Mom are conservative Republicans, and I am a conservative Republican too."

The teacher calmly pointed out, "That's no reason. What if your Mom and Dad were both morons? What would you be then?"

Lucy answered, "Then, I'd be a liberal Democrat."

#42 Macon County Billy on 2007-08-28 20:18 (Reply)

Wow, where did all these poor persecuted libs come from. Lots of new names posting today. Were they lurking in mens room stalls all this time or at the DU or the Kos. Same thing. They were let loose to build straw men and then beat them to death. This seems like a planned event like talk radios seminar callers.

#43 sean on 2007-08-28 20:37 (Reply)

Visitors. Be nice to them. We welcome all.

#43.1 BD on 2007-08-28 20:52 (Reply)

By the way don't mix me up with that sean sheer. I just got here. I'm the sean that lives here.

#44 sean on 2007-08-28 20:47 (Reply)

Surely the more serious question is not whether the right to privacy is implicit in the constitution, but whether people (including Craig, by the way) should be afforded such a right in America. I'm not a constitutional lawyer and leave the legal debate to others. I do want to live in a country where the government isn't hiding under my bed with a tape recorder or deciding on which consensual sexual practices I ought or ought not engage in.

Legalities aside, why are you Republicans so eager to make the government into Big Brother?

#45 Jim Harrison (Link) on 2007-08-28 21:42 (Reply)

Jim ole buddy, do you recall ever read'n about a fella named FDR? How he expanded Gov'ment nad actually prolonged the D-pression? How he enlarge the government and socialized it ?

You recall any of that? And yet you ask a question about Republicans wanting to turn government into BIg Brother?

Do you recall when the top tax rates were in the 90% range under Democratic administrations? That's your money and my money being taxed and redistributed on a Marxist scale con brio.

Do you recall Harry Truman federalizing the mines? Remember that?
Do you recall under that FDR fell how many communists were in his State Department?

Now I seem to recall that Republicans like to lower taxes, which they did under Ronald Reagan and revenue to the gov'ment went way up.

I remember how Republicans are againt killing fetuses which if gestated to bith would be people not what Democrats call just a blob of whatever.

I recall the Republicans being against having a baby 98% out of the birth canal before a doctor sucks the baby's brains out with a vacuum cleaner ..gosh that's what the Democrats are really for ...sucking the brains out of babies who in another six inches out of the birth canal would be covered by all the rights of law...

You Democrats are pure unalloyed trash pursuing a BIg Brother agenda along Marxists lines as aggressively as you "Progressives " can get 'er done..

Take your soapbox and faux indignation and shove it.

#45.1 Habu on 2007-08-28 22:51 (Reply)

"The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. The radical right has nearly ruined our party." �BG

JH, Is that what you�re talking about?

#45.2 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-28 23:21 (Reply)

�Republicans think the governing class in Washington are a bunch of buffoons who have total disregard for the principles of the party, the law of the land and the future of the country.� - Scott Reed

Or this?

#45.3 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-28 23:36 (Reply)

Habu, Harrison brings up a thorny question --how can BOTH sides be certain--and they are certain--that the other side is trying to be Big Brother?

#46 buddy larsen on 2007-08-28 23:24 (Reply)

Some confused and rattled folks on this thread. JK, are you completely oblivious? No right to be oblivious. Just checked. God bless!

#47 tom c on 2007-08-29 00:42 (Reply)

Whatever you think of abortion, anti-abortion obviously represents an intrusion of government into the lives o individuals. Maybe there is some compelling reason that we should let cops and judges overrule women and doctors, but doing so surely increases the reach of the government.

There's a long American tradition of using government to enforce a particular moral vision. Neither party has a monopoly on this tendency, though in my life time, the entire post-WWII period, it has been the Republicans who have shown the greatest enthusiasm for asserting social control. What Republicans complain about as Democratic impingement on individual rights pretty much comes down to defending the rights and even more the privileges of well-off people. How many Republicans really give a damn about private liberties that don't involve taxation and corporate rights? How many Republicans really get that excited about the wedge issues such as abortion, immigration, and gay marriage that they promote to change the subject from their real agenda as America's oligarchic party. When Republican TV ads do the wink wink nudge nudge to mobilize the latent racism of southern whites, are they even sincere bigots? As the Craig case and countless others seems to show, they sure aren't sincere heterosexuals. And even the most draconic anti-abortion laws are unlikely to keep the well-heeled from getting their daughters out of trouble when necessary.

#48 Jim Harrison (Link) on 2007-08-29 00:53 (Reply)

last 50 years:
legalized infanticide
gays coming out all over
Christianity stripped from public view
Decency standards in the gutter ala Tart Slutmuffins showing their privates everywhere
Criminalized thought (hate)
Criminalized Speech (re: Michael Savage)

Just where have we gotten all up tight in the last few decades at the hands of the religious racist right?

Straw dogs your arguments.

#48.1 Phil on 2007-08-29 16:56 (Reply)

Are they gone yet?

#49 sean on 2007-08-29 01:02 (Reply)

Jim Harrison- Are you an idiot? The purpose of law IS to 'enforce a particular moral vision', yup, that's what the law is all about.. The source of the 'particular... vision' is what I'd recommend you explore. Then you can continue to spew. Governments are 'used' by the squeaky wheels. What you can't stand are people who disagree with you. The constitution has nothing to do with this stuff. If you're completely unaware of the social engineering that has occurred over the last 50 years or so that has absolutely nothing to do with sexual weirdness than, like I began this letter, you are an idiot.

#50 tom c on 2007-08-29 01:08 (Reply)

Tom

Of course Jim's an idiot. :)

#50.1 Habu on 2007-08-29 01:33 (Reply)

Jim my boy,

Pray tell how all that red showed up on the election map? All those folks really animated by corporate rights? Wow.

Your not so subtle race card ..Willie Horton was a Democratic production as was the infamous Daisy Commercial.
You imperium by age, doesn't trump my age and experience I assure you ..
You Democrats are Socialist to the bone, torn with envy of the rich who already pay the freight on taxes to the tune of 90-95%..only to see a Marxist redistibution to those whose votes the Dems buy with the wealth of others.

Social control by the Republicans since the end of WWII. If you mean do we want to teach the three R's instead of placeing condoms on bananas yeah. If you mean we want to lock up people who break the law...yeah...three strikes..that's enough latitude in my book. Involving parents in the decisions of minors regarding a host of issue, only one of which is parental consent for abortion ..yeah ..I think the Republicans are way intrusive in those areas , whereas the Democrats would and do allow the state to stand as loco parentii....

How many Republican controlled cities have voted to be illegal immigrant sanctuaries in total violation of the US laws?...not one..they're all leftest socialist anti American Democratically controlled cities .. yeah we're against that..you guys hold dear Marx,Stalin.Mao.Ho, and Che ...you lose Jimmy my boy...and of course you played the race card, nice touch but getting a bit shop worn. Your arguement is typically the ols Marxist hash of "wealth causes poverty" and America is racists. In all your post WWII experience that's all you know ...well my Republican dogma trumps your Defeatocratic karma every day.....

Just go to he red/blue map and stare at it for a few moments and ask yourself whose buying your crap. It's nice they have graphic maps that are so easy for you to see....you see but unfortunately you don't understand. Pitiful.

#51 Habu on 2007-08-29 01:31 (Reply)

Jim, that's propaganda--concern with material well-being of the nation is a legitimate political aim. And thank goodness one of the parties cares about it. Growth and upward mobility are indispensable things for a good nation. Hating the wealth producers is a great way to build a tyranny --look at history. What are you after, a nice secure job running a gulag?

#52 buddy larsen on 2007-08-29 01:35 (Reply)

buddy, Habu, you guys are up late. I'm usually the only one wandering the halls at this hour. Do we still have to be nice to our new friends? So far I haven't heard anything new from them. Same old baseless talking points. I wish they would come up with new stuff just to keep it interesting.
buddy, yea I do like the Band alot.

#53 sean on 2007-08-29 01:50 (Reply)

I don't know whether it is still effective to claim that the Democrats are a bunch of socialists, Marxists, etc. Polemics aside, however, the claim doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense simply as a matter of fact. I understand this language if it's coming from people playing to the cheap seats, but perhaps what I'm hearing is coming from the cheap seats. If you mean what you say, you are a fine bunch of rubes.

If socialism involves nationalizing industries, there have been damned few socialists in these parts, something that has occasioned a bit of a scholarly industry organized around the historical puzzle of why there has never been a serious American socialist movement. Democrats simply aren't planning on nationalizing the toilet paper companies. The few instances in which the American government has managed significant economic assets directly have all involved military objectives. IN WWI, for example, the government ran the railroads for a while because the private companies had made such a hash of running them that the mess threatened mobilization. The TVA grew out of another military objective, the need for power to produce nitrogen compounds for explosives. Outside of a handful of these exceptional cases, it beats me what socialist schemes you think have ever attracted significant support from any American party. Democratic initiatives like social security, medicare, and the GI Bill, none of which ever involved giant bureaucracies, may redistribute wealth in order to make peoples lives better, but they just aren't socialism by any traditional definition. And calling Democrats Marxists is just plain stupid. Words have meanings for a reason.

By the way, how can anybody look at the electoral map and not notice that Republican success in presidential elections has owed an enormous amount to the party's ability to take Southern votes away from the Democrats? If you don't think that process
has something to do with race, you are dumber than a bag of hammers or simply dishonest or both.

#54 Jim Harrison (Link) on 2007-08-29 02:35 (Reply)

Jim,Repeating "THE BIG LIE" which was a Goebbels trademark and honed to an artform by the Socialist Democrats in the US isn't an effective presentation of your parties positions on almost the entire range of issues this country faces.

WWI government running of the railroads..lets see that would be Woody Wilson ,Democrat Idealist. And who defined the "hash" the railroads had created, why that would be Colonel House, Wilson's brain. So you're justifying an action using as your predicate the power of the government to simple enforceably take over private industry. Hmm sounds like socialism to me.
In addition I don't recall the US facing any grave invasion threat during WWI....wait,wait,yep it was in fact none existent. So the predicate was simply a power grab.
Hell, Wilson wasn't going to help Europe at all.

Lets see your other "BIG LIES" oh yes. As mentioned previously FDR's almost total socialization of every aspect of American society. This socialization continued well past a time when the ecomony was righting itself. Today historians agree that FDR actually prolonged the depression as the numbers clearly show....we'll skip over the welll known fact that he attempted to pack the SCOTUS with cronies who would do his bidding....very bad thing Jim,very bad, and he got cuffed around a bit for it..I guess by the rubes.

Another BIG LIE.. oh yeah..Southerners taking away so many votes ( no doubt because they're all racists).....then explain how all that red got splashed all over the north and west? Man those rube racists Southerners pack a punch.

Now let me use that "dumb hammer" on you regarding Democrats as being socialist "is just plain dumb" Another BIG LIE from you Jim
Visist this site http://www.sp-usa.org/...the Socialist Party of the USA and corrolate it with the Democratic Party leadership and Congressional membership ... lets see..yeah nancy just took a sabbatical because she's Speaker but before she was a member. Practically the entire CBC are members.
Then visiti this site, which will challenge your skills but I know tou'll try..... http://www.discoverthenetworks.org .... this site will show you the interconnectivity of the socialists and your favorite Democrats. You'll enjoy it . It's educational and fun to work.

So ,best of luck, but at 60, having travelled to every continent on the globe, including Antarctica. Having worked for the federal government and Wall Street firms and made millions I'm not one of your easiy snookered rubes. Dude you're busted so badly you better get to the emergency room.
Habu

#54.1 Habu on 2007-08-29 10:36 (Reply)

Communism: State owns the farm, the cow, and the milk allowing the farmer to squat on and work the farm for the "people"

Socialism: You own the farm and keep it up to the State's standards, maintain the cow in good health, the state just wants the milk to distribute.

Let's see. Tobacco tax. You keep the company, grow the weed, produce and sell the product, the State just wants a few Billions of the profit. yep Socialistic Big Brotherism fer sure.

#54.2 Pedant on 2007-08-29 19:09 (Reply)

Government nothing, I just want to be left alone from perverted Republican Senators :-).

Seriously, it's not a crime to be gay (at least not anymore). It is a crime to solicit sex in a public restroom.

Anyone struck by the irony? Bill Clinton, favorite whipping boy of the right-wing looks like a choir boy compared to the GOP pedophiles, prostitute soliciters, and now bathroom sex seeking GOP.

#55 John on 2007-08-29 05:56 (Reply)

John, we're sending a special squad of Republican pervs to your home to specifically NOT leave you alone.

I do apologize for the delay but we just don't have the number of pervs and deviants the Democrats do so we do what we can, or sometimes on the can..anyway they'll arrive in big SUV, smoking Cohiba cigars and their shoes will have that hobnail boot look.

Enjoy,John enjoy..if your real good they'll ride you around like a pony..

Informal census ..you don't own a firmarm do you? No.No , that's good if you don't. More guns stored in closets have killed people than you can imagine..good boy.

#55.1 Habu on 2007-08-29 10:45 (Reply)

John, both parties have a few too many high-profile scandals. A dozen or so sex scandals in the last decade or so, fairly evenly distributed. By far the overwhelming majorities of both parties have not been up to no good, at least on the vice front.

Now, on the governance front, that's a different story. GOP is half bad, Dems are 90% bad.

Jim H, since 'racism' appears to be your theme, you should read a few of the black conservatives. You'll find that they lay the blame for the social pathologies of the inner cities squarely at the door of the liberal plantation, AKA the Democratic Party.

Or, if you'd rather keep on hurting the people you claim to be 'helping', then ignore the Sowells, Williams, & Petersons, and stay au courant with what Bill Cosby calls the "poverty pimps".

Face it, man --you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Your party had control of the nation for the entire 50 year institutionalization of the so-called 'permanent underclass' --and there's no way around that.

It is a monumental sin, and you had best get busy trying to atone, rather than continuing to try papering over the record via casting calumnies upon actual reformers.

#55.2 buddy larsen on 2007-08-29 11:08 (Reply)

Here,here..well stated.

#55.2.1 Habu on 2007-08-29 11:16 (Reply)

Pj Chicago..

tick..tick..tick.. I was wondering if you'd found the word Privacy in the Constitution yet?

Or are you busy locating endless "derivitives" to what the Constitution says but didn't say.

Is that anything like that Democratic Preidential poseur last go around who voted for it before he didn't vote for it and now is sorry he voted for it because he really meant to vote against it but it was so popular at the time of the first vote the Faustian imperitive took over his souls and he cratered?

Or was it Gary Hart and Donna Rice on "Monkey Business" and his challenge to the press..."catch me if you can", oops no it might have been Wilbur Mills and Fannie Fox , "The tidal Basin Bombshell"

jeese now I'm all confused...but I'll guess it was John Kerry.

#56 Habu on 2007-08-29 11:31 (Reply)

I look at politics this way: rightism is the lesser evil, leftism is the evil lesser.

#56.1 buddy larsen on 2007-08-29 12:40 (Reply)

That�s so right you�ve left them with nothing. Maybe leftism as an evil lessor, too (or more of one).

#56.1.1 right on on 2007-08-29 13:28 (Reply)

(Said sincerely, no tongue-in-cheek. "That�s so right," as in correct, not extremist.)

#56.1.2 right on on 2007-08-29 13:36 (Reply)

--that's perfect--the lessor evil vs the evil lessee. It's all about the deeds anyway--the left wants to erase all of 'em everywhere and put them in its own name.

Some rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen, as the old Woody Guthrie has it.

'course, since Woody's day, who has the gun and who has the pen has sorta flipped (note to Jim Harrison --it ain't 1930 anymore).

#56.1.2.1 buddy larsen on 2007-08-29 13:56 (Reply)

"It's all about the deeds anyway" you look at it.

Fortunately, some truly competent, right-minded among us are able to protect us with both a six-gun and a fountain pen--

#56.1.2.1.1 right on on 2007-08-29 14:36 (Reply)

heh --just don't pull out the one when the other is called for --

#56.1.2.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2007-08-29 14:52 (Reply)

Gotta work on that... :)

But instead of gun or pen, most of us reflexively reach for a cell phone with speed dial set to 911 or an attorney. At least the net encourages individual agency and can serve as a mighty pen, though both be compromised through a lot of anonymity and endless talk and argument in lieu of action.

Well, of course not you and yours-- More, please!

#56.1.2.1.1.1.1 right on on 2007-08-29 17:43 (Reply)

Good discussion here, btw. And, upon reflection, it's probably a good thing that more talk happens than action on the net- sorta like having a deliberative, slow to act if ever Senate, so that ideas "that seemed good at the time" or that may raise the ire of a rabble don't cause constant disruption.

#56.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 right on on 2007-08-29 19:42 (Reply)

You Democrats are Socialist to the bone, torn with envy of the rich who already pay the freight on taxes to the tune of 90-95%
If taxes are needed to pay for the botched WOT, new infrastructure, technological progress, energy independence, port and border security, strong military.. I�d rather have it be the rich than the consumer driven middle class which, you know, fuels the economy.

Just go to he red/blue map and stare at it for a few moments and ask yourself whose buying your crap. It's nice they have graphic maps that are so easy for you to see....you see but unfortunately you don't understand. Pitiful.
I did: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

Lookit all them country folk. Hint: those little bitty blue patches are counties which, you know, contain cities.

Democrats are a bunch of socialists, Marxists, etc.
It�s the same as calling all Republicans hypocritical corporate-bought perverts - misdirecting extreme language attempting to shift the focus.

FDR's almost total socialization of every aspect of American society.
It was a brilliant counter to Stalinism, not Stalinism, ya nut. Stalin transformed the Russian infrastructure and military with lots of deaths, starvation, and gulags. FDR had a Republican induced Great Depression to work with. But still managed to transform America but without all the deaths, starvations, and gulags. Democracy saved!

Today historians agree that FDR actually prolonged the depression as the numbers clearly show
I�m intrigued. Where?

So ,best of luck, but at 60, having travelled to every continent on the globe, including Antarctica. Having worked for the federal government and Wall Street firms and made millions I'm not one of your easiy snookered rubes
I�m intrigued. How, exactly? (can be done without giving yourself away) And prove this was done thru competence and not by using the good ole communist/capitalist insider boy system.

#57 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-29 14:55 (Reply)

Ignore the above, my apologies.

"You Democrats are Socialist to the bone, torn with envy of the rich who already pay the freight on taxes to the tune of 90-95%"
If taxes are needed to pay for the botched WOT, new infrastructure, technological progress, energy independence, port and border security, strong military.. I�d rather have it be the rich than the consumer driven middle class which, you know, fuels the economy.

"Just go to he red/blue map and stare at it for a few moments and ask yourself whose buying your crap. It's nice they have graphic maps that are so easy for you to see....you see but unfortunately you don't understand. Pitiful."
I did:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

Lookit all them country folk. Hint: those little bitty blue patches are counties which, you know, contain cities.

"Democrats are a bunch of socialists, Marxists, etc. "
It�s the same as calling all Republicans hypocritical corporate-bought perverts - misdirecting extreme language attempting to shift the focus.

"FDR's almost total socialization of every aspect of American society."
It was a brilliant counter to Stalinism, not Stalinism, ya nut. Stalin transformed the Russian infrastructure and military with lots of deaths, starvation, and gulags. FDR had a Republican induced Great Depression to work with. But still managed to transform America but without all the deaths, starvations, and gulags. Democracy saved!

"Today historians agree that FDR actually prolonged the depression as the numbers clearly show"
I�m intrigued. Where?

"So ,best of luck, but at 60, having travelled to every continent on the globe, including Antarctica. Having worked for the federal government and Wall Street firms and made millions I'm not one of your easiy snookered rubes"
I�m intrigued. How, exactly? (can be done without giving yourself away) And prove this was done thru competence and not by using the good ole communist/capitalist insider boy system.

#58 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-29 15:00 (Reply)

well, lots of things open doors --but in this country, one pretty much has to produce in order not to quickly be escorted back through that door.

#58.1 buddy larsen on 2007-08-29 16:51 (Reply)

Yes, capitalism provides better results than communism because competition demands that somebody has to be good at what they do. Well, unless you�re in a position to keep wages down:

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2006/11/90_percent_of_chinas_billionaires_are_children_of_senio.php

#58.1.1 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-29 17:11 (Reply)

I�m intrigued. How, exactly? (can be done without giving yourself away) And prove this was done thru competence and not by using the good ole communist/capitalist insider boy system

Answer:
I worked for the CIA for a decade during the 70's and early 80's. It was different then. Today it's inhabited by weenies. In my day the old OSS guys were running things.

You cannot comprehend the world until you've been "inside" and then pick up the paper (this was before the computer on every desk era) and read the lies.
See, on the inside you know what's going on, at least in your compartmentalized world, and then you read what the press like the NYT and WaPo put out as gospel ..it's actually funny sometimes....I was young I wanted to travel the globe on someone elses dime and I had "skills" being a former U.S. Marine.

I hope that helps you but somehow I don't think it will ... you guys just don't have the capacity to see the threat because you are the threat. But that's ok the red folks got you folks way way outnumbered, so when the "Crunch" comes...well I just have that old feeling that it'll be real ugly for you folks.
Have a nice day.
Habu

Oh yeah, then I worked for IBM in Beverly Hills ,CA, before a 16 year stint doing stocks and bonds for major Wall Street firms ....as I said ..been there done that ..more than anyone I personally know. Now doesn't your life sound dull and vacant of derring-do and doing what real men do? I reside in Florida and my small ranch in Montana. I shoot guns and ride horses, and at 60 can still bench press over 300 pounds x10 reps....I carry a concealed weapon .. I am a commies worst nightmare. Makes me dang proud. ... well you asked.

#58.2 Habu on 2007-08-29 23:53 (Reply)

�you guys just don't have the capacity to see the threat because you are the threat.�
Which threat are you talking about? The people who want to take your guns, horses and weights away? The �Commies� maybe? I dunno man, but it sounds like you�ve got some catching up to do. For starters I�d suggest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union#Dissolution_of_the_USSR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism

#58.2.1 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-30 03:03 (Reply)

ComClop
You play the coy ingenue well.

Catching up to do? ROTFLMAO ...but nonetheless a good impuissant remark. Your best effort no doubt.

You must believe Putin is a reformed KGB, CCCP man, who has taken up Daniel 9:3
Daniel 9:3
" And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes":

TO WEAR SACKCLOTH AND ASHES - "To be contrite, penitent or chagrined over something one has done. It was an ancient Hebrew custom to wear sackcloth dusted with or accompanied by ashes as a sign of humbleness in religious ceremonies."
Yeah that's it he's just a nice guy.

ComClop..when you next see The Nutcracker say hello to the Sugar Plum Fairy for Habu

And as far as learning anything from you ..probably the same odds as a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters. But I will remain alert, one can never tell.
Tu quoque

#58.2.1.1 Habu on 2007-08-30 13:45 (Reply)

�coy ing�nue�

Interesting you�d say that. I was speaking with some friends at a different website:

�Empress Michelle..mighty chest thumping. I love chihuahuas, roasted or deep fried..naw I�m leaving cause I can�t learn anything from this crew other than they can be SUCKERED by a 15 year old middle schooler�gulp..hook, line and, sinker..yep a troll.�

Sound familiar?

�And as far as learning anything from you ..probably the same odds as a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters.�

LOL. You said it, I didn�t.

#58.2.1.1.1 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-30 15:21 (Reply)

You old Swan Island Group whore..how ya been?

I still drop in but I wore out my welcome long ago ..good tradecraft.

#58.2.1.1.1.1 Habu on 2007-08-30 18:05 (Reply)

We done noticed dat da quality of your editorial and thread writing is supurb..great job.

#58.2.1.1.1.1.1 Possumtater on 2007-08-30 18:13 (Reply)

OMG that was you?! I sure hope your anus healed up alright.

#58.2.1.1.1.1.2 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-30 20:22 (Reply)

????????? I recognized the paragraph as being from an old blog I use to visit ...I don't know who said it but I remember the ruse, figured it had to be you.

BTW...I've never met Sen Craig so my ass is just fine..were you thinking of my ass?...that's scary. They got animal cruelty laws about possum-tail

#58.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Possumtater on 2007-08-30 20:52 (Reply)

Not your ass. I was answering Habu.

Who are you answering?

#58.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-31 02:13 (Reply)

who and what???

#58.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Possumtater on 2007-08-31 02:28 (Reply)

Tap your foot, then swipe your hand under the comments thread..

#58.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-31 15:46 (Reply)

or buy votes:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5555.html

#59 buddy larsen on 2007-08-29 17:28 (Reply)

I agree. The trick is more about checking and balancing the powerful insider, less about cheering them on just because they�re �on my team�. I�m not one of those �Ponerology conspiracy theorists� - more of a cynical skeptic. But I do believe that the former offers insights into why all initially brilliantly successful companies/movements/religions/any mass populist or innovative movement will start out doing more good than harm, but over time, often winds up the opposite.

#59.1 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-29 17:55 (Reply)

Get a good wife, a good dog, a small farm, live alone. It's the best you can hope for in this mortal life.

#60 bob on 2007-08-29 18:58 (Reply)

Done all those things. After many good years, wife got fat, dog died, small farm overrun by varmints.

Now only two goals left in life:
1. Preach about the good of democracy, the evils of concentrations of power.
2. Get Habu to answer my #58 post. (Where the hell did Mr. tick.. tick.. tick.. run off to?)

#60.1 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-29 19:44 (Reply)

Starve the wife down, get nother dog, buy .22 and varmint scope.

#61 bob on 2007-08-29 20:27 (Reply)

Why are you equating homosexuality with pedophilia with your knock on Rep. Barney Frank?

#62 eLad in MO on 2007-08-29 23:47 (Reply)

Inventing an entirerly new pyschological putlook

More of a cynical skeptic ok CC try to get it right cause now you're pretty messed up on cynicsm and skepticism.

Skepticism vs. Cynicism

Philosophical Skepticism - a philosophical position in which people choose to critically examine whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have true knowledge,

Or

Scientific Skepticism - a scientific, or practical, position in which one does not accept the veracity of claims until solid evidence is produced in accordance with the scientific method.

The term skeptic is now usually used to mean a person who is taking a critical position in a given situation, usually by employing the principles of Critical Thinking and the scientific method (that is, scientific skepticism) to evaluate the validity of claims and practices. Empirical evidence is important to skeptics as it is possibly the best way to determine the validity of a claim.

Critical Thinking, within the framework of skepticism, is the mental process of acquiring information, then evaluating it to reach a logical conclusion or answer. Critical thinking is synonymous with informal logic. Increasingly, educators believe that schools should focus more on critical thinking than on memorization of facts.

Cynicism is generally used to refer to somebody who is inclined to disbelieve in human sincerity or virtue: an individual who maintains that human behavior is motivated entirely by self-interest. A modern cynic is typically highly contemptuous of social norms, especially those which serve more of a ritualistic purpose than a practical one, and will tend to dismiss a substantial proportion of popular beliefs and accepted wisdom as "bunk".

The cynic does NOT employ critical thinking to evaluate the validity of claims and practices. Another way of putting is that a cynic is clouded by personal bias when examining information, and thus always proves himself correct. i.e.; I knew it was bunk, I told you it was bunk, or just plain - bunk.

Skeptics are often confused with, or even denounced as, cynics. The truth, however, is that valid skeptical criticism (as opposed to arbitrary or subjective misgivings for an idea - cynicism) strictly originates from an objective and methodological examination.

Here is an excerpt from the Bertrand Russell quote on the previous page: "What makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after Careful Thought, he finds a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem."

"Careful Thought" = Skepticism or Critical Thinking; not Cynicism!

The task of applying critical thinking to newly found information with the least amount of personal bias is Very Difficult at first. Over time you will continue to find it easier to do so provided that you attempt to exercise critical thinking on a daily basis.

Free Thinker - Another Definition

"A freethinker is one who thinks freely -- one who is prepared to consider any possibility, and who determines which ideas are right or wrong by bringing reason to bear, according to a consistent set of rules such as the scientific method."

#63 Habu on 2007-08-30 00:18 (Reply)

WTF over ... pyschological putlook?? sounds damn serious to me.

#64 Habu on 2007-08-30 00:21 (Reply)

Stay off the golf. A link would have sufficed. Heh.

Skeptic: �One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.�
+
Cynic: �A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness.�
=
A commenter who postulates that everyone�s politics is dependant on their own perceived survival requirements, including those perverted republican senators.

#64.1 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-30 02:39 (Reply)

ComClop...no response to my answering question posed in #58 ..you seemed so inquisitive.

#65 Habu on 2007-08-30 11:22 (Reply)

If you're a healthy, out gay man you meet other gay men in healthy settings, like through friends. If you're forced to live a closeted life and deny the very essence of your being ("I'm not gay. I never was gay." ) you end up doing stupid crap like trying give blowjobs in public restrooms. Barney Frank has never been accused of having sex in public, so get real. It's repressed gay people who do this, not people who accept who they are. Ironically, some of those repressed people turn around and try to repress everybody else.

#66 TG on 2007-08-30 12:21 (Reply)

You are right. If two men want to pack fudge all day that's their business.

#66.1 Mr. Renee on 2007-08-30 13:48 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, August 28. 2007