| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
That is how goddam busy I have been. OK LA Times, April 22, 2003 Santorum's Remarks About Gays Spur Calls for Censure "We're urging the Republican leadership to condemn the remarks. They were stunning in their insensitivity, and they're the same types of remarks that sparked outrage toward Senator Lott," said David Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay advocacy group. "We would ask that the leadership reconsider his standing within the conference leadership." What, exactly did this guy say? I have never heard of him. "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," he said. My take? Hey, why does the supreme court have to say it is ok for anyone to have any type of sex in thier own home? Who's business is it of thiers? Of course you have the right. You also have the right to face the consequences (disease, divorce, prison, pregnancy...) |
Let the voters decide in the next election. He has the right, as a legislator, to make all the dumb ass statements he wants. |
The Supreme Court shouldn't have to say that people have a "right" to certain kinds of sex, but unfortunately in certain parts of this country consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex is illegal. Individuals can, and have been punished. So yes, I think that the Supreme Court should say that these adults have that right, just as heterosexual adults, and that these acts ARE NOT the same as sexual acts which violate other individual's rights/are otherwise illegal. "Of course you have the right. You also have the right to face the consequences (disease, divorce, prison, pregnancy...)" Are you INSANE? How does having the right to face consequences such as prison give you the right to a certain behavior? By that logic, do you think that people have the "right" to commit crimes just because they also have the "right" to punishment? What the fuck? Personally, I don't think any sexual behavior shouldn't be policed, but there should also be recourse for when acts which violate other's rights occur. |
Well, we can leave prison out of it then |
wouldnt you agree? All over the world (in my opinion) you should be able to have whatever kind of consentual sex act(s) you want. Until "...acts which violate other's rights occur." thats when you should get the chair!!!! - 'but thats far to extreme!' you say? - well then it's the chair for you too!! hehe |
|
|
|
|
We have the right to blow him off. |
I did not twist anyone's argument. I was tryin to clarify myself in light of "except when, in the privacy of your home, you break the law... i.e. rape, sex with minors.. then of course prison is an option." |
|
Hey, I mean, we all know you don't listen to anyone else, but you don't have to admit it! Have a little dignity, man! |
You can choose to break the law. That choice does exist. You do not have the "right" to break the law. But, you do have the freedom and choice to do it. My original point is so lost now.... |
You have the ability to do anything your body is physically capable of. So what? "Rights" don't have anything to do with that fact. |
It has nothing to do with the Supreme Court and has everything to do with this Senators equation of gay sex to polygamy, incest and adultery. Sometimes the gay rights movement is so hell bent on mainstreaming its annoying. They arent comfortable with their particular brand of sex being equated to "immoral" and illegal acts. Im not sure this particular incident means anything in the grand scheme of things. Human Rights Watch and other gay rights orgs can be so fucking banal and silly sometimes. |
could someone clearly point out what was wrong with his statement? if gay sex isn't immoral, why would polygamy be immoral? or insest? the whole consenting adults thing? if one shouldn't be illegal, shouldn't they all be legal? |
Given the context of our society, his statement has particular ramifications that need to be addressed. And, if it is the mechanism that we have to work through, then perhaps the Supreme Court should start talking about extending rights of privacy to people who engage in these acts, and that they should not be conflated with things that are wrong (or that some people think are wrong). |
|
and im not a moron. im with you on this. they gay rights movement is totally fucking confused. |
Everyone should watch their mouths. Everyone (that includes law makers and you and I) should take care that the words they use are clear and communicate the precise meaning they intend to communicate. |
like what? Im not seeing it. |
further, lawmakers have been watching their mouths, particularly on the campaign trail for centuries. |
this just reeks of bullshit lefty media frenzy. remember when bill clinton raped that girl? how is this statement, which is the opinion of an elected official who has no one to answer to but those people who he represents, a bigger deal that the president of the united states raping a girl. |
|
this is the weirdest debate ever. i don't think any of you are talking about the same topic. |
Oh, I guess it was about the time Hillary killed Vince Foster by ripping his neck out with her teeth, right? |
|
From a cursory view of the pages, I see little hard evidence. But, that's the rule with Clinton scandals. Lots of bluster. Lots of accusations. No evidence. |
I realize this is not a true democracy. But the senate and the house is. The legislation they produce is voted on after discussions and debates. You put a "PC" muzzel on the legislators, and the whole idea of debate has been made useless. |
Ain't that right, jingo? |
|
Jingo, you posted that about 15 minutes ago! Are you able to retain short term memories, or are we having a Memento moment? |
I'm with Patrick on the whole gay rights agenda. *I didn't put incest with these things because I think it's a topic that requires more critical thought than I feel like offering at the moment. |
|
SANTORUM: Putting more money in their pocketbook is one. The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has. And that's a basic power. The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible) percent in federal taxes. An average American family now pays about 25 percent. The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don't want to judge. They say, Oh, you can't judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them. But it's this whole idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge. AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that? SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it. AP: The right to privacy lifestyle? SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle. AP: What's the alternative? SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it. AP: Well, what would you do? SANTORUM: What would I do with what? AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative? SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe -- AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality? SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions. AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex? SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality -- AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out. SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society. AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it? SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in. |
He's a conservative Christian and pro-family. He objects to the right to privacy. It's not inconceivable that he'd object to someone being a practicing Wiccan, especially if that someone was the mother of young children. Maybe he'd want to pass laws that took their children away and let them be adopted by upstanding Christian folk. Of course, they could still be Wiccan. You can't help what people are, after all. But a Wiccan person is obviously not capable of creating a stable family environment. |
That made me choke on my water. |
Huh? |
"From a cursory view of the pages, I see little hard evidence. " tiggy, you're a bastard. broadderik isn't a credible witness? rapes typically don't have eyewitnesses, what kind of evidence are you looking for? the media barely touched the broadderik case. dan rather didn't mention the rape once on the evening news, which he defended as being out of respect for clinton's "private sex life". these are two sides of the same coin. the liberal media supporting the class superiority agenda of the left wing. |
You want to call him a rapist, bring charges against him in a court of law and convict him. Then he'll be a rapist. Until then, you're as much a rapist as he is. You're not a rapist, are you? |
So, if someone you know tells you that he or she was raped but the person got off, are you going to tell that person that he or she wasn't raped? |
But, that's not the situation here. President Clinton was never tried for this alleged rape. So he is not a rapist. |
Physical evidence, like any other rape case. |
I never said he did anything illegal. And just who does he represent? People who voted for him with the same political ideologies? Or everyone in his political jursidiction? What if some of those are homosexual individuals who didn't vote for him, but whose lives are going to be affected by the legislation and policy that he advocates? Who can hold him accountable for groups which might be the minority in his jurisdiction, but will nonetheless be negatively affected by what he and others do? |
in a democracy (or a represenative democracy, or whatever) 51% of the people can feel one way and 49% can feel the other, and those 51% of the people get their way. you can't judge a politician on something that may effect a subset of his consituency who didn't vote for him. the majority rules. if you can think of a fairer system, you only need to convince 51% of the people it is better. |
Let the voters decide in the next election." |
That sucks. That sounds like tyranny of the majority to me. I don't agree. And I do think that there are democratic ways of preventing that. And sometimes it takes groups outside of that jurisdiction, special interest and otherwise, to raise the issue. |
|
But, the Constitution is being shredded in so many other ways these days. Might as well just burn the whole fucking thing. |
|
Huh?" oh, you know trace....circuit parties, accesorizing,lesbian golf tournies, musicals. |
do you not agree that civil liberties should be tempered by the morals of society? is it ok to bugger children? NAMBLA men are more of a minority than homosexuals, perhaps we should be more concerned about their rights? my point, tiggy, is that the dems have no place requesting him to step down. he is in the republican leadership in the senate because the representative government put him there. the body of voters who put him where he is are not represented by the dems who are crying foul. the two-faced dirty liberal dems. sinners above and beyond anything they accuse the republicans of being. |
the liberal media hasnt existed for like, 25 years. Name some people on TV or the radio that are outspoken liberals. Other than the Crossfire guys, I cant think of any, and I'd hesitate to call them REAL liberals, since they're being paid to be Democrats. |
Give me something major other than FOXNEWS and the WSJ that aren't liberal? fucking racist, sexist, evil liberals. (and on a side note, breathe carefully man. i hear toronto made the WHO SARS list.) |
I wouldn't doubt that a conservative in the office would judge me for practicing Wicca, but if they met me on the streets or in a meeting they would never know. Only my husband, my best friend, the people I met at PNO and you guys know this. Even my children don't know this. But then again, I don't practice the "witchcraft" part of it anyways, so unless I told you then you wouldn't know. I think that the gay movement is over the top on lots of things. Overall, I think that this guy is very busy judging people and doesn't know much of their actions. He condemns what he only knows a small amount of. I don't believe that a homosexual is going to ruin the core of family values. I don't believe a Pagan or Wiccan will either. I do think man on dog is sick, and I don't want to watch it or know about it, though I have heard stories. Still, it doesn't change my family values. Having a homosexual friend doesn't change my values. It isn't the problem unless you are to stupid to believe what you feel or what to believe. If you decide to believe what they do and it is wrong for you, that is when it hurts you. I don't know if I am making sense so I will shut up now. |
"anal sex, as much as i believe it should be, is not a consitututional right. do you not agree that civil liberties should be tempered by the morals of society? is it ok to bugger children? NAMBLA men are more of a minority than homosexuals, perhaps we should be more concerned about their rights? " ugh... NAMBLA fuck kids. Kids arent old enough to give legal consent for sex for a reason. Gay people dont procreate, and I dont find them any less moral then anyone else (which is more a statement against regular people than me praising any minority group). What doesnt make sense to me about sodomy laws is that they exist I think because straight people dont like, specifically, gay men. I dont know of any laws against oral sex or cunnilingus, do you? These laws seem to me to be targeting half a minority, not a minority itself. Why does anyone care about something that doesnt affect the rights of anyone else? Incestial couples if for any reason should be illegal only health reasons, not moral reasons. After all, alcoholics, the deaf, the blind, the handicapped can have kids... its not about pleasing minority groups. its about what makes SENSE. Theres no logical reason to prevent any two consenting adults from being together. And if the only reason these laws exist is because of a 51% majority of Bible thumping lunatics... well, the only thing I can say to you is move there and vote them out. If you think individual states should be able to have their own laws, you're going to have to deal with it or go above their heads. |
I don't see them saying anything particularly liberal. The NY Times wasnt much of a dovish paper these past few months. I dont see them as liberal in practice. "Give me something major other than FOXNEWS and the WSJ that aren't liberal? " EVERYONE on talk radio, and I think every news program is overall conservative, looking out for their own interests. Look at MSNBC - Donahue (the only outspoken liberal left on TV) out, Michael Savage in. Most newspapers have gone conservative, especially local papers. In Canada, pretty much every paper is conservative except the Globe and Mail and teh Toronto Star, which are centrist, but not really liberal. "fucking racist, sexist, evil liberals." I always see this as funny, because I never know what people are really talking about when they say this. Real leftists are the ones fighting for equality. I see the Christian Conservatives, people like Mike Savage and Pat Buchanan as the types who are the racist, sexist ones... What pisses me off most Nate is everyone who has themselves defined to one party or group blames EVERYTHING on someone else. I see Libertarians blaming immigrants, I see Liberals blaming everything on Bush (when the Democrat party lie more than anyone), I see conservatives spreading the blame past everyone that isnt of faith... I guess overall I'm a liberal but I can see where the problems lie. this "evil sexist racist" shit doesnt make sense to me. "(and on a side note, breathe carefully man. i hear toronto made the WHO SARS list.)" CNN actually lowered the amount of cases we have here. We're in trouble here because Toronto is actually the most ethnically diverse city in the entire world, with a large amount of Orientals (I think you walked up through part of Chinatown before)... whenever I get chills and breath funny, I think i have SARS, which is bad because its cold in the house right now and I have bad breathing to begin with. |
"Only my husband, my best friend, the people I met at PNO and you guys know this." Your husband has said that the feds are reading this site. He may be kidding, but he's probably right. (Mostly because he accesses it often from a military base, btw.) Consider yourself outed. |
this guy has a right to say something stupid. he answers to his constituency. speech is speech is speech is speech. just like the hate crimes measures....why should his speech receive any preference. a homosexual coworker, who shares my view of this issue in kind put it best when he summarized his politics : "i want my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, leave me the fuck alone" |
And what exactly do they want us to do? never leave our houses? Or wear doctor masks like some hillarious types are? "Germs cannot penetrate this fortress of thin paper around my mouth and nose!" most colds get in through your eyes. I wash my hands often, and use that hand-sanitizer stuff, like usual. And never rub my eyes or eat before i wash. What more do you want me to do, health canada!? fuck SARS, man. Now this, and in a month or two the bugs will be back and we'll be smack-dab in the middle of West Nile land. What a rockin' town Toronto will be come July. Next, the ground will split in half to devour the city, and it'll rain fire-breathing frogs. Or dogs with bees in their mouths, and when they bark they shoot bees at you. See why i hate summer? Bring it on, summer...BRING IT! p.s.- why are there any laws against incest, sodomy or polygamy, anyway? can't understand....hurt brain.... |
Maybe they already have. |
Ummm because most laws, like not stealing or murdering, originally came from biblical AKA moral values. Like it or not, this country was founded on biblical virtues. There was a time, not so long ago, that the word of God was held in high esteem. Sex with children (statutory rape), sex with animals (beastiality), sex with your children (incest), sex with the same sex (homosexuality), sex outside of marriage (pre-marital or extra-marital sex), polygomy ( having more than one spouse at one time), molesting children (sodomy) was considered wrong. Not just immoral but flat wrong. There were laws that attempted to create, what they felt at that time, was a respectable community. |
|
i see no difference. |
|
OK, fine, people know that I practice Wicca, big deal. "Yup, they'll come for you after they round up Pilate and his family and send them off to the camps built by a subsidiary of Halliburton" Cute. Question, in a discussion about laws regarding sex and comments this guy made (which I have said I don't agree with 90% of, only that more work needs to be done to clear up definitions and meanings) why am I getting grief because I practice a religion that is even recognized in the military (though Bush didn't like it)? Why would they come get me when any man or woman serving this country in the military can do the same thing? What is the fucking big deal here? Or is it just me. I used to get shit when I was a baptist, so maybe if you are on Sorabji and you name your faith you get shit? Just curious. |
|
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." -thomas jefferson "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." -john adams "Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another." -obi wan franklin "Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and all of which facilitates the execution of mischievous projects. Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project." -big james madison "As priestcraft was always the enemy of knowledge, because priestcraft supports itself by keeping people in delusion and ignorance, it was consistent with its policy to make the acquisition of knowledge a real sin." -thomas "tommy chong" paine |
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." oops. dayyyyymn dog! adams is fucking it up for the thumpahs! |
*slurp slurp slurp* |
|
you just, uh. uhm. fuck, nevermind. |
I guess you could call it a "second hand smoke" |
|
And I'd happily declare my faith, if I had one. Faith in reason, maybe? Faith in the observable? (Including our ability to observe how we observe, and that there exist unobserved phenomena, and could exist unobservable phenomena...) There, someone can attack me now. :) |
Oh. |
|
|
Surely he knew the ramifications of his words. He was in a sit down interview. They weren't off the cuff. Politicans in sit downs usually have the questions in advance. Why? Why did he say what he said? Needing to drum some publicity? Is he up for re election? Also, why did that fucktard Newt Gingrich get so much attention on the same day? |
|
I know the neo-conservatives got their balls all swollen and achy after Iraq, but even the Bush admin scoffed at that guy. |
|
|
Actually I am upset by some of it, and at the same time think he may have a point on some of it. I disagree wholeheartedly with these as some examples: "If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy." "I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual." " And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does." Just a quick cut and paste. I will admit that my moral beliefs vary from bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery and think these questions should be worked on separately. I also think that the views of these things will differ greatly from person to person. As a cultural melting pot we need to stop dictating to people the "christian" view of what a family is, because frankly it isn't that way in many families anymore and if these families are to be successful in what they want and need in their lives then we should seriously concider them not a theat, but a new reality. Helping them to be the best they can be in their view and not hindering them with stupid legislation that caters to the 1950's June Cleaver version of the "American family". I may be a housewife with two kids and cats in the yard and all of that shit, but I can guarantee you I am NO JUNE CLEAVER and neither is any woman I know. We need to move on from this old way of thinking of the family and start learning, embracing and supporting the changes in our families (assuming that this doesn't hurt anyone of course). I don't know. I think this guy is living in the dark ages to a point, trying to create something that once was but won't be anymore. For the most part he annoys me, but he does make me think as well. I think that rather than judge people for their lifestyles that we should try to understand what it is or why they are doing these things and maybe it just won't seem so horrible if we take the time to know what they are truly doing and not judging them based on some ancient way of thinking. If we had more facts about these different types of lifestyles we might just find that they aren't as different as we once thought. Then again, I do try not to judge people as much as possible, though there are some I just can't help it with. |
Does spunky know he's living with a flaming liberal? :) |
I am so proud of what she is doing right now. It takes more courage to take that kind of stand then it does to "go with the flow". For the most part, wican is feared and hated by those who (big suprise here) don't understand it. |
|
|
Check out the blurb by Joe Conason: Today's Washington Post brought news of Richard Delgaudio, a longtime right-wing fundraiser and activist known, among other things, for his cameo role in the Paula Jones case. From now on he will be known as a producer of child pornography, having pled guilty to one count in exchange for probation and a fine. The specific charges involve "sexually explicit photographs of a 16-year-old girl -- a single mother and high school dropout," brought to the Deluxe Plaza Motel in Baltimore by the 50 year-old Del Gaudio and paid "by the hour for photo shoots." Delgaudio's lawyers, who include the prominent conservative Bruce Fein, said that he "acknowledges the acute moral shortcomings of his conduct and he will continue intense self-examination, and professional and spiritual counseling." He also plans to donate $5000 to help "young mothers in great need," according to the Post. That abject plea represents a change from last fall, when Fein and the rest of Delgaudio's legal team were trying to have the original charges against him dismissed because of alleged "police misconduct." The Baltimore Daily Record reported that the Delgaudio attorneys accused the cops of targeting their client and his photo subjects in a manner that "shocks the conscience," saying that Baltimore police officers had committed "squalid and nauseating" crimes "too reminiscent of the Gestapo to permit of constitutional toleration." Every conservative turns into a civil libertarian when the cops come knocking. In defending Delgaudio, Fein claimed that "every shred of evidence was tainted by Fourth Amendment violations, and thus a trial would be chimerical." Now, having smeared Baltimore's finest, Delgaudio won't seek a trial, and his lawyers are saying he's sorry. That's all very nice, but his sudden contrition may not provide much comfort to the farflung suckers who have supported this scumbag with millions in direct-mail donations over the past three decades. Delgaudio literally brought Paula Jones to public attention in 1994. That was when one of his fundraising fronts, the "Legal Affairs Council," paid her travel and hotel expenses to appear at the Consevative Political Action Committee conference in Washington, where she gave a brief account of the indignities she had allegedly suffered years before. Earlier, Delgaudio had raised money for the defense of that other right-wing martyr, Oliver North. It was a very good business. According to the Post, the Virginia-based Legal Affairs Council reported $2.6 million in revenues to the IRS in 2001. He is also listed as chairman and director of the United States Intelligence Council and president of National Security Center Inc., two very official-sounding outfits that probably separated more than a few gullible wingers from their money with alarms about black helicopters and the Panama Canal. Last year, Delgaudio co-chaired an event called the "Western Conservative Conference" in southern California, co-sponsored by the Washington Times, Christian Voice, Richard Viguerie's ConservativeHQ.com, the ultra-right California Republican Assembly, Larry Klayman's Judicial Watch, Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media, and Morton Blackwell's Leadership Institute. Funnily enough, the "conference chaplain" was none other than Rev. Lou Sheldon, president of the Traditional Values Coalition and America's leading scourge of pornography, indecency, obscenity and everything else Richard Delgaudio represents. How embarrassing. Still more ironic is the current occupation of the perp's brother, Eugene Delgaudio, who also serves as an elected supervisor in Loudoun County, Va. Eugene Delgaudio currently runs yet another official-sounding direct-mail chute called "Public Advocate of the United States," which solicits money from rubes worried about "radical homosexuals" thwarting "God's will." Asked about his brother's guilty plea, Eugene claimed ignorance and said, "It doesn't sound like him." |
Thank you honey. I know that a lot of what I think and say is very different from you sometimes. I do have to say that my thoughts regarding this man and his answers to those questions are strictly in a "consentual adult" kind of way. I am easily outraged at crimes against children. This conservative shit who did this and tried to repent through the courts (probably in order to keep from having a rather high profile case in court for the whole world to see) is basically a shit, and the fact that he is a conservative only proves that fucked up people are everywhere in every side on every fence. I don't feel consoled by his change in attitude, because he probably did it for selfish reasons. His brother saying that it doesn't sound like him doesn't mean shit. I have noticed too many people looking at their family as faultless, especially when it comes to school (my kid would never do that, my kid doesn't deserve to be held back, my kid is perfect and you are the one with the problem). We can't move past this unless we are willing to acknowledge the wrong that people do. No one is perfect. If you know your loved ones faults then you can help them to avoid bad decisions or learn from mistakes. If you say "not my kid" "not my brother" and ignore it, that is when shit like this happens. Every one of us has good as well as bad in us and struggles to make the right decisions, and you need people who know you and all of your faults and who care about you surrounding you to help you to make the right decisions. This guy obviously didn't and too bad. Yeah, radical homosexuals thwarting God's will are the only ones out there that are contributing to the problem, so to speak. Whatever. Chosing to be blind doesn't change a damned thing. |
also, I hate michael savage |
Yeah, some laws just need to be reworked or gotten rid of altogether. Why is it anyone's business what position my husband and I are in? |
|
Nightcrawler! |
Asked about the X-Men's film future, he concluded with his own master plan. "What I envisage is something more dramatic and expanding than just another X-Men 2 after this. "The comics have evolved and the principal characters have gone on to have their own comics, so why can't we all have our own films." RIGHT ON!!! |
|
|
|
The earliest reports I heard on this event was that there were Iraqi's going after the statue with sledge hammers, picks and the like. The US Military was standing by but was reportedly just watching from a distance at the begining of it, and later brought the tank-hoist to bring it down. |
its right here patrick: http://www.thememoryhole.org/media/evening-standard-crowd.htm |
I should move to England and be the Standard's new Photoshop ninja, they need some help over there, obviously. also, i would have put Waldo in somewhere. |
|
and other nerd talk.... i guess some people really don't have any morals. If i was doctoring a newspaper photo, i'd make damn sure to throw something funny in there, you know, to prove i have a soul. Who did that? I bet it was an editor. Those twisted fucks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://somethingpositive.net/sp10272002.html |
in a democracy (or a represenative democracy, or whatever) 51% of the people can feel one way and 49% can feel the other, and those 51% of the people get their way. you can't judge a politician on something that may effect a subset of his consituency who didn't vote for him. the majority rules. if you can think of a fairer system, you only need to convince 51% of the people it is better. " I can't believe no one jumped on this at the time with the obvious example of how this failed recently... |
By MAUREEN DOWD WASHINGTON Karl Rove has got to be nervous. The man who last year advised Republican candidates to "focus on war" is finding out that the Bush doctrine of pre-emption cannot pre-empt anarchy. Now, General Rove will have to watch Democratic candidates focus on war. We're getting into very volatile territory in the Middle East. As Paul Bremer admitted last week, the cost of the Iraq adventure is going to be spectacular: $2 billion for electrical demands and $16 billion to deliver clean water. We're losing one or two American soldiers every day. Saddam and Osama are still lurking and scheming — the "darkness which may be felt." After a car bomb exploded outside a Najaf mosque on Friday, killing scores of people, including the most prominent pro-American Shiite cleric, we may have to interject our troops into an internecine Shiite dispute — which Saddam's Baathist guerrillas are no doubt stoking. With Iraqis in Najaf screaming, "There is no order! There is no government! We'd rather have Saddam than this!," we had one more ominous illustration that the Bush team is out of its depth and divided against itself. You can't conduct a great historical experiment in a petty and bickering frame of mind. The agencies of the Bush administration are behaving like high school cliques. The policy in Iraq is paralyzed almost to the point of nonexistence, stalled by spats between the internationalists and unilateralists, with the national security director, Condoleezza Rice, abnegating her job as policy referee. The State Department will have to stop sulking and being in denial about the Pentagon running the show in Iraq. And the Pentagon will have to stop being dogmatic, clinging to the quixotic notion that it only wants to succeed with its streamlined force and its trompe l'oeil coalition. Rummy has to accept the magnitude of the task and give up running the Department of Defense the way a misanthropic accountant would. Big deeds need big spirits. You can't have a Marshall Plan and a tax cut at the same time. It has also now become radiantly clear that we have to drag Dick Cheney out of the dark and smog. Less Hobbes, more Locke. So far, American foreign policy has been guided by the vice president's gloomy theories that fear and force are the best motivators in the world, that war is man's natural state and that the last great superpower has sovereign authority to do as it pleases without much consultation with subjects or other nations. We can now see the disturbing results of all the decisions Mr. Cheney made in secret meetings. The General Accounting Office issued a report last week noting that the vice president shaped our energy policy with clandestine advice from "petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, electricity industry representatives and lobbyists." Favoritism to energy pals led to last week's insane decision to gut part of the Clean Air Act and allow power plants, refineries and other industrial sites to belch pollutants. Another Bush-Cheney energy crony is Anthony Alexander of Ohio's FirstEnergy Corporation, which helped trigger the blackout after failing to upgrade its transmission system properly since deregulation. He was a Bush Pioneer, having raised at least $100,000 for the campaign. This logrolling attitude has led to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allowing Halliburton — which made Mr. Cheney a rich man with $20 million worth of cashed-in stock — to get no-bid contracts in Iraq totaling $1.7 billion, and that's just a start. All this, and high gas prices, too? When he wasn't meeting secretly with energy lobbyists, Mr. Cheney was meeting secretly with Iraqi exiles. The Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi and other defectors conned Mr. Cheney, Rummy and the naïve Wolfowitz of Arabia by playing up the danger of Saddam's W.M.D.'s and playing down the prospect of Iraqi resistance to a U.S. invasion. According to The Los Angeles Times, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies are investigating to see if they were duped by Iraqi defectors giving bogus information to mislead the West before the war. Some intelligence officials "now fear that key portions of the prewar information may have been flawed," the story said. "The issue raises fresh doubts as to whether illicit weapons will be found in Iraq." Karl Rove has got to be nervous. |
And this ain't no liberal secretary of the Navy, either. This is James Webb. |
|
|
try that one, cut and paste, damn commas. |