AP has reported the following:
“President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case. Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.”
Watch the Republican Prez candidates back away even further from the Bush Administration.
PAD
UPDATED 7-3: THIS JUST IN…It has been announced that Scooter Libby will indeed go to jail since, as it turned out, Bush commuted the sentence in error: He thought he was guaranteeing no jail time for Phil Rizzuto.
UPDATED 7-4: Well, I have to admit, I underestimated the GOP candidates. Thus far, to my knowledge, they’ve lined up behind Bush. In fact, amazingly, they’re even managing to blame Bill Clinton. “Hey, Clinton pardoned people who the public thought shouldn’t have been, so why shouldn’t Bush?” The obvious answer is that because Bush set himself up as being morally superior to Clinton.
It seems that the GOP candidates are simply without shame. Or perhaps they want to preserve the option of extending clemency to their own people when they commit crimes.
PAD
• 
Are you really doing so well that criticizing the guy with a professional trackrecord holding corporations to their sociopathy doesn’t remotely resemble biting a hand held open to make things better for you? Look at you snarling at John Edwards and, if I’m asked, what have you said I can quote that can portray this as rational?
Goodness, I certainly did not mean to upset your delicate constitution with my “snarling”. Calling Edwards “mediocre” and “unspectacular” may not seem quite so biting to some but I had no idea how deeply my hurtful words would cut. I’m glad I didn’t call him “craptacular” or something! I can only make a gentle prayer that Mr Edwards himself is made of sterner stuff; politics can be a harsh business and it would not surprise me if there were people who used even meaner language–perhaps even those in his very own party! Should that be the case I truly fear for your health. Perhaps you should take up a nice hobby to distract you for the next year and a half. Flower arranging is nice.
I will just have to hope that proof of my rationality never hangs by the slender thread of a favorable quote from you, Mike. These are the things that keep a man awake at night.
And where do you get this “losing a debate to Ðìçk Cheney?”
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/vp_debate_poll_041006.html
Oct. 6, 2004— Ðìçk Cheney prevailed in the vice presidential debate with help from a more Republican audience — and more support from his ticket’s side than John Edwards got from his.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04misc.htm
(Time Magazin poll)
Cheney 33%, Edwards 28%
Democracy Corps, the Democratic polling group run by Carvelle, gave Cheney a slight 40 to 37 percent nod.
Of course, other polls saw it differently–CBS gave it to Edwards. Much depends on which voters are polled (registered, undecided, leaning, nutty, etc). But if you are genuinely wondering where the idea that Edwards, a lawyer with supposedly solid debating skills, came in second in a battle of words with Ðìçk “King of Charm” Cheney, well, there you are.
I could mention that Edwards also has not exactly set the world on fire in any of the recent Democratic debates either but I hesitate dash your hopes further. Admittedly, not everyone can have Obama’s genuine charisma and Hillary’s leadership qualities. Life is unfair that way.
A question–has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?
I can’t think of any such example. If your question is meant to make a point about Edwards, how could your point have not also been applied to Lincoln during his presidential run?
Um…because Lincoln WON his home state of Illinois in the presidential campaign of 1860? Because Edwards LOST his home state of North Carolina in the presidential election of 2004?
Rocket surgery.
My own prediction is that Edwards will not be the democratic nominee for president and he is not even remotely in the running to be given a second chance at being the vice presidential candidate. Like all prediction, it is quite falsifiable and I may well be proven wrong. No guts, no glory.
But Edwards will always have his victory in the 2000 People Magazine Sexiest Politician Alive. There’s that.
Good lord I agree with Mike on something.
The first quote is a “wouldn’t it be nice to fix the system” quote, the second is a “the system we do have doesn’t work” type quote.
You can speak out against how things work and how you think they should, and they aren’t automatically contradictory.
Nick,
Would you please inform us what the original context of HRC’s quote was, or did the GOP-friendly site you copied that off of conveniently not provide one?
You are inferring an offense taken by me… where I have taken and implied none. Thank you for not disqualifying anything I’ve said.
You speak definitively of that which you present contradictory facts. I asked a question, and you answered it. Thank you.
Kerry was at the bottom of the polls the December before he won the 2004 primaries. The republican primaries typically go to the front runner, because the party is more governed from the top than the democratic party. Being a republican, you might have missed that.
Also, Edwards is campaigning exactly as he should at this stage. Take for example the shot Obama gave him in the first debate. Edwards did the right thing in criticizing Hillary for waiting for the war funding to pass before voting against it, to erode her lead. Then Obama, who also waited for the funding to pass before voting against it, rebutted he didn’t vote for the war in the first place like Edwards did. At first it looked like Edwards stupidly walked into a punch by Obama, but instead, in focusing on taking out the leader, Edwards demonstrated he’s keeping his eye is on the prize.
Hillary is also demonstrating she is campaigning exactly as she should. The Sopranos parody has received a lot of panning, but the biggest challenge people have in voting for Hillary is her coldness, and in erring on the side of addressing her biggest obstacle, she is demonstrating the basic kind of sense that would have made a pants-load of difference in the last election.
As things stand now, Obama seems to be the weak contender of the top-tier democrats in a general election campaign.
Edwards neither won nor lost his home state in the 2004 election because he didn’t run for president in the general election — Edwards has never run in the general election for president. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery
You know, it’s too bad that Britt Reid is a fictional character. I wouldn’t mind seeing The Green Hornet bring Bush and Cheney to justice.
But since he is fictional, that leaves it to Congress.
Yeah, right. Maybe I should hold out hope that the Hornet will show up after all.
Rick
Wel,, you may well be right. Edwards may well be running a campaign of such cunning that its brilliance is going right over my head. One of the disadvantages of making a prediction like “John Edwards will not win his party’s nomination for president” is that one can be proven wrong. Should taht prove to be the case I will just have to live with having been wrong.
As for the argumant that Edwards did not lose his home state in the 2004 election…I’m guessing that’s the sort of rationalization the Edwards camp is using. That’s one reason why he won’t be the nominee.
Edward’s only chance would be if Hillary and Obama so bloody themselves up that the party must turn to the relatively undamaged Edwards to unite them. I’d rate that at about a 10% liklihood, which is, I believe, about where Edwards resides in the polls.
Edwards never running in a general election for US president is a clear and literal truth that disqualifies your strike against him “has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?” The clarity and literalness of a truth does not disqualify it from, does not place it above, qualifying a rationalization.
John Edwards is not terribly popular in his home state. Spin the fact any way you wish. Last poll I saw had him at 30%, not a great showing for a hometown boy.
Both Hillary and Obama are well liked by the people who know them best–one reason why they are the frontrunners and Edwards…well, not so much.
Spin? Well, listen to you trying to portray in me an ulterior motive from my simply observing Edwards and Lincoln entered presidential races after losing elections in the states they served in congress — Lincoln in 1858.
If Edwards gets the nomination, guess what? He’s going to get your state. Unlike Al Gore, he has a message you can only find fault with arbitrarily, and message always prevails on election day.
Your dismissal of my observation is arbitrary and is counter-intuitive to past election lifecycles.
Wait, I just checked: Edwards never lost a congressional race. The Lincoln analogy doesn’t apply — because Edwards avoided the election loss Lincoln had to recover from.
I thought you said you were from NC, Bill. Kind of a shame I had to look that up with you just exulting in the portrayal of Edwards as someone who lost an election he didn’t (“has anyone ever been elected president while losing their own home state?”). I’d hate to see what your version of spin looks like.
Just for Rob Brown, an article claiming Fred Thompson was a mole for Nixon and an early enthusiast for obstructing justice.
Well, Mike, you may well be right. But nothing you’ve said makes me reconsider my prediction that Edwards will not be the next president of the United States. He has had the chance to deliver his message to those most receptive to it and they have replied by sending the vast majority of their support to Obama and Hillary.
Time will solve the mystery. As you have made no prediction you need not fear being proven wrong. I, alas, must live with that possibility.
As for the position that Edwards should not be considered having lost the 2006 election…or that he did lose the election but not North Carolina…and that this negates the analogy to Lincoln…which is something you yourself came up with and have been pushing…well, That’s Our Mike!
Hang on to those Edwards buttons though–he’s young and may get another shot in another year when the competition is less formidable.
Edwards ran for no office in 2006.
Ridiculing with inaccuracies a messenger he can’t disqualify. Unfortunately, That’s Our Bill.™
Sorry, it was the 2004 election he lost. Mea Culpa.
At least he got to the dance, which is, I’m afraid, more than he will be able to say about 2008. But Time Will Tell.
Bill, thank you. Unfortunately, you speak as if votes are cast for the office of vice president. This is, again, wrong.
Considering the distress you display in our interactions, I’m going to guess that it’s worth mentioning to you that the most obvious errors are the easiest to correct. Knowing this may allow you to manage your responses to minimize the most obvious readings of what you say that embarrass you.
Distress? Mike, you amuse me. May you never change.
I think I’m on fairly solid ground here when I say that Mr Edwards was indeed on the losing team in 2004. I suppose there are ways you can spin this to mean that he did not, in fact, lose any election in 2004, that his record as a candidate is unblemished. Fine, whatever works for you. It won’t improve his shrinking chances of capturing the Democratic candidacy in 2008 so no harm, no foul.
But lest you feel that I think he will be of no consequence at all let me assure you that when he does throw in the towel and offer his support to the eventual winner it may well help them to clinch the nomination and eventually the election. No doubt his acolytes will extrapolate that into some kind of virtual presidential victory. Again, no harm.
Kerry and Ewards won in 2004. It’s just that Bush and Chaney won more.
You want to use the phrases “Edwards lost in 2004” and “Edwards was on the losing team in 2004” interchangeably. It’s as wrong as making Lloyd Bentsen’s loss to the man he devastatingly busted for trying to slip on a Jack Kennedy mask the headline of Texas newspaper the day after the 1988 election.
Their team’s dependence on Kerry and Edwards to win were not interchangeable and, had they won, their responsibilities also would not have been interchangeable. (Having voted for Bush/Cheney in the past, this fact may have been lost on you.)
Like a communist, you deny the distinction between consensus and individual accountability. Your wrongness simply gives me no room to reciprocate your “Fine, whatever works for you.” What you dismiss as “whatever works for [me]” is simply the truth by default of no available, reasonable alternative.
Nothing I’ve said depends on Kerry and Edwards having won.
Oh no–now I’m like a communist!!! I knew would do something like this! Curse you all!
Seriously Mike, if you are getting this bent out of shape now what will happen when Edwards actually throws in the towel? You’d best be preparing yourself for the inevitable.
You do share one attribute with Mr. Edwards. No, not the sexiest politician alive (2000 edition), c’mon man, be serious. Insisting that Edwards did not lose in 2004 just makes it worse since pretty much everyone KNOWs that e, well, lost in 2004. Kemp lost in 1996. Lieberman lost in 1992. And so on. Similarly, the stupid story about Edwards haircut (now up to $1200!) has had legs in large part because of the Edwards campaign refusal to let it die. They even mentioned it in a fundraising letter! Foolish. Talking about something you want to be a non-story just helps make it a story.
Say, have you considered volunteering for the campaign? Edwards has a history of using bloggers with, er, colorful pasts.
Remember Leon Trotsky!
Bill Mulligan: “Oh no–now I’m like a communist!!!”
I thought you were a fascist. Who knew?
“Remember Leon Trotsky!”
What?
—————
Bill (or maybe it’s actually Boris), if you held this discussion with someone else (hypothetically), it would probably go something like this.
A: I think Edwards has a good message.
B: I don’t like his message, but even if I did, I don’t think it will be enough to win him the nomination. He is not popular enough. He couldn’t even get his home state to support Kerry and him in the 2004 election.
A: Well, Edwards was only running for vice president, maybe he didn’t get the support of his his home state (?) because they didn’t like Kerry, and not because of his own lack of popularity.I think his excellent message will reach the public.
B: Maybe, maybe not. I still don’t think Edwards has much of a chance of winning the Democratic primaries with his public image when faced with much more popular opponents as Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton. Personal image is an important part of the campaign after all. We’ll see.
A: OK. Let’s agree to disagree.
B. OK, bye.
But this is not a regular discussion. It follows a different set of rules.
Lieberman did not campaign in 1992.
If by “bent out of shape” you mean “not wrong,” well, I can only continue to thank you for persistently not disqualifying anything I’ve said.
Mike has taken the word ‘thanks’ which is usually associated with politeness and friendliness, and has given it a rude unpleasant meaning. It’s a shame.
Mike: “If by “bent out of shape” you mean “not wrong,” well, I can only continue to thank you for persistently not disqualifying anything I’ve said.”
And if he did not mean ‘not wrong’ by ‘bent out of shape’, but instead meant it’s more common meaning of, well, bent out of shape, then I suppose you’ll have to no longer continue to thank him for persistently not saying the words you try to put in his mouth?
Micha: “Mike has taken the word ‘thanks’ which is usually associated with politeness and friendliness, and has given it a rude unpleasant meaning. It’s a shame.”
It is, if perhaps sadly unsurprising. Though I was actually surprised to see he started off in a more or less rational manner in this thread. Too bad he was unable to maintain it for very long.
Bill Mulligan: “Oh no–now I’m like a communist!!!”
Bill Meyers: “I thought you were a fascist. Who knew?”
I’m still waiting for him to reveal himself as the Communist Fascist Zombie Overlord, but I guess all the plans aren’t in place yet…
How is my expression of gratitude hostile?
If by “bent out of shape” Bill is, again, inferring I have taken an offense I neither took nor implied taking, then he is simply wrong. I’m trying to give Bill some kind of credit for accuracy, because I am a decent person and that’s what decent people do. I don’t see how your portrayal of him as out-and-out wrong benefits him.
I am posts have been consistent this entire thread. Nothing I’ve said is incompatible with anything else I’ve said. To establish your own rationality, why don’t you give citing something irrational I’ve said a try?
“I’m still waiting for him to reveal himself as the Communist Fascist Zombie Overlord, but I guess all the plans aren’t in place yet…”
That ridiculous. Everybody knows that zombies are moderate left. They are socially liberal but are fiscally conservative: they support small government. They oppose big spending on the military and support gun control (for obvious reasons).
Bill (or maybe it’s actually Boris), if you held this discussion with someone else (hypothetically), it would probably go something like this.
Where’s the fun in that?
“Oh no–now I’m like a communist!!!”
I thought you were a fascist. Who knew?
I WANT to be an anarchist, mostly because I’ve always liked the way they have those bowling ball shaped bombs in the cartoons.
Everybody knows that zombies are moderate left. They are socially liberal but are fiscally conservative: they support small government. They oppose big spending on the military and support gun control (for obvious reasons).
They are also environmentally conscious, preferring walking to driving and living in harmony with the land. They believe that the Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent or at least equally nutritious.
But of course, this is all for laffs. Zombies are apolitical. They are mindless drones. Edwards voters! I keed, I keed. The better question is what political affiliation is more likely to keep you, the voter alive. Or to put it another way, who is more likely to survive the zombie apocalypse–Dennis Kucinich, unarmed in his prius or Ted Nugent, his Hummer stocked with semi-automatics?
I will leave the conclusions to you, the reader except to suggest that one get used to the new National Anthem; Wang Dang Sweet Poontang.
Look at you picking the most squeaking-mouse liberal for your example. Why don’t you pick Jon Stewart vs Ðìçk Cheney and his bottles of nitroglycerin and digitalis, or ex-marine Mark Shields vs the slumped-in-front-of-an-airplane-tire Karl Rove?
“It’s a shame.”
Micha, what’s really a shame isn’t that Mike distorts “thanks”, it’s that either in his head or in his game(still not sure it’s not all an elaborate gag, meself) the thanking is being attached to something that he’s been posting for months which no one is disputing. No one seems to be disputing it not because it’s in fact true but because to dispute it would be pointless.
And from what I hear, zombies support people with low fat, high fiber diets that get plenty of exercise. After all, the zombies don’t want a high fat diet any more than anyone else. Makes it harder to get to the brains, after all.
Sean, I just remember the good old days, when people said thank you because they wanted to show gratitude instead of trying to score an imaginary point in an argument, too often by twisting the words of others.
“Zombies are apolitical. They are mindless drones.”
In the middle east the mindless drones are political, but except for that it pretty much the same. So I’m not worried.
You confirmed what I say goes undisputed, and “to dispute it would be pointless” does not disqualify the validity of what I say.
It is not in my nature for my mood to sour when people do things that benefit me. I was raised to thank people when they behave in ways I prefer them behaving. Although you have expressed dismay at the prospect of receiving my gratitude, I am going to err on the side of keeping my life experience authentic and thank you, Sean Scullion. I guess I’m just selfish that way. Thanks.
Just so you know, you haven’t answered my question. You haven’t distinguished my gratitude from any other.
Never has more bandwidth been wasted than when Mike enters a conversation. 😉
Look at you picking the most squeaking-mouse liberal for your example. Why don’t you pick Jon Stewart vs Ðìçk Cheney and his bottles of nitroglycerin and digitalis, or ex-marine Mark Shields vs the slumped-in-front-of-an-airplane-tire Karl Rove?
Conservatives have more guns. Just the way it is.
Like all generalizations, there are many exceptions. I, for example, have neither guns nor the desire to have any. You may well be sitting in bed even as we speak, doing the private Pyle monologue from Full Metal Jacket. It’s a big world.
And yeah, I’d rather have Ðìçk “Ðìçk” Cheney in my corner than Jon Stewart. Any man who would shoot his own friend in the face with a shotgun will surely not flinch when the hordes of the living dead come a whistlin round the bend. John would say something ironic like “Eat me!” as they tore us apart. But to each his own.
I believe we have entered the traditional Mike/Zombie part of this thread. But maybe this time we’ll avoid it by discussing something else. Any ideas? Anybody? Please… somebody….
I give Stewart the edge over Cheney because when it comes time to repopulate the species, Stewart’s going to have smarter and better “sloppy seconds.” Once the network of privileges as we know it collapses with western civilization, what kind of quality of life can one look forward to cleaning Ðìçk’s gun?
Well, Alan, I’m glad your life is otherwise homogeneously utilitarian. I guess your parents dragging you to the Museum of Vegetables and Homework as a kid paid off after all.
Wait, why are you forcing yourself to participate in a conversation you don’t want to participate in? Your first post here was to wedge yourself into conversation with a person you want everyone to think you don’t even want to talk to. Why don’t you simply play the role you want everyone to see you embodying?
Bill Mulligan: “I believe the Special Prosecuter has said that no further investigation is being done and no further indictments are being considered. Under that situation it would seem that a president is safe in going ahead with a pardon without a likely conflict of interest.”
The prosecutors clearly were after Scooter to see if he’d crack and implicate someone higher up. He didn’t. If that were to change, they’d certainly re-open the investigation in a heartbeat. I’m sure George W. Bush knows that.
Bill Mulligan: “It doesn’t make it the right thing to do but it probably eliminates the risk of triggering Article 1, paragraph nine.”
The President’s power to pardon flows from the U.S. Constitution and are unlimited. Articles of impeachment drafted by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 in no way supersede the U.S. Constitution.
I give Stewart the edge over Cheney because when it comes time to repopulate the species, Stewart’s going to have smarter and better “sloppy seconds.”
Um…ewww. I’m not sure what that exactly means but it sounds a bit creepy.
People keep comparing the Libby commutation to the Marc Rich pardon. A better analogy would be to Clinton pardoning Susan McDougald. And at least she did serve time. But short of a constitutional amendment there is little that people can do but bìŧçh about it.
I’m still curious though about the Nixon pardon–how does a guy get pardoned for crimes he is not charged with? That seems like a very powerful tool for a president to have. Can a president rescind it? If it came out that Nixon had done something far worse than Watergate would he have still been protected by the overall pardon?
Bill Mulligan: “If it came out that Nixon had done something far worse than Watergate would he have still been protected by the overall pardon?”
If I recall correctly, Ford pardoned Nixon for all crimes related to Watergate. If Nixon had subsequently been charged with drowning puppies after he left office, I don’t think the “overall pardon” would’ve covered it.
Of course, I also think Nixon is very much protected from further prosecution by virtue of being dead.
I’m guessing it’s only creepy to couples who have only been intimate with each other. Feel free to abstain from a second marriage if it suits you to do so.
I’m guessing it’s only creepy to couples who have only been intimate with each other. Feel free to abstain from a second marriage if it suits you to do so.
I’m just saying I don’t get it. Was the idea that you would rather share the apocalypse with Jon Stewart because he would attract better looking women who would have sex with you after they had sex with Jon Stewart? That’s how it came off to me but I’m not sure that’s what you were going for. It doesn’t make much sense since I don’t see how choosing which guy rides shotgun would improve the quality of dystopia cha cha. Furthermore, if the gals are just crazy about Jon why would they be offering you any seconds at all, sloppy or otherwise? They would just wait for their next ride on the Jon Stewart express, leaving you on guard duty. Again.
Why the low self esteem? It isn’t like Mr High and Mighty Stewart can get them backstage passes once LA is overrun by fetid hordes of the undead. Surely if these women are as smart as you say they will be overcome by your lovable charm. Let Jon make do with the crumbs from your table.
And yeah, I’d rather have Ðìçk “Ðìçk” Cheney in my corner than Jon Stewart. Any man who would shoot his own friend in the face with a shotgun will surely not flinch when the hordes of the living dead come a whistlin round the bend. John would say something ironic like “Eat me!” as they tore us apart. But to each his own.
Of course, if Jon Stewart brings Riggle to the party, it probably all balances out.
Of course, ammo eventually runs out. Pagans and others who lean left tend to have a much more varied array of cutlery.
Also, it never hurts to have a spellcaster or two in your corner in case of a mystically induced apocalypse. 😉
-Rex Hondo-
YES!!!!!!
So if I find out I can’t get pity sex even in the face of the extinction of mankind, how is seeking the company of women still a bad choice? Do you chafe in the company of women you find attractive but don’t give you sex?
That taken co-worker who teases you by diddling her ear facing you — is that not a safety-net ensuring your good day, or are you reaching for a screen to block your view?
So your self-esteem is tied to your romantic status?
It seems kind of counterintuitive to base the trust you have in yourself by the trust other people have in you. Then you’re strapping down your own feelings and intuitions out of fidelity to the expectations of others — who are probably also strapping down their feelings and intuitions if you are. It becomes a weird feedback-loop of repression and conformity — republican voters! I kid.
But seriously, shouldn’t you know yourself better than anyone else?
*SIGH*
I go away for a week and come back to Mulligan dreaming of a post apocalyptic zombie holocaust to rule over, Micha looking for some other topic and Mike explaining his fantasy life’s desire to be picking up Jon Stewart’s sloppy seconds.
Nice to know there’s someplace I can count on for consistency in life.
“Of course, I also think Nixon is very much protected from further prosecution by virtue of being dead.”
Well, sure you would think that, but you forget who it is you’re speaking to. One unholy rite later and Nixon is suffering eternal dámņáŧìøņ as an undead Oliver Reed’s cabana boy. Oh, the pain… the paaaiiiiiiinnnnnnn…
By the way, I’m a dad.
I have to disagree on this weighty matter.
First, Cheney is old and has heart condition, he is not fit to face zombies.
Secondly, I haven’t seenmany zombie movies but it seems to me that one or two usuelly die accidently in friendly fire (or chainsaw). If he can’t distinguish between a bird and a friend’s face, what are the odds he’ll mistakn you for a zombie (or a liberal).
And most importantly, don’t underestimate the importance of comic irony. Where would Buffy be without her ironic humor? Killed by Japanese demons with a grudge. And where would Spiderman be without his quick wit? He’d be in Spiderman 3.
The main flaw I see with Jon Stewart is that Mike will be around all the time waiting for sloppy seconds. As if the appocalypse is not hard enough.
It is true that situations like zombies, vampires, alien invasions etc. present sensible arguments for private gun ownership. They present societies that are threatened from within, and the need for individuals to protect themselves in a hostile world. However, I’m familiar also with some equally swensible negative effects of easy access to guns.
Grats Jerry
As if you aren’t going to go where I go.
Happiness is contagious, so in a sense we have a duty to be happy. I can only wish you good luck in fulfilling the trust the universe has placed in you.
Pagans and others who lean left tend to have a much more varied array of cutlery.
It’s the Society for Creative Anachronism people who will really make out like bandits. Yeah, who’s the nerd now?
So if I find out I can’t get pity sex even in the face of the extinction of mankind, how is seeking the company of women still a bad choice? Do you chafe in the company of women you find attractive but don’t give you sex?
Not at all–it’s your fantasy to have sex with women who have been lubed up by a celebrity. Don’t get all huffy when you accidentally reveal too much.
That taken co-worker who teases you by diddling her ear facing you — is that not a safety-net ensuring your good day, or are you reaching for a screen to block your view?
Maybe she is just cleaning the wax out of her ears because she can’t believe she heard you say something as creepy as comparing a second wife to “sloppy seconds”.
So your self-esteem is tied to your romantic status?
Not at all. My post apocalyptic fantasy does not revolve around pity sex. Even if it did I would probably assume that the “Not if you were the last man on Earth!” line was for dramatic effect and not a literal truth.
But hey, it’s YOUR fantasy and, admittedly, there are worse ones to have.
Of course, I also think Nixon is very much protected from further prosecution by virtue of being dead.
That’s what Cromwell thought. Ended up with his (severely decomposed) head on a pike, he did.
By the way, I’m a dad.
Once again, congratulations! Is Jenn feeling better? I raise a cup of espresso to your family’s health!
First, Cheney is old and has heart condition, he is not fit to face zombies.
You do raise a valid point. It would suck to have the old coot kick off from a heart attack and turn on me. (The new Billy Connely movie FIDO uses that premise–in a world where the dead rise old people are regarded with no small amount of suspicion).
However, I’m familiar also with some equally sensible negative effects of easy access to guns.
All joking aside, it’s one of those issues where the likely scenario and the worst case scenario result in widely different courses of action. I think it likely that having a gun puts one is more danger than NOT having one–all things being equal. But there is that small but significant chance that a situation would arise where having one is very very good. So…maybe it depends on ow much of an optimist one is.
“All joking aside, it’s one of those issues where the likely scenario and the worst case scenario result in widely different courses of action. I think it likely that having a gun puts one is more danger than NOT having one–all things being equal. But there is that small but significant chance that a situation would arise where having one is very very good. So…maybe it depends on ow much of an optimist one is.”
Agreed. As is often the case, a balance needs to be found between two legitimate but myopic extremes.
And now back to our regularly scheduled zombies.
I wonder. We’ve talked about zombies, vampires, werewolves, trolls, Republicans, Democrats… what’s next? Witches?
——————-
“Your first post here was to wedge yourself into conversation with a person you want everyone to think you don’t even want to talk to.”
Why would I want anybody to think I don’t want to talk with Bill Mulligan?
—————
Congratulation again Jerry. Health and happiness to you, your wife and the newborn.
I wonder. We’ve talked about zombies, vampires, werewolves, trolls, Republicans, Democrats… what’s next? Witches?
witches they were persecuted,
Wicca good and love the earth
and women power, and I’ll be over here…
With lust goes a sexual history.
It’s kind of a shame a woman generous enough to share the virtue of her lust with you would have to treat a part of her history as taboo — like that woman who drowned her kids for the sake of her new boyfriend — to avoid you inferring she was “lubed up” by another man.
Well, if she doesn’t want to know why Stewart has the edge over Cheney after the collapse of civilization, she shouldn’t ask.
Well look at you going from submitting “Wang Dang Sweet Poontang” as the national anthem to portraying yourself as too good for pity sex. Is that how it works: the more severe the woman, the sweeter her snatch? I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t pass on any opportunities to verify that for myself.
Thank you for providing your denial I’ve given you any cause to shut down any dialogs between us.