Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Is Weiner a Winner?Follow

#52 Jul 26 2013 at 5:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,341 posts
Not normal behavior? How many people know they've been cheated on before. How many people know their spouse has used the internet for all kinds of social sexual relief, like camming, sending emails, etc. Now how many people have a host of people actively trying to uncover all their dirty little secrets and release them into the world so they become common knowledge?

This behavior is VERY normal. It's causing an uproar because a significant number of normal behaviors carry social stigma (Hey there, nice to meet you, I'm gay). And it's not commonly seen in the public sector because most people keep personal information like this as secret as possible, wherever they can.

And I'm sure Weiner isn't so basic a human being that he has only one want or desire. This might shock you, but most people don't pursue one goal with single-minded focus. Weiner has many desires, among them are a political career and a sexual life that's a certain degree of poly-amorous.

Sure, his poly desires are problematic for public office, and his desires for public office are problematic for a poly lifestyle. But that's hardly the only thing he has to struggle with, and it's not like monogamous politicians don't have entire graveyards in their closet. Among these skeletons are hit wonders like "I hate Jews," "I was a Black Panther," "My dad was in the INLA" and "I'm brown."

And in the realm of relationships, there are plenty of choices Weiner could have made that would have realistically been just as damaging to his political career. He could have married a woman of color, he could have married a Catholic, he could have married an Iranian, etc.

It's not just sexually "deviant' behavior that's problematic for public office.

Sure, it's a problem for him. But it's also a problem for everyone else. What else would you call it when society creates a bunch of arbitrary social limits that we expect our politicians to abide by, even though they don't map to universally held sexuality, and in no way filter for effectiveness in public office?

Are you actually going to say that the society doesn't lose when we omit candidates for arbitrary reasons, rather than for having crappy policy and/or an ability to follow through/negotiate? It's possible Weiner is literally the perfect man for the job here (dunno, have no clue what his policies are), and there's a great chance he could lose because of something that has nothing to do with his ability to do the job.

I'd call that a huge problem for everyone else.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#53 Jul 26 2013 at 7:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Not normal behavior? How many people know they've been cheated on before. How many people know their spouse has used the internet for all kinds of social sexual relief, like camming, sending emails, etc. Now how many people have a host of people actively trying to uncover all their dirty little secrets and release them into the world so they become common knowledge?

This behavior is VERY normal. It's causing an uproar because a significant number of normal behaviors carry social stigma (Hey there, nice to meet you, I'm gay). And it's not commonly seen in the public sector because most people keep personal information like this as secret as possible, wherever they can.


Ah. I see the problem. You're interpreting the word "normal" to mean "common". The fact that something happens, even frequently, does not make it "normal". Normal refers to something being in line with social norms, not whether it happens frequently. So, as I said earlier, the fact that there's an uproar about this is a strong clue that his behavior is not "normal".


I also think the more relevant term to use here is "acceptable". If he were not running for public office, what he's doing would be much more acceptable. But given that he is, it's not.

Quote:
And I'm sure Weiner isn't so basic a human being that he has only one want or desire. This might shock you, but most people don't pursue one goal with single-minded focus. Weiner has many desires, among them are a political career and a sexual life that's a certain degree of poly-amorous.


Sure. But when one directly prevents the other, one has to choose between them. If we were talking about a runway model being unable to get work because she can't stop eating fattening foods and has become overweight, only a complete moron would argue that she should be allowed to pursue both of her desires without consequence, or that it's unfair for the modeling world to not allow overweight women to be runway models. Um... That's the way things are. Fair or not, she knew that going in, and knew the consequences of her choice, and made that choice. In exactly the same way that Weiner has made choices here and thus can't really complain about or be surprised at the negative effect on his chosen career.

Quote:
Sure, his poly desires are problematic for public office, and his desires for public office are problematic for a poly lifestyle.


Let me restate that you're speculating about his motivations for what he's been doing. But regardless, you are correct that his desires (whatever they may be) are problematic for public office. This is exactly what I said earlier. He's more than free to pursue a different career path where what he's doing might not be such a problem. Which is why his choice to try to run for public office while still engaging in the same behavior that caused him to resign last time is so strange. It's like he doesn't understand that one is a problem for the other, despite what should have been a very clear indication of this the last time around.


Quote:
Sure, it's a problem for him. But it's also a problem for everyone else. What else would you call it when society creates a bunch of arbitrary social limits that we expect our politicians to abide by, even though they don't map to universally held sexuality, and in no way filter for effectiveness in public office?


I disagree that those rules are arbitrary. They are rules that societies adopt over time because when they are violated (especially in their leaders) there are negative outcomes. I don't want to get into a long drawn out debate about how social morals evolve, but they often don't evolve via purely arbitrary reasons.

Quote:
Are you actually going to say that the society doesn't lose when we omit candidates for arbitrary reasons, rather than for having crappy policy and/or an ability to follow through/negotiate? It's possible Weiner is literally the perfect man for the job here (dunno, have no clue what his policies are), and there's a great chance he could lose because of something that has nothing to do with his ability to do the job.


Nope. I wont. Because I disagree with your premise that these are arbitrary reasons. I happen to think that there are very good reasons for why a society might think that a married man who sends sexually explicit messages and pictures to multiple women (who are not his wife) is probably not someone we should entrust with public office.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Jul 26 2013 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,341 posts
Oh, so is this the part of the argument where you start making up your own definitions?

Because common has a overt connotation of something being frequently represented, and often universal, within the group in question. You know, how "common" rooms are shared by all in the population. How having something in common with another person represents a shared trait across the entire population (2).

Homosexuality is not particularly common, and is found in only a small subset of the population. It is, however, normal. As in "naturally occuring." Life-bearing planets are also normal. They don't seem to be very common at all.

I get that this is probably a little advanced for you. Don't worry, you'll get there someday.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#55 Jul 26 2013 at 9:46 PM Rating: Good
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I get that this is probably a little advanced for you. Don't worry, you'll get there someday.

Doubtful
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#56 Jul 26 2013 at 11:14 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Idigg wrote:
Homosexuality is not particularly common, and is found in only a small subset of the population. It is, however, normal. As in "naturally occuring."


There are too many definitions of the word "normal". The term "natural" better suits your example.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#57 Jul 27 2013 at 1:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
622 posts
Can't he just come out and say God forgave him his indiscretions like all the other politicians did? Or is it only republicans that are allowed to have God on their side when caught screwing the poolboy while proclaiming the evils of teh buttsecks?
#58 Jul 27 2013 at 9:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Ah. I see the problem. You're interpreting the word "normal" to mean "common". The fact that something happens, even frequently, does not make it "normal". Normal refers to something being in line with social norms, not whether it happens frequently.

One of these posters is not like others.
One of these posters is kind of insane.
One of these posters doesn't understand social science.
Let's see if you can guess his name!

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#59 Jul 27 2013 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
As to the actual texts, the problem isn't their content. Most voters don't care. The problem is the marked inability to exercise impulse control over a trivial aspect of his life knowing his entire political future was likely at stake. That's significant. Anyone elected to be Mayor of NYC will be a megalomaniacal sociopath, but MOST of them will also have the self control to not actually build 100 foot golden statues of themselves no matter how warranted they find it. Actions like this make you wonder about Senior Danger. It also seriously calls into question his ability to judge when corruption can take place without it becoming obviously exposed in short order. The Mayor of NYC needs to be able to effectively deal sotto voce with dozens if not hundreds of factions, and not knowing how to cover ones tracks is completely unacceptable.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#60 Jul 27 2013 at 10:49 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,619 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Anyone elected to be Mayor of NYC will be a megalomaniacal sociopath, but MOST of them will also have the self control to not actually build 100 foot golden statues of themselves no matter how warranted they find it.

I'm kind of surprised Bloomberg hasn't done this yet...he has the means, motive, opportunity...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#61 Jul 29 2013 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
******
41,285 posts
gbaji wrote:
Don't really want to argue definitions and whatnot.
Yet you did. Guess it was easier to focus on than why adulterers, alcoholics, and drug addicts are more understandable than exhibitionists.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#62 Jul 30 2013 at 2:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Oh, so is this the part of the argument where you start making up your own definitions?

Because common has a overt connotation of something being frequently represented, and often universal, within the group in question. You know, how "common" rooms are shared by all in the population. How having something in common with another person represents a shared trait across the entire population (2).

Homosexuality is not particularly common, and is found in only a small subset of the population. It is, however, normal. As in "naturally occuring." Life-bearing planets are also normal. They don't seem to be very common at all.

I get that this is probably a little advanced for you. Don't worry, you'll get there someday.



Um... Did you just prove my exact point? That "common" and "normal" are not the same?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Jul 30 2013 at 2:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The problem is the marked inability to exercise impulse control over a trivial aspect of his life knowing his entire political future was likely at stake. That's significant.


Well. I guess I was wrong all along then! Smiley: dubious
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Jul 30 2013 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,341 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Oh, so is this the part of the argument where you start making up your own definitions?

Because common has a overt connotation of something being frequently represented, and often universal, within the group in question. You know, how "common" rooms are shared by all in the population. How having something in common with another person represents a shared trait across the entire population (2).

Homosexuality is not particularly common, and is found in only a small subset of the population. It is, however, normal. As in "naturally occuring." Life-bearing planets are also normal. They don't seem to be very common at all.

I get that this is probably a little advanced for you. Don't worry, you'll get there someday.



Um... Did you just prove my exact point? That "common" and "normal" are not the same?


If your exact point was that polyamory, as a naturally occurring aspect of someone's sexuality, was perfectly normal, then sure. Because it's certainly not COMMON in our culture for someone to be expressing polyamory desires. Common, by definition, would be monoamory lifestyles in our culture.

Weiner's polyamory is natural, but almost certainly uncommon.

Now, I have no hard data on how frequently polyamory is found within the population. So if your question is whether or not polyamory itself is common, I don't know.

But common or not, it's normal.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#65 Jul 30 2013 at 6:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
This is funny as hell:

idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Not normal behavior? How many people know they've been cheated on before. How many people know their spouse has used the internet for all kinds of social sexual relief, like camming, sending emails, etc. Now how many people have a host of people actively trying to uncover all their dirty little secrets and release them into the world so they become common knowledge?

This behavior is VERY normal.



idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Oh, so is this the part of the argument where you start making up your own definitions?

Because common has a overt connotation of something being frequently represented, and often universal, within the group in question.


Quote:
If your exact point was that polyamory, as a naturally occurring aspect of someone's sexuality, was perfectly normal, then sure. Because it's certainly not COMMON in our culture for someone to be expressing polyamory desires. Common, by definition, would be monoamory lifestyles in our culture.


Um... You're the one who argued specifically that it was common (first quote). I argued that just because something happens frequently (ie: is "common:), does not mean it's "normal" (ie: socially accepted). You then got terribly confused and forgot what the hell you were saying until now you're arguing the exact opposite of what started out saying.

Quote:
Weiner's polyamory is natural, but almost certainly uncommon.


Lol. 180 degree change there buddy. Gotta love that one.

Quote:
Now, I have no hard data on how frequently polyamory is found within the population. So if your question is whether or not polyamory itself is common, I don't know.

But common or not, it's normal.


Er. Then why did you argue that it was Ok because it was common? That was your "go to" argument for why we shouldn't be upset about what Weiner was doing. If you want to start over and make an argument for why what he was doing falls within acceptable social norms, then make an argument.

But can you refrain from talking about frequency then? Now that we're both on board that one doesn't determine the other.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Jul 31 2013 at 1:05 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,405 posts
gbaji wrote:
This is funny as hell:

idiggory, King of Bards in the first quote wrote:
This behavior is VERY normal.


Um... You're the one who argued specifically that it was common (first quote).


Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#67 Jul 31 2013 at 6:29 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,341 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
This is funny as hell:

idiggory, King of Bards in the first quote wrote:
This behavior is VERY normal.


Um... You're the one who argued specifically that it was common (first quote).


Smiley: dubious


Gold star for effort, I guess?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#68 Jul 31 2013 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
******
41,285 posts
PROOFREADING.
It's for chumps.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Jul 31 2013 at 8:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
25,554 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
PROOFREADING.
It's for chumps.
Proofreading doesn't work when you only see what you want to see.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#70 Jul 31 2013 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,701 posts
Quote:
I also think the more relevant term to use here is "acceptable". If he were not running for public office, what he's doing would be much more acceptable. But given that he is, it's not.


It's fairly common for high profile pols to seek multiple partners. Weiner just chose to do so in a way that a large segment of his base finds 'creepy'. There is nothing wrong with explicit texts to a consenting party, which they appear to be, prior to bringing it public. Is it the marriage thing that is the problem? If he was single, sending sexts to his dating partners would the public be ok with it?
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#71 Jul 31 2013 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
******
41,285 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
It's fairly common for high profile pols to seek multiple partners.
But is it normal.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#72 Jul 31 2013 at 9:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,701 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
As to the actual texts, the problem isn't their content. Most voters don't care. The problem is the marked inability to exercise impulse control over a trivial aspect of his life knowing his entire political future was likely at stake. That's significant. Anyone elected to be Mayor of NYC will be a megalomaniacal sociopath, but MOST of them will also have the self control to not actually build 100 foot golden statues of themselves no matter how warranted they find it. Actions like this make you wonder about Senior Danger. It also seriously calls into question his ability to judge when corruption can take place without it becoming obviously exposed in short order. The Mayor of NYC needs to be able to effectively deal sotto voce with dozens if not hundreds of factions, and not knowing how to cover ones tracks is completely unacceptable.


You don't build statues to yourself while in office. You get the preliminary work done and get your successor to build it in exchange for an endorsement and some favorable introductions with the various governed factions.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#73 Jul 31 2013 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,492 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
I also think the more relevant term to use here is "acceptable". If he were not running for public office, what he's doing would be much more acceptable. But given that he is, it's not.


It's fairly common for high profile pols to seek multiple partners. Weiner just chose to do so in a way that a large segment of his base finds 'creepy'. There is nothing wrong with explicit texts to a consenting party, which they appear to be, prior to bringing it public. Is it the marriage thing that is the problem? If he was single, sending sexts to his dating partners would the public be ok with it?


The marriage thing is a big problem (although it would be a bigger deal if he was an evangelical Christian whose entire identity was built around being on higher moral ground than anyone else.) Single guys are given a lot more slack for indiscretions than married ones, even if the women (or men) they are being indiscreet with are themselves married. (In that case, the married partner is given more blame for the violation.) Just boys being boys, sowing wild oats, etc. Adding a marriage partner into the equation means that another human being is a wronged party, assuming they did not approve of an open marriage from the get go. It goes from being a victim-less foible to a potentially injurious series of actions. Someone may have gotten hurt, at least emotionally.

I personally frown upon affairs because if someone is unable to keep a promise to the person who is supposedly the most important in the world to them, how can they be expected to keep promises to anyone else?

But that's my own inability to compartmentalize work life and personal life. Perhaps Weiner and other politicians have no issues separating the two.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#74 Jul 31 2013 at 10:43 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,818 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
As to the actual texts, the problem isn't their content. Most voters don't care. The problem is the marked inability to exercise impulse control over a trivial aspect of his life knowing his entire political future was likely at stake. That's significant. Anyone elected to be Mayor of NYC will be a megalomaniacal sociopath, but MOST of them will also have the self control to not actually build 100 foot golden statues of themselves no matter how warranted they find it. Actions like this make you wonder about Senior Danger. It also seriously calls into question his ability to judge when corruption can take place without it becoming obviously exposed in short order. The Mayor of NYC needs to be able to effectively deal sotto voce with dozens if not hundreds of factions, and not knowing how to cover ones tracks is completely unacceptable.

I think Tony may have wanted to sabotage his career. Maybe he didn't consciously know this before he did it, but it's certainly not unusual for people to foil their own best opportunities out of apprehension or simply because may not really truly want what they and others think they want. The Mayor of NYC is a wholly different level of burden to shoulder as opposed to being one of many law-makers in DC.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#75 Jul 31 2013 at 1:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
It's fairly common for high profile pols to seek multiple partners.
But is it normal.


More importantly, is it normal *because* it's common?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Jul 31 2013 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Catwho wrote:
I personally frown upon affairs because if someone is unable to keep a promise to the person who is supposedly the most important in the world to them, how can they be expected to keep promises to anyone else?


And I think that's exactly the problem here. From a public/voter perspective, it's a matter of trust. Politicians already have a reputation of misleading folks in order to get into office, and when someone does something like this, it only reinforces that perspective. The irony is that if he and his wife were to simply declare that they had some kind of open relationship and that this sort of thing was perfectly ok, it would reduce the "he can't be trusted" aspect of this. But then he'd still run afoul of the reality that despite what some people might want, enough voters don't think this is "normal" (there. I said it!) behavior and don't want their representatives living that kind of lifestyle. Fair or not, people are free to vote via whatever criteria they want.

If you want to get a job in a given field, you have to start with an understanding of what sorts of criteria those who employ you are looking for. And sometimes, that extends to your private life. To provide a personal example, if I were working as a construction worker, my boss would probably not care or notice if I got fined by the government for downloading/distributing pirated software. But working as an IT engineer, such a thing could be career ending.

Quote:
But that's my own inability to compartmentalize work life and personal life. Perhaps Weiner and other politicians have no issues separating the two.


Perhaps they can. I have no problem with the base assumption that someone's personal life should not have anything to do with how they do their work. But perception tends to trump reality in this case. It doesn't really matter that the person in question knows that they'd never do professionally what they do privately, because his boss doesn't know this for sure. And in the case of politicians, the boss is the voters. Why hire/elect someone who engages in private activities you don't think represent good moral/ethical standards, if there's someone else on the ticket without the same issue? Doesn't mean that other person would actually do a better job, nor does it mean that the person with the private issues you disagree with would do a poor job. But you have to make a decision, and that's a factor that will affect it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 Jul 31 2013 at 10:15 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,619 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
PROOFREADING.
It's for chumps.

His punctuation and capitalization looked to be spot on.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#78 Aug 01 2013 at 6:20 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,818 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
It's fairly common for high profile pols to seek multiple partners.
But is it normal.

There have been times in history when it was fairly rare and even times when it was considered deviant, but normally it's common.

My current thoughts on the Tony's campaign: He's banking on the short-term memory of the voters. Come November who will remember a little crotch advertising? Or,he's just riding the media attention wave as long as he can. I'm sure he's getting off on seeing pics of himself flashing on screens all over his little part of the country.

Edited, Aug 1st 2013 2:25pm by Elinda
____________________________
LOOK here.
#79 Aug 01 2013 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
******
41,285 posts
No such thing as bad publicity.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#80 Aug 01 2013 at 11:10 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
It's fairly common for high profile pols to seek multiple partners.
But is it normal.

There have been times in history when it was fairly rare and even times when it was considered deviant, but normally it's common.


But is it commonly normal? Smiley: tongue
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Aug 01 2013 at 11:58 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
It's fairly common for high profile pols to seek multiple partners.
But is it normal.

There have been times in history when it was fairly rare and even times when it was considered deviant, but normally it's common.
But is it commonly normal? Smiley: tongue
It's unnatural; isn't that obvious?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#82 Aug 01 2013 at 12:02 PM Rating: Good
******
41,285 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
It's fairly common for high profile pols to seek multiple partners.
But is it normal.
There have been times in history when it was fairly rare and even times when it was considered deviant, but normally it's common.
But is it commonly normal? Smiley: tongue
It's unnatural; isn't that obvious?
But is it recognizable?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#83 Aug 01 2013 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,401 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
It's fairly common for high profile pols to seek multiple partners.
But is it normal.
There have been times in history when it was fairly rare and even times when it was considered deviant, but normally it's common.
But is it commonly normal? Smiley: tongue
It's unnatural; isn't that obvious?
But is it recognizable?
No, it's just obvious.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#84 Aug 01 2013 at 1:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,405 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
It's fairly common for high profile pols to seek multiple partners.
But is it normal.
There have been times in history when it was fairly rare and even times when it was considered deviant, but normally it's common.
But is it commonly normal? Smiley: tongue
It's unnatural; isn't that obvious?
But is it recognizable?
No, it's just obvious.

Clearly!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#85 Aug 01 2013 at 10:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,701 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
It's fairly common for high profile pols to seek multiple partners.
But is it normal.
There have been times in history when it was fairly rare and even times when it was considered deviant, but normally it's common.
But is it commonly normal? Smiley: tongue
It's unnatural; isn't that obvious?
But is it recognizable?
No, it's just obvious.

Clearly!

But is it fairly normal?
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#86 Aug 01 2013 at 11:23 PM Rating: Good
UR GONNA GET BANT!!
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#87 Aug 02 2013 at 7:17 AM Rating: Good
******
41,285 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
UR GONNA GET BANT!!
But will we be prohibited?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#88 Aug 02 2013 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,341 posts
Huh... meant to post this in the groping thread. Oops.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2013 9:52am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#89 Aug 05 2013 at 7:32 AM Rating: Good
******
41,285 posts
Well, you succeeded, I think.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 49 All times are in CDT