Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I really had no idea you didn't want to be groped.Follow

#52 Aug 02 2013 at 6:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
The threshold needed to get non-aligned voters to go towards one party instead of the other is far far lower than that required to have members of a party switch sides. Given that those voters are often the deciding factor in elections, that's kinda significant.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Aug 02 2013 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,771 posts
gbaji wrote:
The threshold needed to get non-aligned voters to go towards one party instead of the other is far far lower than that required to have members of a party switch sides. Given that those voters are often the deciding factor in elections, that's kinda significant.


Yeah, but you're fooling yourself if you think **** scandals are having any influence on those voters, who are overwhelmingly younger or don't care.

The Republican Party's social issues are what are costing it the youth vote. 18-24 year olds couldn't give two **** about some guy banging other guys, or sexting some women, etc.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#54 Aug 02 2013 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If that were true, no one would worry about things like party "brand", or whether to call themselves liberal or progressive, or any of a dozen factors which political analysts know influence people's opinions because of associative reasoning.

Again, it's more important how the party deals with it than the individual failing. When the party actively disavows the person and pushes them out, it's seem as a problem with the person. When the party circles the wagons and defends him, it's seen as a systemic trait in the party itself (i.e. the "brand").
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Aug 02 2013 at 7:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The threshold needed to get non-aligned voters to go towards one party instead of the other is far far lower than that required to have members of a party switch sides. Given that those voters are often the deciding factor in elections, that's kinda significant.


Yeah, but you're fooling yourself if you think **** scandals are having any influence on those voters, who are overwhelmingly younger or don't care.

The Republican Party's social issues are what are costing it the youth vote. 18-24 year olds couldn't give two sh*ts about some guy banging other guys, or sexting some women, etc.


Have you seen a picture of the guy? Young people do tend to care about creepy old guys grabbing women and fondling them against their wishes. And if those young voters associate the Democratic party with his image and all that comes along with it? Big win. He's creepy as hell.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Aug 02 2013 at 7:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If that were true, no one would worry about things like party "brand", or whether to call themselves liberal or progressive, or any of a dozen factors which political analysts know influence people's opinions because of associative reasoning.

Again, it's more important how the party deals with it than the individual failing. When the party actively disavows the person and pushes them out, it's seem as a problem with the person. When the party circles the wagons and defends him, it's seen as a systemic trait in the party itself (i.e. the "brand").


Yup. So when prominent Democrats on the city cancel refuse to call for him to resign, what message is being sent? When Democratic political organizations attempt to use tricks to prevent a recall election from succeeding (yeah, despite later ruling by the attorney), what message is being sent?


It's a message that says loud and clear: "The Democrats and their backers don't care about what's right or wrong. They care about holding power for their party. Even to the point of defending/protecting a complete scumbag like Filner". Add in the questions about why it took so long for women to come forward, with the attendant suspicion/fear of use of political power to keep people quiet (not proven, but who cares in a case like this) and it's incredibly toxic to the Dem brand here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#57 Aug 02 2013 at 7:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yup. So when prominent Democrats on the city cancel refuse to call for him to resign, what message is being sent?

If that's the case (again, my following and interest in this are pretty minimal) then that's not good for the Democrats. They should probably do something about that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Aug 02 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,771 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The threshold needed to get non-aligned voters to go towards one party instead of the other is far far lower than that required to have members of a party switch sides. Given that those voters are often the deciding factor in elections, that's kinda significant.


Yeah, but you're fooling yourself if you think **** scandals are having any influence on those voters, who are overwhelmingly younger or don't care.

The Republican Party's social issues are what are costing it the youth vote. 18-24 year olds couldn't give two sh*ts about some guy banging other guys, or sexting some women, etc.


Have you seen a picture of the guy? Young people do tend to care about creepy old guys grabbing women and fondling them against their wishes. And if those young voters associate the Democratic party with his image and all that comes along with it? Big win. He's creepy as hell.


Considering I'm sure every single one of them has, at some point, looked into the cold, dead eyes of Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, winced at the disgusting visage of Donald Trump as he spittles all over the camera whilst calling for a revolution, or had a vivid nightmare where Paul Ryan was raping them in a back alley...

... I'm pretty sure the Democratic Party is going to do just fine.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#59 Aug 02 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
So when prominent Democrats on the city cancel refuse to call for him to resign, what message is being sent?
Well, the message I'm receiving is that you don't follow the news too closely since seven out of nine of the council members, along with the Democratic Party, have called for him to resign.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#60 Aug 02 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
Let's be honest here, you are just saying things that you want to be true.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#61 Aug 02 2013 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So when prominent Democrats on the city cancel refuse to call for him to resign, what message is being sent?
Well, the message I'm receiving is that you don't follow the news too closely since seven out of nine of the council members, along with the Democratic Party, have called for him to resign.

I thought that was the case (not the exact numbers but the general wind direction) but am happily willing to admit my ignorance of local San Diego city politics.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Aug 02 2013 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Contrary to what you believe, San Diego isn't the center of the universe, but Google still seems to work.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#63 Aug 02 2013 at 7:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Goes back to my general lack of interest. The only reason I know the little bit about the story as I do is because updates pop up on Political Wire.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Aug 04 2013 at 3:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,917 posts
Quote:
Among other claims, she says he asked her to work without wearing underwear.

No. Just No.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#65 Aug 04 2013 at 5:12 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Quote:
Among other claims, she says he asked her to work without wearing underwear.

No. Just No.


Easy access? Then again, even if you're down with getting it on in the office, how hard is it to slide off underwear? The ease of access isn't worth the lack of comfort, unless you're a Soldier in the field.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#66 Aug 04 2013 at 6:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,917 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Easy access? Then again, even if you're down with getting it on in the office, how hard is it to slide off underwear? The ease of access isn't worth the lack of comfort, unless you're a Soldier in the field.

Duuude. How busy do you get, in the field?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#67 Aug 04 2013 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,309 posts
Some guys are apparently incredibly turned on merely by the thought that a woman is going commando. Since he's a huge perv it seems, he'd love the idea of rubbing his hand on a plump derrier and there being no panty lines.

Yeah, if anyone in a business situation made any commentary regarding my underthings (other than a discreet "Psst your hem is crooked and your slip is showing!") I'd be complaining up the chain of command faster than a **** groper in a Tokyo subway.

Edited, Aug 4th 2013 9:52am by Catwho
____________________________
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 leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#68 Aug 04 2013 at 3:27 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Arip wrote:
Duuude. How busy do you get, in the field?

Catwho wrote:
Some guys are apparently incredibly turned on merely by the thought that a woman is going commando. Since he's a huge perv it seems, he'd love the idea of rubbing his hand on a plump derrier and there being no panty lines.


You misunderstood. Guys are more likely not to take "showers" in the field than women. Because of that, instead of wearing the same underwear for days at a time, they just choose to change pants and "free ball" it. It's more air. I, on the other hand, just buy more underwear, but that's something that people do.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#69 Aug 05 2013 at 5:49 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,917 posts
It was a fun misunderstanding while it lasted Smiley: bah
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#70 Aug 05 2013 at 6:36 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
With today's modern textiles are underwear still necessary?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#71 Aug 05 2013 at 7:28 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
How else will people know it's the official home of the whopper?
____________________________
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 Aug 06 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So when prominent Democrats on the city cancel refuse to call for him to resign, what message is being sent?
Well, the message I'm receiving is that you don't follow the news too closely since seven out of nine of the council members, along with the Democratic Party, have called for him to resign.


You should have spent a little more time on google then. The two who haven't asked him to resign are both members of the Democratic party: Myrtle Cole and Marti Emerald.

And they're both women. Some Democrats have called for him to resign, and they get a lot of press for doing so, but there are some who have stopped short. Nancy Pelosi (you know, the House Minority leader?) didn't call for him to resign. Obama decided to not comment on this at all (which is strange because he manages to inject himself into every other "local" issue when it suits him). Democrats in general seem more interested in just keeping the whole thing at a distance rather than actually saying he should resign. Ignore it, and it'll go away I guess?

Again, this isn't really about the national party, but it does send a strong message locally about the party and how it deals with things like this. Given the inroads the Dems have made in local politics over the last couple decades, this is hurting them very badly.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Aug 06 2013 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
The two who haven't asked him to resign are both members of the Democratic party: Myrtle Cole and Marti Emerald.

And they're both women. Some Democrats have called for him to resign, and they get a lot of press for doing so, but there are some who have stopped short.
I guess Sherri Lightner, the council president pro-tem, a woman, and a Democrat doesn't count as "prominent" enough for you? Then there's Todd Gloria, though I guess that one doesn't count for having a penis. Any other criteria you're going to change after your initial argument fell apart? I mean, "some people support their team no matter what" isn't exactly a got'cha by any measure. Both parties have done it for eleventy million years. You're the only one that seems to believe otherwise.
gbaji wrote:
Nancy Pelosi (you know, the House Minority leader?) didn't call for him to resign. Obama decided to not comment on this at all (which is strange because he manages to inject himself into every other "local" issue when it suits him)
Okay, I wasn't aware they were on the San Diego City Council as well. You know, like your initial talking point?
gbaji wrote:
Again, this isn't really about the national party,
Yet here you are name dropping Pelosi and Obama.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74gbaji, Posted: Aug 06 2013 at 8:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) In response to other national Dem names that were dropped. I wasn't the one who introduced folks not in the immediate region into the conversation, but if someone does, it's certainly fair to point out that other non-local prominent Democrats have also failed to call for his resignation.
#75 Aug 06 2013 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
I never said that *no* prominent Democrats were calling for him to resign. I said that some prominent Democrats were *not* calling for him to resign
I'll grant you that you didn't say "no" prominent, but you certainly didn't even attempt to imply that you meant "some" either. "So when prominent Democrats on the city cancel" doesn't mean, in any language, what you're now trying to imply you said.
gbaji wrote:
And it's certainly fair to point to the two Democrats sitting on the **** city council who failed to do so.
It would be if you weren't trying to either subtly imply the other two, one of which was the pro tem of the **** council itself, weren't urging him to resign, didn't matter, or simply weren't aware of it. With your track record, I'd believe either.
gbaji wrote:
Cause I don't know what else you were talking about, if that's not the case.
It was a reference to the 34-6 vote by the San Diego Democratic Party committee to urge Filner to resign, not a reference to any particular individual.

Edited, Aug 6th 2013 11:10pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#76 Aug 07 2013 at 4:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I never said that *no* prominent Democrats were calling for him to resign. I said that some prominent Democrats were *not* calling for him to resign
I'll grant you that you didn't say "no" prominent, but you certainly didn't even attempt to imply that you meant "some" either. "So when prominent Democrats on the city cancel" doesn't mean, in any language, what you're now trying to imply you said.
gbaji wrote:
And it's certainly fair to point to the two Democrats sitting on the **** city council who failed to do so.
It would be if you weren't trying to either subtly imply the other two, one of which was the pro tem of the **** council itself, weren't urging him to resign, didn't matter, or simply weren't aware of it. With your track record, I'd believe either.


No. I made the mistake of assuming you knew as much about the issue as I did. My bad, but around here everyone knows which Democrats came forward initially and called on him to resign, and lots of people are shocked that there are any on the city council who have refused to do so. My comment was in reference to that. It was not at all my intent to mislead you. I honestly didn't realize that someone might think that I was implying that no democrats were calling for him to resign. Hell. The woman who initially started this whole ball rolling (Donna Frye) is a Democrat (and was a huge Filner supporter).

I just assumed you knew that.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Cause I don't know what else you were talking about, if that's not the case.
It was a reference to the 34-6 vote by the San Diego Democratic Party committee to urge Filner to resign, not a reference to any particular individual.


My bad then. It seemed like you were talking about the national party. Given that most searches about the issue prominently talk about Shultz calling on him to resign, I thought that's what you were referencing.

As to the San Diego Democratic Party? It took them a very long time to do this, and only after serious outrage that they hadn't (and frankly, it's still shocking that it wasn't unanimous). They initially voted not to call on him to resign (and this was several days after specifics about his actions had been released, which itself was several days after Frye revealed the generalities and called on him to resign) and that was a huge story here locally. Finally coming around really is too little too late in this case (like two weeks too late).

What's doubly bizarre about this is that it's not like one could argue that there was some kind of partisan fake scandal thing going on here. It was folks within the Democratic party who brought this to light in the first place. Donna Frye apparently provided him with information about what she had and gave him the opportunity to resign gracefully (presumably with some made up story about why), and he refused. As a result, she publicly announced that she had evidence of his actions and called on him to resign. He still refused. A few days after that, she released some of the data she had, including positions (but not names) of women making the allegations and again called on him to resign. He still refused. Three days after that, the local Democratic Party voted not to call on him to resign. This sparked yet more outrage. And after that, woman after woman has come forward with more allegations. Despite this, it still took the Democrats another couple weeks to finally call on him to resign. And still not unanimously.

I don't pretend to know what kind of party infighting is going on, but it's basically popcorn worthy from the other side of the fence. But this is why I say that the Dems are killing themselves with this. Whatever gains they've made in terms of public perception over the years have been massively wiped out in the last month.

Edited, Aug 7th 2013 3:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 Aug 07 2013 at 5:38 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
What's doubly bizarre about this is that it's not like one could argue that there was some kind of partisan fake scandal thing going on here

True. It must be terribly confusing for you not to have to manufacture faux outrage. I would have thought you'd have to replace it with some sort of ludicrous notion of how this minor event would impact party politics at a macro lev...wait, just finishing your other posts.....oh.
____________________________
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.

#78 Aug 07 2013 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
I would have thought you'd have to replace it with some sort of ludicrous notion of how this minor event would impact party politics at a macro lev...wait, just finishing your other posts.....oh.

This could have repercussions on the San Diego city council and maybe even a House seat like you would never imagine.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79gbaji, Posted: Aug 07 2013 at 5:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How much impact on the national level these sorts of things have is always in question, but it doesn't help the Dems nationally when you've got two sort of similar scandals going on at the same time, on opposite coasts, and both Democrats are refusing to bow out. I know there's a desire to downplay this on the left, but it still does have some impression on people. If scandals like this didn't, they wouldn't become national news.
#80 Aug 07 2013 at 6:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
gbaji wrote:
How much impact on the national level these sorts of things have is always in question, but it doesn't help the Dems nationally when you've got two sort of similar scandals going on at the same time, on opposite coasts, and both Democrats are refusing to bow out. I know there's a desire to downplay this on the left, but it still does have some impression on people. If scandals like this didn't, they wouldn't become national news.

I do find it amusing that the same folks who have gleefully pointed at any scandal involving any Republican at any level and associated this to damaging the "Republican brand" are so vehement that these are just local things that have no larger impact. It's like you guys are trying too hard or something.


You know, if I swapped Democrat and Republican, I could direct this exact same comment at you and it would be at a minimum, as ****
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#81 Aug 07 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I know there's a desire to downplay this on the left, but it still does have some impression on people.

You say that about **** near literally every "scandal" that affects a Democrat, real or imagined (the scandal, not the Democrat). You don't have much of a batting average.

Quote:
I do find it amusing that the same folks who have gleefully pointed at any scandal involving any Republican at any level and associated this to damaging the "Republican brand"

At which point you always insist that it could never, ever hurt the Republicans. We're a little better at picking scandals though -- for instance, stupid abortion remarks easily cost the Republicans two Senate seats they should have won even as you swore the "war on women" was a media invention and no one outside the Left cared.

Worth mentioning that, in the case of Wiener, he has zero party support, his polling has cratered and he's only in the news as a joke. That said, his transgressions didn't affect anyone except his spouse. There's no reason to expect an identical response to someone who sexually harassed women (seemingly to the point of assault) with someone who engaged in consensual, if retarded, Twitter cybersex. That said, the person almost certain to become NYC's next mayor is a Democrat.

Edited, Aug 7th 2013 7:48pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Aug 07 2013 at 6:48 PM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
If it helps I think of all politicians as manipulative sociopaths. There are simply some we've caught doing something bad, and those who've been able to hide it better.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#83 Aug 07 2013 at 7:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I know there's a desire to downplay this on the left, but it still does have some impression on people.

You say that about **** near literally every "scandal" that affects a Democrat, real or imagined (the scandal, not the Democrat). You don't have much of a batting average.


I don't have to, at the rate that Dems are racking up the scandals.

Quote:
Quote:
I do find it amusing that the same folks who have gleefully pointed at any scandal involving any Republican at any level and associated this to damaging the "Republican brand"

At which point you always insist that it could never, ever hurt the Republicans.


I've never argued that these things "could never" hurt the Republicans. I have often lamented how the media tends to take very very minor things and turn them into harmful scandals when it's a Republican, while downplaying or out right ignoring far more problematic actions by Democrats. It's a foregone conclusion that each and every scandal by a Republican will hurt the party brand, because those who control 80% of what people see on TV make sure of it. That's not in question. What I do is try to show people how ridiculously skewed things are.

Quote:
We're a little better at picking scandals though


No. You have the aid of a media that overwhelmingly leans left.


Quote:
-- for instance, stupid abortion remarks easily cost the Republicans two Senate seats they should have won even as you swore the "war on women" was a media invention and no one outside the Left cared.


Yup. Case in point. Stupid remarks? So nothing having to do with policy, or votes, or actions. So not really scandals at all. Yet they cost Republicans two Senate seats. Kinda proving my point there Joph. Meanwhile, Democrats can cheat on their taxes, cheat on their wives, get caught on camera smoking crack, get caught red-handed with bribery money in their freezers, make openly racist comments, or any of a number of things which would get any Republican thrown out, and rarely do they suffer much if any negative effects. It's not because what they're doing isn't as bad, but that they are far more likely to have the media downplaying things for them rather than exaggerating them.

What's interesting is that it seems that Democrats have gotten so used to this beneficial treatment by the media, that they seem to engage in more and more brazen behavior, and then are shocked when the media finally reports any of it. It's like a betrayal when it happens.

Quote:
Worth mentioning that, in the case of Wiener, he has zero party support, his polling has cratered and he's only in the news as a joke. That said, his transgressions didn't affect anyone except his spouse. There's no reason to expect an identical response to someone who sexually harassed women (seemingly to the point of assault) with someone who engaged in consensual, if retarded, Twitter cybersex. That said, the person almost certain to become NYC's next mayor is a Democrat.


Sure. Point I'm making here is that in both of these cases, the men involved clearly believed that they could just continue to get away with their behavior, and that this played at least some part in the degree to which their behavior advanced over time. That's not about an individual taking their own actions, but reflects a larger trend. It's that trend I'm talking about.

Edited, Aug 7th 2013 6:13pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 Aug 07 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't have to, at the rate that Dems are racking up the scandals.

Trying to prove my point for me? Smiley: laugh
Quote:
I've never argued that these things "could never" hurt the Republicans.

Heh.
Quote:
Yet they cost Republicans two Senate seats. Kinda proving my point there Joph.

Heh x2. Well, have fun counting your super-important Democratic scandals and waiting on the sea change over the San Diego mayoral seat.

Edit:
Quote:
Meanwhile, Democrats can [...] cheat on their wives [...] which would get any Republican thrown out

This was sort of funny since Rep. Sanford (formerly Gov. Sanford) was overwhelmingly voted in for a Congressional seat in his deep red district after, you know, abandoning his office to fly to S. America and hump some chick who wasn't his wife. But those were apparently better qualities than whatever the (D) guy had Smiley: laugh

Edited, Aug 7th 2013 8:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85gbaji, Posted: Aug 07 2013 at 7:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Um... The larger point that you are missing is that you, much like Democrat politicians, are more or less counting on the same favorable media coverage and the resulting skewed public response. As a result, you dismiss and downplay the importance of each of these scandals, because such things tend not to hurt Democrats as much as Republicans. Hell, you're almost smug with satisfaction at this condition.
#86 Aug 07 2013 at 7:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Edit:
Quote:
Meanwhile, Democrats can [...] cheat on their wives [...] which would get any Republican thrown out

This was sort of funny since Rep. Sanford (formerly Gov. Sanford) was overwhelmingly voted in for a Congressional seat in his deep red district after, you know, abandoning his office to fly to S. America and hump some chick who wasn't his wife. But those were apparently better qualities than whatever the (D) guy had Smiley: laugh


So identical, right? Except for the fact that Sanford resigned. And the fact that he resolved his marital issues before seeking new office. He at least had the class to decide to divorce the wife he didn't love and go off and marry the woman he did rather than continue to keep the wife for political ends while continuing to have affairs. Like say Bill Clinton.

Also a huge difference between a guy who falls in love with another woman, and someone who hired prostitutes or engages in sexting with random women he knows. But hey. No point in letting facts get in the way of a good narrative.

Did you forget that the point with Weiner was that he continued to do the exact same things that got him in trouble before, but expected everyone to just ignore it and re-elect him. Trust me, if Sanford had stayed married to his wife, claimed he'd broken things off with his mistress, but was really still having the affair, he'd be dropped like a hot potato as well. But that's not what he did. So not the same thing at all.

Edited, Aug 7th 2013 6:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Aug 07 2013 at 7:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So identical, right? Except for the fact that Sanford resigned.

Ummm... want to fact check that and get back to me?

The state legislature killed the impeachment process and settled for a meaningless "censure". Sanford served his full term.
Quote:
Also a huge difference between a guy who falls in love with another woman

I'm sure it was of tremendous comfort to Mrs Sanford that her husband disappeared off the face of the Earth, abandoning home, family and government service to fuck some Argentinian woman he loved and not send **** tweets to some nameless whore. The man's a saint.


Edited, Aug 7th 2013 8:42pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Aug 07 2013 at 7:41 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
As a result, you dismiss and downplay the importance of each of these scandals, because such things tend not to hurt Democrats as much as Republicans.
Because the GOP is the party screeching about their great "values", scandals hurt them more.

Duh.


Smiley: deadhorse


Edited, Aug 7th 2013 9:10pm by Bijou
____________________________
Sandinmygum wrote:
VorxDargo1 wrote:
who the h3ll do you think you are anyway?
According to your logic, I'm like an FFXIV God. You can call me Sand. I want sand, buckets of it. And Everclear..lots and lots of everclear.
#89 Aug 08 2013 at 7:13 AM Rating: Excellent
**
486 posts
Hypocrisy is a **** of a drug.
#90 Aug 08 2013 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
I made the mistake of assuming you knew as much about the issue as I did.
Lucky for us we don't know the same amount or neither of us could power a lightbulb. So you're welcome.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#91 Aug 08 2013 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts

This was sort of funny since Rep. Sanford (formerly Gov. Sanford) was overwhelmingly voted in for a Congressional seat in his deep red district after, you know, abandoning his office to fly to S. America and hump some chick who wasn't his wife. But those were apparently better qualities than whatever the (D) guy had


To be fair, wanted sexual advances are probably better than unwanted ones, generally.
____________________________
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.

#92 Aug 08 2013 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
To be fair, wanted sexual advances are probably better than unwanted ones, generally.

I don't think (or know if) the SD mayor is married. I was referring more to Wiener who, by what I've heard, had consensual text/photo-based relationships.

More to it, Gbaji listed infidelity as one of the cardinal sins that Democrats defend but which would cast any Republican into the fiery pits of political job loss.

In recent history add Senator Vitter (R), a married man, who used prostitutes and not only kept his job (with no hint of considering resigning) but had essentially zero GOP pushback and was easily re-elected to another term. Point being, Gbaji sees what he wants to see.

Edited, Aug 8th 2013 11:05am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#93 Aug 08 2013 at 11:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
At this time, he is apparently unmarried...

wiki wrote:
Filner is divorced from his first wife, Barbara (Christy) Filner, a retired mediation specialist;[62] they have a daughter, Erin Filner, a middle school social studies teacher who lives in Bedford, New York, and a son, Adam Filner, who is married and is the father of two children. Filner was later married to Jane Merrill. At his first news conference after his election as mayor, Filner introduced his fiancee, Bronwyn Ingram, a disability analyst who works for the Social Security Administration.[63] However, on July 8, 2013, she announced via email to a group of her supporters that the engagement had been called off and the relationship is over.[64] In a subsequent statement, Ingram cited Filner's verbal abuse and blatant sexting as reasons for the split. [65]
Sexting must be a weakness borne of liberal ideology as two democratic politicians engaged in the practice.





Edited, Aug 8th 2013 7:15pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#94 Aug 08 2013 at 11:53 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
More to it, Gbaji listed infidelity as one of the cardinal sins that Democrats defend but which would cast any Republican into the fiery pits of political job loss.

He assumed that was the case, he didn't need to check because the GOP says it's about fidelity and values. You know, like how the Nazi's were socialists, PRC is a republic and Bawndo has what plants crave.
____________________________
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.

#95gbaji, Posted: Aug 08 2013 at 12:03 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Is that really the best example google could give you? Wasn't that the guy who admitted to visiting a brothel, but it was years before he was elected (and I don't remember if it was prior to him getting married as well). This one kinda falls into the same "learn from your mistakes" aspect which Weiner appears to lack the capability to do.
#96 Aug 08 2013 at 1:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Depends on the infidelity, obviously.

If the adulterous Scotsman is a Democrat it's a HUGE DEAL. If he's a Republican, there's a thousand mitigating factors that make it not count.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Aug 08 2013 at 1:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,191 posts
You know, sometimes when I read a Gbaji post I feel like the American civil war never ended, it just changed shape.
____________________________
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.
#98 Aug 08 2013 at 1:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
You know, sometimes when I read a Gbaji post I feel like the American civil war never ended, it just changed shape.
Yup, it pretty much underlies much of our politics to this day. Much to the chagrin of those of us living in parts of the country that weren't involved. Nothing like someone trying to make you choose sides in their 150 year old war. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#99 Aug 08 2013 at 1:20 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
I like how the staunch defender of the party of family values is now defending levels of infidelity.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#100 Aug 08 2013 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,191 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I like how the staunch defender of the party of family values is now defending levels of infidelity.
I believe in the family
with my ever loving wife beside me
but she don't know about my girlfriend
or the man I met last night
____________________________
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.
#101gbaji, Posted: Aug 08 2013 at 3:17 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's not about defending. It's about acknowledging that those different levels exist and it's ok to respond to them differently. Similarly, the fact that I believe that we should punish someone who steals a car more than someone who steals a candy bar doesn't mean I'm "defending theft". But don't let logic and reason get in the way of the wonderful misrepresentation you've got going on there.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Demea, Anonymous Guests (54)