Ya may be on to something there, Sophia ... maybe for The Democrats, its all about sex and for the Republicans, its all about law. Prolly explains a lot about their failure to come together, so to speak indelicately.
"all about the law" ROFLMAO
Timber
Is that perhaps the law of the jungle?
Them's conservativs shur hav a funny defint'n of "law." Go bom the **** out of anot'r cuntry, cauz day mite attak us firs. Itz okay to keel thousn'ds of innosent Arabs, cuz theyz our enemees. Som'un talk'n bout law? LOL
No matter how folks try to spin it, no matter how The Current Administrsation tried to sell the war, the fact remains: for over a decade, Iraq defiantly refused to meet obligations both freely taken and lawfully imposed following the Gulf War 1 ceasefire. Open to discussion is whether there was legal basis from which to resume prosecution of war. Arguments may be, have been, and are being pressed in support of differing interpretations of that point. As a matter of law, no resolution, whether Chapter VI or Chapter VII, has been voted against the US. While there may be widespread disapproval of US behavior, no applicable multilateral deliberative body or judicial system has sanctioned the US. At no time then or since, has the US been served competent, appropriate notice to cease and desist despite broad and ongoing sentiment. The US was not forbidden by the UN to resume hostilities, the US was not joined by the UN in that resumption. Were there adequate basis from which to conduct a prosecution of The US, the UN, led by France, Germany, and Russia, would certainly have done so. Not only has no prosecution or other sanction been initiated, concilliatory talks among all parties to the dispute are under way. That ain't sex, that's law.
So just because they didn't follow protocal, we had every right to kill thousands of innocent people. Wow, what logic.
Didn't say a thing about what was right or just or otherwise c.i. Just commenting on the law as it exists and is applied, without endorsing or criticising it. No sex all, in fact no emotion at all. Just the law.
I agree with Tartarin. Most right wing types of my acquaintance, are concrete thinking, uptight, superego dominated psychopaths who will do anything to get their way. For them it's all about winning, which they disguise as a right/wrong dichotomy. And for these reasons, they find it impossible, way too threatening to let loose and enjoy the simple pleasures of life like sex.
These discussions about the Clinton thing being about the "lie" is transparent hog wash. The lie was set up (a trap) and therefore the self righteous zeal to punish for the lie is in itself a lie. It is Kenneth Starr and the fanatics who are at fault for the impeachment. Really, it's ridiculous to believe that no one of them ever lied to protect him/herself. Their claim to righteousness is a lie. Lying in self defense only makes good sense. And I was proud of Clinton for being willing to stay the course. He was elected president and he did not allow those who wanted to interfere with the electoral process to get away with it. Thank God he had the character to stand up to them. They hate him because, 1. he enjoys what most of them can only imagine (taking pleasure in sex) and 2. he beat them at their own game. They can't let go of it because they are so severely narcissistically injured they are still smarting from the loss. (present company excluded, of course, for all but maybe one or two of you.)
But this is all my opinion, and I could be wrong.
Anyone who thinks Bush hasn't broken his oath of office multiple times was brought up wrong!
Blatham,
Glad to see you in top form. The set up in your second post was so good and so disarming, the third one really blew me away! I'll get even later.
I believe my analysis of the Clark candidacy and, in particular, Rep. Rangel's very early endorsement of him is no stretch at all. Hardly remarkable to suggest Senator Clinton might have Presidential ambitions. Equally plausible to note that she likely has calculated that 2008 is her best shot. The rest is obvious.
The real stretch is the suggestion that this is somehow symptomatic of some deeply seated paranoid streak in American politics. Perhaps I could also add Tartarin's suggestion that 'all conservatives' are beset with unresolved sexual preoccupations. That appears to be a frequent theme of hers, and I wonder what motivates it.
timber, You can talk about "laws" all day, but there's a more important issue called "ethics." Humanity requires that the perpetrator that break the law be brought to justice. One has no right to wholesale punishment of a country on the basis that their leader did not follow protocal. It's called ethics and humanity; damn the laws. Those over 3,000 dead Iraqi's were not guilty of breaking any laws. Quit trying to justify legality of what this administration did. They're gone.
We are criticizing it; it was wrong.
You're not wrong, Lola. You've stated it beautifully!
Quote:Most right wing types of my acquaintance, are concrete thinking, uptight, superego dominated psychopaths who will do anything to get their way.
Yeah. And most liberals I know are child molesting, spouse beating, lying drunks who don't pay their bills.
Neither statement contains any sense or any credibility. Only a small minded fanatic would believe such one-sided crap. Statements like this can only ooze out of the mind of a crazed partisan, or someone looking for approval from a horde of goofballs.
Yes Sofia, except my statement is grounded in my personal experience with these types, and it is extensive and your's is a snappy response to me and isn't true. There are plenty of liberals who do not molest their children or beat their sponses, etc. Exactly how many of these do you know personally? You can take my word for it or say I'm crazed.......but if you would like, I'll gladly introduce you to some of these lovely people for your edification.
I have to add -- not knowing Bush Jr., but knowing some of the family (growing up among that lot) -- Lola's on target. It's hard to be an admirer of them. (Well, there's hardly room for that -- they are so self-admiring.)
Nimbly leaping into the fray....
I think we might all come close at least to agreeing that the right side of the spectrum is more likely to forward policies and ideas restrictive of sexual behaviors.
Most conservatives you know are psychopaths....?
We've both worked in mental health--and unless you reject all the conservatives you come into contact outside the clinic, no, I don't believe your comment.
Quote:There are plenty of liberals who do not molest their children or beat their sponses, etc.
No doubt. And there are
no conservatives I know who fit your fringe description. It is quite a disservice to the poor souls who find themselves in your care to make such a statement about them. Do you give them a questionnaire on their political affiliation before rendering services? I wonder what brand of care a conservative would get from someone with such a low view of them.
eg...the two states which, about five or six years ago attempted to make 'love shoppe's illegal.
Sofia, I didn't say "conservatives" I said "right-wing types." I should have clarified by saying "right-wing fanatics" (I know many) and all have very holey superego structures. They hold on fanatically to rules in a concrete way, and they are either very near psychosis much of the time or they are outright psychopaths. Some of my best friends are conservatives. They are of a different cloth altogether. The fanatics will stop at nothing to have their way. And they are into power struggles to the death in order to bolster their own failing self esteem. They're not all psychotic or psychopathic, but they are all (all that I know) are severely mentally dysfunctional.
