Politics: Homo abortionists vs the born again gun nuts

by **jeff2sf** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 15:22:03

His wife knew, apparently, for the last 5 months. And, apparently, was cool with it.

The affair is their business, but the amount of bad decisions this dude made to try and carry out said affair makes him unqualified to be the Mayor of Phoenixville, let alone governor of South Carolina (though they may be the same sized populations, not sure).

by **Squire** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 15:22:14

Woody wrote:So wait. Who the hell just disappears for three days to have an affair without some kind of alibi? Or did his wife think he was hiking?

Her only comment was something to the effect that she didn't know where he was. I don't think she trotted out the Appalachian trail story. However, I do think she knew where he was.

by **Werthless** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 15:26:42

Woody wrote:p.s. is there a politician out there NOT getting side action?

Ron Paul of course.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 15:28:11

kruker wrote:
dajafi wrote:Torture Nation

Human rights and morality issues aside, do people really not understand the ramifications of torture? That using these techniques only helps to draw a bolder line between "us" and "them". Torture only entrenches them in their position and encourages people to become more resolute in their cause. When the faction you are torturing is already willing to give their lives to the cause in the form of suicide bombings, torture can only increase the number of potential terrorists. Unless you're naive enough to believe that you can take people out of society, hold them indefinitely, use enhanced interrogation techniques on them and hope that this will not cause a chain reaction in their social network.

Apparently not, and I might add it would be refreshing for the pro-torture's to be honest about why they like/approve it... feels good, retribution, revenge, "hate dem ay-rabs an' muzlumz 'cuz of 9/11", etc.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 15:30:57

Werthless wrote:
Woody wrote:p.s. is there a politician out there NOT getting side action?
Ron Paul of course.

Kucinich. I mean, look at the missus...

by **Woody** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 15:32:28

jeff2sf wrote:
The affair is their business, but the amount of bad decisions this dude made to try and carry out said affair makes him unqualified to be the Mayor of Phoenixville, let alone governor of South Carolina (though they may be the same sized populations, not sure).

Apparently you've never met the Mayor Phoenixville

by **dajafi** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 15:41:18

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
Werthless wrote:
Woody wrote:p.s. is there a politician out there NOT getting side action?
Ron Paul of course.

Kucinich. I mean, look at the missus...

Could be a Hugh Grant effect.

by **FTN** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 16:25:40

Werthless wrote:Citi giving raises of up to 50% in salaryto key people, to compensate for lower bonuses in the new compensation structure. There has been a recent exodus of executives.

The person said the changes would not affect the amount of an employee's compensation. By shifting the mix in compensation packages, the change could allow Citi to pay most employees as much as they received in 2008 while adhering to bonus caps. The person said the employees included traders, who tend to be compensated more heavily with bonuses, and middle- and lower-level managers whose compensation is more heavily weighted toward salaries.
...
A New York Times report published Wednesday said some employees salaries will rise by as much as 50 percent because of the change in compensation structure.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., a critic of financial companies' compensation, said of Citi in a statement, "they just don't get it." The statement called Citi's compensation changes "pay hikes."
...
Citi and other banks are likely reconfiguring their compensation to avoid losing talented workers to competitors. Some of the banks that received government loans during the mushrooming credit crisis last fall have already paid back their debt, and are no longer subject to compensation oversight, among them big banks like JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Those no longer under the government's compensation oversight are able to offer lucrative deals to entice employees away from other banks.

Citi has seen some defections from its ranks in recent months. The latest was the departure of Ajay Banga, CEO of its Asia Pacific division, who left to take a position at MasterCard Inc.

Citi is going to look so different in 2 years. Sooo different.

by **Bucky** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 17:07:22

wait i thought you said they were going out of business

by **CalvinBall** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 17:33:00

These men are old and wrinkly. What makes women want to sleep with them? I guess money but they have to know that won't last.

by **FTN** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 17:38:08

Bucky wrote:wait i thought you said they were going out of business

I said they were going away. I think that was in November, when they completely collapsed. Had the government not given them a blank check, they'd have gone into bankruptcy. The company is going to go through a massive unwinding/fire sale over the next 24 months.

by **allentown** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 18:21:39

CalvinBall wrote:These men are old and wrinkly. What makes women want to sleep with them? I guess money but they have to know that won't last.

Probably primarily the very strong personality that goes with all the power and money. They are undoubtedly very interesting to talk to, project megatons of self confidence, know how to butter up and flatter young women.

It is really nothing at all new about rich, powerful men chasing after attractive much younger women in their late middle age. It is the ultimate power symbol and self reward.

It hurts the Republican Party more politically than the Dems, because that party makes a business of hectoring the rest of society on primarily issues of sexual morality and drug use. The hypocrisy of it turns off the younger voters. Same thing on gays. A lot of gay Republican politicians and leaders, who I guess are presumed to be celibate or having sex only with their wives, as the Republican platform calls for.

The Republicans were beside themselves that Dems were as unconcerned as we were with the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. I think we accept that this is how the world is and are at least grateful that the Dems by and large don't hector us on false morality. The Republicans are like the British aristocracy in their view that morality is only for the little people.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 21:41:42

Democrats only want to raise our taxes, then not pay them and serve in the cabinet. Nothing hypocritical about them.

by **allentown** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 21:54:10

jerseyhoya wrote:Democrats only want to raise our taxes, then not pay them and serve in the cabinet. Nothing hypocritical about them.

You can find lots of financial hypocrisy among Dems. Supporting Wall St over Main St and living like the gentry while campaigning as the party of labor and the common man certainly makes them hypocrites on a lot of financial issues. That is where their vulnerability to scandal lies. Republicans seem more immune to money scandals and Dems more immune to sexual scandals and drug use, in both cases I think based on the poses they consistently strike before the public. Thus, one of the Congressional scandals that could most hurt Dems is the Murtha affair. I don't think most Dems care all that much about the nominees that didn't pay all their taxes. The administration member likely to end up hurting Obama is Geithner. He pretty much embodies what many in party view as Obama's abandonment of the Democratic economic principles on which he ran.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 07:11:14

allentown wrote: The administration member likely to end up hurting Obama is Geithner. He pretty much embodies what many in party view as Obama's abandonment of the Democratic economic principles on which he ran.

That & the whole "perception of incompetence" thing

by **traderdave** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 09:11:37

Woody wrote:p.s. is there a politician out there NOT getting side action?

I stopped all my side action as soon as I decided to run for school board. 8-)

A note for any future political opponents - the comment above is a joke; I have never cheated on my wife.

by **dajafi** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:18:37

jerseyhoya wrote:Democrats only want to raise our taxes, then not pay them and serve in the cabinet. Nothing hypocritical about them.

Hey--that this happens to be true of me personally is one thing.

But you shouldn't tar all Democrats with it.

by **dajafi** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:24:24

Krugman quotes Barney Frank, making an excellent if obvious point:

A great line from Barney Frank, about Republicans trying to preserve funding for the F-22:

These arguments will come from the very people who denied that the economic recovery plan created any jobs. We have a very odd economic philosophy in Washington: It’s called weaponized Keynesianism. It is the view that the government does not create jobs when it funds the building of bridges or important research or retrains workers, but when it builds airplanes that are never going to be used in combat, that is of course economic salvation.

by **Bakestar** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:25:43

It's not the sex; it's the lying.

by **Werthless** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:37:52

dajafi wrote:Krugman quotes Barney Frank, making an excellent if obvious point:

A great line from Barney Frank, about Republicans trying to preserve funding for the F-22:

These arguments will come from the very people who denied that the economic recovery plan created any jobs. We have a very odd economic philosophy in Washington: It’s called weaponized Keynesianism. It is the view that the government does not create jobs when it funds the building of bridges or important research or retrains workers, but when it builds airplanes that are never going to be used in combat, that is of course economic salvation.

While I know he's trying to discredit the Republicans here, this just shows they're all idiots. Whenever the Democrats or Republicans are in power, the ruling party would never want to acknowledge that throwing trillions of dollars around doesn't create ANY net jobs.

Edit to add: This is why parts for the F-22 are constructed in a ridiculously high number of districts. It's to entrench the political interests in the continuance of the fighter plane.

Archived

Politics: Homo abortionists vs the born again gun nuts