this one worries me

Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin? Or Paul-Hulka?
Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18427
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

this one worries me

Postby korgy » Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:53 pm

_______ & _______ '16!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18427
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby korgy » Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:55 pm

Rogers, who studied at Wellesley College and later earned an MBA from Harvard, was once married to Chicagoan John Rogers, Ariel Capital Management chief and another close Obama friend and fundraiser.
_______ & _______ '16!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 12175
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:49 pm
Location: Occupied Southern States

Postby Lavite » Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:11 pm

Why the concern? She will be the social secretary. She'll plan parties and dinners. Not exactly a vital post to the well being of the country.
I was Deplorable before it was cool.

Hamburglar
User avatar
Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 6:28 pm
Location: Northernmost Banana Republic

Postby salmonid » Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:13 pm

I think korgy is worried Obama might want to slip a cigar into her vagina.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18427
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby korgy » Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:29 pm

salmonid wrote:I think korgy is worried Obama might want to slip a cigar into her vagina.


yeah, more along those lines.
_______ & _______ '16!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:48 am
Location: Philadelphia

Postby golgo13 » Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:07 am

My god, that's patronizing.

This is uglier than your having called Hillary a wench.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 20783
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:21 pm
Location: Redmond,Wa

Postby judik » Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:48 am

I have to agree with golgo,it is patronizing
I don't get your concern korgy
She's attractive- so what?
She is also accomplished
She is not some starry eyed intern
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.

Winston Churchill

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 28860
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:00 pm
Location: manhattan project brownfields

Postby q5q » Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:39 am

sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

freud
bodhisattva of sweetness, lite, and moist since 2001; dave_of_daves, whisperer_of_catsups

Vince wrote:
I'm never angry except with q5q who is a despicable abortion.

d&c
arbour zena: keith jarrett, charlie haden, jan gabarek, stuttgart rad orc

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:27 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby where2next » Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:41 am

Well said q.

Korgy: Completely baseless and uncalled for. Borderline rheycyst.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 28860
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:00 pm
Location: manhattan project brownfields

Postby q5q » Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:44 am

she's an attractive woman, but if he's particularly vulnerable to straying, he's going to have plenty of opportunities, imho more than clinton did.

if he'd nominated eliot spitzer for social secretary, i'd be concerned.
bodhisattva of sweetness, lite, and moist since 2001; dave_of_daves, whisperer_of_catsups

Vince wrote:
I'm never angry except with q5q who is a despicable abortion.

d&c
arbour zena: keith jarrett, charlie haden, jan gabarek, stuttgart rad orc

Wanted: Dead or Alive
User avatar
Posts: 4018
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:03 am
Location: Solvang, California

Postby Espina » Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:20 am

...and even if he did, I support the MYOB school of bedroom government...
Image
Image

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18427
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby korgy » Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:25 am

golgo wrote:My god, that's patronizing.


judik wrote:I have to agree with golgo,it is patronizing
I don't get your concern korgy
She's attractive- so what?
She is also accomplished


oh, please. patronizing to whom -- Obama or Rogers?

they are both charismatic, attractive people, and he's in the most pressure-ridden job in the world. i take it you've never been in an intense work situation with people you find attractive, and visa versa.

She is not some starry eyed intern


the suggestion that Clinton's daliances have been limited to starry-eyed interns, or unaccomplished, over-fawning women, i find naive at best.

frankly, i would be quite surprised if Obama fell for starry-eyed interns - he seems much more drawn to powerful, intelligent women. and the suggestion that only powerful men or innocent, naive female bimbos are participants in work-related daliances -- and that they have no control over such situations -- i find really sexist.

powerful, attractive, accomplished women are subject to and participate in the same human frailties as men, and are equally responsible. odd that you two would see this as "this is saying Obama can have whoever he wants" thing. indeed, that is really, really patronizing.

[sigh]
_______ & _______ '16!

arrogant Yankee cokehead
Posts: 4657
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:30 pm

Postby Felix » Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:32 am

Great thread.
Cherman humor: ha! because your father hates you, you have no one to fuck, you can't afford health care, you have nothing but this board, you pretend to have cancer, you are a racist pig, you are stupid, you are a bloody fuckface...

arrogant Yankee cokehead
Posts: 4657
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:30 pm

Postby Felix » Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:45 am

Probably best simply not to allow any attractive women near Obama.
Cherman humor: ha! because your father hates you, you have no one to fuck, you can't afford health care, you have nothing but this board, you pretend to have cancer, you are a racist pig, you are stupid, you are a bloody fuckface...

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 20783
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:21 pm
Location: Redmond,Wa

Postby judik » Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:54 am

You seem to have little respect for the president you support or attractive accomplished women
But really, with our economic world collapsing, you are wasting bandwidth worrying about who Obama is going to fuck?
Sigh indeed
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.

Winston Churchill

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:48 am
Location: Philadelphia

Postby golgo13 » Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:56 am

If only she had a husband to keep her in line and scare off Barak Lothario Hussein Obama.

You're really a sad case pal.

I'm not worried.

Wanted: Dead or Alive
User avatar
Posts: 4018
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:03 am
Location: Solvang, California

Postby Espina » Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:56 am

...yeah, Korgy where were you going with this??? Worried about GOP moral obstructionists seizing the moment???
Image
Image

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 28860
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:00 pm
Location: manhattan project brownfields

Postby q5q » Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:36 am

judik wrote:You seem to have little respect for the president you support or attractive accomplished women
But really, with our economic world collapsing, you are wasting bandwidth worrying about who Obama is going to fuck?
Sigh indeed


hEh!!!1!!! i worry about whom I'M going to 'fuck'.

actually i prefer 'make love to', but whatever.
bodhisattva of sweetness, lite, and moist since 2001; dave_of_daves, whisperer_of_catsups

Vince wrote:
I'm never angry except with q5q who is a despicable abortion.

d&c
arbour zena: keith jarrett, charlie haden, jan gabarek, stuttgart rad orc

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18427
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby korgy » Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:02 am

judik wrote:You seem to have little respect for the president you support


excuse me? i don't "respect" the candidate i support because i suggest that he may be human? have you perhaps somehow missed the fact that almost every President ever in office has succombed to daliances? were you by chance asleep during the Clinton Administration? do you realize that his weakness almost totally brought down his Administration, and possibly cut his effectiveness as a leader in half? do you also believe the Kennedy "Camelot" myth? did you know that MLK was having affairs as well? unfortunately, we live in a different time now -- a time in which John Edwards may have brought his political career to a screeching halt.

your comments about me being patronizing take me aback slightly; but the notion that you think suggesting a potentially great leader might be prone to weakness in some aspects of his life is "disrespectful" -- i find that, well, just bizarre. my hope for Obama is that he doesn;t screw up his Presidency.

attractive accomplished women


that "attractive, accomplished women" don't have sexual foibles is one of the most ridiculous and sexist comments i've encountered. and again -- to suggest that an affair between a female and a male President is necessarily the result of a weak female succombing to powerful man, as opposed to a dynamic and powerful female (like Rogers) being subject to the same personal struggles that men deal with, is one of the most archaic, gender-bigoted notions of sexuality i can think of.

But really, with our economic world collapsing, you are wasting bandwidth worrying about who Obama is going to fuck?
Sigh indeed


on a scale of 1 to 20, my "worry" about this is about a 1 1/2. i wasn't aware every thread here had to be somewhere between 18 and 21 in terms of gravitas. this thread seems to have hit some sort of raw nerve, however.

golgo wrote:You're really a sad case pal.


that's just brilliant, golgo. why even waste your finger power.

gee, i can't imagine why korky would ever wonder about the implications of possible sexual daliances in the current poltical climate. it's not like it's ever affected a charismatic democratic figure before

FranklinRooseveltJohnEdwardsBillClintonMartinLutherKingRobertKennedyJohnKennedyLyndonJohnsonetcetcetc

duuhhhh
_______ & _______ '16!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18427
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby korgy » Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:15 am

janieblack wrote:I am sure he'll be attracted to all sort of people in his position.


totally agree.

Acting on that is not a fait d'accompli, though, as it sort of suggested here...


no it isn't. that it is a fait d'accompli isn't suggested here anywhere.
_______ & _______ '16!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18427
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby korgy » Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:18 am

truly unbelievable.
_______ & _______ '16!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18427
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby korgy » Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:53 am

janieblack wrote:That suggests to me that on some level you see attractive staffers and fucking about as a fait d'accompli.


sorry janie, to me, that makes no sense.

sometimes i forget to lock my door when i walk my dogs, and i worry my house could be intruded upon. doesn't mean it's a fait accompli.

sometimes we leave the lamp turned on beside the bed when we are gone, and i worry it could get knocked over by the dogs. doesn't mean it's a fait accompli. far from it.

and your reduction of this topic to "attractive staffers" and "fucking" i find rather simplistic and perhaps more indicative of how you see this topic than of my own views.
_______ & _______ '16!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 15029
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:33 am
Location: Phnom Penh

Postby foolsprogress » Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:00 am

Attractive? Really? I don't see it. She looks like a man in makeup. Surely Obama can find a better mistress than this. Besides, I would hope that if Obama wants some on the side he is smart enough to stay away from staffers (who have clout and info) and stick to the peons and outsiders who are more easily handled. This is Office Mistress 101 and I would expect Obama to know that.
Let me live in a house by the side of the road...

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18460
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:43 pm
Location: The City Of Chicago, IL

Postby joeyramone » Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:51 am

Felix wrote:Probably best simply not to allow any attractive women near Obama.


Exactly. The Negro can't control himself, according to Korgy.
"Your fairy tale would sound better if two elves came out and did the Safety Dance at the end." Logg to Zaffer

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 6640
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:32 pm

Postby tph24601 » Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:36 pm

where da white women at?

playing outside
User avatar
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:36 am
Location: London, UK

Postby i_have_shiny_shoes » Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:58 pm

Korgy, this really is a bizarre OP. Firstly, unless you didn't think through the logical consequnces of making the post, you must think the risk of Obama having an affair is real enough to have posted it in the first place - as otherwise you wouldn't have bothered - and this is despite there being absolutely no indication that Obama is the type or has any kind of inclination to do so.

I have no idea why you're worried. The whole idea and premise of the OP borders on the utterly proposterous and completely ludicrous, nevermind that your hoping she is married generally wouldn't stand in the way of anyone having an affair should they want to.
we're discussing it, so it's not secret.

playing outside
User avatar
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:36 am
Location: London, UK

Postby i_have_shiny_shoes » Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:17 pm

on a scale of 1 to 20, my "worry" about this is about a 1 1/2


Ahh, sorry, I missed this. If you're worry corresponds to the likelihood of this happening as 7.5%, I have absolutely no idea why you even bothered to waste your time posting the OP.
we're discussing it, so it's not secret.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 6640
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:32 pm

Postby tph24601 » Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:41 pm

there are plenty of good looking women waiting for a chance for a presidential f**k in and out of white house in any administration, I don't see how this woman being hired having any effect on the probability of Obama having an affair.....

special sauce
Posts: 5161
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:21 am
Location: two one sic

Postby justinian » Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:49 pm

Obama Team Mulls Role for Miss Lewinsky in New Administration
Billy Kimball Billy Kimball
Sun Nov 23, 3:30 pm ET

President-Elect Barack Obama's transition team is reported to be deeply divided over whether to offer a post to Monica Lewinsky, the former White House Intern whose intimate relationship with President Bill Clinton led to his impeachment.

Until now, Lewinsky was one of the few high-profile figures from the Clinton Presidency who had not been recruited for the incoming Obama team. Mr. Clinton's brother Roger is another, though on Friday there were rumors he would be named ambassador to Spain.

One group, which includes David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's campaign manager who has been named his senior advisor, favors the move to balance the influence of the Clinton-era policy people by adding someone with a different perspective.

A second faction led by Mr. Obama's Chief-of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, is bitterly opposed believing that a Lewinsky appointment would needlessly antagonize the Clintons and their supporters. Before being elected to Congress, Mr. Emanuel served as a senior advisor to President Clinton.

Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, who is expected to be nominated as Secretary of Health and Human Services, responded to a reporter who asked about the Lewinsky rumors by pretending to receive a cell phone call. When the reporter took the phone from him and closed it while making a "we both know what you're doing" facial expression, Daschle said that appointing Lewinsky would be "like rubbing salt in the wounds of Senator Clinton at a time when we're supposed to be in a healing process." He added that Miss Lewinsky's presence in the White House would be "a huge distraction."

But New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who broke with the Clintons over his endorsement of Mr. Obama, said that Lewinsky was "a fresh face" with "a lot to offer." Richardson lost the post of Secretary of State to Senator Clinton and is now Mr. Obama's choice for the far less prestigious job of Secretary of Commerce. "The Obama adminstration should be focused on recruiting the best people to help us address the challenges of the future and not get bogged down in past history," he said.

The Clintons themselves have not commented on the possibility of a Lewinsky appointment though people close to her have said that Sen. Clinton was shocked and appalled by the idea. "It's a non-starter for her," said Philippe Raines, a longtime aide to Sen. Clinton. "She doesn't want to run into Monica in the West Wing ladies' room," he added.

However, Justin Cooper, who edited Mr. Clinton's autobiography, My Life, and has remained close to the former president, said that Mr. Clinton was cautiously supportive of the prospect. "He's always had great admiration for Monica's abilities," Cooper said. "I think he's just concerned that she might get in over her head if she were given a job as a political move."

Since the scandal, in addition to her status as a pop culture icon of sorts, Lewinsky has had a brief career as a handbag designer and then attended the London School of Economics where she received a master's degree in Social Psychology. Her thesis was titled "In Search of the Impartial Juror: An Exploration of the Third Person Effect and Pre-Trial Publicity."

No decision has been reached as to exactly what sort of job Lewinsky might be offered. "With her background, I could imagine her doing something on either the jurisprudence side at the Department of Justice or on the handbag side, at either the Department of Commerce or the Department of Agriculture," said Deborah Kaye, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies the Executive Branch.

Monica Lewinsky was not available for comment. Through her attorney, William Ginsburg, she released a statement, which read, in part, "I am honored and humbled by the opportunity to serve my country again at this crucial juncture in our history."
The HOFF, people! Knight Fuckin' RIDER right in the reclining chair section!! -- nettie

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 6640
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:32 pm

Postby tph24601 » Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:53 pm

Mr. Clinton was cautiously supportive of the prospect. "He's always had great admiration for Monica's abilities," Cooper said. "I think he's just concerned that she might get in over her head if she were given a job as a political move."

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 20783
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:21 pm
Location: Redmond,Wa

Postby judik » Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:12 pm

that "attractive, accomplished women" don't have sexual foibles is one of the most ridiculous and sexist comments i've encountered. and again -- to suggest that an affair between a female and a male President is necessarily the result of a weak female succombing to powerful man, as opposed to a dynamic and powerful female (like Rogers) being subject to the same personal struggles that men deal with, is one of the most archaic, gender-bigoted notions of sexuality i can think of.

And you suggestion that there is worry that this woman won't be able to keep her metaphorical pants zipped is not sexist?
That somehow she won't be able to resist the allure of overwhelming power that the president represents ?
The WH is a big casting couch indeed
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.

Winston Churchill

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:26 pm
Location: Thorn Tree World

Postby pauldeba » Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:25 pm

I hope Korgy is right, it would be nice to see him vindicated.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18427
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby korgy » Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:39 pm

joeyramone wrote:
Felix wrote:Probably best simply not to allow any attractive women near Obama.


Exactly. The Negro can't control himself, according to Korgy.


no, according to you actually.

really bizarre insertion of race, joey. truly bizarre. i guess all the political leaders who had mistresses and daliances in the past had that Negro thing goin. interesting that that's how you see it, though.

what's even more bizarre is that all the hyper-conscious people here won't even bother throwing that bizarre racial projection back at you - - you see, they don't expect as much from you as they do from myself.

IHSS wrote:Korgy, this really is a bizarre OP. Firstly, unless you didn't think through the logical consequnces of making the post,


actually, i find it odd that suddenly when a whisp of a tongue-in-cheek thought crosses one's mind on this board, it may or may not be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as discussing whether or not there was an German holocaust.

IHSS wrote:you must think the risk of Obama having an affair is real enough to have posted it in the first place - as otherwise you wouldn't have bothered -
it's certainly real, considering the odds inthe history of US Presidencies and powerful political leaders, though i haven't given it too much thought -- (until having to respond to the people on this thread whom i've apparently upset at the suggestion). yes, i made the OP. yes, it's a real possibility. much thought about it? no.

and this is despite there being absolutely no indication that Obama is the type or has any kind of inclination to do so.
i don't think so either, but see "odds" above, and do a little research on the tendencies of men in power.

I have no idea why you're worried. The whole idea and premise of the OP borders on the utterly proposterous and completely ludicrous,


i suppose you missed my "1 1/2 on a scale of 20" above. unfortunately i'm not one of the people on this board who gets a free pass, like the other 95% of the posters here, who get to make posts that are less than intensely conscious and righteous. i suppose that's my own doing. it's what people have come to expect of me, i guess -- totally intense and serious contention about only very sober and earth-levelling issues.

nevermind that your hoping she is married generally wouldn't stand in the way of anyone having an affair should they want to.


of course it wouldn't. i was trying to clue in to what i was talking about, which Lavite still didn't seem to get. get it?

IHSS wrote:If you're worry corresponds to the likelihood of this happening as 7.5%, I have absolutely no idea why you even bothered to waste your time posting the OP.
gee, it''s not like posting trivial OPs is something that ever occurs here, is it.

believe me, had i known this was going to hit so close to home to so many peoples' own apparent sore spots (for whatever reason) i certainly wouldn't have posted it.

tph wrote: there are plenty of good looking women waiting for a chance for a presidential f**k in and out of white house in any administration, I don't see how this woman being hired having any effect on the probability of Obama having an affair.....


it seems i am the only one who actually read anything about this woman and her close relationship to the Obamas. everyone else just seems to see her as a pretty face.

judi wrote: And you suggestion that there is worry that this woman won't be able to keep her metaphorical pants zipped is not sexist?
That somehow she won't be able to resist the allure of overwhelming power that the president represents ?


actually, as i have already articulated pretty well more than once, i find your fixation on isolating her part in this equation as REALLY sexist. is it also sexist to suggest that Obama "won't be able to keep his pants zipped", judi? why didn't you take offense to that part of the gender equation?

i suppose its my having lived in NY for thirty years and have been friends some of the most powerful women in their fields, but your remarks in this thread just strike me as well, archaic. the vision that two charismatic, dynamic and attractive people in close quarters "getting it on" may, to some, be screwed up, but it's definitely not "sexist"-- (actually, it's not screwed up at all). weird to me that some would see it that way.

it seems to me, more than anything, i have done what for nearly a year has been attempted to be pinned to myself -- i have tainted many people's "METHIAH".

being aware of the obvious irony, i just have to say -- lighten up, kiddies.
_______ & _______ '16!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18427
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby korgy » Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:47 pm

as i have said before, it strikes me that there is some real underlying sore wound that i've hit here that still is aching.

as i was writing that post above, i realized that hopeful liberals and Democrats still haven't fully recovered from the revelations of John Edwards and Elliot Spitzer -- and surely, many must be wondering if we will indeed ever have a democratic populist "hero" to keep his pants zipped, to use judi's language.

i really don't see how that thought couldn't cross any reasonable person's mind, although i really do think Obama may be the one who can.

The One!!
_______ & _______ '16!

playing outside
User avatar
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:36 am
Location: London, UK

Postby i_have_shiny_shoes » Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:08 pm

Real underlying sore wound, or simply that the majority of posters think your ludicrous pseudo-psychology resulted in an OP devoid of merit? I'm thinking the latter. Korgy, honestly, the banality of your post was of Argon-esque levels.
we're discussing it, so it's not secret.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:26 pm
Location: Thorn Tree World

Postby pauldeba » Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:13 pm

i_have_shiny_shoes wrote:OP devoid of merit? I'm thinking the latter. the banality of your post was of Argon-esque levels.


Indeed:

http://www.politicalstew.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65158

playing outside
User avatar
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:36 am
Location: London, UK

Postby i_have_shiny_shoes » Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:16 pm

Indeed:


The very point of my OP was that it was banal and stupid, not to try and intellectualise something which was purely a bit of fun. Quite different to the above, I'm sure you'll agree.
we're discussing it, so it's not secret.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:26 pm
Location: Thorn Tree World

Postby pauldeba » Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:22 pm

The very point of my OP was that it was banal and stupid, not to try and intellectualise something which was purely a bit of fun. Quite different to the above, I'm sure you'll agree.


Korgy may have been trying to do the same but was jumped on immediately by the Brownshirts as you are not allowed to poke fun at The Messiah. He quickly backed down and tried to seriously defend it when he should have just told you all to shut up.

playing outside
User avatar
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:36 am
Location: London, UK

Postby i_have_shiny_shoes » Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:32 pm

Korgy may have been trying to do the same


There's also a 92.5% chance that a cow just jumped over the moon.
we're discussing it, so it's not secret.

arrogant Yankee cokehead
Posts: 4657
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:30 pm

Postby Felix » Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:43 pm

I love this thread. Only cowtown has meltdowns that rival korgy's. The former's are almost Dada-esque, while korgy's earnest rage makes me worry about him having an aneurysm.
Cherman humor: ha! because your father hates you, you have no one to fuck, you can't afford health care, you have nothing but this board, you pretend to have cancer, you are a racist pig, you are stupid, you are a bloody fuckface...

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:26 pm
Location: Thorn Tree World

Postby pauldeba » Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:51 pm

There's also a 92.5% chance that a cow just jumped over the moon.


If anyone but meth or korgy had posted the OP it would have been considered a joke. The response would have been "that's funny" or "that's not funny".

But poor korgy gets all jumped over in a a discriminatory manner only because he is a kool-aid drinking moonbat. That's insulting!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:26 pm
Location: Thorn Tree World

Postby pauldeba » Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:56 pm

Democrats still haven't fully recovered from the revelations of John Edwards and Elliot Spitzer --


By the way, some girl at work walked in with People magazine and showed me the pictures of Eliot Spitzer's hooker now. YUCK!!! $5,000 for that??? The democrats sure go after the ugly ones. At least republicans leave it to chance as anyone could be on the other side of the bathroom stall, so they have a built in excuse if the guy's ugly.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18460
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:43 pm
Location: The City Of Chicago, IL

Postby joeyramone » Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:24 pm

korgy wrote:
joeyramone wrote:
Felix wrote:Probably best simply not to allow any attractive women near Obama.


Exactly. The Negro can't control himself, according to Korgy.


no, according to you actually.

really bizarre insertion of race, joey. truly bizarre. i guess all the political leaders who had mistresses and daliances in the past had that Negro thing goin. interesting that that's how you see it, though.

what's even more bizarre is that all the hyper-conscious people here won't even bother throwing that bizarre racial projection back at you - - you see, they don't expect as much from you as they do from myself.



Well, what other reason would it be, cracker? The guy is a family man who has never been known to have awandering eye, so you must think that the black folk can't control themselves when it comes to their women. The truly bizarre post is yours, unless you do think he's jesus, and that she's the last temptation of christ.
"Your fairy tale would sound better if two elves came out and did the Safety Dance at the end." Logg to Zaffer

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18427
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby korgy » Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:59 pm

i_have_shiny_shoes wrote:
Indeed:


The very point of my OP was that it was banal and stupid, not to try and intellectualise something which was purely a bit of fun. Quite different to the above, I'm sure you'll agree.


bullshit. there was no intent to "intellectualize" anything with this OP until forced to respond your leaden retorts, mired in disgust for tainting The One.

paul wrote:If anyone but meth or korgy had posted the OP it would have been considered a joke. The response would have been "that's funny" or "that's not funny".


never thought i'd see paul defending me, but he absolutely has a point here, and also happens to be exactly right.

_____


as for joey, your posts on this thread are just bizarre - really bizarre. frighteningly bizarre. i can't think of more revealing Rorshak test.
_______ & _______ '16!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18460
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:43 pm
Location: The City Of Chicago, IL

Postby joeyramone » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:02 pm

korgy wrote:
paul wrote:If anyone but meth or korgy had posted the OP it would have been considered a joke. The response would have been "that's funny" or "that's not funny".


never thought i'd see paul defending me, but he absolutely has a point here, and also happens to be exactly right.

_____


as for joey, your posts on this thread are just bizarre - really bizarre. frighteningly bizarre. i can't think of more revealing Rorshak test.



Actually, Paul's NOT defending you, and the fact you read it as such is hysterical. You obviously edited out the second part of his comment, which gets to the heart of his and most people's feelings about you:

But poor korgy gets all jumped over in a a discriminatory manner only because he is a kool-aid drinking moonbat. That's insulting!


also, speaking of ink-blot tests, I'd say the real stain is that a bright guy from the Uk who actually worked on the Obama campaign is bascially calling you an asswipe on here, as are a gaggle of other bright democrats (tph, flexi, etc) calling you out for this bizarro OP.
"Your fairy tale would sound better if two elves came out and did the Safety Dance at the end." Logg to Zaffer

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18427
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:55 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby korgy » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:05 pm

i_have_shiny_shoes wrote:
Korgy may have been trying to do the same


There's also a 92.5% chance that a cow just jumped over the moon.


turns out you're just as banal as the other locksteppers who have created a false category of Korky Will Never Question His Methiah. looks more like you're the one who can't do it.

do you have anything to say about the obvious fact that was pointed out here that virtually every male Democratic Great Hope in the last half century has not been able to keep his pants on - from Kennedy to Johnson to Robert Kennedy to Martin Luther King to Bill Clinton to John Edwards to Elliot Spitzer?

that hoping Obama turns out to be different might actually a sane thought?
_______ & _______ '16!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18460
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:43 pm
Location: The City Of Chicago, IL

Postby joeyramone » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:08 pm

korgy wrote:
i_have_shiny_shoes wrote:
Korgy may have been trying to do the same


There's also a 92.5% chance that a cow just jumped over the moon.


turns out you're just as banal as the other locksteppers who have created a false category of Korky Will Never Question His Methiah. looks more like you're the one who can't do it.

do you have anything to say about the obvious fact that was pointed out here that virtually every male Democratic Great Hope in the last half century has not been able to keep his pants on - from Kennedy to Johnson to Robert Kennedy to Martin Luther King to Bill Clinton to John Edwards to Elliot Spitzer?

that hoping Obama turns out to be different might actually a sane thought?


Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Al Gore, Hubert Humphrey, Howard Dean, Paul tsongas, etc all did keep their pants on. That means your "virtually every" list is idiotic.
"Your fairy tale would sound better if two elves came out and did the Safety Dance at the end." Logg to Zaffer

Next

Return to US Presidential Election 2008

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest