Obama's speech in Cairo


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby Pego » Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:12 am

Vince wrote:
Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:So are your numbers saying the Democrats have run up an 11 trillion dollar deficit?? Are they trying to out spend/borrow Reagan?


I hope, it was an attempt at a joke. I am no longer sure in the political debates :roll: . Just to be sure,
11,383B-10,700B=683B


Actually you're confusing me. The budget deficit and National debt are 2 different things. One being what is owed and one being what is added to what it owed. 2008 GDP was somewhere in the 13-14 trillion range, so I'm guessing you're talking about the national debt.

Peace to the Accountants.


Yes, my mistake, one of those senior moments :oops: . On the other hand, your confusion is feigned, since the amount to be added to the national debt reflects deficits (I know, it is not the same things, but it closely parallels). The numbers I've posted support, what I am saying. The last administration, arguably the most "conservative" in US history doubled the amount of national debt in 8 years (less than 4% of the nation's age).
I'll repeat my point. Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby Daisy » Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:16 am

Pego wrote:Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.

At least the ones in charge of the money. I seem to remember quite a few republicans complaining about Bush's budgets.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:00 am

Daisy wrote:
Pego wrote:Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.

At least the ones in charge of the money. I seem to remember quite a few republicans complaining about Bush's budgets.


But not very loudly, or effectively...
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby paulthefan » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:35 am

Pego wrote:Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.


Can you give us another word for those that lean towards limited and fiscally restrained govt?... if you can start using the new word you have in mind maybe everyone will adopt it. Until then folks call such people conservatives. They may never get in power or be able to exercise unrestrained control but for now there is no other name for them.

The last chance we had to test your myth was the "compassionate" conservative GWB. But a "conservative" would say a "compassionate" conservative is a euphemism for a liberal.


Pego wrote: The last administration, arguably the most "conservative" in US history doubled the amount of national debt in 8 years (less than 4% of the nation's age). I'll repeat my point. Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.


arguable among the editorial board at the NYT or Nation magazine. Pego, do some reading, your text reads a bit partisan. There are probably a dozen admins that were more conservative than the last one and in the 20th century the Coolidge admin was Ebenizer Scrooge compared the the compassionate Santa Claus Bush.
Last edited by paulthefan on Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Vince » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:35 am

bad hammy wrote:
Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration


Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?

While allowing the economy to tank to near Great-Depression levels thanks to years of Republican-led deregulation, tax cuts and increased government spending. But do not attempt to confuse these folks with facts . . .


Actually the facts are the economy has sunk to Carter-era levels.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Vince » Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:54 am

Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:
Pego wrote:
Vince wrote:So are your numbers saying the Democrats have run up an 11 trillion dollar deficit?? Are they trying to out spend/borrow Reagan?


I hope, it was an attempt at a joke. I am no longer sure in the political debates :roll: . Just to be sure,
11,383B-10,700B=683B


Actually you're confusing me. The budget deficit and National debt are 2 different things. One being what is owed and one being what is added to what it owed. 2008 GDP was somewhere in the 13-14 trillion range, so I'm guessing you're talking about the national debt.

Peace to the Accountants.



Yes, my mistake, one of those senior moments :oops: . On the other hand, your confusion is feigned, since the amount to be added to the national debt reflects deficits (I know, it is not the same things, but it closely parallels). The numbers I've posted support, what I am saying. The last administration, arguably the most "conservative" in US history doubled the amount of national debt in 8 years (less than 4% of the nation's age).
I'll repeat my point. Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.


1st of all, the war starting, free spending, royal hand holding previous administration was nothing close to being Conservative. 2nd if you had a problem with the over spending part of it, you must have a problem with the current administrations doubling down on the deficit/debt. Who's doing the feigning here?

Peace to all the feigners. :wink:
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:06 am

paulthefan wrote:
Pego wrote:Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.


Can you give us another word for those that lean towards limited and fiscally restrained govt?... if you can start using the new word you have in mind maybe everyone will adopt it. Until then folks call such people conservatives. They may never get in power or be able to exercise unrestrained control but for now there is no other name for them.

The last chance we had to test your myth was the "compassionate" conservative GWB. But a "conservative" would say a "compassionate" conservative is a euphemism for a liberal.




Pego wrote: The last administration, arguably the most "conservative" in US history doubled the amount of national debt in 8 years (less than 4% of the nation's age). I'll repeat my point. Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.


arguable on among the editorial board at the NYT or Nation magazine. Pego, do some reading, your text reads a bit partisan. There are probably a dozen admins that were more conservative than the last one and in the 20th century the Coolidge admin was Ebenizer Scrooge compared the the compassionate Bush admin.

I think what you're trying to say is that there's a difference between conservatism and Republicanism. A few years ago, I remember watching Robert Novak bristle when someone referred to him as a Republican. "Don't call me a Republican. I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative and there is a difference." I would also put Ron Paul, Tom Coburn and Walter Jones in this category. Today's Republican party seems to be more concerned with wedge issues such as abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools, etc, than fiscal prudence.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:20 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I think what you're trying to say is that there's a difference between conservatism and Republicanism.


Bingo! It is completely useless to conflate the two terms--both are rather "flexible" in definition, but they are NOT describing equal things. I, frankly, would be quite comfortable as an Eisenhower-era conservative--which has just about NOTHING to do with a BushII-era Republican.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby paulthefan » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:26 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I think what you're trying to say is that there's a difference between conservatism and Republicanism. A few years ago, I remember watching Robert Novak bristle when someone referred to him as a Republican. "Don't call me a Republican. I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative and there is a difference." I would also put Ron Paul, Tom Coburn and Walter Jones in this category. Today's Republican party seems to be more concerned with wedge issues such as abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools, etc, than fiscal prudence.



Again you fail to see what you dont want to believe and therby reverse the facts. Actually conservatism would include all of the particular wedge issues you list. Conservatism is about conserving traditional values that have stood the test of time, that is why conservatives, generally speaking, favor school prayer and strict abortion laws. Liberal abortions laws handed down by black robed judges would fail the test of conservatism. Conservatives were never terribly interested in codifying gay rights. They were interested in ensuring that a traditional institution (marriage) stay traditional. Is that a surprise?. The Republican party leadership has never really been excited about wedge issues. They will use them to get conservatives on board but their heart is not in it. The GOP leadership is not unlike the Dem leadership. If the left side of those wedge issues is where you stand then you would be far more repulsed by conservatives than by republicans. No doubt you would probably get along marvelously at a gop fund-raiser.
Last edited by paulthefan on Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Pego » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:18 pm

paulthefan wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I think what you're trying to say is that there's a difference between conservatism and Republicanism. A few years ago, I remember watching Robert Novak bristle when someone referred to him as a Republican. "Don't call me a Republican. I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative and there is a difference." I would also put Ron Paul, Tom Coburn and Walter Jones in this category. Today's Republican party seems to be more concerned with wedge issues such as abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools, etc, than fiscal prudence.



Again you fail to see what you dont want to believe and therby reverse the facts. Actually conservatism would include all of the particular wedge issues you list. Conservatism is about conserving traditional values that have stood the test of time, that is why conservatives, generally speaking, favor school prayer and strict abortion laws. Liberal abortions laws handed down by black robed judges would fail the test of conservatism. Conservatives were never terribly interested in codifying gay rights. They were interested in ensuring that a traditional institution (marriage) stay traditional. Is that a surprise?. The Republican party leadership has never really been excited about wedge issues. They will use them to get conservatives on board but their heart is not in it. The GOP leadership is not unlike the Dem leadership. Chances are you would be far more repulsed by conservatives than by republicans.


I put "conservative" in quotes, simply because of what is now being referred to as "conservative" contains nothing conservative.
Conservative in every other area of life means restrain (fiscal, interpersonal relations, international affairs). A conservative physician does not jump immediately at risky, fashionable treatments, a conservative banker does not issue a 1/2 milllion mortgage to somebody making $30000/year etc. Conservative social policy to me would be to respect the individual's rights, not phone tapping without court order, trying to police women's reproduction, or insist that the individual can legally cohabitate with only 50% of the population. Today, those issues are considered "liberal advocacy".

Paul, you asked about what are the conservative politicians in my opinion. I can't think of any. To me, right wing does not equate conservative, but that is what the current synonyms appear to be.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:28 pm

paulthefan wrote:Again you fail to see what you dont want to believe and therby reverse the facts. Actually conservatism would include all of the particular wedge issues you list. Conservatism is about conserving traditional values that have stood the test of time, that is why conservatives, generally speaking, favor school prayer and strict abortion laws. Liberal abortions laws handed down by black robed judges would fail the test of conservatism. Conservatives were never terribly interested in codifying gay rights. They were interested in ensuring that a traditional institution (marriage) stay traditional. Is that a surprise?. The Republican party leadership has never really been excited about wedge issues. They will use them to get conservatives on board but their heart is not in it. The GOP leadership is not unlike the Dem leadership. If the left side of those wedge issues is where you stand then you would be far more repulsed by conservatives than by republicans. No doubt you would probably get along marvelously at a gop fund-raiser.

Forgive me for misstating your position. I guess we define conservatism differently. When I think of conservatism, I think of people like Barry Goldwater. not Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:31 pm

Pego wrote:
I put "conservative" in quotes, simply because of what is now being referred to as "conservative" contains nothing conservative.
Conservative in every other area of life means restrain (fiscal, interpersonal relations, international affairs). A conservative physician does not jump immediately at risky, fashionable treatments, a conservative banker does not issue a 1/2 milllion mortgage to somebody making $30000/year etc. Conservative social policy to me would be to respect the individual's rights, not phone tapping without court order, trying to police women's reproduction, or insist that the individual can legally cohabitate with only 50% of the population. Today, those issues are considered "liberal advocacy".

Paul, you asked about what are the conservative politicians in my opinion. I can't think of any. To me, right wing does not equate conservative, but that is what the current synonyms appear to be.


Conservatives recognize what the ages have taught: that foreign agents should not be granted the same rights of privacy that U.S. citizens have .. so If a warrant is granted to listen in on your phone calls to the KSA you can not expect to get a waiver because you used your neighbors cell phone.

Conservatives have always recognized that abortion is a new and socially risky institution. It should therefore be managed by the people and their representatives NOT by 9 judges in DC. Nationalization outside of the ballot of these risky issues always comes from liberals not conservatives.

Conservatives have never sought to regulate cohabitation, males have always co-habitated with males, nothing novel there. It is only when liberals have sought to grant explicit statute approval to non-normative sexual behavior that conservatives object.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby paulthefan » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:37 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Forgive me for misstating your position. I guess we define conservatism differently. When I think of conservatism, I think of people like Barry Goldwater. not Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich.


I think of Barry too. I would not place Tom Delay as principled conservative, he was a very strong GOP money raiser. Im sure you can easily list their counterparts in the Dem party.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby kuha » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:07 pm

Once one begins to separate "conservatives" from categories such as "reactionaries," "radicals," "big-business lackeys," and "pseudo-libertarian nutbags" then you have a chance of having a rational discussion.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby Marlow » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:10 pm

paulthefan wrote:Conservatism is about conserving traditional values that have stood the test of time

Hardly. The conservative agenda changes just as rapidly as the liberal one does. What was liberal 50 years ago (civil rights, for instance) is now part of the conservative agenda. The conservative platform of most eras is very closely correlated to the liberal one of years before, as the country is always moving towards a higher consciousness - it's just that the cons drag their feet and the libs push too hard in the other direction.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby ranunculus » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:57 pm

paulthefan wrote:
Pego wrote:
I put "conservative" in quotes, simply because of what is now being referred to as "conservative" contains nothing conservative.
Conservative in every other area of life means restrain (fiscal, interpersonal relations, international affairs). A conservative physician does not jump immediately at risky, fashionable treatments, a conservative banker does not issue a 1/2 milllion mortgage to somebody making $30000/year etc. Conservative social policy to me would be to respect the individual's rights, not phone tapping without court order, trying to police women's reproduction, or insist that the individual can legally cohabitate with only 50% of the population. Today, those issues are considered "liberal advocacy".

Paul, you asked about what are the conservative politicians in my opinion. I can't think of any. To me, right wing does not equate conservative, but that is what the current synonyms appear to be.


Conservatives recognize what the ages have taught: that foreign agents should not be granted the same rights of privacy that U.S. citizens have .. so If a warrant is granted to listen in on your phone calls to the KSA you can not expect to get a waiver because you used your neighbors cell phone.

Conservatives have always recognized that abortion is a new and socially risky institution. It should therefore be managed by the people and their representatives NOT by 9 judges in DC. Nationalization outside of the ballot of these risky issues always comes from liberals not conservatives.

Conservatives have never sought to regulate cohabitation, males have always co-habitated with males, nothing novel there. It is only when liberals have sought to grant explicit statute approval to non-normative sexual behavior that conservatives object.


How do you reconcile these positions on government controls with the oft repeated conservative platform of government non-intrusion in people's lives?

P.S. Ordinary US citizens had their phones tapped, not just "foreign agents".
ranunculus
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 2:27 pm
Location: in them thar southern hills

Postby kuha » Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:27 pm

paulthefan wrote:Conservatives recognize what the ages have taught: that foreign agents should not be granted the same rights of privacy that U.S. citizens have .. so If a warrant is granted to listen in on your phone calls to the KSA you can not expect to get a waiver because you used your neighbors cell phone.

Conservatives have always recognized that abortion is a new and socially risky institution. It should therefore be managed by the people and their representatives NOT by 9 judges in DC. Nationalization outside of the ballot of these risky issues always comes from liberals not conservatives.

Conservatives have never sought to regulate cohabitation, males have always co-habitated with males, nothing novel there. It is only when liberals have sought to grant explicit statute approval to non-normative sexual behavior that conservatives object.



OK, just for fun, let's take a minute to examine these statements/assertions.

The first is simply off base. The problem in question stemmed from illegal wiretaps on US citizens on US soil. Thus, Paul would have it that "desirable" ends justify blatantly illegal means. That's not conservative: that's unAmerican.

The second is factually confused. There is actually quite a lengthy history of abortion (not to mention infanticide) in human history; some technologies may be new, but the net result is anything but. In addition, I don't know what "socially risky" means--risky in what way, and in whose view? And unless I'm badly mistaken, "conservatives" have been trying to do an end-run around popular opinion for decades in order to have the Supreme Court outlaw the practice across the land. So much for the weight of popular opinion.

Third, what in the world does "non-normative" mean? If you mean "non-majority," fine--but then, so what? For a suggestion of how enduring such "non-normative" practices have been, why don't you start with a re-reading of Plato? To the degree that "non-normative" really means "stuff I don't like," we reserve the right to not take you at all seriously.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby paulthefan » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:21 am

paulthefan wrote:Conservatives recognize what the ages have taught: that foreign agents should not be granted the same rights of privacy that U.S. citizens have .. so If a warrant is granted to listen in on your phone calls to the KSA you can not expect to get a waiver because you used your neighbors cell phone.

Conservatives have always recognized that abortion is a new and socially risky institution. It should therefore be managed by the people and their representatives NOT by 9 judges in DC. Nationalization outside of the ballot of these risky issues always comes from liberals not conservatives.

Conservatives have never sought to regulate cohabitation, males have always co-habitated with males, nothing novel there. It is only when liberals have sought to grant explicit statute approval to non-normative sexual behavior that conservatives object.



kuha wrote:OK, just for fun, let's take a minute to examine these statements/assertions.

The first is simply off base. The problem in question stemmed from illegal wiretaps on US citizens on US soil. Thus, Paul would have it that "desirable" ends justify blatantly illegal means. That's not conservative: that's unAmerican.


Ok let me help, it is possible to be a US citizen AND a foreign agent. That would be someone that is a US citizen and is acting in the interests of a foreign power. It has happend in the past and our country has never forfeited the right to monitor the communications of such a citizen.


kuha wrote:The second is factually confused. There is actually quite a lengthy history of abortion (not to mention infanticide) in human history; some technologies may be new, but the net result is anything but. In addition, I don't know what "socially risky" means--risky in what way, and in whose view? And unless I'm badly mistaken, "conservatives" have been trying to do an end-run around popular opinion for decades in order to have the Supreme Court outlaw the practice across the land. So much for the weight of popular opinion.


You are wrong again, Abortion laws had been before 1973 the affairs of the people through statutes of the various states in the union. They could vary from state to state as the mores and sensibilities of the people varied from state to state. Once the supreme court decided that the state of Texas was to have the same moral law as the territory of DC the popular will was short circuited. You should get out more.



kuha wrote:Third, what in the world does "non-normative" mean? If you mean "non-majority," fine--but then, so what? For a suggestion of how enduring such "non-normative" practices have been, why don't you start with a re-reading of Plato? To the degree that "non-normative" really means "stuff I don't like," we reserve the right to not take you at all seriously.


non-normative means not normal or not the norm. It is not normative to park an M1 tank on your lawn. It is not normative for a grown man to sit on his front lawn in a diaper. It is not normative to perform sodomy. People have actually had laws against these behaviors. Some they enforce. Some society does not and are simply resolutions to help people understand what is unhealthy for them and society.


If you are so ill informed on these 3 issues, taking me seriously is the least of your problems.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:31 am

paulthefan wrote: It is not normative to perform sodomy..

Are you sure about that?

Sodomy - anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:34 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
paulthefan wrote: It is not normative to perform sodomy..

Are you sure about that?

Sodomy - anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex


Jazz is correct. I always use to think Sodomy was, you know 2 guys doing that thing. Come to find out i love sodomy. :D
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:44 am

Hold up. When did oral sex become known as sodomy?

Dang. We were hoping to keep the buggery to ourselves. Now everyone's at it!
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:50 am

Sodomy for everyone! I 'm buying! :D
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Daisy » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:51 am

SQUACKEE wrote:Sodomy for everyone! I 'm buying! :D

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
:twisted: You're all going to hell :twisted:
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:54 am

Daisy wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Sodomy for everyone! I 'm buying! :D

:twisted: You're all going to hell :twisted:


Will there be Sodomy there?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:55 am

SQUACKEE wrote:
Daisy wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Sodomy for everyone! I 'm buying! :D

:twisted: You're all going to hell :twisted:


Will there be Sodomy there?


Only if you don't enjoy it.
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:57 am

AthleticsInBritain wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:
Daisy wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Sodomy for everyone! I 'm buying! :D

:twisted: You're all going to hell :twisted:


Will there be Sodomy there?


Only if you don't enjoy it.


Ok, i hate having my willy wanka get a tongue bath, just hate it! :x
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:07 am

Daisy wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Sodomy for everyone! I 'm buying! :D

:twisted: You're all going to hell :twisted:

I once overheard a conversation between my mother and my aunt a few years ago discussing the Clinton-Lewinsky saga and they would defintely agree with you. I was in the next room and they didn't know I could hear them, but the conversation went something like this:

    Aunt: "That's what the young people are doing these days."
    Mom: "Oh Lord, please don't tell me that's what they're doing."
    Aunt: "Yes [mom's name], at least that's what [daughter's name] told me."
    Mom: "Uh, uh, uh!"
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:15 am

The above stuff is a very appropriate response to poor Paul. He has a bag full of talking points ready to be thrown in all directions. Unfortunately, he doesn't hit the mark very often.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby Marlow » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:19 am

kuha wrote: Unfortunately, he doesn't hit the mark very often.

As opposed to the 'tongue bath' comments.:twisted: :roll:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby marknhj » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:31 am

paulthefan wrote:It is not normative to perform sodomy.


More normal than you think, Paulie. Must be all those godforsaken liberals/socialists:

"The US Center for Disease Control determined, in a 2005 survey, that the incidence of anal relations in the US heterosexual population is on the increase. The survey showed that 40 percent of men and 35 percent of women between 25 and 44 had engaged in heterosexual anal sex; in 1992 a similar survey found that only 25.6 percent of men 18 to 59 and 20.4 percent of women 18 to 59 had. By way of comparison, seven times as many women as gay men engage in anal intercourse, a figure reflecting the greater overall heterosexual population."
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest