so as a dem preying for chicks is ok?

Post #2,168 by boxley 7/17/01 11:16:56 PM Reply	so as a dem preying for chicks is ok? can I have my ones and zeros back?
Post #2,177 by Ashton 7/18/01 3:40:58 AM Reply	We mustn't confuse what people say they 'believe' (to each other) and popular behavior after the 'wink wink nudge' - now mustn't we? C'mon Bill - the Other Bill is an almost prototypical example of an adolescent sexuality which is the background for every ad and soap opera and Action movie. Muricans just don't Like that trotted out, y'see? It's against the Euphemism Commandment to behave that way, and get noticed! too much. (You weren't expecting a Statesman, now were you? - though Bill wasn't too shabby there; he could speak the language, for one thing) Uh - no sale on that 'restraint' part with the New Kid either - if the Village Idiot happens to keep it in the pants.. while figuratively doin it to all those not among his 3% buddies, tossin a few 100 Bil into the infinite maw of the Mil Corps and opening the public trough to the robed ones - yada yada) If'n ya don't like how Billy n'Bally operate - I guarantee ya won't like how many of them Pols operate off-camera either. But you know all this stuff - just doesn't fly that you'd be surprised. Y'know? Hey No Big Deal: we're corrupt and gettin more every quarter. So? Ashton We are not amused. But we're sure titillated 24/7.
Post #2,235 by Brandioch 7/18/01 2:56:56 PM Reply	"Prey"? Again with the lingo? Perhaps you'd care to clarify that with an example? And I think you missed my point about her use of lingo. Sacrament, priests, temples. She's whipping the faithful into a frenzy so they will strike out against the evil. That's why she's attempting to portray them in such religious terms. The only things she didn't claim is that the abortion was performed on an alter under an inverted cross. And it isn't just the abortions. They are also impinging upon YOUR freedoms. YOUR freedom of speech has been taken by THEM. Of course, she was there. She was one of the "founding mothers". So what she says is true. Sheesh, it reads like a textbook example.
Post #2,274 by boxley 7/18/01 9:54:36 PM Reply	Packwood wasnt PREYING on women? Funny that was what NOW said he was doing. Yes I was trying for a cheap funny. The feminist organizations are just old whores like any other PAC. There cause is empty rhetoric just like the NRA's designed to fill the pockets of the PAC leaders, no integrity only gimme game. thanx, bill can I have my ones and zeros back?
Post #2,278 by Brandioch 7/18/01 10:29:26 PM Reply	Ummm, I think the record shows he was. I remember numerous complaints of him initiating physical contact with women who did not want it. Strange, wasn't Packwood a Republican? On the other hand, there's the possibility for an interesting discussion private ethics vs public ethics. Or, perception vs reality.
Post #2,299 by boxley 7/19/01 9:59:58 AM Reply	Kate Wiley ring a bell? there was numerous complaints about clinton which was the point I am trying to make that NOW has a clear double standard. thanx, bill can I have my ones and zeros back?
Post #2,377 by Brandioch 7/19/01 5:58:51 PM Reply	Possibly. NOW might have a double standard. But that wasn't addressed in the original article. And, as I've pointed out, Packwood was a Republican. And the article specifically mentioned 'anti-Republican". Again, this is an excellent time to discuss public vs private ethics and activities. Or we could just see who can name more congrisscritters that have engaged in illicite/immoral/unwanted sexual activities. But I don't recognize "Kate Wiley".
Post #2,388 by a6l6e6x 7/19/01 8:26:10 PM Reply	Re: Kate Wiley. Actually it's Kathleen E. Willey. Chalk it up to poetic license. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/women031798.htm\|Refresher] The "60 Minutes" program was interesting at the time. Alex

Welcome to IWETHEY!