Let's see, it took 7 women before the Democrats could finally tell him to take a hike and he still refuses.
Between this creep, our former Serial Rapist in Chief, and the Little Weiner (not to mention the Girl Sandwich Twins of days gone by), tell me again who's waging a War On Women.
PS At the risk of being called a sexist (I am, I admit it), only one of those women could be called good-looking while another was probably nice enough looking in her younger days, but the rest were the ghastliest selection of females I've seen since that "Who Let The Dogs Out?" video.
How do Democrats and/or Leftists procreate with women like that?
The mug shot is from his days as a Freedom Rider; he was arrested for "disturbing the peace and inciting a riot." He refused to post bond for his release and remained incarcerated for two months.
Clearly, he's been trading on it for 50 years.
I forgot where I read it, but, apparently, when he replaced Duke Cunningham in Congress, he presented himself as the embodiment of moral rectitude.
Oh, for God's sake, give the man a break. He didn't drive off a road and drown a pregnant woman and her unborn child and then run off to find his lawyers.
He was just giving women a "wet Willy". Besides, he didn't stick a cigar up their you know what.
Knock it off, neo... conserv... righ... whatev.............
Are you seriously drawing a link between a civil rights protest and sexual harassment? (Not that a mugshot would be available for that anyway, as it's not a criminal offense - and often an over-sensitive reflection of the PC sex-politics that I thought conservatives weren't all that fond of anyway...)
Oh well, I guess this way you can smear a Democrat by linking him to the struggle for civil rights. Awesome!
I wasn't talking to you, ed (do you always assume everyone's always talking to you?) I was talking to the person who made the post and the juxtaposition in it.
Filner didn't say Freedom Riders exonerates sexual harassment (who did, btw?), but if you are ok with linking the two then I guess you have an interesting argument to make.
Ritmo, Filner might have gotten arrested for marching in Mississippi. But my guess he was scamming on the ladies on that trip too.
Filner has some psycho issues. Democrats would be wise to drum this asshole out. And I am not naive, Republicans occasionally have douchebags like this too...but the difference is the media attacks all Republicans when that happens.
War On Women only applies if it's a Republican doing the harassing.
Actually that phrase is about policies, not personal conduct that most Democrat philanderer's wives haven't decided to make public business anyway.
I think if the Republicans had more policies that women were interested in then they would stop trying to focus on personal conduct of which they're usually not much better when it comes to Vitters, Foley (actually much worse in that case), Larry (like the name?) Craig (also a bit worse), and a good slew of others.
Filner will in all likelihood suffer some well-deserved rebuke if not removal for this, Evi. I'm not worried that he will get a punishment less than the crime.
Which is another good reason for abstaining from bringing up civil disobedience of the same sort that Gandhi or MLK are now quite vindicated by history for.
Weiner also seems to have some issues that border on future disqualification. There are many places the media has gone on that, too. It's funny when Drudge says "Erection Update: Weiner In", and the NYPost goes with similar headlines. Not much that the MSM can do but echo or laugh with them. And they're also entirely topical and legitimate attacks.
My other comment to ed was posted before I saw yours. Hopefully this one is more responsive to what you're saying. Thanks.
War On Women only applies if it's a Republican doing the harassing.
Actually that phrase is about policies, not personal conduct that most Democrat philanderer's wives haven't decided to make public business anyway.
More war is made on women by Democrat policies than by Republican ones, but, if personal conduct comes into play, some political advantage will also be made, right?
More war is made on women by Democrat policies than by Republican ones,
You can say that but it sure makes it difficult to explain the consistent gender gap between the two parties, doesn't it?
Further, you can say that the gap is explained by problematic "messaging" and not the policies themselves, but after a while that becomes harder to do without making the female demographic in question feel that you're insulting their intelligence. I'm sure that those who feel most strongly about those policies are pretty well-informed about them, as are a good lot of women in general.
So, perhaps it's worth considering whether there is a problem with the policies themselves.
You know who was in the forefront of the Civil rights movement (1946-1965)? Communists. MLK for example was surrounded by CPUSA members. They were useful to MLK - so he used them. Bu the Commies had their own agenda.
Point being, that plenty of lefties got involved in Civil Rights to benefit the left - not because they loved Black Folk.
Its just one more reason why politicians shouldn't be allowed to trade on their past to escape criticism in the present.
Point being, that plenty of lefties got involved in Civil Rights to benefit the left - not because they loved Black Folk.
Even if this were true (which I doubt), how does it make anyone's support for the larger aim problematic, let alone reprehensible? Without the support of whomever could be gotten the damn thing wouldn't have gone through, which is almost usually the case in politics.
Its just one more reason why politicians shouldn't be allowed to trade on their past to escape criticism in the present.
To deny the role of past achievements in advertising any present or future qualifications (or defenses) is to say that character doesn't matter in politics. And I'm pretty sure conservatives wouldn't want to give up that tactic. I wouldn't, either.
But the fact remains, someone could be a supporter of civil rights (for whatever reason) and still commit a wrongdoing - esp. 50 years later. The guy is 70 years old and probably too old to be in the game, let alone too ugly. To be a politician that ugly, I think there's got to be a serious ego/player mismatch. It's like guys like Weiner and this weasel are almost asking to be inappropriate, as their politician egos aren't matched by looks that most women would be ok with putting out for as easily as most pols would expect.
So throw him out for being too ugly for a politician -- the real reason. ;-)
The one where they don't vote for your party but they do vote for a different one. Pretty consistently, at least.
Don't run away from it. If the woman is being abused by a democrat, it's OK in your book because he's still advancing the Lefty agenda.
Run away from what? Where did I say what you attribute to me? Find the quote. Shouldn't be hard as I've only posted six comments here, but that doesn't give you a right to imagine me saying what the fictional straw-Democrat that you would prefer to do battle with is saying.
Who cares if Democrat policies keep women poor, ignorant, alone, and dependent on government handouts?
Can you show how the first two are linked to Democrat policies? Being an individual is part of the American character and condition - it stems from a justifiable fixation on /individual/ rights. And as for the last one, yes I know it fits the marketing but that's ambiguous. Maybe try focusing on how you came about to stretch to the first two first, perhaps?
I guess if we're going to give people points for supporting certain causes, or doing certain things, then WHY they were supporting that cause, or doing stuff, may be important.
Otherwise, we'll have to give Hitler points for building some great highways, and Lenin points for making peace with Germany.
And did you know Julius Rosenberg was in the US Army in WWII? What a patriot!
Ritmo, you're treading water and sharks smell blood.
Get out while you can.
justagal said...
1.with his background, how did he get in office. Contrariwise, if his background was laudable, how did he become such a slime-ball.
He capitalized on duke Cunningham's misdeeds to get elected.
And maybe, as EBL suggests, he always was a sack of slime.
Lots of guys went to anti-war rallies not because they opposed what was going on in 'Nam or because they loved peace, but because they wanted to get a piece.
He pulled a Filner today at his press conference. The lawn darts that make up the county Democrat party had to get together twice to vote to call for his resignation. The first time it was split when there were no allegations other than his self-reflected disrespect of women. The second time they finally got enough votes to put a strongly worded condemnation and a call for his resignation. He doubled down and dug in with his latest prepared press conference today proclaiming that he will go to sexual harassment therapy classes. My guess is that he will get a few pointers on how not to get caught next time. He will never give in and he will never give up. He will drag the city down with him with endless lawsuits, high priced settlements, and the inability to govern properly.
Credit to those democrats has to be given it's due for their immediate call for him to resign. Right is right in that case. But Filner is an immoral, sociopath, with no ethics, and has no respect for the office he holds nor the people he has harmed in his pursuit of his scumbaggery. San Diego is going to lose some cache with this guy around and he's bunkered for the long slog of taking this great city down with him.
Who knows? Maybe so. But the quest for pussy is all-enticing. Even Ann Althouse bought into it. Salmon swim upstream for miles for it. Male praying mantises get their heads bitten off for it. This guy fell prey to the fact that he looked in the mirror every morning and figured, "Hell. I'll never get any. Especially compared to Bill Clinton." Maybe he was right but the way he went about it was obviously wrong, from what we can tell. In that sense, maybe VItters and Craig were better by at least soliciting in a sense that could be justified if you're ok with reducing it the business transaction that it generally often is, even in relationships that "look" healthier on the surface.
So let's be solutions-oriented and create a legal pussy-subsidy for guys like him at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.
I can see how politics attracts extremely needy people who then seem to have a disproportionate number of lapses in judgement when it comes to getting attention, invading personal space and thinking you're welcome to do so, or sexting your wiener, or whatever else. Seems to be a lot of that among people who want to get up in front of other crowds, such as at churches, too. I can see how that happens.
What I have a problem with more than just those individuals is how sometimes it seems to matter and sometimes it doesn't. It's a really big deal that whatshisface who cheated and divorced his wife isn't out of politics forever as a Republican but how does Anthony Weiner think he's going to stay in politics? And this guy? Okay, some people just don't have a clue that everyone around them doesn't like to get pawed because none of them kneed his groin or delivered a nice muy thai elbow to the side of his face... but what's with the Dem party? Not only did the party apparatus know about this, they seem to have strong armed women into keep their objections to themselves or else face retribution and lack of funding from the party.
Maybe there is a big list of Republican politicians and mayors and whoever else, sexual harassers or guys carrying on with 17 year old interns or whatever, who have continued to be elected and propped up on office when they're discovered, but I don't know who they are. They get booted.
And you KNOW that their behavior would be portrayed as War on Women if they groped the ladies at work.
But for Democrats it's all... sure he's a misogynist groper but... policy!
The one where they don't vote for your party but they do vote for a different one. Pretty consistently, at least.
When you're Julia and Uncle Barry is your pusher, you go where there's a fix.
Don't run away from it. If the woman is being abused by a democrat, it's OK in your book because he's still advancing the Lefty agenda.
Run away from what? Where did I say what you attribute to me? Find the quote. Shouldn't be hard as I've only posted six comments here, but that doesn't give you a right to imagine me saying what the fictional straw-Democrat that you would prefer to do battle with is saying.
Keep trying, maybe Bathtub Swabbie will come to your rescue.
You want to excuse Filner because he was a Freedom Rider 50 years ago.
Ain't flyin'.
Who cares if Democrat policies keep women poor, ignorant, alone, and dependent on government handouts?
Can you show how the first two are linked to Democrat policies?
Education through teacher union curricula that dumb down students, pushing the idea the world owes them a living, pushing the idea it's OK to be pregnant out of wedlock because welfare will take care of them, spending beyond the means of budgets so urban areas are Third World sewers of poverty and crime.
You know exactly what I mean.
But Filner is an immoral, sociopath...
Who knows? Maybe so. But the quest for pussy is all-enticing
Oh, so it's that awful sex drive that's the culprit.
Next time some Republican grabs a woman's ass, we'll keep in mind what you said.
As a guy who actually has received sexy texts and pictures from chicks and sometimes somewhat nude or even raunchily explicit variations thereof, all I need to say is this:
NEVER. SEND. PIC. OF. PRIVATE. ANYTHING.
I extend this even to those weird upper torso "body shots" that Weiner and Chris Lee sent. They're weird. They don't do anything. The girl likes talking to you and male sexuality is seen as pathological at best, abhorrent at worst. WOMEN DON'T NEED VISUAL STIMULATION. The times when they occasionally get off on it don't equal the times when other stimuli suffice. THOSE THINGS DO NOT NEED TO BE ANYWHERE NEAR THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, and that includes some chick who knows you well enough to want to seduce you (or at least show off) but not well enough to figure out what your mutual privacy interests are and if there's a good need and/or history to respect them.
So seriously, just don't do it. I'm sure there are ways to make penis pics look so sexy that a number of naturally prude Americans would go, "Hmmm. That doesn't look so bad after all." But make sure you've got as many lighting experts, set designers and whatever else so that the crew who just put together the latest Penthouse pet's spread would call it professionally done.
And even then, they might laugh. Be more Scott Brown and less Mike Honcho, if anything.
That's because they trust their party bigwigs to make those decisions more than they do the electorate, but we can see how fed up the Tea Party got when that approach was applied across the board to every candidate and for every consideration and to the point of stagnation.
Geez Ed. You really ran with that one. The boldfacing is pretty convincing stuff.
????
I can only take that to mean you're out of ripostes as my habit of bolding my (or some one else's comment) and not bolding the response (to show different speakers) is pretty well established.
For married women at least, Republicans seem to be doing just fine. I have never heard numbers on libertarians, demographic-wise. And usually what I hear for just women/Democrat numbers aren't *that* far off 50/50. It gets to be significant in an election, of course, where the difference between winning or not is having only a few percents to one side of half the voters, one direction or the other.
People tend to talk like there aren't any women conservatives or women libertarians or that anti-abortion or pro-life isn't female dominated and that Democrats represent women as though women trend more than just slightly that direction.
It's a misuse of language. It's an *understandable* strategy to influence perceptions, but it doesn't reflect reality very well.
"More war is made on women by Democrat policies than by Republican ones,"
You can say that but it sure makes it difficult to explain the consistent gender gap between the two parties, doesn't it?
It is if you insist on being politically and genderlly correct. Women are generally ruled by emotion and not logic. Most women are under educated or at best have a high school education, which in today's world the equivalent of a 5th grade education previously. People and especially women do not go out of their way to educate themselves in things outside of their comfort zone and tend to believe all sorts of pablum and myths that are presented to them by the MSM.
I don't get where anyone decides that might be a smart plan. They do... but I don't understand it.
It's not that it's "smart". It's just that the quest for sexy genital time is so powerful that if it never overwhelmed the mind then the human population would stand at about seven right now.
Heck, even Ann Althouse knows it! That's what her last big post was about.
Women are generally ruled by emotion and not logic.
Ok, fine but then most guys feel sex is like the best prize ever. So they have a handicap in that an orgasm is much more likely to lead to at least a good day's worth of happiness than other emotional events are.
When the pick-up artists advise admitting that sex is an emotional thing, that's their finest realization. Guys who lack a very emotionally rich or grounded life are going to channel as much of it into their penis as they can and have to deal with the results, especially when it comes to a gender that has emotional outlets for almost everything else but!
Who knows? Maybe so. But the quest for pussy is all-enticing. Even Ann Althouse bought into it. Salmon swim upstream for miles for it. Male praying mantises get their heads bitten off for it. This guy fell prey to the fact that he looked in the mirror every morning and figured, "Hell. I'll never get any. Especially compared to Bill Clinton." Maybe he was right but the way he went about it was obviously wrong, from what we can tell. In that sense, maybe VItters and Craig were better by at least soliciting in a sense that could be justified if you're ok with reducing it the business transaction that it generally often is, even in relationships that "look" healthier on the surface.
So let's be solutions-oriented and create a legal pussy-subsidy for guys like him at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.
Aww hell, the chase for pussy is a losing game usually, but Filner has probably been a lifelong scumbag. What's probably odd is the cavalcade of women that he was predatory with, especially women of prominence. His relationship for years to his fiance ended and then a few days later the whole thing busted wide open. Probably why she called it quits, shut down her social justice charity, and high tailed it into obscurity.
The distinction is, is that many people who are this lasivious do it in private. Not Pantygate Bob. He did it out in the public and in public view. I worked with a guy who's wife had a good friend who knew him. This buddy of mine said that his wife invited her friend and Bob Filner over for dinner at their house. Immediately before dinner started, Filner put her in his now infamous, Filner headlock and suggested that they should date and this was during the mayoral race. Needless to say my buddies wife was pissed that Filner displayed that kind of behavior in their house.
I warned him when he told me that Filner was coming over for dinner, but they got a taste of it. I haven't seen him for a while. I should give him a call.
Gropers like Filthy Filner are generally not men who are even into sex. It is something else entirely. Such a clumsy offensive approach is unlikely to pan out (except maybe with Inga and only then if he bought her about six brandy old fashions).
Gropers like Filthy Filner are generally not men who are even into sex. It is something else entirely. Such a clumsy offensive approach is unlikely to pan out (except maybe with Inga and only then if he bought her about six brandy old fashions).
Most women are under educated or at best have a high school education, which in today's world the equivalent of a 5th grade education previously. People and especially women do not go out of their way to educate themselves in things outside of their comfort zone and tend to believe all sorts of pablum and myths that are presented to them by the MSM.
Interesting, especially the first part that kicks it off. And that's because with women out-enrolling men in higher education, I think the fact that college has emphasized the sort of (unfortunately often rote) memorization that women excel at over the critical thinking that logic encourages, it's no wonder its use as a credential is falling.
It didn't used to be this way. At the least, a logic course should be at least as mandatory as whatever other curriculum they require.
Women are generally ruled by emotion and not logic.
Ok, fine but then most guys feel sex is like the best prize ever. So they have a handicap in that an orgasm is much more likely to lead to at least a good day's worth of happiness than other emotional events are.
Meth - it's all about the deal. Filner says he's staying. What he means is he'll stay until there's a large enough pot of money changing hands somewhere and a promise of no legal proceedings. Then he'll leave.
Gropers like Filthy Filner are generally not men who are even into sex. It is something else entirely.
It's called power. 1000 years ago it was called le droit de seigneur.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Most women are under educated or at best have a high school education, which in today's world the equivalent of a 5th grade education previously. People and especially women do not go out of their way to educate themselves in things outside of their comfort zone and tend to believe all sorts of pablum and myths that are presented to them by the MSM.
Interesting, especially the first part that kicks it off. And that's because with women out-enrolling men in higher education,
That has more to do with quotas than ability, as Ritmo knows all too well.
BTW, you shouldn't diss TOP.
If she cared as much about her blog then as she does now, you would have been banned years ago for hijacking so many threads with nothing but pedantic, pointless drivel.
Meth - it's all about the deal. Filner says he's staying. What he means is he'll stay until there's a large enough pot of money changing hands somewhere and a promise of no legal proceedings. Then he'll leave.
It's not real life; it's politics.
Well, consider that Filne has hired his own lawyer, who is quite good and I know him personally myself, he will advise him to settle instead of wring this out. The problem stems from the fact that The Hugger did a lot of his nonsense while in office, so now you have him doing it in his official capacities which makes the city liable too. What is truly interesting is that this isn't being treated as a potential criminal case, which the DA's office has been stone cold quiet about.
I don't think there is a deal to be made, at minimum even if it goes to civil proceedings, it will take about a year and a half to even get there. So this will be dragged on for a while.
That has more to do with quotas than ability, as Ritmo knows all too well.
Wrong. It has to do with grades. But people get grading on things that don't involve logic. If you were a logical person, as a man should be, you might actually bother yourself to read the full text of comments and arguments that you feel a reason to take issue with.
BTW, you shouldn't diss TOP.
Yes I should and I will.
If she cared as much about her blog then as she does now, you would have been banned years ago for hijacking so many threads with nothing but pedantic, pointless drivel.
Just sayin'.
You should try saying something else, and something more logical and less hateful of learning. Her blog suffers from the fact that it's run by insufferably egomaniacal pricks who look down at their supporters and can't engage arguments honestly, wherever the chips may lie. Almost everyone here knows this, or at least came to admitting it after last week. If you want drivel, go ask Mary for it. And go look at Meade's current comments here, that he can't stop posting and abusing with and justifying. You can be sure Annie's in complete agreement with them. And you apparently must find merit in them, if you think I'm the bigger problem than the problems they make for themselves.
Meade showed up on my blog at least a few times in a friendly way that convinced me he doesn't find me as irredeemable as you do. Maybe despite his flaws, the fact that he at least knew to respect me that much is something you might want to learn from. They sure as hell don't have much use for you, from what they wrote - as they don't for anybody. So why you want to use them as a mirror to shine put-downs onto me is about the most illogical thing you've done, and you've done plenty of illogical things.
Anyway, thanks for putting up with my running with this politicize-able post. I promise not to do it too often, and the fact that I agree that the San Diego mayor is obviously (as the blatant facts currently stand) a silly douche who doesn't belong in office (regardless of whatever voters might decide), should at least mean something. I hope.
You're all right to declare him a weenie. I just ed would agree with me on that. Maybe someday he will.
That has more to do with quotas than ability, as Ritmo knows all too well.
Wrong. It has to do with grades. But people get grading on things that don't involve logic. If you were a logical person, as a man should be, you might actually bother yourself to read the full text of comments and arguments that you feel a reason to take issue with.
No, it has to do with quotas, witness all the Affirmative action suits of late.
Your problem seems to be, when someone hits you with the facts, you get nasty and pretend to be the arbiter of logic.
You can't post drivel in the name of defending something or someone because your side will look bad and then cry about logic when your points are hammered down by the facts.
And TOP gave you a shot few others would have.
Seems to me you're not only an unyielding ideologue, but ungrateful as well.
Ed, they're not casting central. They decided to do what they wanted to do. Some calls were good, many bad, and some were just regular ordinary calls that most people wouldn't bother judging. I don't have a "career" from them. I like Troop and much of his crew whom I met there and a good number of the people here also, so I suppose I "owe" them credit the way I would a bar or a school but those are inanimate things - as the TOP's owners are now behaving like. If they want credit for running a meeting place, that doesn't mean I have to say they did a better job of making something good out of it than the guests did.
Anyway, there is no "AA" for women on college. Cite a fact if you disagree. Take as long as you like to find it though, since I'm pretty sure you won't. (I could be wrong, but I doubt it). And logic is logic - it has its own rules. It's not an aesthetic, primarily, or emotional or social thing. But facts are necessary if the logic's to be applied meaningfully. You assert a fact (re: AA for women). Where did it come from, is what I would like to know.
What education's become is what allows the standards for the type of "emotional" females that DBQ describes to float into college and graduate from it in record numbers. I guess you can continue disagreeing but that requires you to say that you think educational standards in American high schools are top-notch. Do you think that? Answer the question please if you want to demonstrate honest debating skills.
I hate these long posts but you seem to neglect reading much of what I say anyway, no matter how short it is.
We can always look at the fact there are still women's colleges, but men only aren't allowed or the fact women are being admitted in greater numbers.
You want to tell me that's co-incidence, go ahead.
But the original issue, Filner, was one where I mentioned that he had been a Freedom Rider and seems to have spent his life trading on that. You said, "Are you seriously drawing a link between a civil rights protest and sexual harassment?", and then attempted to minimize the harassment.
I countered with the issue of the shoe on the other foot and, as always, you wanted to wander (frankly, I don't blame you).
We ended up on the subject of TOP and you claimed a grievance. I said no one has less right than you because you had gotten a kid gloves treatment there, your hijacking of so many threads being tolerated again and again.
Frankly, I can't see your complaint, but you seem to be one of the ones whose conduct led Ann to do what she did. Maybe you're mad at her for that, depriving you of a soapbox.
You once described your strategy as browbeating other viewpoints. It's not going to fly here, by me or by you.
There isn't a written rulebook, but we all know we're supposed to keep it civil and I've tried.
Getting back to the original issue, I told you being a Freedom Rider was a worthy cause. I was a big fan of the news in those days and I watched those events unfold; I knew who Roy Wilkins and Bayard Rustin and A Philip Randolph were and admired them for their courage, but being one of them didn't excuse Filner for what he'd dome in the past few years.
You wanted to make a fight of it and make excuses for him, trying to deflect it into a debate on the War On Women nonsense. When that failed, you didn't like it.
All I can say is sticking up for Filner because he's one of your own is a non-starter. Trying to back me into a corner by making some weird connection that I was trying to say his Freedom Rider days and the sex harassment were linked (or whatever it was you were trying to do) was ridiculous.
Frankly, I can't see your complaint, but you seem to be one of the ones whose conduct led Ann to do what she did. Maybe you're mad at her for that...
Not quite. The opposite, in fact. I think they've shown their true colors, which I think is wonderful. Or at least, that part is a good thing.
You seem very intent on using people who disrespected you by loudly calling you unintelligent as a way to badmouth me. Which is bizarre. You have every right to be nonsensical, but that generally makes people not worth engaging.
The rest of your diatribe is not worth addressing as you can't even tell when someone agrees with you. Again, another trait too bizarre to engage.
The partisan Democrats I know here in San Diego are unanimous in wanting Filner to resign, and have been since shortly after the news about his escapades went public.
In contrast, the local Republicans I know are mostly just enjoying the schadenfreude.
Methadras lives in the San Diego area and knows this guy better tan anyone here. My bride and myself spend winters there. The FIRST TIME by bride saw this guy on tv she said, "That guy is a creepy, lech[erous]. Swear to god!
Please understand, this guy's history goes back decades to when he was a professor @ SDSU. One of his victims is now the dean @ SDSU.
Rev, For partisans, facts are not helpful, they are an obstacle. The Dem party voted 34-6 for Filner to resign. While that vote is laudable, it is NOT "UNANIMOUS."
66 comments:
What was he arrested for in Mississippi?
BTW... it's bad enough seeing that face when I go to AoS.
Let's see, it took 7 women before the Democrats could finally tell him to take a hike and he still refuses.
Between this creep, our former Serial Rapist in Chief, and the Little Weiner (not to mention the Girl Sandwich Twins of days gone by), tell me again who's waging a War On Women.
PS At the risk of being called a sexist (I am, I admit it), only one of those women could be called good-looking while another was probably nice enough looking in her younger days, but the rest were the ghastliest selection of females I've seen since that "Who Let The Dogs Out?" video.
How do Democrats and/or Leftists procreate with women like that?
Or could it be 2 homosexual guys can make a baby?
Synova said...
BTW... it's bad enough seeing that face when I go to AoS.
That instant was the result of a technical glitch, according to HotAir.
God works in mysterious ways...
The mug shot is from his days as a Freedom Rider; he was arrested for "disturbing the peace and inciting a riot." He refused to post bond for his release and remained incarcerated for two months.
Clearly, he's been trading on it for 50 years.
I forgot where I read it, but, apparently, when he replaced Duke Cunningham in Congress, he presented himself as the embodiment of moral rectitude.
Too bad what was rected wasn't his morals.
Oh, for God's sake, give the man a break. He didn't drive off a road and drown a pregnant woman and her unborn child and then run off to find his lawyers.
He was just giving women a "wet Willy". Besides, he didn't stick a cigar up their you know what.
Knock it off, neo... conserv... righ... whatev.............
Are you seriously drawing a link between a civil rights protest and sexual harassment? (Not that a mugshot would be available for that anyway, as it's not a criminal offense - and often an over-sensitive reflection of the PC sex-politics that I thought conservatives weren't all that fond of anyway...)
Oh well, I guess this way you can smear a Democrat by linking him to the struggle for civil rights. Awesome!
No, I'm saying Filner has used his involvement with the Freedom Riders (a worthy cause IMHO) to validate himself over the years.
Being a Freedom Rider does not exonerate him for this.
But obviously Ritmo thinks the War On Women only applies if it's a Republican doing the harassing.
Democrats get a pass. How Gloria Steinbrenner.
Democrats love women.
I wasn't talking to you, ed (do you always assume everyone's always talking to you?) I was talking to the person who made the post and the juxtaposition in it.
Filner didn't say Freedom Riders exonerates sexual harassment (who did, btw?), but if you are ok with linking the two then I guess you have an interesting argument to make.
Ritmo, Filner might have gotten arrested for marching in Mississippi. But my guess he was scamming on the ladies on that trip too.
Filner has some psycho issues. Democrats would be wise to drum this asshole out. And I am not naive, Republicans occasionally have douchebags like this too...but the difference is the media attacks all Republicans when that happens.
As for Weiner, I would not be surprised if this guy outed him on hot dog day.
"Rat-faced, beady eyed fuck. This sub-human vermin is nothing but a political parasite."
July 26, 2013 at 5:36 PM
The Arabs in the Mideast loved the Nazi's during WW2, they both agreed Jews were "subhumans". What nice people those Arabs, huh?
War On Women only applies if it's a Republican doing the harassing.
Actually that phrase is about policies, not personal conduct that most Democrat philanderer's wives haven't decided to make public business anyway.
I think if the Republicans had more policies that women were interested in then they would stop trying to focus on personal conduct of which they're usually not much better when it comes to Vitters, Foley (actually much worse in that case), Larry (like the name?) Craig (also a bit worse), and a good slew of others.
Filner will in all likelihood suffer some well-deserved rebuke if not removal for this, Evi. I'm not worried that he will get a punishment less than the crime.
Which is another good reason for abstaining from bringing up civil disobedience of the same sort that Gandhi or MLK are now quite vindicated by history for.
Weiner also seems to have some issues that border on future disqualification. There are many places the media has gone on that, too. It's funny when Drudge says "Erection Update: Weiner In", and the NYPost goes with similar headlines. Not much that the MSM can do but echo or laugh with them. And they're also entirely topical and legitimate attacks.
My other comment to ed was posted before I saw yours. Hopefully this one is more responsive to what you're saying. Thanks.
Rhythm and Balls said...
War On Women only applies if it's a Republican doing the harassing.
Actually that phrase is about policies, not personal conduct that most Democrat philanderer's wives haven't decided to make public business anyway.
More war is made on women by Democrat policies than by Republican ones, but, if personal conduct comes into play, some political advantage will also be made, right?
More war is made on women by Democrat policies than by Republican ones,
You can say that but it sure makes it difficult to explain the consistent gender gap between the two parties, doesn't it?
Further, you can say that the gap is explained by problematic "messaging" and not the policies themselves, but after a while that becomes harder to do without making the female demographic in question feel that you're insulting their intelligence. I'm sure that those who feel most strongly about those policies are pretty well-informed about them, as are a good lot of women in general.
So, perhaps it's worth considering whether there is a problem with the policies themselves.
You know who was in the forefront of the Civil rights movement (1946-1965)? Communists. MLK for example was surrounded by CPUSA members. They were useful to MLK - so he used them. Bu the Commies had their own agenda.
Point being, that plenty of lefties got involved in Civil Rights to benefit the left - not because they loved Black Folk.
Its just one more reason why politicians shouldn't be allowed to trade on their past to escape criticism in the present.
Rhythm and Balls said...
More war is made on women by Democrat policies than by Republican ones,
You can say that but it sure makes it difficult to explain the consistent gender gap between the two parties, doesn't it?
Which gender gap is that, the one that allows Democrat women to be exploited by politicians like Filner and Weiner?
Don't run away from it. If the woman is being abused by a democrat, it's OK in your book because he's still advancing the Lefty agenda.
Who cares if Democrat policies keep women poor, ignorant, alone, and dependent on government handouts?
The Demos have "liberated" women in office who wouldn't be there except for Daddy's or hubbo's money and influence.
Yeah, there's a gender gap.
Point being, that plenty of lefties got involved in Civil Rights to benefit the left - not because they loved Black Folk.
Even if this were true (which I doubt), how does it make anyone's support for the larger aim problematic, let alone reprehensible? Without the support of whomever could be gotten the damn thing wouldn't have gone through, which is almost usually the case in politics.
Its just one more reason why politicians shouldn't be allowed to trade on their past to escape criticism in the present.
To deny the role of past achievements in advertising any present or future qualifications (or defenses) is to say that character doesn't matter in politics. And I'm pretty sure conservatives wouldn't want to give up that tactic. I wouldn't, either.
But the fact remains, someone could be a supporter of civil rights (for whatever reason) and still commit a wrongdoing - esp. 50 years later. The guy is 70 years old and probably too old to be in the game, let alone too ugly. To be a politician that ugly, I think there's got to be a serious ego/player mismatch. It's like guys like Weiner and this weasel are almost asking to be inappropriate, as their politician egos aren't matched by looks that most women would be ok with putting out for as easily as most pols would expect.
So throw him out for being too ugly for a politician -- the real reason. ;-)
Honestly, I thought this post was basically about two things.
1.with his background, how did he get in office. Contrariwise, if his background was laudable, how did he become such a slime-ball.
2. bad plastic surgery.
Which gender gap is that,
The one where they don't vote for your party but they do vote for a different one. Pretty consistently, at least.
Don't run away from it. If the woman is being abused by a democrat, it's OK in your book because he's still advancing the Lefty agenda.
Run away from what? Where did I say what you attribute to me? Find the quote. Shouldn't be hard as I've only posted six comments here, but that doesn't give you a right to imagine me saying what the fictional straw-Democrat that you would prefer to do battle with is saying.
Who cares if Democrat policies keep women poor, ignorant, alone, and dependent on government handouts?
Can you show how the first two are linked to Democrat policies? Being an individual is part of the American character and condition - it stems from a justifiable fixation on /individual/ rights. And as for the last one, yes I know it fits the marketing but that's ambiguous. Maybe try focusing on how you came about to stretch to the first two first, perhaps?
I guess if we're going to give people points for supporting certain causes, or doing certain things, then WHY they were supporting that cause, or doing stuff, may be important.
Otherwise, we'll have to give Hitler points for building some great highways, and Lenin points for making peace with Germany.
And did you know Julius Rosenberg was in the US Army in WWII? What a patriot!
Ritmo, you're treading water and sharks smell blood.
Get out while you can.
justagal said...
1.with his background, how did he get in office. Contrariwise, if his background was laudable, how did he become such a slime-ball.
He capitalized on duke Cunningham's misdeeds to get elected.
And maybe, as EBL suggests, he always was a sack of slime.
Lots of guys went to anti-war rallies not because they opposed what was going on in 'Nam or because they loved peace, but because they wanted to get a piece.
He pulled a Filner today at his press conference. The lawn darts that make up the county Democrat party had to get together twice to vote to call for his resignation. The first time it was split when there were no allegations other than his self-reflected disrespect of women. The second time they finally got enough votes to put a strongly worded condemnation and a call for his resignation. He doubled down and dug in with his latest prepared press conference today proclaiming that he will go to sexual harassment therapy classes. My guess is that he will get a few pointers on how not to get caught next time. He will never give in and he will never give up. He will drag the city down with him with endless lawsuits, high priced settlements, and the inability to govern properly.
Credit to those democrats has to be given it's due for their immediate call for him to resign. Right is right in that case. But Filner is an immoral, sociopath, with no ethics, and has no respect for the office he holds nor the people he has harmed in his pursuit of his scumbaggery. San Diego is going to lose some cache with this guy around and he's bunkered for the long slog of taking this great city down with him.
But Filner is an immoral, sociopath...
Who knows? Maybe so. But the quest for pussy is all-enticing. Even Ann Althouse bought into it. Salmon swim upstream for miles for it. Male praying mantises get their heads bitten off for it. This guy fell prey to the fact that he looked in the mirror every morning and figured, "Hell. I'll never get any. Especially compared to Bill Clinton." Maybe he was right but the way he went about it was obviously wrong, from what we can tell. In that sense, maybe VItters and Craig were better by at least soliciting in a sense that could be justified if you're ok with reducing it the business transaction that it generally often is, even in relationships that "look" healthier on the surface.
So let's be solutions-oriented and create a legal pussy-subsidy for guys like him at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.
I can see how politics attracts extremely needy people who then seem to have a disproportionate number of lapses in judgement when it comes to getting attention, invading personal space and thinking you're welcome to do so, or sexting your wiener, or whatever else. Seems to be a lot of that among people who want to get up in front of other crowds, such as at churches, too. I can see how that happens.
What I have a problem with more than just those individuals is how sometimes it seems to matter and sometimes it doesn't. It's a really big deal that whatshisface who cheated and divorced his wife isn't out of politics forever as a Republican but how does Anthony Weiner think he's going to stay in politics? And this guy? Okay, some people just don't have a clue that everyone around them doesn't like to get pawed because none of them kneed his groin or delivered a nice muy thai elbow to the side of his face... but what's with the Dem party? Not only did the party apparatus know about this, they seem to have strong armed women into keep their objections to themselves or else face retribution and lack of funding from the party.
WTF?
Maybe there is a big list of Republican politicians and mayors and whoever else, sexual harassers or guys carrying on with 17 year old interns or whatever, who have continued to be elected and propped up on office when they're discovered, but I don't know who they are. They get booted.
And you KNOW that their behavior would be portrayed as War on Women if they groped the ladies at work.
But for Democrats it's all... sure he's a misogynist groper but... policy!
Right.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Which gender gap is that,
The one where they don't vote for your party but they do vote for a different one. Pretty consistently, at least.
When you're Julia and Uncle Barry is your pusher, you go where there's a fix.
Don't run away from it. If the woman is being abused by a democrat, it's OK in your book because he's still advancing the Lefty agenda.
Run away from what? Where did I say what you attribute to me? Find the quote. Shouldn't be hard as I've only posted six comments here, but that doesn't give you a right to imagine me saying what the fictional straw-Democrat that you would prefer to do battle with is saying.
Keep trying, maybe Bathtub Swabbie will come to your rescue.
You want to excuse Filner because he was a Freedom Rider 50 years ago.
Ain't flyin'.
Who cares if Democrat policies keep women poor, ignorant, alone, and dependent on government handouts?
Can you show how the first two are linked to Democrat policies?
Education through teacher union curricula that dumb down students, pushing the idea the world owes them a living, pushing the idea it's OK to be pregnant out of wedlock because welfare will take care of them, spending beyond the means of budgets so urban areas are Third World sewers of poverty and crime.
You know exactly what I mean.
But Filner is an immoral, sociopath...
Who knows? Maybe so. But the quest for pussy is all-enticing
Oh, so it's that awful sex drive that's the culprit.
Next time some Republican grabs a woman's ass, we'll keep in mind what you said.
As a guy who actually has received sexy texts and pictures from chicks and sometimes somewhat nude or even raunchily explicit variations thereof, all I need to say is this:
NEVER. SEND. PIC. OF. PRIVATE. ANYTHING.
I extend this even to those weird upper torso "body shots" that Weiner and Chris Lee sent. They're weird. They don't do anything. The girl likes talking to you and male sexuality is seen as pathological at best, abhorrent at worst. WOMEN DON'T NEED VISUAL STIMULATION. The times when they occasionally get off on it don't equal the times when other stimuli suffice. THOSE THINGS DO NOT NEED TO BE ANYWHERE NEAR THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, and that includes some chick who knows you well enough to want to seduce you (or at least show off) but not well enough to figure out what your mutual privacy interests are and if there's a good need and/or history to respect them.
So seriously, just don't do it. I'm sure there are ways to make penis pics look so sexy that a number of naturally prude Americans would go, "Hmmm. That doesn't look so bad after all." But make sure you've got as many lighting experts, set designers and whatever else so that the crew who just put together the latest Penthouse pet's spread would call it professionally done.
And even then, they might laugh. Be more Scott Brown and less Mike Honcho, if anything.
Geez Ed. You really ran with that one. The boldfacing is pretty convincing stuff.
I don't know who they are. They get booted.
That's because they trust their party bigwigs to make those decisions more than they do the electorate, but we can see how fed up the Tea Party got when that approach was applied across the board to every candidate and for every consideration and to the point of stagnation.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Geez Ed. You really ran with that one. The boldfacing is pretty convincing stuff.
????
I can only take that to mean you're out of ripostes as my habit of bolding my (or some one else's comment) and not bolding the response (to show different speakers) is pretty well established.
Your surrender is accepted.
That was about as convincing as a comment from Meade or Ann.
You don't want to be like them, Eddie. Trust me.
BTW, what are the actual numbers?
For married women at least, Republicans seem to be doing just fine. I have never heard numbers on libertarians, demographic-wise. And usually what I hear for just women/Democrat numbers aren't *that* far off 50/50. It gets to be significant in an election, of course, where the difference between winning or not is having only a few percents to one side of half the voters, one direction or the other.
People tend to talk like there aren't any women conservatives or women libertarians or that anti-abortion or pro-life isn't female dominated and that Democrats represent women as though women trend more than just slightly that direction.
It's a misuse of language. It's an *understandable* strategy to influence perceptions, but it doesn't reflect reality very well.
Agree with you on never ever sending private pics, Ritmo.
I don't get where anyone decides that might be a smart plan. They do... but I don't understand it.
"More war is made on women by Democrat policies than by Republican ones,"
You can say that but it sure makes it difficult to explain the consistent gender gap between the two parties, doesn't it?
It is if you insist on being politically and genderlly correct. Women are generally ruled by emotion and not logic. Most women are under educated or at best have a high school education, which in today's world the equivalent of a 5th grade education previously. People and especially women do not go out of their way to educate themselves in things outside of their comfort zone and tend to believe all sorts of pablum and myths that are presented to them by the MSM.
Emotion. Feelings. Lack of facts. Lack of logic.
Gah!!
I don't get where anyone decides that might be a smart plan. They do... but I don't understand it.
It's not that it's "smart". It's just that the quest for sexy genital time is so powerful that if it never overwhelmed the mind then the human population would stand at about seven right now.
Heck, even Ann Althouse knows it! That's what her last big post was about.
Rhythm and Balls said...
That was about as convincing as a comment from Meade or Ann.
You don't want to be like them, Eddie. Trust me.
As I said, you're clearly out of rejoinders.
Women are generally ruled by emotion and not logic.
Ok, fine but then most guys feel sex is like the best prize ever. So they have a handicap in that an orgasm is much more likely to lead to at least a good day's worth of happiness than other emotional events are.
When the pick-up artists advise admitting that sex is an emotional thing, that's their finest realization. Guys who lack a very emotionally rich or grounded life are going to channel as much of it into their penis as they can and have to deal with the results, especially when it comes to a gender that has emotional outlets for almost everything else but!
Rhythm and Balls said...
But Filner is an immoral, sociopath...
Who knows? Maybe so. But the quest for pussy is all-enticing. Even Ann Althouse bought into it. Salmon swim upstream for miles for it. Male praying mantises get their heads bitten off for it. This guy fell prey to the fact that he looked in the mirror every morning and figured, "Hell. I'll never get any. Especially compared to Bill Clinton." Maybe he was right but the way he went about it was obviously wrong, from what we can tell. In that sense, maybe VItters and Craig were better by at least soliciting in a sense that could be justified if you're ok with reducing it the business transaction that it generally often is, even in relationships that "look" healthier on the surface.
So let's be solutions-oriented and create a legal pussy-subsidy for guys like him at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.
Aww hell, the chase for pussy is a losing game usually, but Filner has probably been a lifelong scumbag. What's probably odd is the cavalcade of women that he was predatory with, especially women of prominence. His relationship for years to his fiance ended and then a few days later the whole thing busted wide open. Probably why she called it quits, shut down her social justice charity, and high tailed it into obscurity.
The distinction is, is that many people who are this lasivious do it in private. Not Pantygate Bob. He did it out in the public and in public view. I worked with a guy who's wife had a good friend who knew him. This buddy of mine said that his wife invited her friend and Bob Filner over for dinner at their house. Immediately before dinner started, Filner put her in his now infamous, Filner headlock and suggested that they should date and this was during the mayoral race. Needless to say my buddies wife was pissed that Filner displayed that kind of behavior in their house.
I warned him when he told me that Filner was coming over for dinner, but they got a taste of it. I haven't seen him for a while. I should give him a call.
Gropers like Filthy Filner are generally not men who are even into sex. It is something else entirely. Such a clumsy offensive approach is unlikely to pan out (except maybe with Inga and only then if he bought her about six brandy old fashions).
Gropers like Filthy Filner are generally not men who are even into sex. It is something else entirely. Such a clumsy offensive approach is unlikely to pan out (except maybe with Inga and only then if he bought her about six brandy old fashions).
Most women are under educated or at best have a high school education, which in today's world the equivalent of a 5th grade education previously. People and especially women do not go out of their way to educate themselves in things outside of their comfort zone and tend to believe all sorts of pablum and myths that are presented to them by the MSM.
Interesting, especially the first part that kicks it off. And that's because with women out-enrolling men in higher education, I think the fact that college has emphasized the sort of (unfortunately often rote) memorization that women excel at over the critical thinking that logic encourages, it's no wonder its use as a credential is falling.
It didn't used to be this way. At the least, a logic course should be at least as mandatory as whatever other curriculum they require.
Lefties don't care about this stuff:
CF: Ted Kennedy, JFK, Clinton. And LBJ was dirty as hell and everyone in the Democrat circles knew it.
Its why Marion Barry got re-elected.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Women are generally ruled by emotion and not logic.
Ok, fine but then most guys feel sex is like the best prize ever. So they have a handicap in that an orgasm is much more likely to lead to at least a good day's worth of happiness than other emotional events are.
I just want to cuddle and sleep afterwards.
Yes, rc. Gloria Allred's track record on calling this stuff is sooo man-biased and unsuccessful!
Meth - it's all about the deal. Filner says he's staying. What he means is he'll stay until there's a large enough pot of money changing hands somewhere and a promise of no legal proceedings. Then he'll leave.
It's not real life; it's politics.
Oh, you've got to try starting off your mornings differently Methadras!
Evi L. Bloggerlady said...
Gropers like Filthy Filner are generally not men who are even into sex. It is something else entirely.
It's called power. 1000 years ago it was called le droit de seigneur.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Most women are under educated or at best have a high school education, which in today's world the equivalent of a 5th grade education previously. People and especially women do not go out of their way to educate themselves in things outside of their comfort zone and tend to believe all sorts of pablum and myths that are presented to them by the MSM.
Interesting, especially the first part that kicks it off. And that's because with women out-enrolling men in higher education,
That has more to do with quotas than ability, as Ritmo knows all too well.
BTW, you shouldn't diss TOP.
If she cared as much about her blog then as she does now, you would have been banned years ago for hijacking so many threads with nothing but pedantic, pointless drivel.
Just sayin'.
Michael Haz said...
Meth - it's all about the deal. Filner says he's staying. What he means is he'll stay until there's a large enough pot of money changing hands somewhere and a promise of no legal proceedings. Then he'll leave.
It's not real life; it's politics.
Well, consider that Filne has hired his own lawyer, who is quite good and I know him personally myself, he will advise him to settle instead of wring this out. The problem stems from the fact that The Hugger did a lot of his nonsense while in office, so now you have him doing it in his official capacities which makes the city liable too. What is truly interesting is that this isn't being treated as a potential criminal case, which the DA's office has been stone cold quiet about.
I don't think there is a deal to be made, at minimum even if it goes to civil proceedings, it will take about a year and a half to even get there. So this will be dragged on for a while.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Oh, you've got to try starting off your mornings differently Methadras!
Oh I start my mornings off pretty good. :D
That has more to do with quotas than ability, as Ritmo knows all too well.
Wrong. It has to do with grades. But people get grading on things that don't involve logic. If you were a logical person, as a man should be, you might actually bother yourself to read the full text of comments and arguments that you feel a reason to take issue with.
BTW, you shouldn't diss TOP.
Yes I should and I will.
If she cared as much about her blog then as she does now, you would have been banned years ago for hijacking so many threads with nothing but pedantic, pointless drivel.
Just sayin'.
You should try saying something else, and something more logical and less hateful of learning. Her blog suffers from the fact that it's run by insufferably egomaniacal pricks who look down at their supporters and can't engage arguments honestly, wherever the chips may lie. Almost everyone here knows this, or at least came to admitting it after last week. If you want drivel, go ask Mary for it. And go look at Meade's current comments here, that he can't stop posting and abusing with and justifying. You can be sure Annie's in complete agreement with them. And you apparently must find merit in them, if you think I'm the bigger problem than the problems they make for themselves.
Meade showed up on my blog at least a few times in a friendly way that convinced me he doesn't find me as irredeemable as you do. Maybe despite his flaws, the fact that he at least knew to respect me that much is something you might want to learn from. They sure as hell don't have much use for you, from what they wrote - as they don't for anybody. So why you want to use them as a mirror to shine put-downs onto me is about the most illogical thing you've done, and you've done plenty of illogical things.
Try logic.
Anyway, I'm out to enjoy the evening. Hope you have a good one Meth, and even you too, ed, if you want to.
Anyway, thanks for putting up with my running with this politicize-able post. I promise not to do it too often, and the fact that I agree that the San Diego mayor is obviously (as the blatant facts currently stand) a silly douche who doesn't belong in office (regardless of whatever voters might decide), should at least mean something. I hope.
You're all right to declare him a weenie. I just ed would agree with me on that. Maybe someday he will.
'Night.
Rhythm and Balls said...
That has more to do with quotas than ability, as Ritmo knows all too well.
Wrong. It has to do with grades. But people get grading on things that don't involve logic. If you were a logical person, as a man should be, you might actually bother yourself to read the full text of comments and arguments that you feel a reason to take issue with.
No, it has to do with quotas, witness all the Affirmative action suits of late.
Your problem seems to be, when someone hits you with the facts, you get nasty and pretend to be the arbiter of logic.
You can't post drivel in the name of defending something or someone because your side will look bad and then cry about logic when your points are hammered down by the facts.
And TOP gave you a shot few others would have.
Seems to me you're not only an unyielding ideologue, but ungrateful as well.
Ed, they're not casting central. They decided to do what they wanted to do. Some calls were good, many bad, and some were just regular ordinary calls that most people wouldn't bother judging. I don't have a "career" from them. I like Troop and much of his crew whom I met there and a good number of the people here also, so I suppose I "owe" them credit the way I would a bar or a school but those are inanimate things - as the TOP's owners are now behaving like. If they want credit for running a meeting place, that doesn't mean I have to say they did a better job of making something good out of it than the guests did.
Anyway, there is no "AA" for women on college. Cite a fact if you disagree. Take as long as you like to find it though, since I'm pretty sure you won't. (I could be wrong, but I doubt it). And logic is logic - it has its own rules. It's not an aesthetic, primarily, or emotional or social thing. But facts are necessary if the logic's to be applied meaningfully. You assert a fact (re: AA for women). Where did it come from, is what I would like to know.
What education's become is what allows the standards for the type of "emotional" females that DBQ describes to float into college and graduate from it in record numbers. I guess you can continue disagreeing but that requires you to say that you think educational standards in American high schools are top-notch. Do you think that? Answer the question please if you want to demonstrate honest debating skills.
I hate these long posts but you seem to neglect reading much of what I say anyway, no matter how short it is.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Anyway, I'm out to enjoy the evening. Hope you have a good one Meth, and even you too, ed, if you want to.
Later, I'm still stuck working. blech.
We can always look at the fact there are still women's colleges, but men only aren't allowed or the fact women are being admitted in greater numbers.
You want to tell me that's co-incidence, go ahead.
But the original issue, Filner, was one where I mentioned that he had been a Freedom Rider and seems to have spent his life trading on that. You said, "Are you seriously drawing a link between a civil rights protest and sexual harassment?", and then attempted to minimize the harassment.
I countered with the issue of the shoe on the other foot and, as always, you wanted to wander (frankly, I don't blame you).
We ended up on the subject of TOP and you claimed a grievance. I said no one has less right than you because you had gotten a kid gloves treatment there, your hijacking of so many threads being tolerated again and again.
Frankly, I can't see your complaint, but you seem to be one of the ones whose conduct led Ann to do what she did. Maybe you're mad at her for that, depriving you of a soapbox.
You once described your strategy as browbeating other viewpoints. It's not going to fly here, by me or by you.
There isn't a written rulebook, but we all know we're supposed to keep it civil and I've tried.
Getting back to the original issue, I told you being a Freedom Rider was a worthy cause. I was a big fan of the news in those days and I watched those events unfold; I knew who Roy Wilkins and Bayard Rustin and A Philip Randolph were and admired them for their courage, but being one of them didn't excuse Filner for what he'd dome in the past few years.
You wanted to make a fight of it and make excuses for him, trying to deflect it into a debate on the War On Women nonsense. When that failed, you didn't like it.
All I can say is sticking up for Filner because he's one of your own is a non-starter. Trying to back me into a corner by making some weird connection that I was trying to say his Freedom Rider days and the sex harassment were linked (or whatever it was you were trying to do) was ridiculous.
As I said, let it go. you lost.
Frankly, I can't see your complaint, but you seem to be one of the ones whose conduct led Ann to do what she did. Maybe you're mad at her for that...
Not quite. The opposite, in fact. I think they've shown their true colors, which I think is wonderful. Or at least, that part is a good thing.
You seem very intent on using people who disrespected you by loudly calling you unintelligent as a way to badmouth me. Which is bizarre. You have every right to be nonsensical, but that generally makes people not worth engaging.
The rest of your diatribe is not worth addressing as you can't even tell when someone agrees with you. Again, another trait too bizarre to engage.
It was a short night. :-). Eventful, but short. Sorry you had to work.
The partisan Democrats I know here in San Diego are unanimous in wanting Filner to resign, and have been since shortly after the news about his escapades went public.
In contrast, the local Republicans I know are mostly just enjoying the schadenfreude.
Rhythm and Balls said...
The rest of your diatribe is not worth addressing as you can't even tell when someone agrees with you. Again, another trait too bizarre to engage.
Try coming out and just saying it.
Try reading?
Methadras lives in the San Diego area and knows this guy better tan anyone here. My bride and myself spend winters there. The FIRST TIME by bride saw this guy on tv she said, "That guy is a creepy, lech[erous]. Swear to god!
Please understand, this guy's history goes back decades to when he was a professor @ SDSU. One of his victims is now the dean @ SDSU.
Rev, For partisans, facts are not helpful, they are an obstacle. The Dem party voted 34-6 for Filner to resign. While that vote is laudable, it is NOT "UNANIMOUS."
Nick, I'd bet that Filner is pro-abortion. Democrat men who are pro-abort can get way with with sexual misconduct for decades. See Clinton, W. J.
Haz, He is indeed, BIG TIME.
Post a Comment