The abundance of Clinton veterans recruited by Obama

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Chris Matthews, the MSNBC television pundit who has famously admitted to receiving a “thrill going up [his] leg” during an Obama speech, is not pleased. According to a report in the New York Post’s Page Six, he was recently overheard criticizing the idea of a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

I don’t understand it. … Why would he pick her? I thought we were done with the Clintons. She’ll just use it to build her power base. It’s Machiavellian. And then we’ll have Bill Clinton, too. I thought Obama didn’t want drama. He’s already got [chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel and [transition team leader John] Podesta. He’ll have even more drama with her. She’s just a soap opera. If he doesn’t pick her, everyone will say she’s been dissed again, we’ll have to live through that again.

 

[HB1965]

Is not be the change voters had in mind.

It turns out all the speeches Obama gave about change were not correct.

America has already had 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush...now you have 4 more years of Clinton.

Good luck America you will need it!

Interesting, The last I heard is that a number of cabinet choices had nothing to do with the Clinton Administration and at least a couple were Republicans.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Interesting, The last I heard is that a number of cabinet choices had nothing to do with the Clinton Administration and at least a couple were Republicans.

See me two posts up about one of his Obamanation...

(See also the post about Waxman in the other thread.)

He needs MORE Clintons if she's yet another example of his people...

I discuss her more fully here, weeks ago and today...
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=613119

 

[busybody..]

This Really is Amazing [Jonah Goldberg]


Barack Obama's signature issue in the primaries was his "good judgment" to oppose the Iraq war. He invoked this more than any other qualification in his early battles with Hillary Clinton. She may have experience, he'd charge, but she lacked the wisdom to oppose the war. Indeed, the whole Democratic establishment was somehow corrupt or out of touch for not opposing the war, according to the Obamaphiles. So now Barack Obama is going to appoint Hillary Clinton to be the chief architect of his foreign policy.

Moreover, he picked Joe Biden to be his running mate and "partner" in the White House explicitly because of his foreign policy experience and judgment. But wait: Joe Biden, too, supported the war. Meanwhile, at Defense, it looks like he will keep George W. Bush's man, Robert Gates. Admittedly, Gates has always been more nuanced about the war than, say, Don Rumsfeld. But surely keeping Bush's SecDef is not exactly what the anti-war Dems had in mind as "change we can believe in." Heck, Joe Lieberman's sitting pretty and he endorsed McCain. It will be interesting to see how long Obama's charisma can paper over reality

 

[egoservitium]

This Really is Amazing [Jonah Goldberg]


Barack Obama's signature issue in the primaries was his "good judgment" to oppose the Iraq war. He invoked this more than any other qualification in his early battles with Hillary Clinton. She may have experience, he'd charge, but she lacked the wisdom to oppose the war. Indeed, the whole Democratic establishment was somehow corrupt or out of touch for not opposing the war, according to the Obamaphiles. So now Barack Obama is going to appoint Hillary Clinton to be the chief architect of his foreign policy.

We are in Iraq. That can't be changed at this late date. Now that we are there, and have mired ourselves in their lives and their struggles to the degree that we have, it's going to be VERY difficult to pull out gracefully. This would be true whether or not going in in the first place was a good idea.

I think Obama shows his good judgment by NOT appointing doves to these positions. He didn't want to go in, but now that we are, we have to have people on board that aren't going to be squeamish about doing what's necessary to stand Iraq up on it's feet, see it take a couple of toddling steps on it own, THEN get out. If he got a bunch of people that never thought the war was a good idea, and just can't wait to get the military on their planes and whisk them out of there, it would be the Iraq/Iran war all over again, but with Iraq with both hands tied behind its back. A strong Iraq (who is not overly friendly with Iran) is our best hope of keeping Iran too busy in the region to get uppity.

I believe that going in to Iraq was a horrible idea, but once the first American boots touched Iraqi dirt, I said then and I say now, "Well, we're there now. We *have* to win." Unfortunately, nobody has a halfway decent definition of "win" for this mess. So, failing that, we have to get out, and get out soon, but not in a way that leaves Iraq vulnerable to traditional regional enemies.

Moreover, he picked Joe Biden to be his running mate and "partner" in the White House explicitly because of his foreign policy experience and judgment. But wait: Joe Biden, too, supported the war. Meanwhile, at Defense, it looks like he will keep George W. Bush's man, Robert Gates. Admittedly, Gates has always been more nuanced about the war than, say, Don Rumsfeld. But surely keeping Bush's SecDef is not exactly what the anti-war Dems had in mind as "change we can believe in." Heck, Joe Lieberman's sitting pretty and he endorsed McCain. It will be interesting to see how long Obama's charisma can paper over reality

"change we can believe in." is written in huge neon letters all over Obama's choices. I will reiterate what I said in my previous post; the Bush folks wouldn't allow a person with a dissenting opinion to attend a Bush rally, speech or dinner. The notable exception was when W made an appearance at the Press Corespondents' Dinner when Stephen Colbert was scheduled to speak. (DAMN! That was beautiful!)

Obama on the other hand has the "good judgment", or rather, good judgment (snotty quotes not necessary) to bring in people from both sides of the issue to help him resolve it.

Also, Iraq isn't the only issue in which we need to see significant change. I am very excited to see how they approach health care, the economy, education, and homeland defense.

I heard that he has a team of around fifty people working to help him figure out how to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, and move those people to American dirt, try them, and either imprison them lawfully, or send them home. The same team is apparently (this is rumor) looking at the laundry list of Executive Orders that Cheney told W to sign and examining which of those Obama can reverse with the stroke of a pen, and what the ramification of such a wholesale return to sanity would be.

It'll be nice to see habeus corpus back again; in fact, it'll be nice to see the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth and ninth amendments to the Constitution, we've missed them.

Of course, and I freely admit this, the second and tenth amendments are gonna need some stalwart protectors for the next four (eight?) years under Obama and the Dems.

ES

 

[busybody..]

It'll be nice to see habeus corpus back again; in fact, it'll be nice to see the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth and ninth amendments to the Constitution, we've missed them.

Of course, and I freely admit this, the second and tenth amendments are gonna need some stalwart protectors for the next four (eight?) years under Obama and the Dems.

ES

You sounded SEMI NORMAL till here

Afterwards you are what you are

A LOON!

 

[busybody..]

I heard that he has a team of around fifty people working to help him figure out how to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, and move those people to American dirt, try them, and either imprison them lawfully, or send them home.

ES

You musta missed the FACT

a FACT that even the BAM "people" have said

You cant send em "home"

1-Some of em have NO HOME.......Bush tried

2-The "HOME" doesnt want em and wont take em.........Bush tried

3-"HOME" would execute em and that is prohibited by OUR laws

Feel free to spew your shit, LIT is dumb, they will mistake your BS for erucition and intelligence

 

[egoservitium]

You sounded SEMI NORMAL till here

Afterwards you are what you are

A LOON!

How did the references to the Bill of Rights portion of the Constitution make me sound like "A LOON"?

You musta missed the FACT

a FACT that even the BAM "people" have said

You cant send em "home"

So ... what? We just leave them in a prison in Cuba and forget they exist? That doesn't seem right. Especially if they aren't guilty of any crime against The United States, or American citizens or interests.

What would you suggest if they can't be sent home?

1-Some of em have NO HOME.......Bush tried

2-The "HOME" doesnt want em and wont take em.........Bush tried

3-"HOME" would execute em and that is prohibited by OUR laws

I hadn't heard any of this. Do you have any sources that you could share? It seems to me that their countries of origin all still exist. The exact residence they lived in might have been bombed to rubble or occupied by someone else in the intervening seven years, but they still could be sent back to their homeland, couldn't they?

I read an article recently about a case involving six Algerians who had lived in Bosnia, and who had been linked to Al Qaeda. Apparently five of them are going back to Bosnia, and the sixth is going back to Gitmo.

If it's true, (please help me out with a link to back your assertion) that some prisoners aren't welcome in their homeland, or their adopted countries, or face danger if sent back, then obviously some other arrangements must be made. What they might be I don't know yet, but just dropping them into a cell in Cuba, saying, "Oh yes...very unfortunate...but they aren't on American soil, so there's nothing anyone can do for them." And then just leaving them there for the rest of their lives seems pretty shitty.

If the government has factual evidence that they are Al Qaeda, and would rejoin Al Qaeda to fight against us in Afghanistan, that makes them POWs and there are rules governing the treatment of POWs. Rules that the Bush administration feels free to ignore because of the location prison.

My assertion here, is that prisoners held by, or at the behest of, the American government, are due all rights and privileges laid down in American law.

And as for the prisoners found not to be guilty of any wrong doing, we have to release them. If we can't send them home we have to confer with them and help them get somewhere safe. Safe from the governments, or thugs, or government thugs, that would do them harm.

Feel free to spew your shit, LIT is dumb, they will mistake your BS for erucition and intelligence

Incidentally, name calling and ugly language are the last resort of the ignorant man who knows that he has lost the argument, you warthog faced buffoon. (But it happens to the best of us.)

ES

 

[busybody..]

How did the references to the Bill of Rights portion of the Constitution make me sound like "A LOON"?


References dont, the assertions and implications that they were abrogated and need to be restord is


So ... what? We just leave them in a prison in Cuba and forget they exist? That doesn't seem right. Especially if they aren't guilty of any crime against The United States, or American citizens or interests.

Not Cuba, GITMO, not part of Cuba. It may not seem RIGHT to you, but there is nowhere they can be sent. And they are NOT there cause of parking tickets, they DID commit crimes against us and our interests

What would you suggest if they can't be sent home?

KILL EM!


I hadn't heard any of this. Do you have any sources that you could share?


They are all over the net! Look for em, in fact even BAM's so called "people" have talked about this the past week

It seems to me that their countries of origin all still exist. The exact residence they lived in might have been bombed to rubble or occupied by someone else in the intervening seven years, but they still could be sent back to their homeland, couldn't they?

You are clueless


I read an article recently about a case involving six Algerians who had lived in Bosnia, and who had been linked to Al Qaeda. Apparently five of them are going back to Bosnia, and the sixth is going back to Gitmo.

If it's true, (please help me out with a link to back your assertion) that some prisoners aren't welcome in their homeland, or their adopted countries, or face danger if sent back, then obviously some other arrangements must be made. What they might be I don't know yet, but just dropping them into a cell in Cuba, saying, "Oh yes...very unfortunate...but they aren't on American soil, so there's nothing anyone can do for them." And then just leaving them there for the rest of their lives seems pretty shitty.

If the government has factual evidence that they are Al Qaeda, and would rejoin Al Qaeda to fight against us in Afghanistan, that makes them POWs and there are rules governing the treatment of POWs. Rules that the Bush administration feels free to ignore because of the location prison.

Not POW's, as they havent signed the GC and they dont fall under the GC laws...............except to those that DONT get (deliberatly) the GC

My assertion here, is that prisoners held by, or at the behest of, the American government, are due all rights and privileges laid down in American law.

Really? Terrorists caught in OTHER countries should have the same rights as a car thief in Alabama?

And as for the prisoners found not to be guilty of any wrong doing, we have to release them. If we can't send them home we have to confer with them and help them get somewhere safe. Safe from the governments, or thugs, or government thugs, that would do them harm.



Incidentally, name calling and ugly language are the last resort of the ignorant man who knows that he has lost the argument, you warthog faced buffoon. (But it happens to the best of us.)

I know TERRORTURD and WHACKOH! LIB LOON!

ES

And long posts replete with inaccuracies and innuendo's and long blather of "junk law" and urban legends and LIB TALKING POINTS is the FIRST RESORT of the IGNORANT!

 

[busybody..]

BTW EgoSperm

this

Originally Posted by busybody


Feel free to spew your shit, LIT is dumb, they will mistake your BS for erudition and intelligence

was not a PERSONAL attack on YOU but rather a factual depiction of the LIT LOON LIB CROWD

 

[egoservitium]

BTW EgoSperm

this

Originally Posted by busybody

Feel free to spew your shit, LIT is dumb, they will mistake your BS for erudition and intelligence

was not a PERSONAL attack on YOU but rather a factual depiction of the LIT LOON LIB CROWD

Okay, I'll buy that.

How did the references to the Bill of Rights portion of the Constitution make me sound like "A LOON"?

References dont, the assertions and implications that they were abrogated and need to be restord is

Do you actually believe that the wholesale wiretapping and email snooping ordered by the Bush administration doesn't violate the fourth amendment? Do you actually agree that Bush can sign an executive order suspending the fourth amendment to allow this? That's loony!

So ... what? We just leave them in a prison in Cuba and forget they exist? That doesn't seem right. Especially if they aren't guilty of any crime against The United States, or American citizens or interests.
Not Cuba, GITMO, not part of Cuba. It may not seem RIGHT to you, but there is nowhere they can be sent. And they are NOT there cause of parking tickets, they DID commit crimes against us and our interests

Of course you're right, Gitmo is not Cuba, it's an American military base, and as such is considered American property. Which begs the question, why are the laws of the United States, the rights conferred by the Constitution and the Geneva Convention not upheld there?
And not all of them did commit a crime against us or our interests. There are quite a few that nobody knows what, if anything they did to get rounded up, and no proof of any kind has been provided to say that they did anything at all.

This is where the abrogation of the Bill of Rights comes into play. W claims that we are "bringing democracy to Iraq", but in the case of these prisoners is completely ignoring our own laws, the very laws that make democracy possible, by ignoring the fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments. Admittedly, the Bill of Rights is about what rights the citizens of the US can demand and expect from the government, but if we are telling the rest of the world that they should follow those rules too, we should probably walk the talk in our dealing with them as well.

Hmm... Here's an interesting note: (parts germane to this discussion bolded)

According to the US Military Dictionary, the Geneva Conventions were:

The first multilateral humanitarian treaty, established in Geneva August 22, 1864. It included provisions to protect all establishments and personnel that treated wounded soldiers, incorporate volunteers into the medical corps, and establish the Red Cross symbol as a sign of neutrality. Subsequent Geneva conventions were established in 1906 and 1929 to extend the provisions and concepts of the first. Another Geneva convention was approved on August 12, 1949, after World War II in response to the need to codify the nature of war crimes. They included torture and other inhumane treatment as violations of the laws of war and extended provisions from previous conventions. On June 8, 1977, two protocols to the 1949 conventions were approved to protect civilians from becoming objects of attack, extend protection to guerrilla combatants, and establish commissions to investigate violations of international law. Over 150 nations have approved the 1949 conventions, and approximately half that number have approved those of 1977. The United States has not approved the latter.

So I guess that legally we can abuse "guerrilla combatants" however we want, but what we've done over there is still morally wrong in my opinion. (I wander what Carter was thinking? I'll have to read up on that some more.)

What would you suggest if they can't be sent home?

KILL EM!

The innocent ones too? That's a little harsh.
As for the guilty ones, even though they aren't covered by the GC (as noted above), if you start killing enemy combatants, you'll never get them to quit fighting. If they are going to die either way, they will keep fighting. So "KILL EM!" is seemingly a bad idea. Better to hold them until the hostilities are over and then allow them to return home.

The obvious problem with that, of course, is that the second we let them go, they start manufacturing IEDs and killing off our troops and/or innocent bystanders. I don't know. I don't want to feed them the rest of their lives, and I don't want to have them out there IED building, but killing them makes things messy in other ways, (even beyond the moral quagmire we wade into at that point). I dunno... maybe we should put their eyes out with hot pokers and chop off their fingers and turn them out the front gate at Gitmo. That way we didn't kill them, they can't fight us anymore, and hey... we never signed the '77 GC protocols right?

I hadn't heard any of this. Do you have any sources that you could share?
They are all over the net! Look for em, in fact even BAM's so called "people" have talked about this the past week

And yet you can't cite one?!? That makes me think that you are pulling "facts" out of your ass, then sending me on a snipe hunt to verify your hot air. You claim that:

You cant send em "home"
1-Some of em have NO HOME.......Bush tried
2-The "HOME" doesnt want em and wont take em.........Bush tried
3-"HOME" would execute em and that is prohibited by OUR laws

I don't believe you. I think that you are full of crap on this issue, and that the reason that you can't cite even a single source for this assertion is that no such source exists.

Don't get me wrong, I am not blaming you. There is a huge segment of the Right that just believes totally fictitious BS, with no proof, no supporting facts of any kind, and then run all over spouting these beliefs as though they were common knowledge. I don't blame you for this, you are a product of your "beliefs". And besides, facts are hard.

It seems to me that their countries of origin all still exist. The exact residence they lived in might have been bombed to rubble or occupied by someone else in the intervening seven years, but they still could be sent back to their homeland, couldn't they?
You are clueless

Perhaps I am. But I must conclude that you are too, on this particular topic, else you would have had more to say here (something along the lines of which clues I am lacking would have been good).

If the government has factual evidence that they are Al Qaeda, and would rejoin Al Qaeda to fight against us in Afghanistan, that makes them POWs and there are rules governing the treatment of POWs. Rules that the Bush administration feels free to ignore because of the location prison.
Not POW's, as they havent signed the GC and they dont fall under the GC laws...............except to those that DONT get (deliberatly) the GC

You are right. As stated above, they are "guerrilla combatants". (You're welcome for the citation to back your assertion, happy to help.) But it turns out that you are both right and wrong here. The GC says nothing about the GC only applying to countries that signed the GC, it says "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
What that means, is that whether or not the other side signed the GC, *we* are bound to abide by it. Of course that doesn't help the prisoners at the Guantanamo prison, but I thought I'd clear up that confusion for you.

My assertion here, is that prisoners held by, or at the behest of, the American government, are due all rights and privileges laid down in American law.
Really? Terrorists caught in OTHER countries should have the same rights as a car thief in Alabama?

Yes. I still think that, even though we never signed the '77 accord, that we should set ourselves to a higher standard.

The similarity between a terrorist caught in another country and a car thief from Alabama is that they both should be innocent until proven guilty. We have no idea who the prisoners in Guantanamo are, why they are there, or any proof of those things.

The six from the article I cited in my other post (here it is again, in case you want to read it) were allegedly "... planning to go to Afghanistan to fight the United States, and that one of them was a member of Al Qaeda."

It turns out that allegedly planning to travel to Afghanistan to allegedly join Al Qaeda is not grounds for seven years imprisonment without a trial. It seems that actually being a member of Al Qaeda gets you thrown back into the black hole. Which I think is probably right, but he really ought to be given a trial with all the technicalities crossed and dotted anyway; just to shut people like me up.

And long posts replete with inaccuracies and innuendo's and long blather of "junk law" and urban legends and LIB TALKING POINTS is the FIRST RESORT of the IGNORANT!

"replete with inaccuracies"? I could have been mistaken on a point or two, but I take umbrage at the term "replete".

"innuendo's [SIC]"? I think I stated my points and opinions pretty clearly, I don't think that I insinuated anything at all. I spoke very plainly.

"long blather" okay...you've got me there.

""junk law" and urban legends"? Not so, I say! Gitmo isn't an alligator in the sewer, it exists and there are hundreds of people being, if not illegally detained, then certainly immorally detained there.

"LIB TALKING POINTS" -- Well, if you mean that when some right-wing hater starts saying that Obama is going to be just more of the same, and that his promise of "change we can believe in" is just so much hot air; that I will cite factual evidence to support my assertion that change actually is imminent, and then give proof to defend my assertions, then yeah, I guess you got me there too.

ES

 

[KingOrfeo]

This Wikipedia article includes a table (updated as news breaks, I'm sure) of Obama's announced Cabinet appointees to date. So far:

State: Hillary Clinton
Treasury: Timothy Geithner
AG: Eric Holder
Homeland Security: Janet Napolitano
HHS: Tom Daschle
OMB: Peter Orszag

Bill Richardson may get Commerce.

 

[egoservitium]

Nice find! Thanks!

 

[Azwed]

egoservitium you have way more patience then me. There is no way I could wade through the insanity that is a Busybody post and break it down like that.

Don't do that too much I think his kind of crazy is contagious.

 

[egoservitium]

egoservitium you have way more patience then me. There is no way I could wade through the insanity that is a Busybody post and break it down like that.

Don't do that too much I think his kind of crazy is contagious.

HA! Thanks for the warning! I think you're right.

ES

 

[QueenLevitra]

Not the point, the point is Obama preached change.

Change to me meant ANYONE BUT BUSH.

I am not alone on this.

 

[Beco]

Change to me meant ANYONE BUT BUSH.

I am not alone on this.

Yes you are

 

[egoservitium]

Change to me meant ANYONE BUT BUSH.

I am not alone on this.

No you aren't. Anyone but Bush (or someone indistinguishable in any meaningful way from Bush).

Palin just sealed the deal

Yes you are

Just silly.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

We are in Iraq. That can't be changed at this late date. Now that we are there, and have mired ourselves in their lives and their struggles to the degree that we have, it's going to be VERY difficult to pull out gracefully. This would be true whether or not going in in the first place was a good idea.

I think Obama shows his good judgment by NOT appointing doves to these positions. He didn't want to go in, but now that we are, we have to have people on board that aren't going to be squeamish about doing what's necessary to stand Iraq up on it's feet, see it take a couple of toddling steps on it own, THEN get out. If he got a bunch of people that never thought the war was a good idea, and just can't wait to get the military on their planes and whisk them out of there, it would be the Iraq/Iran war all over again, but with Iraq with both hands tied behind its back. A strong Iraq (who is not overly friendly with Iran) is our best hope of keeping Iran too busy in the region to get uppity.

I believe that going in to Iraq was a horrible idea, but once the first American boots touched Iraqi dirt, I said then and I say now, "Well, we're there now. We *have* to win." Unfortunately, nobody has a halfway decent definition of "win" for this mess. So, failing that, we have to get out, and get out soon, but not in a way that leaves Iraq vulnerable to traditional regional enemies.



"change we can believe in." is written in huge neon letters all over Obama's choices. I will reiterate what I said in my previous post; the Bush folks wouldn't allow a person with a dissenting opinion to attend a Bush rally, speech or dinner. The notable exception was when W made an appearance at the Press Corespondents' Dinner when Stephen Colbert was scheduled to speak. (DAMN! That was beautiful!)

Obama on the other hand has the "good judgment", or rather, good judgment (snotty quotes not necessary) to bring in people from both sides of the issue to help him resolve it.

Also, Iraq isn't the only issue in which we need to see significant change. I am very excited to see how they approach health care, the economy, education, and homeland defense.

I heard that he has a team of around fifty people working to help him figure out how to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, and move those people to American dirt, try them, and either imprison them lawfully, or send them home. The same team is apparently (this is rumor) looking at the laundry list of Executive Orders that Cheney told W to sign and examining which of those Obama can reverse with the stroke of a pen, and what the ramification of such a wholesale return to sanity would be.

It'll be nice to see habeus corpus back again; in fact, it'll be nice to see the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth and ninth amendments to the Constitution, we've missed them.

Of course, and I freely admit this, the second and tenth amendments are gonna need some stalwart protectors for the next four (eight?) years under Obama and the Dems.

ES

Not a single one of these clowns was Mirandized. I say let them loose in Miami, label them as sex offenders and put them out under the bridges with the rest of the garbage we no longer consider worthy of rights...

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Change to me meant ANYONE BUT BUSH.

I am not alone on this.

He was term-limited. It was always going to be anybody but Bush; you can lie to you, but you can't lie to me, I've been teaching children for 30-some years now...





And, no, sadly, you are not alone.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Is not be the change voters had in mind.

It certainly is the change I wanted. The Clinton years were good years. The Bush years have been horrible.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I was going to skip right over this since you know I'm stupid and I know I run the extreme danger and embarassment before my peers of being put on your ignore list, but having said that, I have to disagree with your premise based upon eight years of posting here and that is because there has been a consistent, unyielding love for the man and everything and everyone (hugely ironically and hysterically funny, except Hillary) around him. That love has simply been transferred to Barack and magnified to the point of diefication and the fervent, almost religious hope that he is, indeed, the answer to all our prayers.

In short, all these familiar faces comfort them, soothe them, and allow them to continue to transfer any blame and all negativity, on what came between the Clinton sets of terms...

FM

No Static At All

Respectfully,
The Village Idiot

PS - Told you so...




HEY 19!

 

[lavender]

How did the references to the Bill of Rights portion of the Constitution make me sound like "A LOON"?

egoservitium,

Just know that being called a LOON by busybody is a badge of honor for people who tend to support rational centrist or left of center ideas.

(it means you're doing well here- in my book, at least)

You'll really be a staunch "Lit Liberal" (even if you really aren't liberal) when busybody starts talking about your womb (if you're female) or whether you shoot blanks (if you're male).

 

[lavender]

BTW EgoSperm

I posted too soon. Busybody has already begun referencing your procreation tools.

Record pace....

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Bullshit.






Even I'm a loon to busybody...