Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thad]

Perry's campaign was over the moment he was overtaken in the polls by the guy who runs Godfather's Pizza and openly makes comments about hating the poor.

Perry's campaign was over the minute he opened his mouth.  His face and body language don't help either.

As dissatisfied as people are with Obama, most still don't want to go back to Bush.

So the difference between the two parties is that the Democrats will punish you for loving women too much, and the Republicans will laud you for hating them just enough.

I've actually sort of been building up a continuum in my head about how morally reprehensible any given political sex scandal is.  Sort of a Lee < Weiner < Clinton < Spitzer < Craig < Gingrich < Cain < Foley thing.  Sort of an interesting thought experiment.

[Royal☭]

Cain has got to be a put on. Seriously, this is how a satirist views reality, not how a human being acts. His PAC page put up a picture of the accuser with the caption "Ew, gross! Who the hell does this ugly b1tch think she’s fooling?"

Seriously. This guy acts like a Hollywood scriptwriter just decided to phone in a misogynist character in a movie.

I've actually sort of been building up a continuum in my head about how morally reprehensible any given political sex scandal is.  Sort of a Lee < Weiner < Clinton < Spitzer < Craig < Gingrich < Cain < Foley thing.  Sort of an interesting thought experiment.

You know, I'd love to see a breakdown of the type of sex scandal it was (Consentual vs Predatory) and how that breaks down on party lines. If only to see who makes the bigger mountain out of the smaller molehill.

I can't remember where I got this from, but I once read a breakdown of the two parties as that those on the left are usually hurt and scandalized by the breach of trust and use of deceit, whereas those on the right are usually scandalized by the idea that the figure had sex. Which went a ways towards explaining why Republicans could weather sex scandals better than Democrats (which is a bit of CW I'd like to see verified, actually).

[Thad]

Dunno, could be.

I'm certainly of the view that Spitzer's sin wasn't going to prostitutes, it was doing it while publicly opposing them.

I had a soc of sex professor who said he didn't mind what people did so long as it was between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.  I think that's redundant; "consent" implies "adult" and "private".

[Classic]

Thad that's not strictly true.

Minors can give informed consent, but it's limited to very few situations and explicit emancipation exceptions. This includes sex between married couples (though that* takes the intervention of guardians), and (not so sure on this one) sex between minor peers (though it could probably be grounds for the DCFS to remove custody of minors, I'm pretty sure that in Illinois it doesn't directly count as delinquency).

I also seem to go out with girls who enjoy exhibitionism. It's put a strain on at least one relationship.

EDIT:
*That being the marriage.

[Thad]

Well, yes, there's wiggle-room in the definition of "adult".  My relationship with my high school girlfriend went, in legal terms, from consensual to nonconsensual and back over the course of the three-month period where we both turned 18.  This is, of course, absurd.

I'm speaking ethically and not legally; it bears noting that only half the people on my list did anything illegal (and that, again, my problem with Spitzer has nothing to do with the legality of his actions).

Relative maturity in a relationship is absolutely key; if one partner is not capable of providing consent, then that's a situation where somebody's being exploited and abused.  Ideally that's what the law is supposed to codify, though of course in practice there are situations that are illegal but perfectly above-board ethically, and ones that are legal but not ethical.

tl;dr I am not using "adult" to mean "18 years of age or older", I'm using it to mean "Mature enough to enter into a consensual sexual relationship."

[Royal☭]

Which is of course too vague for legal definitions.

Unless you're defining pornography.

I guess my point is that we are really fucked up about sex in this country.

[Thad]

No argument.

[François]

CAINCAINCAINCAINCAIN

It doesn't excuse anything at all, of course; I'm not sure anything could.

But that was kinda rad.

[Thad]

Oh for...

Looks like AP has anointed the next flavor of the month: It's Gingrich!

It's a good thing there are no scandals in HIS past that might prove damaging to his political aspirations!

[Classic]

My relationship with my high school girlfriend went, in legal terms, from consensual to nonconsensual and back over the course of the three-month period where we both turned 18.  This is, of course, absurd.

I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure Illinois law has that as one of its explicit exceptions to its consent statutes re: sex.

There's also usually an important legal distinction between consent and informed consent. Anyhow, my bad. Whenever the words "consent" and "adult" come together I reach for legal definitions over common ones out of habit.

In short:

we are really fucked up about sex in this country, but sometimes we do stuff that make you hope that someday we won't be.

[Norondor]

uh, do we? i admit i haven't followed the news all that closely.

[NexAdruin]

In my state 16 year olds are not old enough to make the adult decision to send naked pictures of themselves to each other, but they are old enough to be tried as adults and labeled sex offenders for the rest of their lives for it. I hear some other states aren't as harsh about it (specifically, I think Vermont makes it not a felony between consenting teens as long as it stays between them).

[Royal☭]

Herman Cain then goes on to make joke about Anita Hill

You know, the woman who accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment.

[Mongrel]

Yes, those are the real update notes.

[Brentai]

Still enjoying Cain on the "fuck it, I'm not actually poor" level.  If nothing else he is the face of what OWS should be rallying against: not corporate money, or greed per se, but an utter lack of respect for working-class people that is endemic among the 1%.

Let them occupy a cake.

[Thad]

There's always something refreshing about an honest politician.  Even when he's just being honest about being a complete asshole.



I remember an old (probably Dan Slott) Ren and Stimpy comic where they ran as a ticket.  "Those other candidates will lie and cheat you!  But not me!  I'll just cheat you!"

[Ziiro]

I finally watch it, and 11-10-2011 is the best daily show I've seen in a long time. To be fair however, the GOP debate is an easy target.

[Ziiro]

Herman Cain attempts to top Rick Perry's awkward GOP Debate moment. Succeeds gloriously. [Daily Show Clip]

[Mongrel]

Now taking bets on the next flavour-of-the-week.

Also: Man I am going to laugh myself silly when Romney wins and the Conservative news outlets all act TOTALLY BEWILDERED (for that brief moment until they remember He Was Our Guy All Along! Of Course! No Really! Would We Lie?! anyway)

[Thad]

Yeah.  Perry's was an overblown brainfart; Cain's is object evidence that (1) he does not know anything about an important recent foreign policy story beyond the most basic details, (2) he doesn't know what his constituency wants to hear, and (3) he isn't even good at bullshitting.

Now taking bets on the next flavour-of-the-week.

Er, you mean after Newt?

Assuming Huntsman will never get attention from the base and Paul will never get attention from the media, I think that just leaves Santorum.