Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Coffee Table

Ah, come on. Surely you've got something to say.


Blogger Ron said...

Isn't it funny thast the right just hate "activist" judges but "activist" presidents are just fine.

6:51 PM, December 21, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...


Spam me once, shame on ... you. Spam.........won't get spammed again.


And activist judges are only activists if they rule against so-called "conservative" values and policies.

Ask them to define "activist judge" then dare them to stand by that definition. Hah!

9:51 AM, December 23, 2005  
Blogger The Game said...

Activist judge is someone who makes abortion, like gay marriage...there ya go Jim.

8:59 PM, December 23, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...


What does that mean? You cite "abortion" and "gay marriage". What laws have activist judges made on these topics? Laws are written into the penal code, civil code, or constitution of the states or the US.

Have these activist judges made a law that says you must have an abortion? Have they made a law that says gays must marry? I know of no such laws. What laws are you talking about? I know of laws that restrict abortion. I know of laws that deny gays the right to marry. But I don't think those laws were made by "activist" judges. Do you?

Which "laws" have been made by "activist" judges?

10:58 PM, December 23, 2005  
Blogger The Game said...

Well, there is no right to privacy in the constitution, so the fact that a judge just made it up that the right to privacy is in there....making things up is an activist judge to a conservative...I know you like you use the courts to force things on American's that they don't want...

If abortion and gay marriage were so popular, why are state after state passing more and more laws to make sure they can not happen???

We live in a Republic where we elect people to vote for us...if liberal ideas were so popular, why are there not enough politicians to make any liberal idea law?

3:15 PM, December 24, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

But where is the privacy law that the activist judges made? What state or federal code did the activist judges write this privacy law into?

I'll respond to your abortion/gay/popular/majority question after the response to the above.

3:58 PM, December 24, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Lame game:

Here the home page address for the Republican National Committee. Thought you'd be interested to see that your beloved GOP is right up there on the front lines in fighting the war on Christmas too.

In case they scrub it, it said "Happy Holidays"

8:07 PM, December 24, 2005  
Blogger The Game said...

All I can say about the GOP thing is "damn it" if it is true...didn't go to the link...but it is not the GOP saying anything about xmas, some individuals really there is no crime or hypocracy committed...

and Jim,
Lets look at the abortion went from being illegal to being legal because of a judge...they didn't write an actual law, they made up an interpretation that is based in opinion and not the constitution...I understand that the left believes judges can change things in society that they believe to be unjust...I believe you need to change laws if something is unjust...

since you can never get a law passed ANYWHERE actually making abortion or gay marriage legal, you need liberal judges to change things for you...that is simply what happens...

8:40 PM, December 24, 2005  
Blogger The Game said...

However, I would like to commend Jim for actually debating this issue and not resorting to name calling and hate speech...but I do notice you are more angry lately....especially with EH and Steph on my site...are you okay? Really, I mean it. Even though we debate I really am not judging your character or personality...I know steph and EH do at times, but I just like debating....hope you understand that...and Merry Christmas....or Happy Festivus

8:42 PM, December 24, 2005  
Blogger Ron said...

So Game, you don't believe that Americans have a right to privacy. To not have our personal lives under the supervision of the government? Strange take if I do say so myself. I think a lot of TRUE conservatives would disagree.

George Bush is making up laws. Argue that point all you want but time will tell the tale just like it has on everything else. I want the checks and balances America.
I fear your terrorists much less than the unwinding of our freedom and liberty by our own people. Obviously you don't see this happening yet but many do. I think that is why you find less patience with people like Jim and ,frankly, me. I can hardly bear to look anymore while people support a tale told to an idiot. Patience is wearing thin. We want you to come along but we can't wait much longer.

11:35 PM, December 24, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

Merry Christmas, Game. Thanks for worrying, but I'm quite alright.

I'm still curious how, precisely, this thing works where activist judges make laws. I mean a law has to be on the books to actually be a law, right? A judge delivers an opinion, but that opinion isn't a law. So how does an activist judge make up laws, as you say?

I thought that legislatures make laws and the executives sign and enforce them. How does the judge make up a law?

4:11 PM, December 25, 2005  
Blogger The Game said...

I have tried to explain it...I am backing away that they actualy make are using your little trick of focusing on one or two words...I have made my arguement...there really isn't anymore...go back and read it again and maybe comment on something I said...

I very much understand that no one wants the government going too far...but I guess I believe that this needs to be done to keep us i said, I'm not doing anything the government is going to come after me for, so I don't care. I have read many things explaining how all this BS, lawyer mentality pretty much allowed 911 to happen, so I guess if the government wants to read an email or listen to Arabs talk about blowing up stuff, so be it.

8:21 PM, December 25, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

So then I go back and ask you to define "activist judge." I'm not trying to trick you or distract you or even "kick your ass" by focusing on "one or two words." Those are pretty important two words since these "activist judges" seem to really put a bug up "the right's" butt.

You and many others throw around this term "activist judges" to descibe judges who make decisions you don't like. In my first post on this page I challenged Ron to "Ask them to define 'activist judge' then dare them to stand by that definition. Hah!"

You have so far proved my point. You offered a definitioin of "activist judge" and now you are "backing away" from it.

So I ask again, What makes a judge an activist judge? What makes a judge an "activist judge" besides making a legal decision that you disagree with?

9:13 PM, December 25, 2005  
Blogger The Donkey said...

Rush's attorney Roy Black with Wolf Blitzer on December 15, 2005:

BLITZER: If Rush Limbaugh has nothing to hide and has done nothing wrong, what’s the problem with letting the prosecutor speak to the doctors and go through all the records?

BLACK: Well, Wolf, that’s an excellent question. A lot of people ask this all the time. You know what? We have a right of privacy in this country that I think is important for us to hold onto. I mean, we could let prosecutors and police into our bedrooms, search our computers, watch us having sex. We could let them do all these things, but then we would have a police state. We would no longer have a democracy. I think it’s very important to fight these privacy battles—and Rush Limbaugh has taken on this battle of privacy with your doctor, and I think it has really been a public service for him. Not only for himself but everybody else who wants their medical records and medical treatment kept private and not to be disclosed in the press or with the police or prosecutors or anyone else who has no business being there.

12:15 AM, December 26, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

Donkey, it occurs to me that "no right to privacy in the Constitution" means ONLY no right to privacy when it comes to reproductive decisions. You know, abortion, birth control. That kind of privacy.

10:28 AM, December 26, 2005  
Blogger The Game said...

Jim has been spreading the lie that only 3 warrents have been rejected since Carter and that Bush should have gotten the warrents to listen to arabs talk about blowing up bridges and buildings. Well, we have established that Carter, Bush and Clinton have all done this, showing that Jim and all the lefties are simply hypocrates. But this story shows yet another reason why Bush has not gotten warrents to keep up safe:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Heart newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.

The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.

10:19 AM, December 27, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

Cross-posted on "Right from the Right":

Let's see. A one-tenth of one percent rejection rate. That's a process "ruined by red tape"? Maybe there actually was a good reason that they were rejected. Maybe they went too far. What do you know except that the Bush administration must be trusted at all times? Trust the administration that brought us Michael Brown, the administration that brought us post Sadaam Iraq chaos? The administration that brought us Harriet Miers?

If you think that you can trust the Bush administration to protect you, that they are doing "whatever it takes" to protect American lives", then why don't you ask them why they are doing virtually NOTHING to secure the extremely vulnerable chemical, biological, and nuclear facilities in THIS country. I guess that would be because it would cost the companies that own these facilities too much money.

See, "bidness" (pioneer doners) comes before security even when the law and the US Constitution don't.

12:25 PM, December 27, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

I have spread no lies, and I never said 3 of anything were rejected. I did say a VERY small number were rejected.

The Bush apologists keep posting snippets from stories and documents claiming it PROVES Clinton and Carter "did this", but I'll venture a guess that all they are doing is cutting and pasting articles from so-called conservative commentators and blogs without actually having read the original documents. I HAVE read the originals, have you? You can PROVE anything if you take snippets out of context. Example: Bush said "I am an unintelligent boob" coming from "I dispute those who say I am an unitelligent boob." It's the same with quoting from the documents that supposedly PROVE that Clinton and Carter "did the same thing". They might have done the "same thing" when it was legal, but it might not be legal anymore.

12:26 PM, December 27, 2005  
Anonymous Democat said...

As long as you are posting here, is the flu going around in Milwaukee and elsewhere in WI? My whole family and I have had really bad cases of the flu this week. I hear that a lot of people in Roswell have it and my mom says that the ERs in Tucsan are full of people, plus I heard on CNN News last night that a lot of people in CA are going to the ERs with the flu. Found one article on SF Gate re: the regular flu that says cases are up a little, but it's not an epidemic. It is a little weird to not hear anything from the media about this during cold and flu season. Am wondering if the media is keeping quiet to prevent a panic about bird flu. Where was the vaccine for this flu? Maybe Bush has screwed up again-wouldn't surprise me at all.

2:27 PM, December 27, 2005  
Anonymous Democat said...

Ron, saw what you said re: Cori and Ravi and posted a reply on old Coffee Table.

2:34 PM, December 27, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's Good to Be King George" excerpt from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette

...Now that King George has enthroned himself, it is only right that he assume the other trappings of monarchy. May I, his lowly and worthless servant, suggest a coat of arms? Perhaps a church built on the ruins of the wall of separation between church and state. Maybe lobbyists rampant on a field of money.

His Majesty also needs royal titles tailored to the American context. It is my honor to suggest the following, which I hope the NSA will record to my credit ...

Henceforth, throughout the land, let him be proclaimed as His Royal Texas-ship, Defender of the Faith, Interpreter of the Constitution, Protector of the SUVs, Guardian of the Malls, Warrior King, Scourge of the Liberals, Bane of the Activist Judges, His Most High Majesty and Most Excellent King George W. the First of Many.

We beseech you, your kingship, to institute a system of hereditary peerage based upon merit and loyalty (i.e., campaign contributions) so that we peasants will have someone to look up to other than the tawdry celebrities on TV. Sir Rush of Bloviation, Sir Karl of Spin, these will be names to conjure with in the future days of dynasty. Perhaps, as a goodwill gesture, you could name Bill Clinton as a knight of the garter belt.

Please, sire, forgive us our petulant Bush-bashing of former days before we realized you wore a crown. Spy on us as much as you want because we understand now that your knowledge of the Constitution is infinitely greater than our own.

Indeed, it is good to be the king, at least for the king.

posted by Lonna

2:53 PM, December 27, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...

I was watching Meet the Press on Sunday with Koppel and Brokaw. Topic of avian flu came up. They agreed that a vaccine couln't be produced until the virus actually mutated to a form where it could be passed human to human. By that time it would be too late to manufacture enough to be effective.

The thing to do, they said, was to keep a 3-4 week supply of food, etc. at home. If and when the epidemic hit your region, your only recourse would be to STAY HOME for 3-4 weeks while it passes. I'm assuming all the employers are going to have go along, but it would be to their benefit to not have a deadly flu going around their entire company.

Interesting theory. Koppel agreed but said he hadn't laid in the supplies. Brokaw said he had.

9:10 PM, December 27, 2005  
Blogger Ron said...

Game, this whole "keeping us safe" bullshit is what bothers me. Fear tactics..... Be brave, preserve our liberties and be willing to put your life on the line like our troops do. If he is/was only doing what the law allowed and only investigating real terror threats I'm ok with it. However that is not the case. Peta and the Quakers are low on my terrorist threat list but obviously high on his.

Activist pResident ..decides he can make up his own laws. George didn't like doing it the way the rest of the country agreed on so he did it however he wanted. Activist.

11:29 PM, December 27, 2005  
Anonymous Democat said...

Was talking about your garden variety of flu not bird flu. I did see that they are offering flu shots to senior citizens here-might be a little late if the flu is already going around. Only good thing that came of it is all the weight I lost when I couldn't eat, but not a fun way to do it. :-(

5:10 PM, December 28, 2005  
Anonymous Democat said...

Re: the flu-thanks for asking how I am, Ron. (better, but not completely over it.) Like I said, take your Vitamin C! #1 I can't imagine YOU ever taking a day off, so you definitely don't want to get this. #2 Of all people, YOU can not afford to lose any weight or you really will blow away in a strong wind. LOL
Maybe a hugger who only has plants to hug should make sure to plant a tree somewhere to hug so his/her plant will not get crushed while being hugged. Course you could just look on-line and see if they make a Cori Nadine doll. :-)
Seriously, consider getting a cat. The Humane Society has lots of them for adoption and unlike dogs, they are pretty independent and self-sufficient, plus you would be giving an unwanted animal a home so it will not be euthanized.

2:46 PM, December 29, 2005  
Anonymous Democat said...

Took the religion quiz again just to see what would happen-100% for Liberal Christian Protestant and Reform Judaism was only #7. Something tells me that I could keep taking it and get different results each time. Oh well, I am what I am and what I am is not a religiously intolorant Bushie. :-)

2:59 PM, December 29, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a link to John Nichols heroes of 2005. Interesting. He lists heroes in the House and Senate, the Judiciary, Citizenry, AND even the Executive branch, believe it or not.


9:22 AM, December 30, 2005  
Anonymous Democat said...

Re: Larry's comments on contraception today, I agree that some of the religious righters would probably like to do away with any kind of artificial birth control. That leaves abstinence (no fun)and Natural Family Planning (NFP). Having conceived 2 children using the latter, only one of whom was planned, I can't say much for it unless a couple is TRYING to conceive a child. Let's face it, when God supposedly told us to increase and multiply there were a whole lot less people on the face of the earth and a high death rate from disease, animal attacks, and accidents. If God wants us to have babies He/She will make sure the birth control fails to work-right?
The Roman Catholic ban on artificial birth control only leads to more ignorant uneducated people having more children they can't afford to support and educate. The more ignorant the parishioners are the more power the Church will have over them. As for the Mormons, well, they want to increase their power by increasing their numbers and since they represent some of the far right element that supports Bush, etc. I don't think we need any more of them.
Other than that, it's mostly just the RC priests/nuns who vow chastity. Since they don't get to do it, they figure no one else should be able to either without risking unwanted pregnancy. Real Christian attitude for folks who say that the purpose of marital sex is not only procreation, but a way of showing marital love, isn't it?
Also, re: Ron's attitude about men needing to get physical to establish a relationship-uh, does that mean that a guy like
Chris Reeve who is paralyzed would be unable to fall in love with a woman if he could not make love to her? Even I would like to think better of men than that, although I agree that in general women are more emotional and into discussing and thinking about relationships than most men are.
Also, Ron, you said that you and Cori go way back. Wow! Did you actully get physical with this semi-famous Barbie doll fitness model in order to have a relationship with her, or are you just an adoring fan? Somehow, I fail to understand your logic. LOL
OK, one of my New Year's resolutions should be to stop teasing Ron-right? -but that wouldn't be any fun. :-(
Also, Ron, you didn't answer my question from before-what exactly is the "pompatous of love"
Steve Miller sang about in
"The Joker"?
Happy New Year to all the bloggers and we should all (except for Game)hope very hard that 2006 will be The Year of Bush's Impeachment.

2:37 PM, December 30, 2005  
Anonymous Democat said...

Speaking of The Game, he still did not answer my question re: whether the flu is going around in WI. Guess, I will have to email my friend who lives near Appleton, WI and ask her. I have noted that Game does not often answer my questions and has yet to explain why peace is un-american. I just ran into a friend who told me that she saw a story on the flu on the news-it is in 4 states, incl. NM. There have been flu shots, but you know, thery're usually for last year's flu-right? Take your Vitamin C and stay healthy!

3:22 PM, December 30, 2005  
Blogger Ron said...

I got my flu shot, I'm good to go. I do get days off through the magic of modern tech. I'll explain later. Cori sadly is only in my dreams. I like to dream as long as reality doesn't get short shrift. I can't have a cat in the apts. I'd have a dog anyway, if i could.

First democat, all men are not the same. Secondly Christopher Reeve had a physical relationship before the accident so yes I think he could. If he had never....done it....then he would have no concept of the feeling so yes, he would form whatever would pass for him as a serious relationship.
If you are saying that someone "normal" could have as close a relationship with no physical contact as with....for me the answer is undoubtedly no.

I know not what the joker is talking about.

3:55 PM, January 01, 2006  
Anonymous diane marie said...

Happy and Blessed New Year to all fellow bloggers, even you Game!!!
Flu, ludicrous occupation in Iraq over money, oil and care cuts are a farce, the new medicare RX program is actually benefitiing Uncle Sam, oops, uncle George. It does absolutely less for the partcipants than not even having a plan???Explain how taking 45-50 bucks out of an already depraved social screw check is the governement helping???HELPING WHO???...plan deductibles, co-pays and many upon many uncovered items is the basic premise behind this so called prescription plan!!!Most Americans will be better served in Canada and in Mexico for obtaining the life sustaining medications they require, once again our stupidity is allowing this joke of an administration to put forward an idiot's plan on this very serious matter...let's hope he has an exit strategy to get out of this mess!!!
Well folks, happy new year and prospero ano nuevo to all you readers and bloggers---vaya con Dios todos sus dias...Diane and Rudolfo...

9:54 PM, January 02, 2006  
Anonymous Democat said...

Well, Ron, I'm sure that the opinions of touchy feely romantics, such as myself, are inexplicable to pragmatic unromantics, such as yourself, who probably make disparaging remarks about people who are too emotional (unlike The Game) amongst yourselves.
Hard as it may be for YOU to believe, people do fall in love without having sex first. Certainly, there are people who fall in love while communicating on-line, pen pals, people who don't have sex before marriage because of their moral values, etc.
Also, there are one sided relationships where people fall in love with people who aren't interested in them. It's not that people don't fantasize about the physical consummation of a relationship (unless it's a moral thing with them not to). I would say that lust/eros is a part of being "in love" vs. loving someone and that those hormones are a factor in romantic relationships, but actually having sex is not a pre-requisite to having a relationship with someone. A person can have romantic feelings for someone without physical contact with him/her. Being a guy, you are less likely to see it this way, and being a pragmatist you are even less likely to understand it.
Re: Cori and my Barbie Doll comment-sorry, but fitness models fall into my Barbie Doll (i.e. plastic vs real women) category just like aerobic instructors, Playboy centerfolds, most super models, Hollywood starlets, and of course, Britney and "Tressica". I just can't take them seriously, and from what I saw of Cori's photo gallery it ranges from cheesecake to something near pornography. You bi*ch about beautiful women being users and yet this is your heartthrob? Once a moth has been singed several times I just can't feel too sorry for it if it continues to flit around a candle flame and gets burned again.
Guess, my opinions are probably horrible and disgusting to you, but c'est la vie. Also, gotta wonder what would happen if Cori made a personal appearance in Roswell up at the north end of town and never traveled south of 2nd street. LOL

1:41 PM, January 03, 2006  
Anonymous Democat said...

More on my previous topic-
Having a relationship with someone means you have an emotional connection with that person. While it's true that physical consummation would probably deepen that bond, one would hope that there was an emotional connection before 2 people got physical. Therefore, sex is not a pre-requisite to calling a relationship a relationship which is what I think you were saying. Anyway, men have sex all the time with women (or men) they don't consider themselves to be in a relationship with. The important thing is the emotional bond.
Not to mention that the idea that a guy HAS to have sex with a woman to have a relationship with her sounds kind of sexist-more like possession and claiming one's personal territory than forming a love bond.
Course Ron will probably disagree about this, as he and I are almost totally opposite. It's no wonder we fight like democats and hound dogs. :-)
Speaking of animals, I thought a cat would be a practical pet for someone who lived in an apt. and worked so many hours. Democat likes dogs, but LOVES cats. Evidently, Ron does not like cats. Democat has never met a Leo who is a cat hater before-wow!-and is so offended by Ron's negative attitude toward her favorite animal, she wonders if she even wants talk to him again! :-(

4:36 PM, January 04, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

I guess people look at relationships in different ways. Certainly you and I would not make a good romantic couple.:-) . The good thing is they make all kinds for all kinds of people. Some good for you and some good for me. It's not something I spend a lot of time debating cuz I guess I don't see it as a debate but more a matter of taste...which everyone is entitled to. I like all animals. I have many relatives that are farmers, including my dad, so I have a love of all kinds of animals. Cats are ok, I have just had more fun with dogs over my life. I just find them more "personalble" I guess. Hugs and kissses:-)

8:11 PM, January 04, 2006  
Anonymous Democat said...

You don't sound too much like you love animals when you talk about them on the show, but I have heard that farmers and their kids have to learn not to get too attached to them because the pigs, cows, etc. are so often raised to be sold to the slaughter houses.
Cats are just as personable as dogs, but not being pack animals they are more independent. People who like to dominate their pets prefer dogs. Personally, I haven't met any cats who would want to put up with you, so I shouldn't have suggested it. LOL
Save your hugs and kisses for Cori.
(Looked at her photos again. She's nowhere near as pretty as Ravi is. My ex-husband had a thing for a Playboy model for a long time, too-Barbie Benton. Now that one I understand & have to admit Barbie was very cute. Oh well, to each his own.)

3:20 PM, January 05, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

maybe true for some farm people but damned near every animal on my dads farm had a name. we knew they'd have to go some day but mainly the hogs. the dairy cattle, horses, dogs, cats etc were usually around quite a while.I think you confuse show biz with reality a bit too much.

5:29 PM, January 05, 2006  
Anonymous Democat said...

I'm NOT confused about the difference between show biz and reality. (Otherwise, I might actually believe I would stand a chance of getting a date w/Brad or some other celebrity :-), but there's no way.) It's an observation. I think Ravi Rawat is beautiful and Barbie Benton was very pretty (obviously, Hef thought so, too). I don't go for that type of thing, but I do appreciate beauty in all its forms.
Apparently, some people are into that Madonna or w*ore thing and have some weird idea that women who don't sleep around don't have normal human feelings, and funny ideas about what a relationship should be.
I admit to liking sex as much as the next person (maybe more) and I wasn't exactly innocent when I met my husband. But I was a faithful wife for 17 years and I've behaved myself since my divorce. I guess, I grew up enough to realize my mom was right. Most guys don't want to buy the cow when they can get the milk for free. Plus, I think if someone is going to make love it should be with someone she/he loves. Not to mention, all the risks involved with casual sex these days.
Obviously, there are going to be people out there, mostly men, who disagree with my moral values. To them, a relationship is all about finding an easy lay. All I can say, is that if what these "Sam Malone" wannabes are looking
for are sl*ts, they're just getting what they asked for!

12:52 PM, January 06, 2006  
Anonymous Democat said...

Oops, was watching my fav show, "NUMB3RS" last nite, and saw that I've been spelling the actress' name wrong. Make that
Navi Rawat. Don't know where I got Ravi from- must be prior learning because of the musician?
Also, am sorry now that I even brought up the topic of relationships as it was a lost cause. It's like they say-you can't teach an old hound dog new tricks. LOL

12:14 PM, January 07, 2006  
Blogger Ron said...

Well democat, my point is a relationship shouldn't have to be talked about all the time. If it's good it works naturally. It would be insane to get into a relationship with someone who didn't agree with your idea of how a realationship should work. That doesn't make either side wrong or bad, just not a pair.

1:30 PM, January 07, 2006  
Anonymous Democat said...

My points are that what separates people from animals is that we have the intellect to resist the urge the biological urge to do it whenever wherever and with whomever. It's not that sex is bad and that people shouldn't have it, but that if either partner or both partners is/are doing it with a number of different people it's not going to be something special between 2 people and it should be.
Also, ya gotta wonder when someone says that he/she can't feel that he/she is in a relationship (i.e. has an emotional bond) unless he/she has sex with someone FIRST if he/she is really emotionally repressed. Maybe what the person is really "in love with" is not the partner, but the chemical rush from having sex. Lust does not equal love.

12:28 PM, January 09, 2006  
Anonymous Democat said...

Also, since emotionally repressed people DON'T like to talk about relationships like "touchy feely" people do, this can be it and I can have the last word on this subject. :-)

12:32 PM, January 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, it was not "Democat" who brought up the subject of any individual or possible pairings or couples. Someone else did that. She did not appreciate the sarcasm of the "hugs and kisses :-) " added to someone's post, either. Besides that, "Democat" had/has someone else to hug and kiss. :-)

2:21 PM, January 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tsk tsk tsk. Guess, Democat is too far gone to even be in the doghouse now.
Speaking of dogs, figured out what kind of hound dog Ron would be-a whippet. Not only are they the same physical type, but the name brings to mind his long ago words on this blog-"Beat me. Beat me. I can take it!" LOL Don't think he can so D/C will not be forgiven. At least she didn't say "F... You, Ron!", but talking about relationships in a way that relates to social values is going too far, I guess.

5:43 PM, January 22, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home