|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Tony ElkaTony Elka Date: Oct 3, 2006 18:34
In article comcast.net>,
Jeremy Weissenburger comcast.net> wrote:
> Don't want to sound like Mike, but the man swore before a number of people,
> his peers and family that he would be faithful to his wife, and then did
> not. Then he swears to an oath of to the highest office in the country. If
> he betrays the one, who says he will not betray the other?
So if a plumber cheats on his wife, does that mean he's no longer
qualified to clear a drain?
> So Nixon was therefore a good leader? He was obviously very competent, and
> yet his character was obviously lacking.
Nixon was a crook. Oddly enough, compared to today's Republican party,
he was also a bit of a liberal. Economically and environmentally.
Tony
|
| |
|
| | 86 Comments |
|
|
Author: Tracy_BarberTracy_Barber Date: Oct 4, 2006 08:25
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:34:34 -0700, Tony Elka
shadowlane.com> wrote:
>In article comcast.net>,
> Jeremy Weissenburger comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Don't want to sound like Mike, but the man swore before a number of people,
>> his peers and family that he would be faithful to his wife, and then did
>> not. Then he swears to an oath of to the highest office in the country. If
>> he betrays the one, who says he will not betray the other?
>
>
>So if a plumber cheats on his wife, does that mean he's no longer
>qualified to clear a drain?
He can do that, usually when the husband's home. :) There's a BIG
difference between the plumber on the back page of the newspaper and
the president in bold, hefty type on the front page of the newspaper.
Maybe we should have a plumber for president?
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
|
| | 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Tracy_BarberTracy_Barber Date: Oct 4, 2006 08:38
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:38:25 -0700, Tony Elka
shadowlane.com> wrote:
>In article comcast.net>,
> Jeremy Weissenburger comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/3/06 9:34 PM, in article
>> shadowlane-8DF510.18343403102006@ news.newsguy.com, "Tony Elka"
>> shadowlane.com> wrote:>
>>> So if a plumber cheats on his wife, does that mean he's no longer
>>> qualified to clear a drain?
>>
>> It's not that simple.
>
>It certainly is. If the plumber is there to clear a drain, I don't care
>where he puts his dick.
Hopefully, not down the same drain with the garbage muncher. It would
lend a new meaning to being be-headed!
|
| Show full article (4.03Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: Cabeza BorradoraCabeza Borradora Date: Oct 4, 2006 16:12
Jeremy Weissenburger come on down:
>On 10/3/06 9:34 PM, in article
>shadowlane-8DF510.18343403102006@ news.newsguy.com, "Tony Elka"
> shadowlane.com> wrote:>> In article comcast.net>,
>> Jeremy...
|
| Show full article (2.31Kb) |
| 67 Comments |
|
|
Author: Cabeza BorradoraCabeza Borradora Date: Oct 4, 2006 16:13
Tony Elka come on down:
>In article comcast.net>,
> Jeremy Weissenburger comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/3/06 9:34 PM, in article
>> shadowlane-8DF510.18343403102006@ news.newsguy.com, "Tony Elka"
>> shadowlane.com> wrote:>
>>> So if a plumber cheats on his wife, does that mean he's no longer
>>> qualified to clear a drain?
>>
>> It's not that simple.
>
>
>It certainly is. If the plumber is there to clear a drain, I don't care
>where he puts his dick.
Wait. What if he decides to clear your drain... WITH HIS DICK?
|
| Show full article (0.83Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Cabeza BorradoraCabeza Borradora Date: Oct 4, 2006 16:21
>On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:38:25 -0700, Tony Elka
> shadowlane.com> wrote:
>>>In the case of Clinton, the plumber analogy still applies. He was asked
>>about a private matter that had nothing to do with the job he was doing.
>
>So, we pay for them to suck and fuck in the Capital?
I believe that's what's called a "fringe benefit".
>I thought with
>the Constitution we had a say in such matters... I guess not!
So what, you think our elected representatives should take an oath of
celibacy?
>>> Does this vow say anything about cheating? No, but it does have the word
>>> "faithful," which is probably what many conservatives are getting hung up
>>> about.
>
>No, it means that we don't have a brothel in the Capital building.
I honestly doubt that Clinton ever had to pay for pussy in his life.
|
| Show full article (2.25Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Cabeza BorradoraCabeza Borradora Date: Oct 4, 2006 16:27
>On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:34:34 -0700, Tony Elka
> shadowlane.com> wrote:
>>>So if a plumber cheats on his wife, does that mean he's no longer
>>qualified to clear a drain?
>
>He can do that, usually when the husband's home. :) There's a BIG
>difference between the plumber on the back page of the newspaper and
>the president in bold, hefty type on the front page of the newspaper.
>
>Maybe we should have a plumber for president?
Well, Nixon was clearly behind you on that count, seeing as how he made
"plumbers" a key part of his administration.
--
"Flames are discouraged, except for those which quote famous (or
not-so- famous) Stooge lines. For example, it would be acceptable to
threaten to 'tear out your tonsils' or to 'gouge your eyes out'."
- alt.comedy.slapstick.3-stooges FAQ
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tracy_BarberTracy_Barber Date: Oct 4, 2006 16:42
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:21:42 -0400, rushomancy@ gmail.com (Cabeza
Borradora) wrote:
>>On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:38:25 -0700, Tony Elka
>> shadowlane.com> wrote:
>>>>>In the case of Clinton, the plumber analogy still applies. He was asked
>>>about a private matter that had nothing to do with the job he was doing.
>>
>>So, we pay for them to suck and fuck in the Capital?
>
>I believe that's what's called a "fringe benefit".
Aha! The old fringe benefit routine. So, all pages and interns are
supposed (obligated) to provide this service?
|
| Show full article (3.18Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Tracy_BarberTracy_Barber Date: Oct 6, 2006 05:31
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:34:44 -0400, capolk@ hotmail.com wrote:
>And I'll say it again - every single thing in those links also rests
>on what somebody CHOOSES to do. Or CHOOSES to pursue. Based on what
>THEY want. Not what the person who they are asking ABOUT wants.
And I'll say it again - every one in public office is up for more
scrutiny than us little folks, whether you CHOOSE to believe that or
not. If you can't fathom that, then the blinders you're wearing need
to be removed.
I quoted some legal sites, not MAD Magazine sites.
>And once again, like Jeremy, if you're THAT upset about your President
>getting a blow job -
Ah, the old blow job fall back punt position. No, it has to do with
PUBLIC FIGURE scrutiny. IN A HIGHLY PUBLIC PLACE in which the PUBLIC
PLACED him - and for that matter, anyone before or after him.
The same goes for the scrutiny we have been giving BUSH. You can't
scrutinize one without scrutinizing the other. You may joke all you
want to and that is fine, go for it! We all do now that we know it.
|
| Show full article (3.29Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: capolkcapolk Date: Oct 6, 2006 06:20
Tracy - since at the best of times you seem to have trouble staying om
point and following the basic idea of what anybody says here, let me
try to spell it out, one more time, as simply as possible. Do try to
pay attention.
My intial comment to you was this : the notiion that being a public
figure - or whatever stripe - automatically entitles the general
public having unfettered access to your personal life - is bullshit. I
don't give a flying fuck about the legalities involved. I'm talking
about a basic human concept here - which, like most human concepts, is
based purely not being able to stay the fuck out of the person next to
you's business. Which is one of the (many) reasons this species is
doomed to oblivion. Like George Carlin, though, I'm just enjoying the
show.
|
| Show full article (3.92Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
