Kerry in Sex scandal!!!!

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


How is this anti-woman?

already explained.

or if u prefer

asked and answered.

[DanS]

"hey honey I know I luv u, but she just has such a great ass!"

[Lancer]

"Guess what Lancer?

Half the married people engaging in affairs - ARE WIVES!!! "

Amazing stat! However 97% of all stats are pure BS...

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
but it really has no bearing on a person's ability to lead.

Pluses and minuses (eg: intiative and drive, vs integrity and focus) involved in womanizing with regard to leadership, some of them limted to particular contexts of leadership. But, I will say womanizing does seem to be a traditional accutrament of power, but more so in is less modern environments.

[East Street Trader]

Mmmmm... a young Jane Fonda AND a good dollop of 60s nostalgia.

If I had a vote that picture would sway me for sure.

Although if some of the Monica wannabees that emerge are as ludicrous as the original the entertainment value of that might not be inconsiderable.

Do you guys have a transferable vote system, at all? I'd like to represent all the relevant issues fairly when I fulfil my democratic duty.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Ned
According to Drudge, Kerry simply dismissed the story. The Sun has details though

"RESIDENTIAL hopeful John Kerry was branded a “sleazeball” last night by the parents of a young woman he allegedly tried to woo.

...

Another Kerry rival, Howard Dean, has reversed his decision to quit the race because of the scandal.

...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071162,00.html

I cut out the rest of the stuff

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Ah, so after Dredge claims he's got a breaking story about Kerry screwing around, it comes down to "he talked to her about working on his campaign and her mommy and daddy didn't like it."

It that's the best these people c an come up with, then the Bushites are pretty desperate.

You know what? This really is ridiculous -- I'm retaining my support of Kerry.

[Lancer]

"You know what? This really is ridiculous -- I'm retaining my support of Kerry."

You don't support Kerry, that has been made plain. You support 'somebody else' for president. Demos can't even believe in one of their own anymore. Bankrupt party, devoid of soul.

[MrFun]

I've always supported Kerry -- I made my decision to continue supporting him.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Yeah? even if you get in as his personal assistant intern, you still do not have a shot with him. Is not he a little too old and decayed for you anyway?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by pchang
I cut out the rest of the stuff

Okay. Missed that. Course, Dean had decided last week he wasn't going to drop out, so I'm not sure why they're making that allegation, especially as he refused to comment on the attack on Kerry.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Okay. Missed that. Course, Dean had decided last week he wasn't going to drop out, so I'm not sure why they're making that allegation, especially as he refused to comment on the attack on Kerry.

Dean may have thought the rumor would hurt Kerry's "electability" in the eyes of deomcratic voters, and hence thought it gave him a chance to stay in the course.
The fact he didn't want to comment shows that Dean either isn't the kind to swoop that low, or that he wants to appear as the kind of guy that doesn't swoop that low.

[Boris Godunov]

This is looking like a non-starter of a scandal. Drudge is getting desperate in his sludge-digging.

Clark endorsed Kerry. If he felt Kerry's campaign was about to implode over this scandal, why would he do this? Just to make himself look bad?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
This is looking like a non-starter of a scandal. Drudge is getting desperate in his sludge-digging.

Clark endorsed Kerry. If he felt Kerry's campaign was about to implode over this scandal, why would he do this? Just to make himself look bad?

This broke from within the Democratic ranks by all accounts. I don't know if Clark intentionally made those remarks or if he just suffered a bad lapse in judgement.

I am pretty sure that the DNC put a lot of pressure to bear on Clark over this. I really think that the endorsement was a way for Clark to made up for his bad. As a politician, Clark is in way over his head.

[Boris Godunov]

1. There's no evidence Clark made those remarks. Drudge has been inaccurate in his reporting before, and he's citing hearsay from unnamed sources.

2. Pressure? Over what? Clark's out, and Clark, not being a Democratic insider, doesn't have anything to be pressured over. Besides, the DNC probably wants the primaries to go on longer to continue to hog the national spotlight from Bush.

[Ben Kenobi]

insinuation that the vow of a husband to his wife is of trivial importance and breaking it simply isnt a big deal.

Only if they hold a double standard, in allowing the men, would this be considered anti-women.

As it is, file it under the category of lack of integrity. You would have a much stronger argument,

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Only if they hold a double standard, in allowing the men, would this be considered anti-women.

As it is, file it under the category of lack of integrity. You would have a much stronger argument,

yes because obviously I've never mentioned integrity in this entire thread.

and its also anti women because most women hold marriage vows to be important and would be insulted at the insinuation or proclamation that they are devalued and it is natural for them to be cast aside occasionally. if I say its ok for me to have an abortion AND its ok for christians to have an abortion does that mean christians wouldn't disagree w/ me?

yah ok.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by yavoon
and its also anti women because most women hold marriage vows to be important and would be insulted at the insinuation or proclamation that they are devalued and it is natural for them to be cast aside occasionally.

Your conclusion does not logically proceed from your premise.

Most women hold marriage vows to be important
and
Most women would be insulted by the idea that marriage vows are not important
Therefore
The idea that marriage values are not important is anti-woman.

No sir.

A) Most men think marriage vows are important.
B) Most men would be insulted if someone said that marriage vows are not important.

Premise A & B are likely true, though I have not done a survey on the matter.

C) Therefore the idea that marriage vows are not important is anti-men.

The conclusion is just silly. There is nothing in the idea that marriage vows aren't sacred that is specifically anti-woman or anti-men.

Furthermore, you are distorting my meaning. When you are looking for toilet paper, are marriage vows relevent? When you are trying to decide whether a cloud resembles a bunny or a pony, aer marriage vows relevent? When you're looking for a freind to go golfing with, are marriage vows relevent.

What you are doing is divorcing the context and declaring that we have made a universal statement. What we have said is that when we are trying to decide upon a leader for the country, whether or not he is porking the help is of little to no relevence. It doesn't mean his position on taxes is worse. It doesn't mean he's not goin to protect u from foreign invaders. It doesn't mean he's gonna let cmpanies destroy the environment and pollute our air. It doesn't mean he's gonna raise tariffs to protect our markets. For all of the jobs that the President has to do, whether or not he is unfaithful to his wife has no relevence.

As for the value of the appearance of integrety, Catholic priests and bishops had boatloads of it, and not an insignificant number of them were raping children for generations.

[Tripledoc]

I thought it approprate to include this article by Marc D. Feldman published in selfhelpmagazine.com on the phenomenon generally named Mass Hysteria.

MASS HYSTERIA
Witch Hunts & the Winds of Rumor
Salem, Massachusetts is famous for its 1692 "witch hunts." Sparked by the accusations of four young girls, a Puritan community already fearful of eternal damnation became panicked into believing that witches were among them. By the time the events came to an end, more than 20 people had been convicted: 19 were hanged, one was pressed to death under huge stones, and four others died in prison. Even as late as 1957, the small Massachusetts community was paying restitution to the families of those who had become the victims of so-called "mass hysteria" (Bartholomew, 1995).

The cause of mass hysteria is often a baseless belief that begins small but, like a hurricane, travels and becomes more devastating as it picks up speed. Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast in 1938 is a well known example of the power of a false idea gone berserk. Though the play was announced as fictional several times, panic still spread throughout the country as millions became convinced that the Martians were taking over the Earth.

From our perch distant in time, we might view these episodes as rather quaint. Believing ourselves to be more enlightened, we're likely to bristle at any suggestion that we too can be overwhelmed by misguided passions. In reality, the Internet and other new communication technologies allow us not only to spread information as fast as it is generated, but to transmit it even before it has been verified. This creates a climate ripe for runaway rumors.

How does a normal person, or a small group of people, or even an entire community get swept up into the conviction that an off-hand remark is a terrifying reality?

Mass Sociogenic Illness
"Mass sociogenic illness" (MSI), a form of mass hysteria, demonstrates the process. In MSI, mere sight and sound, like disabling viruses, can make so many people feel so sick that within minutes an entire town's ambulances are summoned. One such case occurred in a summer program in Florida for disadvantaged kids (Desenclos, Gardner, & Horan, 1992). Every day at noon, the 150 children gathered in a dining hall where they were served pre-packaged lunches. As lunch began one day, a girl complained that her sandwich didn't taste right: she felt nauseated, and came back from the restroom reporting that she had thrown up. Others began to complain that their stomachs hurt too and that the sandwiches really did taste funny. Then a number of them described having headaches, tingling in their hands and feet, and abdominal cramping. The supervisor, obviously worried about all the complaints, announced to the horrified children that the food might be poisoned. They were told to stop eating immediately.

Within 40 minutes, 63 children were sick. More than 25 of them had vomited. Ambulances were called and the children had to be divided up among three different hospitals.

But an hour later, it was all over. Every examination and test performed on the children was normal. Meal samples were analyzed, but no bacteria or pesticides were detected. Food processing and storage techniques had been faultless. And no one had become ill at any of the other 68 sites at which the very same food was served. Unmistakably, these children were victims of MSI.

The Reasons
Looking back, doctors recognized that the statement of the first girl had precipitated a small chorus of complaints. Her reason for the remark may have simply been the momentary feeling of lightheadedness many of us get at times. Regardless, it proved very powerful. The number of victims, all suggestible children, multiplied as an authority figure, the supervisor, announced that the food might indeed be tainted. Typical of settings ripe for mass hysteria, the summer program itself was already an unsettled environment. Two days earlier, a newspaper article had reported on management and financial problems within the youth center, and the children seemed to have picked up on the anxiety of the staff.

Containing the Fear
Mass hysteria is best countered through prevention or very early intervention. The most powerful tool is for a calm authority figure to give clear and accurate information repeatedly, and to remain visible and available to provide updates and reassurance. In contrast, a message that is dramatic and menacing, as in the Florida case, is guaranteed to have a catastrophic result.

Thankfully, mass hysteria occurs infrequently. Still, it has common characteristics that the general public should know. For instance, in MSI, even though the individuals involved appear and feel ill, all the lab tests and physical exams are normal. Second, hyperventilation, dizziness, and fainting are almost invariable. Third, the symptoms spread through the group with blazing speed. And fourth, though "relapses" can occur if the same factors all conspire again, the long-term outcome is excellent. If people are aware of the phenomenon and know its features, they will be better able to overcome the main obstacle: accepting that there is no actual basis to their frightening beliefs and physical symptoms.

It is interesting that mass hysteria can manifest itself in a physical way. I wonder if it is also a determinant in political elections. No doubt, that since no figure of authority is able to dismiss the rumour, there will still be some residue left in the citizen when he or she casts the vote.

It also seems that the prospect of economic downturn will further facilitate such hysteric reaction.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Your conclusion does not logically proceed from your premise.

Most women hold marriage vows to be important
and
Most women would be insulted by the idea that marriage vows are not important
Therefore
The idea that marriage values are not important is anti-woman.

No sir.

A) Most men think marriage vows are important.
B) Most men would be insulted if someone said that marriage vows are not important.

Premise A & B are likely true, though I have not done a survey on the matter.

C) Therefore the idea that marriage vows are not important is anti-men.

The conclusion is just silly. There is nothing in the idea that marriage vows aren't sacred that is specifically anti-woman or anti-men.

Furthermore, you are distorting my meaning. When you are looking for toilet paper, are marriage vows relevent? When you are trying to decide whether a cloud resembles a bunny or a pony, aer marriage vows relevent? When you're looking for a freind to go golfing with, are marriage vows relevent.

What you are doing is divorcing the context and declaring that we have made a universal statement. What we have said is that when we are trying to decide upon a leader for the country, whether or not he is porking the help is of little to no relevence. It doesn't mean his position on taxes is worse. It doesn't mean he's not goin to protect u from foreign invaders. It doesn't mean he's gonna let cmpanies destroy the environment and pollute our air. It doesn't mean he's gonna raise tariffs to protect our markets. For all of the jobs that the President has to do, whether or not he is unfaithful to his wife has no relevence.

As for the value of the appearance of integrety, Catholic priests and bishops had boatloads of it, and not an insignificant number of them were raping children for generations.

then why is opposing abortion trotted off as anti women? face it when a sector believes in an issue and u go against it they take it personal.

as for all that bunny/cloud bullcrap. I wish u woudln't take the most absurdly extreme analogies and pass them off as sane. its depressing cuz then I have to come on and be like,

"they are not analogous situations, someone's behavior in life tends to be consistent throughout different disciplines, while u can guess where a divergence may lie u'd probably be wrong. whereas ur analogies using wantonly wholey unrelated things in a childish attempt to make me think that the two situations are identical is actually quite sad."

now see, so stop it. and obviously catholic priests ****ing children removes a lot of their integrity. why u think they tried to cover it up?!?!?!

[Guynemer]

Ned, jimmytrick, let's recap:

The only people reporting this story are:

Matt Drudge, a noted hack, sleazeball, and Republican mouthpiece,

and The Sun, uber-trashy London tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch, a noted hack, sleazeball, and Republican mouthpiece.


Can we put this horseshit behind us now? Please?

[Boris Godunov]

You forgot Rush Limbaugh, a noted pain-killer addict, serial divorcer, hack, sleazeball and Republican mouthpiece.

[pchang]

The girl's parents:
noted hacks, sleazeballs, and Republican mouthpieces

[Guynemer]

Silly me. Thank goodness for you, Boris.


Marry me. Meet me in San Francisco.

[Boris Godunov]

I always suspected you were a rotund 70 year old lesbian.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I always suspected you were a rotund 70 year old lesbian.

What was it that tipped you off?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by yavoon
then why is opposing abortion trotted off as anti women?

Because only women can have babies. Thus, outlawing aborition only affect women.

face it when a sector believes in an issue and u go against it they take it personal.

In this case, the fact that a belief is held by a majority of women is not relevent to whether or not a contrary belief is or is not anti-woman. It's kinda like that picture of the Virgin Mary that was made with elephant dung (yuck!). The charge was made that it was anti-Catholic, as if the Virgin Mary were only important to Catholics and not all Christians. You are claiming that something is anti-woman, when in fact, it is an idea that is just as offensive to most men. For something to be anti-woman, it must relate specifically to women.

as for all that bunny/cloud bullcrap. I wish u woudln't take the most absurdly extreme analogies and pass them off as sane.

You are missing the point. The point is whether or not marital fidelity is relevent in chosing a President I say it is not, that it historically has been irrelevent, and that most of those who think it important nonetheless support some of the worst offenders of marital fidelity.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon then why is opposing abortion trotted off as anti women?

Because only women can have babies. Thus, outlawing aborition only affect women.

Quote:

face it when a sector believes in an issue and u go against it they take it personal.

In this case, the fact that a belief is held by a majority of women is not relevent to whether or not a contrary belief is or is not anti-woman. It's kinda like that picture of the Virgin Mary that was made with elephant dung (yuck!). The charge was made that it was anti-Catholic, as if the Virgin Mary were only important to Catholics and not all Christians. You are claiming that something is anti-woman, when in fact, it is an idea that is just as offensive to most men. For something to be anti-woman, it must relate specifically to women.

Quote:

as for all that bunny/cloud bullcrap. I wish u woudln't take the most absurdly extreme analogies and pass them off as sane.

You are missing the point. The point is whether or not marital fidelity is relevent in chosing a President I say it is not, that it historically has been irrelevent, and that most of those who think it important nonetheless support some of the worst offenders of marital fidelity.

this is about the fifteenth time I've made htis point. AGAIN u r implying that I should VOTE BASED ON INTEGRITY. that is not true. I said integrity matters. I sincerely fail to realize how u could possibly keep making this mistake ad nauseum. obviously u lack the ability to comprehend a concept and merely keep ramming down what u wish was ur point.

and I assure u, abortions DO NOT only affect women.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by yavoon
this is about the fifteenth time I've made htis point.

Which is why I wondered why you brought it up again.

and I assure u, abortions DO NOT only affect women.

Let's not have this disussion. Let's simply agree you're wrong.

[Sava]

Let's not have this disussion. Let's simply agree you're wrong.

being wrong never stops YAVOON!