Originally Posted By gadzuux >> So, when Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick ... << I'm guessing that you don't share the same concerns for anita hill. That's "different".
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>> Perhaps because nothing was ever proven to this effect.>> <So, when Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick ... all Democrats and former Clinton fans, mind you ... all give credible accounts of Clinton's abusive behavior, you would write it off because "nothing was ever proven" ???? > One man's "credible account" is another man's "ex-fling with a personal axe to grind, bankrolled by people with political axes to grind." <One doesn't have to convict Clinton of anything, so proof isn't necessary.> Well, that's convenient. You'll believe what you want to, obviously. <All one needs to correctly deem Clinton a serial abuser is the credible testimony of multiple witnesses, and hese women had nothing to gain and everything to lose by accusing Clinton.. Hearing them tell their stories, dismissing them, and defending Bill Clinton indicates a serious error in judgement.> No, convicting him in the absense of proof, even in one's mind, indicates a serious error in judgement, as well as inherent bias. And these women had personal axes to grind - don't forget the old saying about hell, fury, and a woman scorned. I'm not saying Clinton didn't have sexual relationships with these women, just that there's not a shred of evidence of abuse. But you'll believe what you will. >>> It won't, because the man has no shame, and his followers have no end to their gulllibility.>> <I don't know any of Falwell's "followers." The media makes him the default head of the Christian right because he's extreme and has a TV show. He is no more the leader of conservative Christians than James Carville is the leader of liberal Democrats.> That's not quite right. His influence has waned, but he was at one time the head of the Moral Majority, the most powerful group of its kind. At his peak, he had millions of faithful viewers, controlled many millions of dollars (both those things are still true, just less true than before), was the ring any aspiring Christian right leader had to kiss, and had the ear of the White House. Carville had the last one, but nothing like the others. >>> But it should be noted that Guiliani cheated on his wife too, more than once.>> <Yes, and that will be a problem for him. Which is why I back Romney, and I'm quite curious about Fred Thompson, who I admire greatly.> Romney and Thompson seem like all right guys. They're obviously more conservative than I am, but they seem like decent people.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>>> So, when Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick ... << I'm guessing that you don't share the same concerns for anita hill. That's "different".<< Oh, for pity's sake. Is this becoming a game of "can you top this?" By the time this is over we'll have worked our way back through Nan Britton to Peggy Eaton.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, that's why most marriages end in divorce, because they think like he does. Another ridiculous assertion on your part.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yes, that's why most marriages end in divorce, because they think like he does.> It may be that a slight majority of marriages end in divorce, but it's not the case that most married people end up divorced. <Another ridiculous assertion on your part.> One, it wasn't an assertion. Two, it was less ridiculous than your statement.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It may be that a slight majority of marriages end in divorce, but it's not the case that most married people end up divorced." Uh, if a slight majority end in divorce, that would be MOST, Einstein.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Uh, if a slight majority end in divorce, that would be MOST, Einstein.> Yes, but if you bothered reading what I wrote, or trying to understand it, you'd see that I don't believe that proves anything.
Originally Posted By jonvn I read one sentence of what you write. The rest is troll. So if you don't get your point across by then, it's wasted.
Originally Posted By gadzuux For every ONE divorce, there are TWO people who emerge from the divorce. Thus, it would stand to reason that there are at least twice as many people who are divorced compared to the number of divorces. Simple, no?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It's obviously wasted on you. The idea I was conveying wasn't that complex, but I guess it was beyond you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <For every ONE divorce, there are TWO people who emerge from the divorce. Thus, it would stand to reason that there are at least twice as many people who are divorced compared to the number of divorces. Simple, no?> Simple but irrelevant. For every marriage that doesn't end in divorce, there are two people who aren't divorced. Plus not everyone who gets divorced believes that divorce is a good thing.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>For every ONE divorce, there are TWO people who emerge from the divorce. Thus, it would stand to reason that there are at least twice as many people who are divorced compared to the number of divorces.<< Only if each person only got married and divorced once. But what happens if someone gets married, then divorced, then married again to a different spouse, then divorced again? Then, you've two divorces, but only three people. I don't know what the actual numbers are these days, but it's not as simple as you'd think.
Originally Posted By friendofdd I googled "divorce in America" earlier today and there is plenty of solid data to be had if one looks. Basically, a tiny bit less than half of first marriages this year will result in divorce. Second or third marriages result in a large majority of divorces. And there are fewer marriages and more co-habiting.
Originally Posted By jonvn The stat is at least 50% or so of marriages end in divorce. This is disputed by christian web sites who like to fool with numbers. That's all. Post 73 is about right.
Originally Posted By jdub TWO fornicating sleazeballs running for the GOP ticket? Takes a lot of ego for either of these guys to run, knowing themselves even better than we know of them. I mean, Jeez, what next? President Gavin Newsom? Pass the wet naps, please.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy At least fornicating is better than adultery. 0 I had to make sure though: Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n Function: noun : consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other -- compare ADULTERY <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fornication" target="_blank">http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ fornication</a> This is one of those terms where the word sounds heftier than the definition, lol.
Originally Posted By jdub Yeah...it's a matter of using the fun word rather than the correct one. Fortunately, "sleazeball" fits BOTH categories!
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Well I took the definition to mean consensual sex between two *single* persons not married to each other. I know it doesn't say that, but since adultery is married persons having out-of-wedlock sex, I naively assumed from this definition that fornication is what everybody out there without a wedding ring on is doing. Hence a higher class of sex compared to adultery, lol.
