And, as Woody Allen said, it automatically doubles your chance of a
date on
Saturday night.

Actually the Woodster posited that being BISEXUAL was what double
your
date chances.


Actually read through some of the craigslist man to man personals. You
will notice that it is not *if* they get a date, rather *which one*
they are going to select out of many.

You are talking men here and they all are quite willing - all want the
same thing, etc., so I would guess the "chances" for a date would go
up 100x JUST being gay...

DGDevin wrote:

"Legally"? Republican Presidents aren't troubled by this "legally"
crap, perhaps Obama should follow their lead.

Lincoln ignored the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when Lincoln's
suspension of Habeas Corpus was overturned. Nixon said it plain, it
the President does it, then it's not illegal. Reagan knew that pesky
arms embargo on Iran was more a suggestion than a law. And of course
Bush 43 knew that the Constitution is meant to be a flexible
document, with wriggle room for things like reading mail or listening
to phone calls without a warrant, holding a citizen indefinitely
without charges much less a trial, authorizing torture by announcing
it isn't really torture, and so on.
"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.

Refuting one of your observations: governments have been listening in on
enemy conversations for a long time. The first use of electronic
eavsdropping took place during the Recent Unplesantness when both the Union
and Confederate forces tapped the telegraph lines of their adversary. Later
we broke the Japanese Purple Code and listened in to their diplomatic
traffic. Likewise the Brits cracked the Enigma Code and monitored German
tactical orders and submarine orders.

To not do so results in regrettable consequences, as those that occurred
after Henry L. Stimson. As Secretary of State, he shut down the State
Department's cryptoanalytic office saying "Gentelmen don't read each other's
mail."

Refuting another claim, during WWII, we held literally hundreds of thousands
of German and Italian POWs on U.S. soil. (My state alone had over 100 POW
camps.) Of those held, thousands were U.S. citizens (think dual
citizenship). NOT ONE ever appeared in a U.S. courtroom. The were not
"charged" because they were not criminals and not subject to the criminal
law.

They were prisoners of war, captured on the battlefield, and rendered hors
de combat.

"Bill" wrote in news:8ln1edFiqoU1
@mid.individual.net:

And, as Woody Allen said, it automatically doubles your chance of a
date on
Saturday night.

Actually the Woodster posited that being BISEXUAL was what double
your
date chances.


Actually read through some of the craigslist man to man personals. You
will notice that it is not *if* they get a date, rather *which one*
they are going to select out of many.

You are talking men here and they all are quite willing - all want the
same thing, etc., so I would guess the "chances" for a date would go
up 100x JUST being gay...



I could never figure out why anyone would want to put their Johnson in a
********.

DGDevin wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in message ...



Yeah, that Obama. Now there's an impressive leader.

Get back to use when he's started a war on false pretenses and
presided over the worse economic collapse in three-quarters of a
century. You *do* recall that stuff happening while Bush was
President, don't you?

Of course! 26 quarters of solid economic growth, DOW Jones above 12,000,
unemployment below 5%, three substantial tax cuts, and more. This in spite
of two wars, Katrina, and 9/11. Six years of swell !

Then the Democrats took over Congress...

I miss Bush.

On Dec 1, 8:58*am, Red Green


I could never figure out why anyone would want to put their Johnson in a
********.

Amen.

I've been thinking: We have 2 situations with synchronicity.
Situation 1; DADT is coming to an end in the military, openly gay
folks will need to be dealt with one way or another.
Situation 2; TSA is groping folks, male on male, female on female, and
I have to believe most of the straight employees could do without that
assignment.
Seems like there is a solution here.

I for one have been in favor of Gays in the military, in special
uniforms with concentric circles on the front and back.
Not that I'm against homosexuality, I'm all for it, so long as both
chicks are hot.

Higgs Boson wrote:
On Nov 30, 6:56 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:

"...because of the way their brains are wired."

You're on the right track. There has been much high-level science,
on- line (and in hard books of course) on the biological and
neurological basis of homosexuality. A brief Web search produced
hundreds of sites.

A well-studied reason for the extreme homophobia of some
heterosexual males is that they are aware, on a not too
subconscious level, that they have a homosexual component (as do we
all; we all have male/ female components). This frightens them so
much that they react by lashing out by mistreating homosexuals.

That's one theory. Another is that God said homosexuals should be
strangled to death. So, for the religious, it's a matter of
following the will of God (tempered by unsympathetic secular law).

Another is that homosexuality is a threat, or at least an affront,
to the traditional family.

Yet one more concern is the possible disintegration of unit
cohesiveness in the military.

Beg pardon, but the above-cited science has been examined repeatedly
in well-constructed experiments.

The three "theories" you list --perhaps sardonically -- have never
been borne out experimentally.

It is encouraging that SecDef as well as POTUS and other biggies are
plugging vigorously to repeal DADT. The last surveys that have been
hitting the news bear out my contention that the fear factor comes
more from the older commanders than the rank & file. Interestingly,
the combat troops, especially the Marines, still have a much higher
percentage of rejectionism. Surprised they are not aware that some
of the toughest combat troops in the world -- to cite Israel, for just
one -- accept homosexuals matter-of-factly.

The precious human resources -- translators, intelligence specialists,
etc. -- that our military has wasted would have been assets to the
"military readiness" that the opponents yammer about. Let's hope this
counter-productive nonsense ends soon. The world did not fall apart
when blacks were integrated into the armed forces by Truman.


I still suggest there are not enough flouting homosexuals to make up for
those active military personnel who would leave the service when compelled
to serve with them.

I say "flouting" because there is no rule or law preventing homosexuals from
serving now. They just can't go around making passes at normal folk.

If only ten percent of our service members (283,000)* declined re-enlistment
over the next two years, are there enough cross-dressers and males with
breast augmentation to make up the difference?

I don't know, but I doubt it.

-----------
* U.S. Military strength
Active duty: 1,385,000
Reserve: 1,458,000
Total: 2,843,000

On Dec 1, 12:42*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:

*Then why are not homosexuals barred from the militaries of 22 of the
28 NATO nations, Russia, Israel, Colombia, Japan, New Zealand,
Philipines, Serbia, Malta, South Africa, Taiwan, Argentina,
Australia, Finland, Ireland, Peru, Uraguay and Switzerland?

*In 22 of these nations, homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in
the military, and 12 other countries as of specific dates lifted
bans or specifically allowed homosexuals to serve, according to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...of_homosexuals

Uh, the United States is not Russia, Israel, Colombia, Japan, New Zealand,
Philipines, Serbia, Malta, South Africa, Taiwan, Argentina, Australia,
Finland, Ireland, Peru, Uraguay or Switzerland.

And, with the exception of Israel, none of the countries you mention have
had a war with anybody since the issue became notorious. Except, of course,
Serbia, but they lost. Israel is a special case; there women fight in combat
roles, the country has a conscript army, and the religious Israelis - who
would be compelled to strangle homosexuals to death - do not serve in the
IDF.

Don't forget Argentina and Russia. Did they lose because of faggots?

On Dec 1, 2:26*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Maybe the answer to homsexuality in males, is to make females more
easily available? I guess that's one theory. I'd rather make efforts
to keep men in the home, rather than have single Moms raising the
kids. Boys could grow up with a daddy, rather than have to marry a
daddy later in life.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"I'm Offended!" wrote in message

...



*Actually the Woodster posited that being BISEXUAL was what double
your date chances.

Yeah, but any old port in a storm, so to speak. I believe most
homosexuals would rather do a girl, but don't know how (to woo her
and
not be scared to death).

[he-he Guess who]

There aren't enough wimmin to go round in America. The Mormons are
hogging them with multiple wives. Are there many homosexual Mormons
or is it verboten?

On Dec 1, 3:03*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"Steve B" *wrote in ...

Yeah, that Obama. *Now there's an impressive leader.

Get back to use when he's started a war on false pretenses and
presided over the worse economic collapse in three-quarters of a
century. *You *do* recall that stuff happening while Bush was
President, don't you?

Of course! 26 quarters of solid economic growth, DOW Jones above 12,000,
unemployment below 5%, three substantial tax cuts, and more. This in spite
of two wars, Katrina, and 9/11. Six years of swell !

Then the Democrats took over Congress...

I miss Bush.

i t was all ********. You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. It will take a decade to fix Bush's
mess.

harry wrote in
:

On Dec 1, 12:42*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:

*Then why are not homosexuals barred from the militaries of 22 of
the 28 NATO nations, Russia, Israel, Colombia, Japan, New Zealand,
Philipines, Serbia, Malta, South Africa, Taiwan, Argentina,
Australia, Finland, Ireland, Peru, Uraguay and Switzerland?

*In 22 of these nations, homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in
the military, and 12 other countries as of specific dates lifted
bans or specifically allowed homosexuals to serve, according to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...of_homosexuals

Uh, the United States is not Russia, Israel, Colombia, Japan, New
Zealand
,
Philipines, Serbia, Malta, South Africa, Taiwan, Argentina,
Australia, Finland, Ireland, Peru, Uraguay or Switzerland.

And, with the exception of Israel, none of the countries you mention
have had a war with anybody since the issue became notorious. Except,
of cours
e,
Serbia, but they lost. Israel is a special case; there women fight in
com
bat
roles, the country has a conscript army, and the religious Israelis -
who would be compelled to strangle homosexuals to death - do not
serve in the IDF.

Don't forget Argentina and Russia. Did they lose because of faggots?

I may not be able to figure out why anyone would want to put their
Johnson in a ******** but - faggots? Is that necessary?

Your voice is your choice I guess. Long as I don't participate to that
extent.

On 12/1/2010 9:28 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:03 pm, wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in ...

Yeah, that Obama. Now there's an impressive leader.

Get back to use when he's started a war on false pretenses and
presided over the worse economic collapse in three-quarters of a
century. You *do* recall that stuff happening while Bush was
President, don't you?

Of course! 26 quarters of solid economic growth, DOW Jones above 12,000,
unemployment below 5%, three substantial tax cuts, and more. This in spite
of two wars, Katrina, and 9/11. Six years of swell !

Then the Democrats took over Congress...

I miss Bush.

i t was all ********. You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. It will take a decade to fix Bush's
mess.

Bush screwed up England too? Darn, I didn't know the man was so
powerful. :-)

TDD

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 07:21:54 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

There aren't enough wimmin to go round in America. The Mormons are
hogging them with multiple wives.

You watch to much Hollywood, harry. Our very own Senate Majority
Leader, Harry Reid, D-NV is a Mormon with only one wife.

Aside. Larry Flint wants to build a titty bar in our town. This place
is said to be large enough to hire 600 jiggly dancers.

Don't get the wrong impressions about that Hollywood show: Sister
Sister Wives.

Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
DGDevin wrote:

"Legally"? Republican Presidents aren't troubled by this "legally"
crap, perhaps Obama should follow their lead.

Lincoln ignored the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when
Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus was overturned. Nixon said
it plain, it the President does it, then it's not illegal. Reagan
knew that pesky arms embargo on Iran was more a suggestion than a
law. And of course Bush 43 knew that the Constitution is meant to
be a flexible document, with wriggle room for things like reading
mail or listening to phone calls without a warrant, holding a
citizen indefinitely without charges much less a trial, authorizing
torture by announcing it isn't really torture, and so on.
"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.

Refuting one of your observations: governments have been listening
in on enemy conversations for a long time. The first use of
electronic eavsdropping took place during the Recent Unplesantness
when both the
Union
and Confederate forces tapped the telegraph lines of their adversary.
Later
we broke the Japanese Purple Code and listened in to their diplomatic
traffic. Likewise the Brits cracked the Enigma Code and monitored
German tactical orders and submarine orders.

That occurred during *real* wars and not made up wars that have no
state
actors, no defined goals, etc. There's a *big* difference. The
imaginary
war on terror was created as an excuse to abuse the safeguards that
were
built into the Constitution a long time ago. Bin Laden must be
creaming in
his pantaloons every time he sees us taking off our shoes and belts
and
destroying our civil liberties, all because of what HE did. We
couldn't
make them happier even though 9/11 couldn't happen again because no
passengers would tolerate a hijacking that used their plane as a
flying
missile. The heroes of flight 93 proved that.

A *real* war, like WWII, sees entire countries wiped off the face of
the
earth, millions of people dead, territorial boundaries redrawn and
destruction on a massive scale. If a terrorist act constitutes war,
why
didn't we go to war with *somebody* when McVeigh committed the second
most
serious terrorist act against us in history? I guess it's because
terrorism
is NOT war unless our leaders want to make it one to serve their own
political agenda.

War is a term that should be confined to real state actors that have
real
military power that can do us real SUSTAINED damage. As bad as WTC
was, it
was not war, it was terrorism and to confuse the two has led us to our
current quagmire. Worse still, it's turned our military on its head,
fighting for people who hate us, under rules of combat that say "not
one
accidental death can be tolerated" for goals we can't even explain.
We're
now horribly unprepared to go to war with someone who can put our
lights out
for good. Recently, China rerouted the world's Internet traffic
through
its country for 18 minutes:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...ternet_traffic


"The rerouting happened on April 8 and lasted for about 18 minutes.
The
traffic hijacking affected U.S. government and military networks,
including
those belonging to the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, as
well as
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Department of Commerce,
NASA and
the U.S. Senate. Commercial sites, including those belonging to
Microsoft,
Dell and Yahoo, were also affected. It's unclear if Chinese
telecommunications companies did anything with the hijacked data, the
commission said in its report. But the kind of access that Chinese
authorities had to the data could enable surveillance of specific
users or
sites, disrupt transactions, prevent a user from establishing
connections to
specific sites or divert them to other spoofed sites, the report
noted."

That's as hilarious as Egghead saying that "we had a two hour
break-in of
our site (we think!) but they just looked around and didn't take
anything."
They said that a month before the break-in drove them into
bankruptcy. OF
COURSE the Chinese did something with the hijacked data - that's WHY
they
hijacked it to begin with. They're busy cataloging and decrypting
every
byte. We can't afford to get much more stupid than we seem to be
getting
without serious, serious consequences.
The Chinese are getting ready to go toe-to-toe with us, and we're
pansying
around, fighting goatherders and poppy growers for a patch of rocky
land
that's done in the Brits and the Sovs and yet gained them nothing.
We're
fighting in AfRaq with no clear goals or end in sight. In their
time, the
Japanese and Hitler telegraphed their future actions just as clearly,
but we
were asleep at the switch then as we are now. Does anyone here think
that
North Korea does *anything* without the consent of their Chinese
masters?
Does anyone believe that sinking a SK ship and firing on their
territory is
just "one of those things?" The clues are piling up, but we remain as
clueless as ever and it's going to cost us. Big time.

To not do so results in regrettable consequences, as those that
occurred after Henry L. Stimson. As Secretary of State, he shut down
the State Department's cryptoanalytic office saying "Gentelmen don't
read each
other's
mail."

There are idiots to be found in every administration and government,
from
Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler to our own Tailgunner Joe
McCarthy. So
what? Do you think that will ever change?

Refuting another claim, during WWII, we held literally hundreds of
thousands
of German and Italian POWs on U.S. soil. (My state alone had over
100 POW camps.) Of those held, thousands were U.S. citizens (think
dual citizenship). NOT ONE ever appeared in a U.S. courtroom. The
were not "charged" because they were not criminals and not subject
to the criminal law.

That happened during declared wars against state actors with military
forces
capable of invading us all the way to Chicago had either chose to do
so.
Dead Saudi terrorists have/had no such capabilities. But making
Americans *believe* they did had a big payoff for those in charge.
Instead of going
to war with Iraq, we should have demanded that our sickeningly rich
Saudi
friends PAY for the ALL the damage their 17 countrymen did on 9/11.
Instead, Bush allowed the Saudi nationals to leave the country on
special
flights arranged by the State Department.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...audi_Nationals

That's good leadership. Let the people responsible just fly away
along with
any leverage we might have had to force them to pay for what their
countrymen did to us. The Russians wouldn't have been so stupid.
They
would have sent a bill, and a big one, to the people responsible
while they
let any visiting Saudis cool their heels under detention until they
paid.
Instead, we went after Iraq, the enemy of the country that really
wreaked 9/11 on us. Unbelievable. Doing favors for the country that
did us
dreadful harm. How much more stupid can we get before it kills us?

They were prisoners of war, captured on the battlefield, and
rendered hors de combat.

Real war. Not some made up advertising campaign that tried to turn
the acts
of 17 Saudi terrorists into an excuse for tearing up Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Now we've discovered that we've screwed up the balance of power in
that area
by eliminating the natural enemy of Iran, a country that's now risen
to the
top of the list of problems we face. Heckuva a job helping our
enemies -
ones that might really have WMD's.

Sorry, you are not entitled to your own private definition of "war" and then
get all exercised because our country doesn't meet up with your particulars.

One common definition is "War: ... (2)
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular
end

Regardless, it is the sole prerogative of the president to commit troops and
engage in combat with anybody for any reason he deems appropriate. Whether
the opposing force is a nation state, pirates on the high seas, or
cross-eyed sea gulls is irrelevant.

Remember, Bill Clinton waged war on more countries than any other president
since FDR (Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and
Albania).

harry wrote:

i t was all ********. You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. It will take a decade to fix Bush's
mess.

Ah ha! It becomes clear. You have a less than rudimentary understanding of
wealth.

First, I recommend you read "An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations" by your
countryman Adam Smith.

Second, see if you can follow along:

Socialists normally, Communists certainly, and progressives always, believe
that the amount of wealth is fixed but maldistributed. Their goal is to
reapportion the pie so that each has a more equal slice.

Capitalists believe that wealth can be created - out of thin air. Here's an
example: Suppose a housewife buys a dozen eggs from a farmer for a single
dollar. The farmer is better off because he has more eggs than dollars; the
housewife is better off because she has more dollars than eggs. To each, the
transaction was beneficial - wealth was created for both.

"Wealth" is the totality of goods and services possessed by an entity
capable of being exchanged or used.

Wealth is NOT cash in hand.

If I buy (or create) something worth a dollar today and in a year, people in
a free market are eager to give me ten dollars for it, my wealth has
increased by nine dollars.

Here's the other side of the coin. There is a thing out there called the
"general marketplace," the instantaneous exchange of goods and services.
Since time immemorial, governments have tried to interfere with the general
marketplace. They do this with tariffs, taxes, and spending. For every
dollar of wealth exchanged by the government, a dollar of wealth is
destroyed. That's right, destroyed!

What most governments don't understand is that the general market place
always wins. Be it through the mechanism of the "black market," movement of
funds, tax avoidance, or a hundred other schemes, the general marketplace
finds a way.

For example, we have political leaders who are gnashing their teeth over
"international" corporations who move domestic jobs offshore. They forget
that the U.S. has (I think) the third-highest corporate income tax in the
world and that corporations WILL relocate to lower their tax burden. Hence,
when the government interferes, the market place reacts.

No, contrary to your insistence, wealth CAN be created out of thin air.
Regrettably wealth can be consumed or destroyed and is usually done so by
governments.

Robert Green wrote:

Heh!

You complain about an OT post, then add 360 words to the off-topic thread.

Outstanding!

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 07:28:24 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to.

I'm thinking Fire. Fire needs the "air"; fire makes products.

I see no fault in using thin air to make a profit.

It ain't Hollywood, ya know.

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 09:52:26 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

I miss Bush.

i t was all ********. You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. It will take a decade to fix Bush's
mess.

Bush screwed up England too? Darn, I didn't know the man was so
powerful. :-)

TDD

Sure he is. When his new library opens it will display the last
authentic shoes of Jimmy Hoffa, recovered from the lunar surface.

Johnny Carson said they found the shoes there...

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.

Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels too.
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. The CBO said a couple of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. So where are the Repubs
anxious to cut spending? School lunches and PBS. And of course nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too. You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate backers.

"Oren" wrote in message ...

All this time I thought the liberal were calling the Constitution a
"living breathing document".

That was Jefferson's view, and he owned slaves, so he probably wasn't all
that liberal.

We have had for many years, indefinite detention (not military) of
people for decades. All in immigration laws (Mariel Cubans) supported
by our courts of jurisdiction and SCOTUS.

Did you notice my use of the word "citizen"?

"... reading mail or listening to phone calls without a warrant,
holding a citizen indefinitely without charges much less a trial.."

I've done all the above with legal approval. http://www.bop.gov/

Warrants aren't required for monitoring the communications of incarcerated
felons unless you want to listen in while they're talking to their lawyers.
And if you've held a citizen without charge or trial indefinitely, pray
tell, who would that have been?

On Dec 1, 3:52*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/1/2010 9:28 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 1, 3:03 pm, *wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"Steve B" *wrote in ....

Yeah, that Obama. *Now there's an impressive leader.

Get back to use when he's started a war on false pretenses and
presided over the worse economic collapse in three-quarters of a
century. *You *do* recall that stuff happening while Bush was
President, don't you?

Of course! 26 quarters of solid economic growth, DOW Jones above 12,000,
unemployment below 5%, three substantial tax cuts, and more. This in spite
of two wars, Katrina, and 9/11. Six years of swell !

Then the Democrats took over Congress...

I miss Bush.

i t was all ********. You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. *It will take a decade to fix Bush's
mess.

Bush screwed up England too? Darn, I didn't know the man was so
powerful. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Seems to have. Or your bankers. And ours.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Refuting one of your observations: governments have been listening in on
enemy conversations for a long time.

Bzzzzt! Sorry, no score. There is a special court set up years ago to
handle listening in on *citizens* talking to enemies real or suspected, but
announcing you just don't need no stinkin' warrant from anyone even if a
citizen is on the line is a different kettle of fish. There is also the
small matter that in order to hear those conversations you have to collect
pretty much every phone call and e-mail sent or received in the U.S., which
they do. So in fact they are listening in when *you* call or e-mail another
true-blue (or should that be true-red-state?) citizen, and who knows,
depending on what you say the computer scanning your message might find it
interesting enough to flag it for further attention. Maybe you better stop
singing the praises of sawed-off shotguns.

Refuting another claim, during WWII, we held literally hundreds of
thousands of German and Italian POWs on U.S. soil. (My state alone had
over 100 POW camps.) Of those held, thousands were U.S. citizens (think
dual citizenship). NOT ONE ever appeared in a U.S. courtroom. The were not
"charged" because they were not criminals and not subject to the criminal
law.

Bzzzzt! Another lost round. If you recall (or even if you don't want to)
the Bush administration said captured Taliban or AQ fighters were not
entitled to POW status since they were not soldiers, remember? Well, what
do we do with terrorists? We try them in our civilian courts and put them
in prison, did it many times prior to Bush being CIC. So, why didn't we do
that again?

But then they also wanted to hold a couple of U.S. citizens as "enemy
combatants"--sounds kind of like POWS, doesn't it. Does a citizen who took
up arms against his own country get a trial for treason or related offenses,
or is he a POW in which case he's entitled to the usual protections
according to treaties the U.S. has signed and according to the U.S.
military's own rules. Well? Which is it?

Nope, they just made up a new category--not POWS, not terrorists to be tried
and convicted, not anything--just guys we're going to lock up for years
until we maybe admit they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and let
them go. Or they really were combatants and they go back to fighting us
after we've released them--too bad we didn't convict them and put them in
prison for a couple of decades huh?

It's quite the bizarre world they built for those *******s, not fish, not
fowl, just locked up because we don't know what else to do with them.
Another lovely legacy of the Bush administration.

On 12/2/2010 12:18 AM, DGDevin wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.

Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels
too. :-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in
the lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. The CBO said a couple of
years back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion
dollars once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund
the war--and spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. So where
are the Repubs anxious to cut spending? School lunches and PBS. And of
course nobody gets a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month
get one too. You almost have to admire the sheer gall of their
determination to direct as much of the nation's wealth as possible into
the hands of their corporate backers.

DG, what would happen if suddenly, every adult American citizen were to
be given 1 million dollars?

TDD

On 12/2/2010 12:39 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:52 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/1/2010 9:28 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 1, 3:03 pm, wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in ...

Yeah, that Obama. Now there's an impressive leader.

Get back to use when he's started a war on false pretenses and
presided over the worse economic collapse in three-quarters of a
century. You *do* recall that stuff happening while Bush was
President, don't you?

Of course! 26 quarters of solid economic growth, DOW Jones above 12,000,
unemployment below 5%, three substantial tax cuts, and more. This in spite
of two wars, Katrina, and 9/11. Six years of swell !

Then the Democrats took over Congress...

I miss Bush.

i t was all ********. You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. It will take a decade to fix Bush's
mess.

Bush screwed up England too? Darn, I didn't know the man was so
powerful. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Seems to have. Or your bankers. And ours.

My bankers have been very good to me even though I have little money. :-)

TDD

On Dec 2, 3:56*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

i t was all ********. You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. *It will take a decade to fix Bush's
mess.

Ah ha! It becomes clear. You have a less than rudimentary understanding of
wealth.

First, I recommend you read "An Inquiry Into the Wealth of Nations" by your
countryman Adam Smith.

Second, see if you can follow along:

Socialists normally, Communists certainly, and progressives always, believe
that the amount of wealth is fixed but maldistributed. Their goal is to
reapportion the pie so that each has a more equal slice.

Capitalists believe that wealth can be created - out of thin air. Here's an
example: Suppose a housewife buys a dozen eggs from a farmer for a single
dollar. The farmer is better off because he has more eggs than dollars; the
housewife is better off because she has more dollars than eggs. To each, the
transaction was beneficial - wealth was created for both.

"Wealth" is the totality of goods and services possessed by an entity
capable of being exchanged or used.

Wealth is NOT cash in hand.

If I buy (or create) something worth a dollar today and in a year, people in
a free market are eager to give me ten dollars for it, my wealth has
increased by nine dollars.

Here's the other side of the coin. There is a thing out there called the
"general marketplace," the instantaneous exchange of goods and services.
Since time immemorial, governments have tried to interfere with the general
marketplace. They do this with tariffs, taxes, and spending. For every
dollar of wealth exchanged by the government, a dollar of wealth is
destroyed. That's right, destroyed!

What most governments don't understand is that the general market place
always wins. Be it through the mechanism of the "black market," movement of
funds, tax avoidance, or a hundred other schemes, the general marketplace
finds a way.

For example, we have political leaders who are gnashing their teeth over
"international" corporations who move domestic jobs offshore. They forget
that the U.S. has (I think) the third-highest corporate income tax in the
world and that corporations WILL relocate to lower their tax burden. Hence,
when the government interferes, the market place reacts.

No, contrary to your insistence, wealth CAN be created out of thin air.
Regrettably wealth can be consumed or destroyed and is usually done so by
governments.

So your idea of capitalsm is based on the ideas of some who died 200
years ago. No wonder your ideas are dross. After watching the total
failure of capitalism you still think money can be conjured out of
thin air?
As for the eggs, the eggs were rotten. The only one to benifit was the
farmer.
The only way wealth can be created is out of real work, not endlessly
selling worthless bits of paper/fake transactions.
And the people that did this knew what they were doing. Like your
corrupt politicians, they didn't give a f**k about the ordinary
workers in America.
As always corrupt politicians bailed them out with money that didn't
belong to them. Ready for the next cycle. These people need to be
hung from lamp posts.
Did they help the American citizen who lost his job and his house?

I hear that these *******s in America that profited out of it all pay
less tax than a shopfloor worker. If the American government was
doing it's job it would winkle these people out and seize all their
assets. You need to invade places likeSt Lucia, the Bahamas and
Lichenstein and get your money back.. I should think even as
incompetant an army as yours now is could manage that.

We have our own *******s over here too.

On Dec 2, 4:42*am, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 07:28:24 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. *

I'm thinking Fire. Fire needs the "air"; fire makes products.

I see no fault in using thin air to make a profit.

It ain't Hollywood, ya know.

It ain't profit either. And it was a metaphor, not to be taken
literally.

On Dec 2, 6:18*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" *wrote in ...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.
Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels too..
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. *The CBO said a couple of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. *So where are the Repubs
anxious to cut spending? *School lunches and PBS. *And of course nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too. *You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate backers..

Carpet chewing crazy! Heh Heh. I love that one.
Talking of which, how about your very own Sarah P. Her North/South
Korea gaffs have been widely reported over here. She's getting
Americans a bad name. Confirming many theories and anecdotes held over
here.

"HeyBub" wrote:

Remember, Bill Clinton waged war on more countries than any other president
since FDR (Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and
Albania).

He also ordered a hit on OBL but the damn see-eye-aye couldn't get it right.


--
You'll be Ok, Enjoy. Life is nothing more than a bunch of mini
vacations all rolled into one. - Old Gringo

On 12/2/2010 1:27 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 2, 6:18 am, wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in ...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.
Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels too.
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. The CBO said a couple of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. So where are the Repubs
anxious to cut spending? School lunches and PBS. And of course nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too. You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate backers.

Carpet chewing crazy! Heh Heh. I love that one.
Talking of which, how about your very own Sarah P. Her North/South
Korea gaffs have been widely reported over here. She's getting
Americans a bad name. Confirming many theories and anecdotes held over
here.

I'm amazed at how nasty Liberals are to her. They must be terrified
of the woman.

TDD

On Dec 2, 12:18*am, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 07:21:54 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

There aren't enough wimmin to go round in America. *The Mormons are
hogging them with multiple wives. *

You watch to much Hollywood, harry. *Our very own Senate Majority
Leader, Harry Reid, D-NV is a Mormon with only one wife.

_claims Aside. Larry Flint wants to build a titty bar in our town. This place
is said to be large enough to hire 600 jiggly dancers.

Don't get the wrong impressions about that Hollywood show: Sister
Sister Wives.

It was a jest. To wind up Stormin. As he hasn't responded
I can only suppose he has several wives. I find one enough to cope
with :-)
I looked Flynt up. I don't see the connection. Apart from "hustling
for God".
Another Englican word that has a different meaning over here.
I always assume anything originating in Hollywood is lies. I haven't
seen the show you mention.
Are all mormons D? If so, is this sinister? I thought religion and
politics were supposed to be separate in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Wiggin#Expenses
Our own MP Bill Wiggin (con) is just a f***g crook. Involved in dodgy
expenses.

On Dec 2, 7:45*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:27 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 2, 6:18 am, *wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" *wrote in ...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.
Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels too.
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. *The CBO said a couple of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. *So where are the Repubs
anxious to cut spending? *School lunches and PBS. *And of course nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too. *You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate backers.

Carpet chewing crazy! *Heh Heh. I love that one.
Talking of which, how about your very own Sarah P. *Her North/South
Korea gaffs have been widely reported over here. She's getting
Americans a bad name. Confirming many theories and anecdotes held over
here.

I'm amazed at how nasty Liberals are to her. They must be terrified
of the woman.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, she frightens the **** out of me. The thought she could be
president?
WW3 a year later.

On Dec 2, 7:16*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 12:18 AM, DGDevin wrote:





"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.

Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels
too. :-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in
the lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. The CBO said a couple of
years back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion
dollars once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund
the war--and spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. So where
are the Repubs anxious to cut spending? School lunches and PBS. And of
course nobody gets a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month
get one too. You almost have to admire the sheer gall of their
determination to direct as much of the nation's wealth as possible into
the hands of their corporate backers.

DG, what would happen if suddenly, every adult American citizen were to
be given 1 million dollars?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It would be worthless, or nearly so. Due to inflation.

On Dec 2, 7:18*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 12:39 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 1, 3:52 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/1/2010 9:28 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 1, 3:03 pm, * *wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"Steve B" *wrote in ....

Yeah, that Obama. *Now there's an impressive leader.

Get back to use when he's started a war on false pretenses and
presided over the worse economic collapse in three-quarters of a
century. *You *do* recall that stuff happening while Bush was
President, don't you?

Of course! 26 quarters of solid economic growth, DOW Jones above 12,000,
unemployment below 5%, three substantial tax cuts, and more. This in spite
of two wars, Katrina, and 9/11. Six years of swell !

Then the Democrats took over Congress...

I miss Bush.

i t was all ********. You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. *It will take a decade to fix Bush's
mess.

Bush screwed up England too? Darn, I didn't know the man was so
powerful. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Seems to have. Or your bankers. And ours.

My bankers have been very good to me even though I have little money. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There' s bankers and bankers.
The traditional sort.
The gambin' sort.
I assume your banker is the former sort.

On 12/2/2010 1:52 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 2, 7:45 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:27 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 2, 6:18 am, wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in ...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.
Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels too.
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. The CBO said a couple of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. So where are the Repubs
anxious to cut spending? School lunches and PBS. And of course nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too. You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate backers.

Carpet chewing crazy! Heh Heh. I love that one.
Talking of which, how about your very own Sarah P. Her North/South
Korea gaffs have been widely reported over here. She's getting
Americans a bad name. Confirming many theories and anecdotes held over
here.

I'm amazed at how nasty Liberals are to her. They must be terrified
of the woman.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, she frightens the **** out of me. The thought she could be
president?
WW3 a year later.

Kind of a female Teddy Roosevelt, eh?

TDD

On 12/2/2010 2:14 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 2, 7:18 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 12:39 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 1, 3:52 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/1/2010 9:28 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 1, 3:03 pm, wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in ...

Yeah, that Obama. Now there's an impressive leader.

Get back to use when he's started a war on false pretenses and
presided over the worse economic collapse in three-quarters of a
century. You *do* recall that stuff happening while Bush was
President, don't you?

Of course! 26 quarters of solid economic growth, DOW Jones above 12,000,
unemployment below 5%, three substantial tax cuts, and more. This in spite
of two wars, Katrina, and 9/11. Six years of swell !

Then the Democrats took over Congress...

I miss Bush.

i t was all ********. You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. It will take a decade to fix Bush's
mess.

Bush screwed up England too? Darn, I didn't know the man was so
powerful. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Seems to have. Or your bankers. And ours.

My bankers have been very good to me even though I have little money. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There' s bankers and bankers.
The traditional sort.
The gambin' sort.
I assume your banker is the former sort.

It's all in the attitude of the branch manager. I had a corporate
account at this one bank years ago when the wonderful Black gal
who was the branch manager was replaced by a White bitch on wheels.
She was a horrible woman with an arrogant nasty attitude. I didn't
stay with that bank much longer. The bank I use now is great so I
recommended to my friend who opened an account at another branch
across town and the branch manager was wonderful to him. It's all
about how you treat the customer, even if they're not millionaires.

TDD

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Remember, Bill Clinton waged war on more countries than any other president
since FDR (Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and
Albania).

And in both Bush cases (Afghan and Iraq), we went there with the
approval of the Congress under the War Powers Act.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Dec 2, 8:33*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:52 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 2, 7:45 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 2, 6:18 am, * *wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" *wrote in ...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.
Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels too.
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. *The CBO said a couple of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. *So where are the Repubs
anxious to cut spending? *School lunches and PBS. *And of course nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too. *You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate backers.

Carpet chewing crazy! *Heh Heh. I love that one.
Talking of which, how about your very own Sarah P. *Her North/South
Korea gaffs have been widely reported over here. She's getting
Americans a bad name. Confirming many theories and anecdotes held over
here.

I'm amazed at how nasty Liberals are to her. They must be terrified
of the woman.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, she frightens the **** out of me. The thought she could be
president?
WW3 a year later.

Kind of a female Teddy Roosevelt, eh?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nah. Nothing like. She's a mad iggerant crazy bitch.

On Dec 2, 8:41*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 2:14 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 2, 7:18 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 12:39 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 1, 3:52 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/1/2010 9:28 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 1, 3:03 pm, * * *wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"Steve B" *wrote in ...

Yeah, that Obama. *Now there's an impressive leader.

Get back to use when he's started a war on false pretenses and
presided over the worse economic collapse in three-quarters of a
century. *You *do* recall that stuff happening while Bush was
President, don't you?

Of course! 26 quarters of solid economic growth, DOW Jones above 12,000,
unemployment below 5%, three substantial tax cuts, and more. This in spite
of two wars, Katrina, and 9/11. Six years of swell !

Then the Democrats took over Congress...

I miss Bush.

i t was all ********. You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. *It will take a decade to fix Bush's
mess.

Bush screwed up England too? Darn, I didn't know the man was so
powerful. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Seems to have. Or your bankers. And ours.

My bankers have been very good to me even though I have little money. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There' s bankers and bankers.
The traditional *sort.
The gambin' sort.
I assume your banker is the former sort.

It's all in the attitude of the branch manager. I had a corporate
account at this one bank years ago when the wonderful Black gal
who was the branch manager was replaced by a White bitch on wheels.
She was a horrible woman with an arrogant nasty attitude. I didn't
stay with that bank much longer. The bank I use now is great so I
recommended to my friend who opened an account at another branch
across town and the branch manager was wonderful to him. It's all
about how you treat the customer, even if they're not millionaires.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Our banks are totally frigid You can't get to speak to anybody of any
consequence.

On 12/2/2010 7:46 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 2, 8:33 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:52 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 2, 7:45 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 2, 6:18 am, wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in ...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.
Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels too.
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. The CBO said a couple of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. So where are the Repubs
anxious to cut spending? School lunches and PBS. And of course nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too. You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate backers.

Carpet chewing crazy! Heh Heh. I love that one.
Talking of which, how about your very own Sarah P. Her North/South
Korea gaffs have been widely reported over here. She's getting
Americans a bad name. Confirming many theories and anecdotes held over
here.

I'm amazed at how nasty Liberals are to her. They must be terrified
of the woman.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, she frightens the **** out of me. The thought she could be
president?
WW3 a year later.

Kind of a female Teddy Roosevelt, eh?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nah. Nothing like. She's a mad iggerant crazy bitch.

There you go, I suppose you're revealing Liberal press education. :-)
You probably think Hillary Clinton is angelic. *snicker*

TDD

On Dec 2, 12:18*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" *wrote in ...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.
Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels too..
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. *The CBO said a couple of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. *So where are the Repubs
anxious to cut spending? *School lunches and PBS. *And of course nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too. *You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate backers..


The United States is such a great country. Where else do poor people
worry so much about the plight of the rich and rich people worry so
much about keeping poor people poor.

-C-

On Dec 1, 7:38*am, "Bill" wrote:
And, as Woody Allen said, it automatically doubles your chance of a
date on
Saturday night.

*Actually the Woodster posited that being BISEXUAL was what double
your
date chances.

Actually read through some of the craigslist man to man personals. You
will notice that it is not *if* they get a date, rather *which one*
they are going to select out of many.

You are talking men here and they all are quite willing - all want the
same thing, etc., so I would guess the "chances" for a date would go
up 100x JUST being gay...


How much time to you spend reading the man to man personals on
craigslist? Do you cruise airport restrooms too looking for some
Republican congresscritters?

For a straight man, wouldn't the woman to woman personals be more
interesting?