Democrats Clarify Their Stance On Dating

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Democrats Clarify Their Stance On Dating

  1. RAH says:

    And they try to paint Kavanaugh as a drunk???

    Fat head Ted was an alcoholic long before he got a seat in the senate.

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Sometime ago I was amused to read Kennedy refered to as Ted “swim bitch” Kennedy. Very incorrect but none the less truthful.

  2. frederik wisse says:

    The poor guy got kicked out of Harvard , whilst his rich father was one of their biggest donors ……..Shit happens always on the left side .

  3. frederik wisse says:

    The poor guy got kicked out of Harvard ,whilst his rich father was one of their biggest donors . Sh*t happens always on the left side .

  4. AndyDC says:

    Yes, the “Lion of the Senate”. And it was hardly a stupid, youthful mistake either, or boys just being boys. He was 37 at the time, hardly a boy!

    • GCsquared says:

      C’mon guys! Hasn’t anyone noticed that this kind of misbehavior comes with the territory?

      Slick Willy is as bad as they come, but when they were trying to impeach him over his shenanigans, Republicans discovered that they had a few skeletons in their own closet. When you mentioned Ted Kennedy’s age, Henry Hyde’s affair with Cherie Snodgrass came to mind. Wikipedia recounts:

      >> Hyde admitted to the affair and attributed the relationship as a mere “youthful indiscretion”. He was 41 years old and married when the affair occurred. Hyde said the affair ended when Snodgrass’ husband confronted Mrs. Hyde. At the time, Snodgrass was also married and had three children.<<

      Perhaps we should be appreciative of why the founders specifically excluded moral character as a qualification for public office. IIRC, the reason given was that the competence of the Roman emperors didn't correlate much with their probity. But I've been coming to think that the actual reason was simpler, that the founders realized that no one would be left standing if candidates' scruples were examined too closely.

      In Kavanaugh's case now, an even higher standard is proposed, where there is ZERO corroborating evidence that he did anything like Ford claimed, and the hypothetical event is set back many decades, literally in the mists of antiquity. Given this argument's weakness, in desperation, it has now devolved into whether getting shitfaced at Yale constitutes drinking to excess. Actually, I'm heartened to see that academics are clarifying these fine intellectual distinctions, in the hopes that it might distract them from promoting others much more bizarre.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.