Florida State Seminoles

[innocentbystander]

After seeing a cascade of famous men marrying up and dating down — Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Tiger Woods, David Vitter, John Ensign and Arnold Schwarzenegger — and with Dominique Strauss-Kahn being supported by his prominent, elegant and wealthy journalist wife as he fights charges that he assaulted a 32-year-old hotel maid, maybe feminists have learned that male development stops at power.

I know little about those other couples but how is it that Tiger Woods or Arnold Schwarzenegger Married up? Or Anthony Wiener for that matter. Since when is a Congressman lower on the chain than an aid to Hillery Clinton?

Well, its Maureen Dowd and I don't have to tell you that my gender does get the short end of the stick with her. So in her mind unless the wife is a tatoo-riddled skank, then "he" will be marrying up. Anyway...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... es/240152/

Society takes a greater interest in marriages than in other relationships because society, as well as the individual, has an interest in strong marriages. Strong marriages support a strong society. And society supports the marriage by encouraging people to do the very hard work of keeping their promises. One of the ways in which society ensures strong marriages is by tut-tutting (or worse) at people who don't keep to their vows: who abandon spouses, treat them badly, or yes, violate their trust by engaging in covert sexual activity. I'm a big fan of sexual privacy. But you cannot have a public institution that rests in part on fidelity, and also complete privacy on those matters.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think that social sanction can be very helpful in assisting us in doing important but difficult things. Marriage is stronger if people who find out that their friends are cheating don't say, "Awesome, is he hot?" but "How could you do that to Jason?" Marriage is stronger if people who cheat are viewed with slight revulsion, and so are the (knowing) people who they cheat with. Marriage is stronger when people who decide not to care for seriously ill spouses are met with an incredulous "What the hell is wrong with you?", not "Yeah, I couldn't handle that either." Of course it would be nicer if we didn't need this sort of help. But we are a flawed species....

I'm not saying that we should spend weeks and months torturing the guy--that's up to his wife, if she wants to. But I don't think that the media should have hushed up something that was, um, very public . . . or that it's somehow out of bounds to say that, unless she was really enthusiastically supporting his desire to text photos of his body parts all across our fair land, this was a really remarkably shitty thing to do to his wife.

Sometimes (not always, but sometimes) husbands are so "proud" of the physical beauty of their wives, that they encourage their wives to get naked in public. This taps into a deeper part of the male ego, the "....ha ha guys, eat your heart out! I am FUCKING this woman and YOU AREN'T.... and I KNOW you are jealous of me..." kind of thing. A showing-off/bragging mentality, mostly. This twisted mentality is for men who keep score with each other based solely on the physical beauty of the women they plant the seed inside.

Harry Hamlin has had three very beautiful wives, Laura Johnson, Nicolette Sheridan and Lisa Rinna (four, if you count Ursula Andress since they had a kid together.) Of the these four women who have shared intimacy with Harry, at least three have posed nude for Playboy (Rinna twice, once full nude while 6 months pregnant with Hamlin's child.) Obviously, Harry likes to show off his women. So he would probably be in that "braggart" category that I discussed in the paragraph above this one.

Which brings me directly to my question for the women AND ONLY THE WOMEN here. Smeee, Karen, Red Bird, Dora, would you ever want your husbands showing off their body parts to the whole world (similar to the manner our fair Congressman did) with a feeling of "bragging" in the manner with which I have described how some men feel when their wives get naked? I would have to guess "no" because I can't imagine women (any women) thinking the way Harry Hamlin does, but I'm not a woman so......

[Red Bird]

No. But I'm not married.

Generally speaking, women don't compete with each other over how their husbands look, but rather over their husbands' status. Women certainly do advertise their mates status: "I'm Mrs Dr. Alan Green." Or, "Well, my boyfriend is an investment banker . . ."

I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but men really aren't much to look at naked. On the other hand, some women do like to go to strip clubs. I have no idea why some women do this.

[eCat]

Morphy? The previous great American champion - walked away at the age of 26 because he was paranoid

YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH!


Kidding aside, Morphy is my favorite chessplayer. He did not quit because he was paranoid. He was a lawyer, and the Civil War was going on. Further, chess, at the time, was a parlor game; a novelty. Chess masters were generally viewed in the same light as street performers or magicians back then.

Playing dead men? Hell, people talk to imaginary beings (god) and dead people (Mary, deceased SO, etc) all the time. Showing up naked? Maybe it was hot that day. Seriously though, I don't think the sample size is sufficient to proclaim a trend (as opposed to a rare or isolated occurrence).

basically they said in order to think 10 moves ahead to the magnitude of millions of possible combinations, these guys are rewiring their brains, and because of that its breaks their rational thinking

And without some research to back them up (and a cursory check of EBSCOHost says there is none), I would think this is bullshit.

I'm just telling you what they said

[eCat]

heard in the news yesterday that Saudi Arabia has implemented so many entitlements and obligations to its people to basically keep their country stable they have dramatically increased the break even point for them selling a barrel of oil.

10+ years ago that was $22 a barrel. Now its $68. By 2014 its going to be $111.


It was also announced yesterday that China passed the US as the worlds largest consumer of energy.


I'm not sure what all of it means in the big picture but it can't be good for the U.S., Saudi Arabia or China.

[AlabamAlum]

Morphy? The previous great American champion - walked away at the age of 26 because he was paranoid

YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH!


Kidding aside, Morphy is my favorite chessplayer. He did not quit because he was paranoid. He was a lawyer, and the Civil War was going on. Further, chess, at the time, was a parlor game; a novelty. Chess masters were generally viewed in the same light as street performers or magicians back then.

Playing dead men? Hell, people talk to imaginary beings (god) and dead people (Mary, deceased SO, etc) all the time. Showing up naked? Maybe it was hot that day. Seriously though, I don't think the sample size is sufficient to proclaim a trend (as opposed to a rare or isolated occurrence).

basically they said in order to think 10 moves ahead to the magnitude of millions of possible combinations, these guys are rewiring their brains, and because of that its breaks their rational thinking

And without some research to back them up (and a cursory check of EBSCOHost says there is none), I would think this is bullshit.

I'm just telling you what they said

Oh, I know, eCat. It's just that you sometimes have to be careful with these documentaries.

[Red Bird]

I'm not sure what all of it means in the big picture but it can't be good for the U.S., Saudi Arabia or China.

It could be if we used such news to start doing something about our dependence on oil.

[hedge]

"heard in the news yesterday that Saudi Arabia has implemented so many entitlements and obligations to its people to basically keep their country stable they have dramatically increased the break even point for them selling a barrel of oil."

No, no, no. Haven't you heard that it is rich American "speculators" and hedge funds that are driving up the price of oil (and everything else) at the expense of poor people? Don't try to blame the poor Saudi's for the price of oil, or the various government taxes that account anywhere from 20-30% if the price of gas. It's all rich, greedy speculators' fault...

[eCat]

Saudi is definitely in a rock and a hard place

if oil prices don't stay about say $70 a barrel then their choice is pay it out of their own pocket or have a revolution

[Red Bird]

Well it is the 21st century after all. Much of the rest of the world deposed or quietly dismissed their kings and queens long ago. Let's get on the right side of this, take our lumps and build smaller cars.

[eCat]

we should all be driving around in big ass battery powered cars by now that go 350 miles on a charge and can re-charge in an hour

[Red Bird]

The possibilities are endless.

[youtube]369h-SEBXd8[/youtube]

http://youtu.

[innocentbystander]

Well it is the 21st century after all. Much of the rest of the world deposed or quietly dismissed their kings and queens long ago. Let's get on the right side of this, take our lumps and build smaller cars.

I found FergusonFuckheadFoont! Here he is taking on George Will.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

So you Worldcrossing-Bare-Knuckles-Politics people, who think it is okay to "Foont" conservatives out of you message board when they provide compelling arguments that you can't defeat, if you want him here, let him know that we are here and go get him. I'm sure aTm, wizzy, and puter would just LOVE Foonty posting here.

[aTm]

Foont has his own board like this one. Please don't bring him here.

http://www.bareknuckles.org/bkp/index.php

[BigRedMan]

"heard in the news yesterday that Saudi Arabia has implemented so many entitlements and obligations to its people to basically keep their country stable they have dramatically increased the break even point for them selling a barrel of oil."

No, no, no. Haven't you heard that it is rich American "speculators" and hedge funds that are driving up the price of oil (and everything else) at the expense of poor people? Don't try to blame the poor Saudi's for the price of oil, or the various government taxes that account anywhere from 20-30% if the price of gas. It's all rich, greedy speculators' fault...

I don't want the speculators out of the market. Just want them to put 75% of the money to speculate on said oil.

That will change a lot of shit real quick.

[Red Bird]

So you Worldcrossing-Bare-Knuckles-Politics people, who think it is okay to "Foont" conservatives out of you message board when they provide compelling arguments that you can't defeat, if you want him here, let him know that we are here and go get him. I'm sure aTm, wizzy, and puter would just LOVE Foonty posting here.

First, I'd like to see an example of these "compelling arguments" you're talking about. So far all I've seen are platitudes, nonsense and mindless dribble.

I don't know how to "Foont" conservatives out of a message board, but I have seen evidence that they scatter like roaches when the light comes on.

[innocentbystander]

So you Worldcrossing-Bare-Knuckles-Politics people, who think it is okay to "Foont" conservatives out of you message board when they provide compelling arguments that you can't defeat, if you want him here, let him know that we are here and go get him. I'm sure aTm, wizzy, and puter would just LOVE Foonty posting here.

First, I'd like to see an example of these "compelling arguments" you're talking about. So far all I've seen are platitudes, nonsense and mindless dribble.

I don't know how to "Foont" conservatives out of a message board, but I have seen evidence that they scatter like roaches when the light comes on.

Whenever conservatives made an "argument" on his board, they were warned once. Make a second "argument" and he would "Foont" you (ie: ban you from his board.) Foont had a zero-tolerance policy for dissenting opinion. And when they complained about his draconian measures on other boards (boards where he had no admin powers), he would run to Sys-Op-Judy and threaten to SUE Worldcrossing if they didn't leave him be.

That is Foont.

[aTm]

Pretty sure I never got banned at BKP until Foont shut it down and went to his own board. The only interesting thing going on there were kathaksung posts.

[aTm]

Just in case any of you weren't aware who kathaksung is...

[innocentbystander]

Pretty sure I never got banned at BKP until Foont shut it down and went to his own board. The only interesting thing going on there were kathaksung posts.

He's too damn sensitive. In his personal life, he must be a horrible person to work with and an impossible person to be friends with. I mean, look at this, he's insane....

Having been banned repeatedly from numerous discussion forums, one of the proprietors here is deeply interested in advancing the science of community standards development. After discussions with the foremost minds in forensics science and law enforcement, the following are the Official Community Standards for Bare-Knuckles Politics:


1. RULE NUMBER ONE: It is an INDISPUTABLE FACT that Al Gore won Florida and this is not open to dispute. Anything posted that attempts to support a contrary view will be deleted immediately or used by the moderators as a semantic football. Bare-Knuckles Politics is NOT a place that will be used to broadcast Republican lies.

2. Posts consisting of complaints about forum moderation that are placed in threads other than the one reserved specifically for that purpose will be deleted. In fact, unless the complaint is somehow valid, even posts of such nature placed in that thread will probably be deleted. Hey, we already TOLD you that moderation here will be capricious, so you have no potentially valid complaint. Repeated violations will result in moderation of the violator's subsequent posts. Tricks intended to elude or nullify moderation will result in the user's denial of all access.

3. This is a forum for the intelligent discussion of political candidates, issues, or any other related or unrelated but somehow connected (however loosely) matters that might come to mind. This is not a chat room, nor is it a forum where mindless behavior resembling "Free Republic" discussion forums will be tolerated. It is for REASONED ARGUMENT.

4. Ad hominem attacks (except against me) are an essential part of political discourse and are TOLERATED as long as they are directed at the political aspects of the participant, and not at the person behind the participation. You can call another participant any name you like using whatever language that appeals to you, but if you attack another poster because of his or her employment status, love life, genuine physical handicap or some other matter in his or her PERSONAL life that might hurt his or her actual feelings, you will be denied access forever. If you call another person a child or something to that effect, you may be subject to moderation if, in the sole judgment of the proprietor, that poster's submissions have not been of a childish nature. If, however, they HAVE been childish, then by all means do your worst.

5. Mindless flames are NOT permitted unless, in the sole judgment of the proprietor, they are witty.

6. Stupidity, in any of its many manifestations but most notably devotion to the absurd principles of the Republican party, will NOT BE TOLERATED. Posters exhibiting stupidity will generally be warned once, and banned for a second offense, although any warning is at the sole discretion of the moderator. While you can say "fuck" to your heart's content if the context is appropriate, you will be banned THE VERY FIRST TIME you say, "Bush won (or Gore lost), get over it," or anything of a similar nature. The quality of "stupidity" is in the SOLE, UNAPPEALABLE judgment of the proprietor and is the most serious transgression here.

7. Participants here are expected to think for themselves. Any repetition of "talking points" will be summarily deleted unless they are mentioned in an intelligent context. Repeated postings requiring such deletions will result in the participant's moderation.

8. Any mention of Bill Clinton's genitalia or any use to which he may or may not have put his genitalia is grounds for immediate banishment.

9. Anyone masquerading as a member of a political party or organization that he or she, in the sole estimation of the proprietors, does not in fact support will be banished at once and all of his or her previous posts will be deleted from all discussions. When you play "devil's advocate," be sure that it is clear that it is your your intent to do so. These forums are for you to present your HONEST opinions and your attempts to persuade others to your opinions, not for any disingenuous attempts you may make to manipulate the opinions of others.

10. If you are banished from these forums and attempt to return under a different name, it will be considered a computer break-in attempt and will be reported to the Secret Service. This is not public property.

11. No forum will be permitted to be advertised, and all links to any such forum will be deleted by the moderator, if the proprietors of that forum have ever, for any reason, ousted, suspended or deleted or modified any post written by the owner of this forum without the express approval and permission for such action from the owner of this forum. Forums that may not be linked from posts here include, but are not limited to, Salon's TableTalk, The American Prospect Alternate Forums, and Democrats Online. If you wish the participants here to read posts submitted to forums that are thus prohibited, you may exerpt the post or post it in its entirety, without attribution as to source. No links to blogs will be permitted on BKP. If you find something in some blog that is worthy of attention, you may cut and paste the contents here with attribution but WITHOUT A LINK OR ANY INDICATION OF THE BLOG'S URL.

12. These rules, and any others we might make up from time to time with or without notice, may be enforced, suspended, ignored, or added to as needed, at the proprietors' sole and capricious whim with or without any rhyme or reason that you or anyone you know might consider valid.

13. As the proprietors, we are not subject to any of our own rules. Like it or lump it.

[Red Bird]

Well, I suggest you avoid posting there, I would. I don't think aggie will be kicking people out of the goat pen for being politically opposed to him or for posting illogical, mindbogglingly ignorant opinions as such seems to be the norm for many here.

The goat pen is nothing if not tolerant.