The Goat Pen

He was still married, not divorced, and now engaged to some coed half his age. It was serious enough to force his resignation from shitball The Kings College

So good try. He's a hypocrite. Like many a member of the Christian Right. He can go hang out with Gov. Sanford, former hero of the Right.

Here ya go.

"The election for governor of Washington on November 2, 2004 gained national attention for its legal twists and extremely close finish. Notable for being among the closest political races in United States election history, Republican Dino Rossi was declared the winner in the initial automated count and again in the subsequent automated recount. It wasn't until after the third count, a second recount done by hand, that Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, took the lead by a margin of 129 votes.

Although Gregoire was sworn in as Governor of Washington on January 12, 2005, Rossi did not formally concede and called for a re-vote over concerns about the integrity of the election. The Republican Party filed a lawsuit in Chelan County Superior Court contesting the election, but the trial judge ruled against it, citing lack of evidence of deliberate electoral sabotage.[1] Rossi chose not to appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court, formally conceding the election on June 6, 2005. Gregoire is Washington's second female governor."

They counted FOUR times (three recounts if I read that right with the second hand recount comment), until the democrat was declared the winner and then stopped counting. Just like predicted. So they counted three times and it wasn't good enough (they hadn't "found" enough democrat votes). They counted the the FOURTH time, a SECOND HAND COUNT and stopped counting. Why not count five if you counted four? Because after the fourth one the democrat had won and that's where the democrats have the "recount process" perfected. It does it's job in that they count until they win and stop counting.

Here's the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington ... tion,_2004

Dr. Strangelove wrote:He was still married, not divorced, and now engaged to some coed half his age. It was serious enough to force his resignation from shitball The Kings College

So good try. He's a hypocrite. Like many a member of the Christian Right. He can go hang out with Gov. Sanford, former hero of the Right.

There is nothing hypocritical about it. He was separated for two years. Nothing illegal about being engaged to somebody with the divorce pending according to his lawyers. Each state is different in it's laws. I think SC requires a year separation before you can get a divorce, Tennessee does not.

I don't know the particulars.

The college had him resign because as a Christian college you can't have anything that even suggests impropriety, but that doesn't mean he's a hypocrite.

Now somebody claiming a "transparent administration" and then completely lying and making up a fantasy story about a video causing a tragedy, that's a hypocrite.

Its been 3 days and people are already acting like they live in Iraq. Nut the fuck Jersey. We all prayed for God to cleanse you. (You know you did). But again, 3 days. I went through 4 this summer. You didn't see me crying to Fox.

Big Orange Junky wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:He was still married, not divorced, and now engaged to some coed half his age. It was serious enough to force his resignation from shitball The Kings College

So good try. He's a hypocrite. Like many a member of the Christian Right. He can go hang out with Gov. Sanford, former hero of the Right.

There is nothing hypocritical about it. He was separated for two years. Nothing illegal about being engaged to somebody with the divorce pending according to his lawyers. Each state is different in it's laws. I think SC requires a year separation before you can get a divorce, Tennessee does not.

I don't know the particulars.

The college had him resign because as a Christian college you can't have anything that even suggests impropriety, but that doesn't mean he's a hypocrite.

Now somebody claiming a "transparent administration" and then completely lying and making up a fantasy story about a video causing a tragedy, that's a hypocrite.

I never said it was illegal, just immoral by the standards of his proclaimed religion.

DSL's tartuffery is palpable.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:I never said it was illegal, just immoral by the standards of his proclaimed religion.

No, not really. The college didn't think it looked good so they had him resign, but that doesn't mean it was immoral by his religion. He is Indian, as they pointed out. They have different ways of thinking and different customs with regard to divorce. He is nondenominational according to his bio on that page, was once Catholic but not any more.

I don't know how his religion percieves it, if they look down on it or not. His religion may believe that all he has to do is say "be gone" and he is divorced and the legalities are just a formality, or it could be a major offense. I don't know because I don't know his religion. He's nondenominational. Only his particular church would be able to answer that.

Big Orange Junky wrote:Here ya go.

"The election for governor of Washington on November 2, 2004 gained national attention for its legal twists and extremely close finish. Notable for being among the closest political races in United States election history, Republican Dino Rossi was declared the winner in the initial automated count and again in the subsequent automated recount. It wasn't until after the third count, a second recount done by hand, that Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, took the lead by a margin of 129 votes.

Although Gregoire was sworn in as Governor of Washington on January 12, 2005, Rossi did not formally concede and called for a re-vote over concerns about the integrity of the election. The Republican Party filed a lawsuit in Chelan County Superior Court contesting the election, but the trial judge ruled against it, citing lack of evidence of deliberate electoral sabotage.[1] Rossi chose not to appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court, formally conceding the election on June 6, 2005. Gregoire is Washington's second female governor."

They counted FOUR times (three recounts if I read that right with the second hand recount comment), until the democrat was declared the winner and then stopped counting. Just like predicted. So they counted three times and it wasn't good enough (they hadn't "found" enough democrat votes). They counted the the FOURTH time, a SECOND HAND COUNT and stopped counting. Why not count five if you counted four? Because after the fourth one the democrat had won and that's where the democrats have the "recount process" perfected. It does it's job in that they count until they win and stop counting.

Here's the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington ... tion,_2004

Read your own links. There were TWO recounts. One automated, a second by hand. The Dems were allowed a manual recount by Washington state law. While doing that it was discovered that a bunch of absentee ballots in King County had been tossed out inappropriately. It was taken to a judge who ruled the ballots countable. The R's threw a hissy feet, stomped and screamed, threatened lawsuits, cried their eyes out, spat and drooled and frothed at the mouth. They were given an opportunity to present evidence that fraud had taken place and were woefully incapable of doing so.

Empty angry shouting. That's what conservatives do best. The R's have never been beaten fairly in the history of this country. The Dems always, ALWAYS cheat

Big Orange Junky wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:I never said it was illegal, just immoral by the standards of his proclaimed religion.

No, not really. The college didn't think it looked good so they had him resign, but that doesn't mean it was immoral by his religion. He is Indian, as they pointed out. They have different ways of thinking and different customs with regard to divorce. He is nondenominational according to his bio on that page, was once Catholic but not any more.

I don't know how his religion percieves it, if they look down on it or not. His religion may believe that all he has to do is say "be gone" and he is divorced and the legalities are just a formality, or it could be a major offense. I don't know because I don't know his religion. He's nondenominational. Only his particular church would be able to answer that.

So there's nothing immoral about cheating on your wife with a coed. Got it.

And LMAO at "he's an Indian and has different ideas about divorce and marriage" For crissakes...

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:Here ya go.

"The election for governor of Washington on November 2, 2004 gained national attention for its legal twists and extremely close finish. Notable for being among the closest political races in United States election history, Republican Dino Rossi was declared the winner in the initial automated count and again in the subsequent automated recount. It wasn't until after the third count, a second recount done by hand, that Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, took the lead by a margin of 129 votes.

Although Gregoire was sworn in as Governor of Washington on January 12, 2005, Rossi did not formally concede and called for a re-vote over concerns about the integrity of the election. The Republican Party filed a lawsuit in Chelan County Superior Court contesting the election, but the trial judge ruled against it, citing lack of evidence of deliberate electoral sabotage.[1] Rossi chose not to appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court, formally conceding the election on June 6, 2005. Gregoire is Washington's second female governor."

They counted FOUR times (three recounts if I read that right with the second hand recount comment), until the democrat was declared the winner and then stopped counting. Just like predicted. So they counted three times and it wasn't good enough (they hadn't "found" enough democrat votes). They counted the the FOURTH time, a SECOND HAND COUNT and stopped counting. Why not count five if you counted four? Because after the fourth one the democrat had won and that's where the democrats have the "recount process" perfected. It does it's job in that they count until they win and stop counting.

Here's the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington ... tion,_2004

Read your own links. There were TWO recounts. One automated, a second by hand. The Dems were allowed a manual recount by Washington state law. While doing that it was discovered that a bunch of absentee ballots in King County had been tossed out inappropriately. It was taken to a judge who ruled the ballots countable. The R's threw a hissy feet, stomped and screamed, threatened lawsuits, cried their eyes out, spat and drooled and frothed at the mouth. They were given an opportunity to present evidence that fraud had taken place and were woefully incapable of doing so.

Empty angry shouting. That's what conservatives do best. The R's have never been beaten fairly in the history of this country. The Dems always, ALWAYS cheat

Umm pay attention I said three the first time, and after rereading the link I changed it and put in parenthesis about the second hand recount. It's wiki, couldn't decide if they were saying a second hand recount or a second recount, that one done by hand. That's why I edited it and put "if I read that right".

Sure they didn't cheat. Why no, Puter just got dang lucky when he said they would recount until they "found" enough votes to declare the democrat the winner then they would stop the counts.

That's exactly what happened, including "finding" ballots.

Why didn't they do another hand recount?

That election was corrupt, those ballots were no more "found" than I am a millionare. They were stuffed and placed to be "found" at the right time.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:I never said it was illegal, just immoral by the standards of his proclaimed religion.

No, not really. The college didn't think it looked good so they had him resign, but that doesn't mean it was immoral by his religion. He is Indian, as they pointed out. They have different ways of thinking and different customs with regard to divorce. He is nondenominational according to his bio on that page, was once Catholic but not any more.

I don't know how his religion percieves it, if they look down on it or not. His religion may believe that all he has to do is say "be gone" and he is divorced and the legalities are just a formality, or it could be a major offense. I don't know because I don't know his religion. He's nondenominational. Only his particular church would be able to answer that.

So there's nothing immoral about cheating on your wife with a coed. Got it.

And LMAO at "he's an Indian and has different ideas about divorce and marriage" For crissakes...

Umm you are the one trying to say what his religion is. I was just pointing out that you don't know. He's NONDENOMINATIONAL, which means only his church, that particular one knows whether or not they consider that an offense.

Maybe you just don't understand religion?

The Baptist Church of Christ have a set doctrine and "Articles of faith". You can know what all those churches believe in big ballpark terms, but a Baptist church isn't anything close. A Southern Baptist church is way, way, way more liberal than the The Baptists. What is offensive to The Baptists can be common place with Southern Baptists.

With nondenominational it's whatever that particular church believes. If it is an Indian church then they may indeed believe they are divorced as soon as the husband says so. If that's the case then it wouldn't be considered cheating on his wife.

That's the point.

LMAO

So morals are relative after all

Dr. Strangelove wrote:LMAO

So morals are relative after all

No, you are the one trying to say you know what his religion is. Not me.

He doesn't go to my church. He doesn't proclaim to follow my doctrine.

You said he was a hypocrite. To be a hypocrite he has to go against HIS churches teachings. Since his church is nondenominational then you, me nor anybody else can say he was hypocritical UNLESS we know what HIS church believes in regard to being separated for over two years and dating someone while in the divorce process.

No different than you trying to say I am a hypocrite for using birth control because Catholics aren't supposed to use birth conrol, even though I am not Catholic and my faith doesn't frown on the use of birth control.

I can't believe we spent this much time on this, but bottom line is his church is nondenominational. Unless you know personally what he and his church profess to believe you can't say he's a hypocrit.

That's the whole thing in a nutshell.

If you think it's wrong to cheat on your wife, then what he did is immoral.

If you think it's only immoral if HE thinks it was, then you're a moral relativist.

I think we need to include BOJs brain in the concussion study.

Jungle Rat wrote:I think we need to include BOJs brain in the concussion study.

Good idea. I can see now why so many Vals are Republicans. Whining about refs/election officials is pretty interchangeable.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:If you think it's wrong to cheat on your wife, then what he did is immoral.

If you think it's only immoral if HE thinks it was, then you're a moral relativist.

Nice try to change the subject, but it won't work.

You didn't say that. You said he was a hypocrite. Now you are trying to change the discussion.

A drunkard is not a hypocrite to be a drunkard if he doesn't rail against drunkeness.

A liar isn't a hypocrite if he doesn't rail against lying.

Unless you know how he and his church view dating after being separated for two years you can't say he's a hypcrite. So do you go to his church? I didn't think so.

BOJ is correct. DSL sucks hind tit.

Which Christian denominations approve of adultery?

I was actually IN hotzones (Panama and Desert Storm). The shit isn't like watching 24 on T.V. and Jack Bauer texts the POTUS from inside an Al Qaeda camp in Somalia.

I was in Desert Storm and OIF, so I don't need your lecture. My time there is precisely why this pisses me off, while your alleged war experience seems not to have a similar effect on your perspective.

If you are under attack, and you call for help, and the idiots in charge have AC-130's and a SEAL team an hour away, it's not too much to ask that they send them to help you. Saying, "What the heck, it's a bureaucracy. Nobody's fault. Que sera sera. Tango Sierra, American diplomatic staff." like you do, is simply disgusting. Were you in the Air Force or something?