Posts
Someone combing through RNC's records found a $2,000 bill for entertainment at a lesbian BDSM nightclub in LA. Apparently, this was the final stop of an evening in which some RNC employees targeted big - and young - donors, taking them for a night out on the town. This is being played up - ridiculously - as some sort of scandal. Not every one in the Republican party is a social conservative and the mere fact that this place was themed for the lesbian leather crowd - well, so what. Having spent many a night in a gay bar (closest place to the Univ. library to walk to and get a beer - always a polite crowd) and a huge BDSM themed bar (cheap drinks, very - very eclectic crowd, and far less risque than one would imagine - taken there for my birthday and became a regular) my experience with them is that they are relatively innocuous. Indeed, it is all far less risque than a strip club or many a comedy show to which I've been. At any rate, this is being far overblown. Whoever is upset at this really needs to get a life.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Heh - Leather, Lace & RNC Donations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Whoever is upset at this really needs to get a life.
Haven't you just described most of the liberals in this country? :-)
I've never known such a humorless bunch of people in my life as those who proudly declare themselves as "liberal" (perhaps confusing the word with "narcissistic"?).
-
"Not every one in the Republican party is a social conservative"
The late Charlie Wilson was openly a womanizing party animal. It would take a real fool to argue that this invalidated his work against the Soviets in Afghanistan, although I'm sure some probably did at the time.
> It would take a real fool to argue that this invalidated his work against the Soviets in Afghanistan, although I'm sure some probably did at the time.
What do you mean "at the time", kemosabe?
Denigrating Charley as "a womanizing, scandal-plagued, hard-drinking, liberal pol from Texas" is just a part of the review's sneering focus on, not how the Soviets lost, and big time, but on the fact that the Afghans morphed into the Al Queda.
Because, after all, the current state of a problem is all that matters, ever. Well, if you can use that to point the finger at the GOP, anyway (The current state of, say, black people as a direct result of failed liberal social policies, well, ummm, let's not mention those, thanks...)
The larger, expanding implications of past events (such as the collapse of the USSR, the end of the Cold War, the truly massive reduction in the likelihood of a nuclear holocaust in humanity's near future*), hey, those don't count one damned bit.
Right?
I call attention to the liberal's constant inability to apply Asimov's Axiom:
"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Thinking that the Afghanis, freed of the Soviet yoke would embrace freedom and democracy? Wrong, no question.
Thinking that the world would have been better without the Soviet collapse, directly caused by the actions of Ronald Reagan and people like Charlie Wilson? "Far, far, far 'wronger'".
=============
* While the chances of a "nuclear incident" (thanks mainly to Clinton and now Obama enabling the efforts of North Korea, and now Iran) are probably as high or even higher than 30 years ago, the chances of it escalating into a large-scale civilization damaging exchange involving the deaths of hundreds of millions is a minuscule fraction of what it was then. It's not zero, but it's become almost unthinkable once more, instead of a "borderline inevitability"... THAT ALONE pretty much blows away any comparison of the current world political state with what it was in 1980.
Post a Comment