:rolleyes:
I thought you were condemning violation of marriage vows in general, when you posted:
As far as I can tell, you were referring to Bush here - I wondered why it would not equally apply to Robinson.
FWIW, Googling on Bishop Robinson’s partner gives figures between thirteen and fifteen years for the duration of their relationship, while elsewhere it is claimed that he didn’t meet his partner until after he left his wife and two daughters in 1986. So apparently he did not commit adultery with his current partner. And there is nothing credible on the Internet (unsurprisingly) that I can discover regarding whether or not he had boys on the side during his marriage.
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Robinson and Gingrich “did the same thing” - dumping a wife and taking marriage vows less than seriously.
Interestingly enough, Diogenes the Cynic posts this:
and Otto assists him in the accusation, without a hint that he needs to prove it. And yet somehow or other, Bishop Robinson must be assumed innocent until proven adulterous, while the allegations of a humor magazine are taken at face value.
Consistency, thou are a jewel. :rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan:
I did not make accusations about Bush SR. You’ll notice I said he “supposedly” had a mistress. I did not state it as fact. I also mentioned a SPY Magazine article but I did not make any judgement as to it’s validity, I only stated that it existed. Please don’t mischaracterize what I have said.
Also, there is not even an allegation that Robinson was ever unfaithful in his marriage. As a matter of fact his personal life and history were subjected to intense scrutiny both by his church and by the press before he became a Bishop and no taint of imprpriety could be found. There is simply no reason to even bring Robinson into the conversation.
I also have to say I take exception to your characterization that he “left” his wife and children. He was released from his vows by his wife and he never left his children. He has always remained an active and involved presense in his children’s lives and it’s gratuitously snide to suggest otherwise. I think your implied speculation about “boys on the side” is also insulting and insinuating and unnecessary.
Typical for Shodan though. Not a poster worth wasting your time on.
Calling Laura Bush a killer is nowhere near being appropriate. I was thinking about this all day today.
Words have two meanings: the OED definition, as it were, and the connotation, or what I suppose you could characterize as the gut reaction you have when you hear the word.
Killer is a loaded word if ever there was one. When you think about it, you rarely hear it outside of the phrase “serial killer”.
Laura Bush did indeed kill someone, so that makes her technically a killer. Calling her that, though, is a transparent attempt to put her in the same category as, say, John Wayne Gacy.
This is not even close to being a fair thing to do.
To be fair, in my original post I only said that she had “once killed a guy.” The “killer” semantic came only in the context of the ensuing brouhaha with milroyj.
Where do you get all this stuff about her insisting or the sex being involuntary? As far as I read it, he is claiming that there was a knock on the door, a woman offered him sex, and he accepted.
It’s not particularly hard to believe, either, if whoever he was doing shady business deals with wanted to send him a “gift” of an already-paid-for prostitute.
(that’s not to say that he shouldn’t have known it was a prostitute, but he’s got some amount of deniability there if money wasn’t discussed)
And Bill Clinton was never convicted of perjury, so it’s over the top to call him a liar, by your own situationally-dependent standards.
Otto, you’re right, I even knew that. Post in speed, repent at leisure.
This is what you said:
Sounds like calling Laura Bush a killer, to me.
Ted Kennedy wasn’t charged or convicted of driving while drunk during the MJ Kopechne incident, so “people” calling him a “drunk driver” are just a wee bit over the top:
what was that term again? Oh yea, tool.
It seems that some of you want it both ways, though, e.g. in the Illegal War thread in GD. According to you guys, Clinton isn’t a liar because he was never convicted of perjury, but Bush is a war criminal because, well, y’all say so. Can’t have it both ways, my friend.
Defend Ted Kennedy all you want, it just makes you look even sillier, you twit.
hey, milroyj would you feel better if we said “accidental killer” - you know, like Kennedy??
of course, you seem to completely ignore that nasty technicality that currently SD (former?) rep Janklow is being charged with the crime of manslaughter after he, to repeat your words, ‘had a car accident’ wherin he ran a stop sign, hit some one and they died.
that is exactly what Laura Bush did. Apparently, she’s the one in this thread who’s ‘getting a pass’ for her actions - all we’ve been doing is stating the empiracle fact that her actions directly caused the death of some one, we’ve admitted Kennedy’s criminal act of leaving the scene, admitted that he also can be correctly described as a ‘killer’ as in ‘person who has killed’ another human being. You seem to be constitutionally incapable of admitting that any of your idols have feet remotely resembling less than marble.
The laws have changed over the past years, to reflect the growing understanding in the public that driving while drunk (Cheaney, Bush), being the cause of a car accident where some one died as a result (Laura, Kennedy) are serious things, even potentially criminal in nature.
But to only deny culpability in one set of people is the height of partisanship. Wear your crown proudly, milroyj, you’ve gotten it the hard way. You’ve earned it.
who the fuck ‘defended’ him? I merely asked (repeatedly) for your proof that he was ‘drunk’ at the time. You’ve not been able to so far, so the person having difficulty proving their assertions would be you.
I’ve admitted his culpability (leaving the scene of an accident). admitted that he, too can be correctly described as 'some one who has killed, ie technically, a ‘killer’.
wanna shore up that assertion yet? or admit that you made spurious allegations, whereas I provided actual proof that Laura Bush was responsible for the death of another person.
What evidence do you have that Laura’s accident was a result of driving while drunk? Let me guess, none.
Nobody said she was drunk. We said she ran a stop sign, hit another car and killed somebody.
where did I say that it was?
Oh, that’s right, I didn’t. You did notice, didn’t you, the comma - used to seperate concepts. Drunk drivers (named two) bcomma, to like, differentiate it from the former group, 'drivers who’ve killed some one while they were driving (named two).
what was that phrase again?? something about ‘looking like an idiot’???
still waiting for your demonstration of proof re: Kennedy being drunk at the time, or your admission that it was a spurious allegation.
Of course, you do have cites that Cheaney (sic) and Bush were drunk drivers?
milroyj - yep, I do. Still waiting for yours.
gonna provide yours first??
probably not, we’ve been waiting for 2 pages now.
You go first, twit.