More proof of Bork’s secret liberalism is his dabbling in popular music.
Sure, he’s sans goatee in that pic, but his liberalism is quite obvious.
May I suggest that this rather more ressembles a Pit Thread than a GQ?
Although the Central Valley is generally Republican, Modesto lies in the 18th Congressional District, which skews Democrat. The current Representative, Dennis Cardoza, is a first-term Democrat who replaced seven-term Democrat Gary Condit, the latter being embroiled in his own high-profile investigation involving a reported-missing-then-found-dead Modesto woman (Chandra Levy in Condit’s case).
The good citizens of Modesto must be getting quite fed up with the bad publicity; first the 1999 Yosemite tourist murders, then Condit / Chandra Levy in 2001, and now the Peterson affair.
Please do. I hope it gets moved so I can vent my pent-up Venom-Substitute[sup]TM[/sup].
Actually, whatever blame I have heard given to the Smarts has been directed towards them allowing homeless vagrants to work in their home, which is quite a different thing than “[giving] money to [them].” And I have never seen this spun as a political choice. Although, if I had to spin it as a political choice, I would say that giving people money on the condition that they work for it is a conservative thang rather than a liberal one.
Prisons are full of democrats.
Federal prisons are full of republicans.
Jess: What? How the hey can providing someone work make someone, in any way, responsible for being a victim?
Right now, I’m kind of interested in Scott Peterson’s mother’s political affiliation. She’s now said that she feels like she’s “living in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.” Safe bet: it’s not the Reality Party.
Doesn’t matter. I’m betting he’s already cast his last ballot.
Monty – some pundits feel that the Smarts exposed their children to danger by allowing homeless vagrants into their home. BTW, I wasn’t stating this as my opinion – just what I’ve heard from the above pundits. Which pundits? Well, definately Ken Hamblin and G. Gordon Liddy. Possibly Dr. Laura, as well, although I’m not 100% sure of hearing her say this. And a couple of others also, but I was channel hopping and don’t remember exactly who. I don’t listen to Rush, BTW. Anyway, I only mentioned it because this complaint against the Smarts is very different from the way the OP stated it. Also, although the pundits I heard were critical of the Smart’s choice to bring strange workers into their home, I certainly have never heard any of them charactarize that choice as rendering the abduction “all their fault.”
True. Republicans usually have enough money to pay someone else to whack her.
Jess: It doesn’t make it at all their fault. It’s an invalid argument.
Oh, for God’s sake - there’s no rule here that says you have to defend your question.
biker has asked a factual question, and it’s not how to do something illegal.
If you can answer it, answer it. If you can’t, shut up.
I can’t answer it.
Monty, let me try again:
biker asked whether Scott Peterson’s political affiliation is known because he feels that, if Peterson is a Democrat, “right wing radio talk show hosts” will try to “spin” his crime as being somehow the fault of his liberalism. He supports his theory with the Elizabeth Smart case, saying that said right-wing-radio-types have blamed her kidnapping on her parent’s “liberal” habit of "giving money to [the homeless*. This is, as you say, an invalid argument. Clear so far?
My contribution was merely to point out that biker is misinformed about the right-wing-radio-types blaming the Smarts because of “liberalism” or, indeed, because of their giving money to the poor. The only right-wing-radio criticism that I have heard directed at the Smarts was that they allowed potentially dangerous strangers into their home. I’ve heard them called “foolish” and “reckless” for bringing these homeless people into their home, but I’ve never heard anyone call the abduction their fault. Nor have I even heard them called “liberal” by any of the right-wing-talk-show guys I’ve listened to…
At any rate, none of the opinions or arguments I quoted were my opinions or arguments. I’m just the messenger, here.
I think we’ve had enough of this. The question has a factual answer, but apparently nobody here knows what it is.
I would suggest that if you want a factual answer in any way involving politics, you should leave all your personal opinions about politics, political figures, and political pundits out of the thread. That way you might be more likely to get the facts you’re after than people disagreeing with your opinions.
bibliophage
moderator GQ