GOP Senator Simpson: Santorum is rigid and disgusting

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, I don't think beastiality is necessarily any more abnormal than homosexuality is. Both are equally inconsistent with the underlying basis for sexually motivated behavior. Favoring copulation with female dogs, for instance, has exactly the same potential for expressing your genetic material in the next generation as favoring copulation with human members of your own sex does.

Now, if you want to argue that homosexuality is more common than beastiality is you are probably correct. But I'm just talking about having a misdirected sex drive. The sex drive is entirely misdirected in both cases.

[Ivytalk]

Joe and Ivytwat, PM'in each other ...



"Yo, Ivytwat sorry, that's still funny , D and that disgruntled rape victim just handed me my ass, again, on another **** basher thread. I'm sick of that prick. Need your help. Here's the plan - I'm gonna post some constitutional law bullshit that makes me appear intelligent so I save face. I'll run point and Tdog's got interference. The minute that fat **** Cap'n jumps in with some plain old common sense - we both hit him with everything we got. I've got Marie and the entire paralegal staff on high alert here to do research and was hoping you could do the same with your fellas in constitutional and civil rights..."

Oh, Douche1Bagg, it is to laugh. So happens that JJ and I were discussing some real legal business, not whether you'd get bitch-slapped in First Amendment matters...again.

[citdog]

So Joe - where do you draw the line between civil rights and morality?

Preachers in the south said it was immoral for blacks and whites to share facilities. Should that have been left to the states?

States' rights extends to those things not reserved to the federal government and must also not circumvent the Constitution. So, yes, it WAS left to the states, but segregation was not Constitutionally supported and that's why it died.

it was HOWEVER supported by a supreme court of the 'late united States' ruling........see plessey v ferguson.

[Ivytalk]

Yup - Simpson was a GOPer I could respect

That's because he has no spine. Here, he is criticizing someone who has the courage of his convictions and is willing to take a stand.

Simpson is a twit. A cartoon. It's always been the case.

Simpson had more influence in the Senate, and sponsored more important legislation, than Santorum could ever dream of having or doing. If by "courage of his convictions" you mean a robotic adherence to theological orthodoxy that has no place in a political campaign, I concede the point.

[D1B]

Joe and Ivytwat, PM'in each other ...



"Yo, Ivytwat sorry, that's still funny , D and that disgruntled rape victim just handed me my ass, again, on another **** basher thread. I'm sick of that prick. Need your help. Here's the plan - I'm gonna post some constitutional law bullshit that makes me appear intelligent so I save face. I'll run point and Tdog's got interference. The minute that fat **** Cap'n jumps in with some plain old common sense - we both hit him with everything we got. I've got Marie and the entire paralegal staff on high alert here to do research and was hoping you could do the same with your fellas in constitutional and civil rights..."

Oh, Douche1Bagg, it is to laugh. So happens that JJ and I were discussing some real legal business, not whether you'd get bitch-slapped in First Amendment matters...again.

Make sure you tell your clients that you two knuckleheads are communicating through a football message board.

[Ivytalk]

Oh, Douche1Bagg, it is to laugh. So happens that JJ and I were discussing some real legal business, not whether you'd get bitch-slapped in First Amendment matters...again.

Make sure you tell your clients that you two knuckleheads are communicating through a football message board.

'Makes perfect sense, Tom Thumb. If you were following the story, the PM connection didn't work right, so we got things done via e-mail. Go back to slamming your conveniently dead targets like Mother Theresa.

[D1B]

Make sure you tell your clients that you two knuckleheads are communicating through a football message board.

'Makes perfect sense, Tom Thumb. If you were following the story, the PM connection didn't work right, so we got things done via e-mail. Go back to slamming your conveniently dead targets like Mother Theresa.

Okay, Atticus Finch.

[Ivytalk]

BTW, I don't think beastiality is necessarily any more abnormal than homosexuality is. Both are equally inconsistent with the underlying basis for sexually motivated behavior. Favoring copulation with female dogs, for instance, has exactly the same potential for expressing your genetic material in the next generation as favoring copulation with human members of your own sex does.

Now, if you want to argue that homosexuality is more common than beastiality is you are probably correct. But I'm just talking about having a misdirected sex drive. The sex drive is entirely misdirected in both cases.

Thank you, Dr. Kinsey.

[Cap'n Cat]

"Hey, D! We made it! We've revolved!
You go after the theologians and I'll match wits with the lawyers."

[kalm]

BTW, I don't think beastiality is necessarily any more abnormal than homosexuality is. Both are equally inconsistent with the underlying basis for sexually motivated behavior. Favoring copulation with female dogs, for instance, has exactly the same potential for expressing your genetic material in the next generation as favoring copulation with human members of your own sex does.

Now, if you want to argue that homosexuality is more common than beastiality is you are probably correct. But I'm just talking about having a misdirected sex drive. The sex drive is entirely misdirected in both cases.

No, nobody is interested in arguing any of that because it's bat shit crazy.

All you need is love, John.

[mainejeff]

No. The GOP no longer accepts his kind.

THis registered GOP'er does.

And there are a lot more like me than you might think.

Until you and MANY more like you reject the current face of your party........America will continue to suffer from an ineffective and misguided party on one side.........and a party that will continue to be unchallenged on the other side. I might support Democrats, but it is never good for either party to have a false mandate........the Republican Party is handing it to them on a silver platter.

[Cap'n Cat]

THis registered GOP'er does.

And there are a lot more like me than you might think.

Until you and MANY more like you reject the current face of your party........America will continue to suffer from an ineffective and misguided party on one side.........and a party that will continue to be unchallenged on the other side. I might support Democrats, but it is never good for either party to have a false mandate........the Republican Party is handing it to them on a silver platter.

Word.

[CID1990]

Until you and MANY more like you reject the current face of your party........America will continue to suffer from an ineffective and misguided party on one side.........and a party that will continue to be unchallenged on the other side. I might support Democrats, but it is never good for either party to have a false mandate........the Republican Party is handing it to them on a silver platter.

Word.

I think the Santorum surge is no different from the Gingrich surge. Primary voters are just underwhelmed by Romney. Some want to see him take on a little fire, rather than being the vanilla candidate. Think of it this way; there have been 4 candidates who have out-polled Romney during the debate season. None of them have been even remotely electable, except for perhaps one (if he didn't have the problems with chasing tail). I think that at the end of the day, we are going to see Romney as the candidate, and even the people who are giving Santorum a second look know this and will ultimately support Romney.

As for Santorum, I think this last debate put him to bed for good. He came across as the "go along to get along" big government Republican (as he voted in lockstep with all of GWB's big spending proposals) and he could not defend his positions at all. The nutroot religious right is still going to take him over Romney, but let's face it... those people are not the majority face of the Republican voting bloc.

I'd expect a brokered convention if it seemed even remotely possible that anyone other than Romney was going to get the nod. Social conservative issues will never propel anyone to the Oval Office in this country. The Ron Paul brand of libertarianism won't, and a tail chaser won't fly, either (although that one works in the Democratic Party, it becomes somewhat hypocritical in the Republican fold).

Any in depth discussion about why this GOP canditate or that one is out-polling Romney has much more to do with Romney than anything else. Santorum's half-life in this campaign is about 2 weeks at best.

[Seahawks08]

although that one works in the Democratic Party

John Edwards would like to speak with you...

[JoltinJoe]

Make sure you tell your clients that you two knuckleheads are communicating through a football message board.

I'm taking on a new case involving issues on which IT is a highly-regarded authority, and he quite graciously pointed me to some cases to get me started. His guidance is greatly appreciated. The time he spent helping me would have ordinarily cost several hundred dollars, and by giving me a jump start, he saved my client several thousands of dollars.

[89Hen]

THis registered GOP'er does.

And there are a lot more like me than you might think.

Until you and MANY more like you reject the current face of your party........America will continue to suffer from an ineffective and misguided party on one side.........and a party that will continue to be unchallenged on the other side. I might support Democrats, but it is never good for either party to have a false mandate........the Republican Party is handing it to them on a silver platter.

What makes you think the Dems are effective and guided?

[Cap'n Cat]

Until you and MANY more like you reject the current face of your party........America will continue to suffer from an ineffective and misguided party on one side.........and a party that will continue to be unchallenged on the other side. I might support Democrats, but it is never good for either party to have a false mandate........the Republican Party is handing it to them on a silver platter.

What makes you think the Dems are effective and guided?

Um, have you looked around, a-hole? Compared to you Conks, they're a well-oiled machine!

[89Hen]

What makes you think the Dems are effective and guided?

Um, have you looked around, a-hole? Compared to you Conks, they're a well-oiled machine!

A-hole? Bad Wheaties this morning Cat? Dems are hanging on by a thread. It's ONLY because of the ineptitude of the GOP to offer a good candidate for POTUS that they look good. You know the perception of the whole party lies squarely on the CIC candidate in an election year.

[Cap'n Cat]

Um, have you looked around, a-hole? Compared to you Conks, they're a well-oiled machine!

A-hole? Bad Wheaties this morning Cat? Dems are hanging on by a thread. It's ONLY because of the ineptitude of the GOP to offer a good candidate for POTUS that they look good. You know the perception of the whole party lies squarely on the CIC candidate in an election year.

So, you surrender to my dead-on analysis, right?

[89Hen]

A-hole? Bad Wheaties this morning Cat? Dems are hanging on by a thread. It's ONLY because of the ineptitude of the GOP to offer a good candidate for POTUS that they look good. You know the perception of the whole party lies squarely on the CIC candidate in an election year.

So, you surrender to my dead-on analysis, right?

Sounds more like you agree with mine... that the Dems are not effective or guided.

[GannonFan]

THis registered GOP'er does.

And there are a lot more like me than you might think.

Until you and MANY more like you reject the current face of your party........America will continue to suffer from an ineffective and misguided party on one side.........and a party that will continue to be unchallenged on the other side. I might support Democrats, but it is never good for either party to have a false mandate........the Republican Party is handing it to them on a silver platter.

There won't even be much of a false mandate if in the Fall the Dems retain the White House and the GOP both holds the House and wins control in the Senate. I don't think the GOP is necessarily being hurt by it's lack of a credible Presidential candidate - the only think being hurt is the GOP's chances in the Presidential race. But a non-competitive Presidential race will minimize the coattails, if any, that Dems can use from Obama's reelection. Local races for the House and Senate will still be difficult for the Dems in this cycle.

[D1B]

Make sure you tell your clients that you two knuckleheads are communicating through a football message board.

I'm taking on a new case involving issues on which IT is a highly-regarded authority, and he quite graciously pointed me to some cases to get me started. His guidance is greatly appreciated. The time he spent helping me would have ordinarily cost several hundred dollars, and by giving me a jump start, he saved my client several thousands of dollars.

I'm a highly regarded authority on confidentiality issues. Your use of an unsecured public message board as a communication medium violates several ethical principles.

An attorney should consult with a client before communicating with the client by unencrypted e-mail.[1] It is not necessary to obtain express consent but it is necessary to consult with the client about the risks of communicating by unencrypted e-mail before doing so. American Bar Association Formal Opinion 99-413 concluded that communication with a client by unencrypted e-mail does not violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In reaching that conclusion the ABA cautioned:

The conclusions reached in this opinion do not, however, diminish a lawyer's obligation to consider with her client the sensitivity of the communication, the costs of its disclosure, and the relative security of the contemplated medium of communication. Particularly strong protective measures are warranted to guard against the disclosure of highly sensitive matters. Those measures might include the avoidance of e-mail, [footnote omitted] just as they would warrant the avoidance of the telephone, fax, and mail. See Model Rule 1.1 and 1.4(b). The lawyer must, of course, abide by the client's wishes regarding the means of transmitting client information. See Model Rule 1.2(a).

E-mail communications have become widespread but, from an attorney ethics perspective, it is probably not safe to assume that clients have an adequate understanding of the risks involved in communication by e-mail. In particular, it seems unlikely that clients will identify the risk that e-mail will be accessed by others who have legitimate access to a shared computer or network. Requests for informal advisory opinions, from attorneys whose clients have accessed materials on a legitimately shared computer, reinforce the concern that clients may not understand some of the risks.

Many e-mail attorney-client communications involve relatively innocuous information and do not present a great concern even if they are intercepted. On the other hand, any communication from an attorney that can be accessed by others may be of concern in some situations. For example, a client who is considering filing for dissolution could be significantly impacted if any communication from the attorney is received on a computer shared with the client’s spouse. Therefore, in order to be sufficient, consultation with an existing client prior to communicating by e-mail should take into consideration the nature of the client’s legal matter and the environment in which the client sends and receives e-mail. In some situations, similar concerns can arise regarding communications by regular mail or telephone.

[Ivytalk]

I'm taking on a new case involving issues on which IT is a highly-regarded authority, and he quite graciously pointed me to some cases to get me started. His guidance is greatly appreciated. The time he spent helping me would have ordinarily cost several hundred dollars, and by giving me a jump start, he saved my client several thousands of dollars.

I'm a highly regarded authority on confidentiality issues. Your use of an unsecured public message board as a communication medium violates several ethical principles.

An attorney should consult with a client before communicating with the client by unencrypted e-mail.[1] It is not necessary to obtain express consent but it is necessary to consult with the client about the risks of communicating by unencrypted e-mail before doing so. American Bar Association Formal Opinion 99-413 concluded that communication with a client by unencrypted e-mail does not violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In reaching that conclusion the ABA cautioned:

The conclusions reached in this opinion do not, however, diminish a lawyer's obligation to consider with her client the sensitivity of the communication, the costs of its disclosure, and the relative security of the contemplated medium of communication. Particularly strong protective measures are warranted to guard against the disclosure of highly sensitive matters. Those measures might include the avoidance of e-mail, [footnote omitted] just as they would warrant the avoidance of the telephone, fax, and mail. See Model Rule 1.1 and 1.4(b). The lawyer must, of course, abide by the client's wishes regarding the means of transmitting client information. See Model Rule 1.2(a).

E-mail communications have become widespread but, from an attorney ethics perspective, it is probably not safe to assume that clients have an adequate understanding of the risks involved in communication by e-mail. In particular, it seems unlikely that clients will identify the risk that e-mail will be accessed by others who have legitimate access to a shared computer or network. Requests for informal advisory opinions, from attorneys whose clients have accessed materials on a legitimately shared computer, reinforce the concern that clients may not understand some of the risks.

Many e-mail attorney-client communications involve relatively innocuous information and do not present a great concern even if they are intercepted. On the other hand, any communication from an attorney that can be accessed by others may be of concern in some situations. For example, a client who is considering filing for dissolution could be significantly impacted if any communication from the attorney is received on a computer shared with the client’s spouse. Therefore, in order to be sufficient, consultation with an existing client prior to communicating by e-mail should take into consideration the nature of the client’s legal matter and the environment in which the client sends and receives e-mail. In some situations, similar concerns can arise regarding communications by regular mail or telephone.

Hey, Dim1Bulb, stick to Catholic-bashing and leave the law do the big boys, like JJ, danefan and me.

[D1B]

I'm a highly regarded authority on confidentiality issues. Your use of an unsecured public message board as a communication medium violates several ethical principles.

Hey, Dim1Bulb, stick to Catholic-bashing and leave the law do the big boys, like JJ, danefan and me.

IvyTrim and Joltin Joe,

PM me your email addresses please. I want to send you email security software info. There are a plethora of outstanding encryption products on the market that will help secure sensitive client and case info. Some of em are free too.



Bananas, D1B & Mango, LLC

[Ivytalk]

Hey, Dim1Bulb, stick to Catholic-bashing and leave the law do the big boys, like JJ, danefan and me.

IvyTrim and Joltin Joe,

PM me your email addresses please. I want to send you email security software info. There are a plethora of outstanding encryption products on the market that will help secure sensitive client and case info. Some of em are free too.



Bananas, D1B & Mango, LLC

Affiliated with Moe, Larry & Curly, LLP. Not licensed to practice law anywhere.