CSS: That’s damn close to lying, Sean. When you talk about what I said, make sure you represent what I said accurately.

‘Unacceptable’ is not the same as ‘Potentially abusive.’

First, thanks for not jumping to your usual “You’re a fucking liar” absolute. MUCH easier to have a decent debate when you realize I’m not out to misrepresent you.

Which is why I didn’t use quotes. Clearly I was paraphrasing and summarizing what you said. Which, to quote exactly, was “I think if the name is sufficiently heinous should be grounds for charges of emotional abuse. What if you named your kid Unwanted? … Calling your kid Adolf Hitler is reason for investigation.” Note, you didn’t use the term “potentially abusive” so while ‘unacceptable’ isn’t the same as ‘potentially abusive’, neither is ‘heinous’.

But do you really have to redirect the conversation off to essentially immaterial differences in word choice? I was far more interested (over on that thread, let’s not start it here) of hearing your reply to the question that was asked by a couple of people (using various phrasings) that it took you a while to get to answering: Just what would constitute a henious/unacceptable name and who gets to decide?

Power corrupts and all that. Wouldn’t really disagree. But I’d still want, y’know, something more that “He’s a politician. I’m pretty sure he’s corrupt” before starting an investigation.

McCarthy is so 1950′s.

Two points…

1.) I never drink coffee.
2.) Are you on crack? Restrained?

Sean D. Martin: “Investigated? For what? Being powerful and unintelligent?”

He’s a politician. I’m pretty sure he’s corrupt. Call it the law of averages.

You have someone this arrogant in his abuse of power, and I can almost guarantee he’s corrupt.

“Over on the “Mom of Adolf Hitler” thread you say parents should be investigated if they don’t name their kid something acceptable.”

That’s damn close to lying, Sean. When you talk about what I said, make sure you represent what I said accurately.

‘Unacceptable’ is not the same as ‘Potentially abusive.’

Now what was it you were saying about Sen. Byrd?

J.

Investigated? For what? Being powerful and unintelligent?

Over on the “Mom of Adolf Hitler” thread you say parents should be investigated if they don’t name their kid something acceptable. Here you want some investigated just because you see them as stupid and powerful.

What next? Investigate anyone who voted for McCain or was a member of the Young Democrats?

You’re getting kinda right wing, C.

Hey, I didn’t say it was going to be easy!

I can’t believe someone that stupid, with that much power, isn’t completely corrupt. Someone should investigate him and see if he can’t be shoved in a small jail cell somewhere.

Oh, I don’t know. Mr. Obama has made it clear on his very first full day in office that he intends to make the middle east a top priority. Ms. Clinton has a chance to make history and join Mr. Gore as a Nobel laureate.

Under Bush II, incompetence was rewarded. The very people who allowed 9/11 to happen were promoted, not fired. Traditionally Sec. of State folks don’t last very long. It’s a hard job if you take it seriously (unlike Condoleeza Rice, who basically twiddled her thumbs for four years and accomplished nothing).

So it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Oh, and by the way Republicans: Bill Clinton is no longer your president. It’s Barack Hussein Obama.

Do you really see these at the same thing?

So then it must be Secretary of State Hillary “Barack Obama Is Not Ready To Be President” Clinton to you, sir.

Yes, by all means. Let’s equate supporting the assassination of judges with campaign rhetoric.

So then it must be Secretary of State Hillary “Barack Obama Is Not Ready To Be President” Clinton to you, sir.