The lying left has found their narrative to demonize Candace Owens, and they're not about to let a little thing like truth get in their way.

Representative Ted Lieu played a partial recording of Candace Owen's response to a question, suggesting that she was offering apologetics for Hitler.

She was not. In explaining the difference between "nationalism" and "white nationalism," she said, "If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine."

There is nothing wrong with national leaders wishing to make their own country great and have things run well. That, of course, is nationalism. Loyalty to the ideals of one's own nation.

However, the left is using this to demonize Owens as giving her tacit endorsement of Hitler's genocidal agenda, completely excising the portions of her response to this question in which she referred to Hitler as a "homicidal, psychopathic maniac."

But as I said, the left found their stick to beat Candace Owens with, for the damnable sin of being a member of a minority that the left wishes to coddle to death but rejecting the left's brand of "help." They're not about to let it go; truth be damned.

Conan and Ben, I hope you both get a chance to see this video. The left demonstrates the very type of dishonesty that the two of you love to engage in. I'm sure it will leave you squealing like schoolgirls looking at the high school quarterback with his shirt off.

I also note that Jerry Nadler needs to be checked for signs of dementia. He chided Owens for referring to Ted Lieu as "stupid," when she said no such thing. What she said was that Lieu thinks black people are too stupid to look for her quote in context and expose Lieu as a liar (which he is).

Lt. Col. Richard E. Cole, the last surviving member of the Doolittle Raid, passed away yesterday. Of the 80 men on the harrowing mission, 73 made it back to the United States. The raiders' names were engraved on silver goblets and at each reunion the surviving men toasted the fallen and flipped their goblets upside down. You can see the goblets and learn more about the Doolittle Raid at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force.

He was 103.

California sets the fashions in almost every corner of American life... Industry, finance, leisure, sexuality, music... Even spirituality. Her stunning natural beauty —verdant hills, striking deserts, snow-capped mountains and nourishing farm soils, all caressed with fresh ocean breezes— reminds every man, whatever his station in life, to seize the day and transform his life into something meaningful and expressive, no matter what others think.

Of course the rest of you in America envy us. Of course you do.

Crid, I readily concede the brilliance of California commuters...

How are the Millennials doing, really? In some ways, not as bad as everyone thinks. In some other ways, maybe worse.

Conan and Ben, I hope you both get a chance to see this video. The left demonstrates the very type of dishonesty that the two of you love to engage in. I'm sure it will leave you squealing like schoolgirls looking at the high school quarterback with his shirt off.

You're telling lies about me again, Patrick. I have not been dishonest about you or to you, Patrick, I've just told you the truth and you can't handle it - as evidenced by your underhanded and weaselly aspersions cast from ambush.

Like Lieu and Nadler, you start with an assumption of your own righteousness and lambaste any who disagree with you, cherry-picking and twisting what they say to fit the narrative you're created.

I've seen the video. I get what Owens was trying to say about Hitler. Her phrasing was clunky, but not wholly inaccurate. Her argument is with globalism - i.e., citizenship of the world - and she argues that nationalism, if tempered, has a proper role in the world. Hitler was indeed bent upon conquest, not solely on restoring Germany to her pre-WWI place in the world.

I've gone a few rounds with another poster here over the ideological foundations fascism has in common with socialism - both are collectivist ideologies and I'm opposed to collectivism, whatever outfit it wears. People who don't understand those similarities get upset when you compare their preferred -ism to one that the world has generally accepted as evil incarnate.

Lieu (and Nadler) were openly hostile and wholly dishonest in the exchange shown, as you have been in our exchanges. You imagine yourself to be Owens in our exchanges and me to be Lieu. In reality, you are Lieu, dishonest and self-righteous, quick to take offense and insult any who dare to disagree with you.

You called me "blind" and "stupid" when I pointed out that McGlockton was not advancing on Drejka when the shot was fired. The autopsy later showed that the bullet entered McGlockton from the side; that McGlockton was, in fact, turning away from Drejka at the time he was shot. So, what did you do in light of this new evidence? You doubled down on your claim that McGlockton was advancing on Drejka.

"Four steps" you insist the video shows; "stupid and blind" you reply when I tell you I only counted two forward steps and one or two steps-in-place with McGlockton hitching up his pants while staying on the curb. Nope, "stupid and blind" I must be in not agreeing with you.

Did I condemn Drejka as you've alleged I did? No. He was suddenly and rudely shoved to the ground by a larger and younger man, escalating the encounter to a violent one. My stated opinion then was that we, in hindsight, cannot put ourselves in Drejka's mind as to whether he legitimately perceived McGlockton as an imminent threat.

In addition, you continue to lie that I supported the forced resignation of Al Franken when, in fact, I did not. What I did was commit the cardinal sin of challenging your characterization of his first accuser as a "hypocritical, lying tramp" and, in that challenge, opine that you have neo-puritanical tendencies, which you do. By the way, your fan-boy worship of Franken is creepy, Norman Bates creepy. You should probably have that checked out.

You like to drag me into your posts with weasel attacks from ambush, like this one. I've tried to be accommodating, telling you that you add something to this forum with your point of view. In return, you've called me "sub-human filth" and impugned my character, even calling me, at one point, a "coward" when I counseled restraint instead of violence. I'm starting to doubt the wisdom of being civil to you - you're the proverbial pig in the mud that gets both of us dirty - and you like it.

Crid, on more than one occasion, has characterized you as a nine-year-old, at least emotionally and intellectually. I think that characterization, while accurate, does a disservice to nine-year-olds, who generally exhibit more grace and intellect in their childhood than you do in your alleged adulthood. You're an ass, Patrick. Have a nice day.

"I've gone a few rounds with another poster here over the ideological foundations fascism has in common with socialism"

I hope you're not referring to me, because I don't disagree with you on that. Last month, I undertook to do some reading on the roots of Italian fascism, which of course is where the whole thing started. And while it was interesting reading, honestly, I'm not seeing many philosophical differences between that and socialism / collectivism. (Don't lose sight of the fact that, for all of its internationalist pretenses, Soviet Communism was very much a Russian nationalist movement; the other Warsaw Pact countries were widely regarded in Russia as conquered territories.) There are some differences in economic implementation, but pretty much no difference in the desired end result. (Or the actual end result, for that matter.)

And Conan beat me to it here. You've got things backwards Patrick. You are Lieu. I hope you grow out of it.

It is the collectivist root that is the problem CD. Once you aren't dealing with people but instead groups and not assigning reward and punishment to the individual but instead to the group as a whole the system falls apart. If I get paid based on how hard my neighbors works and they get paid based on how hard I work then there is no reason for me to work. I still get paid the same.

And yes there are many names for collectivism. It fails every time it is implemented. So in order to keep selling it you have to keep changing branding.

No, CD, you're not the poster to which I was referring. The only reason I did not name said poster is I didn't want him to feel I was attacking him. I was not.

Mussolini actually started out as a socialist, and adapted many of socialism's tenets in developing his fascist ideology. He read and studied Georges Sorel, a French socialist and advocate of violence as a means of political advancement.

Conan: Lieu (and Nadler) were openly hostile and wholly dishonest in the exchange shown...

I'm not sure Nadler was dishonest, not paying attention, or if he's in the incipient stages of Alzheimer's.

Makes me wish these meetings had a stenographer. Owens could have nailed him to the wall by having the stenographer read back her own words for Nadler's benefit.

As for Lieu, he certainly could be dishonest. However, I wonder if he simply got that out-of-context quote from one of his supporters, assumed he struck gold, and didn't bother to check it out for proper context. That seems plausible.

But either way, that does not absolve him of personal responsibility. Either he intentionally lied or maligned someone because he was too irresponsible and lazy to check out her quote in context.

Conan: Her phrasing was clunky,...

She was answering a question off-the-cuff. I can forgive clunkiness under the circumstances. I have to say, I was very impressed by how articulate she was when she handed Lieu's and Nadler's asses to them.

I could go on and on about your recollections of our previous exchanges, which I will courteously describe as "fanciful."

Conan: By the way, your fan-boy worship of Franken is creepy, Norman Bates creepy. You should probably have that checked out.

Which you say in response to a post in which I didn't even mention Franken. Maybe like the dishonest left is doubling down in their mischaracterization of Candace Owens, you're simply looking for cudgels to beat people with.

But I must point out that I called Lee Ann Tweeden a "lying, hypocritical tramp" (which I will stand by), not "hypocritical, lying tramp."

Which you say in response to a post in which I didn't even mention Franken. Maybe like the dishonest left is doubling down in their mischaracterization of Candace Owens, you're simply looking for cudgels to beat people with. ~ Patrick at April 10, 2019 8:25 AM

No, you sniped the Franken reference about a month ago, quite out of the blue. It was addressed in that thread. That attack, like this one, was unprovoked, unwarranted, and unfounded, so I referred back to it.

The Drejka reference was to point out your propensity to direct insults at anyone (and everyone) who disagrees with you.

But I must point out that I called Lee Ann Tweeden a "lying, hypocritical tramp" (which I will stand by), not "hypocritical, lying tramp." ~ Patrick at April 10, 2019 8:25 AM

I'll make a note of that. I wouldn't want to be accused of misquoting you.

I'm not sure Nadler was dishonest, not paying attention, or if he's in the incipient stages of Alzheimer's. ~ Patrick at April 10, 2019 8:25 AM

I think he was being deliberately dishonest. And I think he was startled when she called him on it. Hence, his dismissive wave.

IMO, he was trying to set Lieu up as the aggrieved party in that exchange, and she wasn't having any part of it.

As for Lieu, he certainly could be dishonest. However, I wonder if he simply got that out-of-context quote from one of his supporters, assumed he struck gold, and didn't bother to check it out for proper context. That seems plausible. ~ Patrick at April 10, 2019 8:25 AM

No, he knew he could use the quote against her even if taken out of context, thus he didn't bother to check the context - that's dishonesty.

Soundbites taken out of context are the weapons-of-choice against Trump and his supporters. That he gives his attackers plenty of ammunition is no excuse for the dishonesty.

It works both ways. For example, Nancy Pelosi did not actually say of Obamacare that we'd have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. In reality, she essentially said that once it was passed, the taxpayers would realize all the goodies they're getting from it and support it.

Kamala Harris is a danger.

Harris, smart, tough and quick to offer freebies we can’t afford to citizens perhaps returning the favor at the voting booth, offered little to defendants when she served as a district attorney. She didn’t tell defense attorneys, for instance, that a lab technician had messed with drug evidence by such methods as theft, and so you got convictions based on a fair share of hooey. A judge let 600 of the victims go home despite Harris’s unprincipled protests.

When she was attorney general, there was a man whose stepdaughter had accused him of sexual abuse. He said she was lying and turned down a plea bargain offer of just a few years in prison. He got convicted without evidence being presented that she had in fact lied like a spurting fire hydrant to police. When that became known, Harris and team still fought to keep him in prison for decades, and won.

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article228905989.html

Yeah, I know, Reddit...but this is pretty good and short. (It's a Rashomon comic of sorts, about how four-plus sections of society view the childfree.)

https://i.redd.it/dkrpu47ve8r21.jpg

From Court News UK:

"Money Launderer Let Off Because She Has Kids."

"A female member of an organised crime gang who laundered up to £5.5m through hundreds of bank accounts held by Chinese students was spared jail because of her childcare commitments. Mother of four Rogzhu Wei, 33, and seven others, collected cash from illegal enterprises across the country before depositing large quantities of cash at high street banks. The underworld launderers used nearly 500 bank accounts, most of which belonged to Chinese students. Gang members splashed their earnings on luxury motors..."

(paywall)

More on it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Rong+Zhu+Wei+laundering&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR-NCr_MXhAhUhwlkKHYNpAaAQBQgpKAA&biw=1920&bih=969

Oh, and speaking of the horrors of polygyny, this is a nasty, short anecdote from Fauziya Kassindja's autobiography "Do They Hear You When You Cry."

It starts with: "Anybody who lives in a place where many of the households are polygamous has seen the resentments and bitterness that can result. My own most vivid glimpse into such a household occurred when I was about ten."

https://books.google.com/books?id=4YxhleF3_UUC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=%22when+I+was+about+ten.+several+of+my%22&source=bl&ots=UlfGOoM-JC&sig=ACfU3U3seE2wn2VQNl-sxvnyiDV459Qtow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1lf_D_cXhAhXBneAKHT8dCVYQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22when%20I%20was%20about%20ten.%20several%20of%20my%22&f=false

(She grew up in Togo, West Africa, and when her protective father died when she was a teen, his relatives tried, in 1994, to force her into marriage to a man 30 years her senior, with three wives - and they were also going to mutilate her. She fled to Germany and then to the U.S., begged for asylum, and was thrown in jail instead for well over a year. She won eventually.)

Superlovehandles:

https://www.bulimia.com/examine/superheroes-with-realistic-body-types/

Stinky:

Thanks for noting LTC Cole's passing.

One very small point:

"Of the 80 men on the harrowing mission, 73 made it back to the United States."

Eventually.

"Three of the 80 Doolittle raiders were killed in crash landings or while parachuting. Eight others were captured by the Japanese. Three of them were executed, another died of disease and starvation in captivity, and four survived more than three years of solitary confinement and brutality."

Conan: I'll make a note of that. I wouldn't want to be accused of misquoting you.

I've decided I'll take less offense over that. I've come to realize, through my own research, we actually remember very little. We remember very tiny snippets and our brains insert the narrative between the gaps.

In any case, I don't think it's done out of malice, per se. Just your human habit of filling in the gaps between the instances you do remember, probably flavored by your roiling hatred for me, but whatever.

I recall a time when you thought I said Dubya was the worst President in history. I insisted I never said that, and I think recent presidents shouldn't be considered. History needs time to ferment and we have to look back and judge the Presidents of today.

I then opined that Grant would be a good candidate for worst President. Harding, too, for the same reason: they both made disastrously bad cabinet appointments. They were not incompetents, but supremely unethical who used their positions to their own advantage, the law be damned.

Harding once famously declared that he could handle his enemies, but it was his "goddamned friends" that kept him pacing the floor at nights.

When I pointed this out, you seemed quite willing to concede you made a mistake.

Isab, as I recall, chose Wilson as the worst. Presumably because his AG committed some of the most egregious violations of human rights in our history. Not on a par with slaughtering natives or enslaving black people, but pretty horrific in its own way. Not hard to see whom Joe McCarthy was emulating.

As for anything else Wilson might have done, do we know for a fact that it was him, or his wife?

She also said that Obama might take the top spot.

Possibly, but as I said, it's too soon. We need time to see the long-term effects.

Dubya might be remembered as bad for his completely unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Obama, for all his denunciations of divisiveness, will likely be remembered as among the most divisive in history.

Some is not his fault. I think with the election of a black man, black activists, forever insisting that racism was the reason for everything any black person ever did wrong, suddenly realized with the election of a black President, they were out of excuses. So, they (and other grievance mongering demographics) had to invent things to whine about, such as microaggressions and cultural appropriation.

Other things, on the other hand, he could have done better on. He should have stayed out of the Gates/Concord Police Department incident, and he should have kept his mouth shut on Trayvon Martin.

He also should have taken the opportunity to tell Black Lives Matter to reign it in, stop blocking traffic, stop rioting and destroying your own towns. Instead, in what is perhaps the most ill-mannered act ever taken by any President in the line of duty, he used the memorial service of five murdered police officers to praise Black Lives Matter as peaceful.

No, they are not.

I don't recall who you chose as the worst President of all.

Is it too soon to pick LBJ, do you think? His pandering to black people with the Civil Rights Act and his prediction that black people would be voting democrat proved remarkably prescient.

And the Civil Rights Act, which was never well-intentioned, has only made things worse.

Rule 34 of the Boston Dynamics robot bullying video (no nudity buuuut NOT SAFE FOR WORK nonetheless)

https://twitter.com/PandasAndGaming/status/1115967544719024133

Avoid using the "S" word.

https://twitter.com/LauraLMonroe33/status/1116005636096036865

I thought Rule 34 was war is good for business. Not the Rules of Acquisition? ah.

And for the record, I've changed my mind on worst democratic candidate for President.

Gillibrand is awful, yes; her talking points are basically claiming that there are certain injustices going on, which aren't, then vowing to do something about them. For example, she insists that she will bring about equal pay for women. (They already have it.) And affordable day care, which can only mean that the government will subsidize it. Very good. Let's encourage people to have children they can't afford.

But the worst democratic candidate is Tulsi Gabbard.

I could say Eric Swalwell (the guy who keeps threatening to drop nukes on people who disagree with his gun-control views), but I don't regard him as a serious candidate. On the other hand, Harris is looking more every day like the second coming of Janet Reno. Shivers.

...probably flavored by your roiling hatred for me, but whatever. ~ Patrick at April 10, 2019 11:16 AM

I don't hate you. I know you despise me, because you've told me that. I'm sorry to break it to you, but I'm indifferent to you; I don't care one way or the other about you.

I don't recall who you chose as the worst President of all. ~ Patrick at April 10, 2019 11:16 AM

Is it too soon to pick LBJ, do you think? ~ Patrick at April 10, 2019 11:16 AM

I don't know that I chose. Certainly one or two of Lincoln's immediate predecessors would be in the running, but one could argue there was little they could do to end slavery and head off the coming Civil War.

JFK could be in the running, due to sending US troops to Vietnam and getting us into that quagmire - I mean, if you're going to qualify Bush with Iraq, you can certainly make an argument for JFK with Vietnam.

Nixon deserves a mention, not for Watergate, but for his wage and price controls. One could also argue for his inclusion based on establishing the EPA, if one views environmental regulation as a bad thing.

However, "Worst Ever" is a title not a title to be bestowed for one or two policy mis-steps, no matter how egregious. "Worst Ever" must have done lasting damage to the country through arrogance, ignorance, or incompetence.

Your choice of LBJ fits that criterion in many regards, but you'll have a difficult time convincing those who argue the Civil Rights Act was a good thing. You could make a good case for him, though.

Harding and Grant did chose badly in selecting Cabinet officers. Grant, at least, had other redeeming aspects. "But he falls short of the greats: Too many of his major accomplishments failed to endure after he left office, and his blind spots were too glaring."

Hoover's panicked reaction to the Great depression likely puts him in the running. For a man who graduated in Stanford's inaugural class, ran mining operations all over the world, and successfully managed two global relief efforts, his ignorance of economic realities was glaring.

FDR's over-reaction to the Great Depression, implementation of the welfare state, and economic over-reach put him in the running as well. His leadership in World War II rescues him in the eyes of most historians.

The consensus of historians seems to have settled on Harding, who not only displayed managerial incompetence but had few, if any, positive aspects of his presidency to offset his missteps.

You might find 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America: And Four Who Tried to Save Her by Brion McClanahan interesting.

The Nine:

• Andrew Jackson
• Abraham Lincoln
• Theodore Roosevelt
• Woodrow Wilson
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt
• Harry S. Truman
• Lyndon B. Johnson
• Richard M. Nixon
• Barack Obama

The Four:

• Thomas Jefferson
• John Tyler
• Grover Cleveland
• Calvin Coolidge

I haven't read it yet, so I cannot argue for or against the author's selection rationale. After Googling him, McClanahan seems to be a utopian Libertarian with animosity toward central banks, so take his assessment for what it's worth. In one interview, he rates John Tyler as our best president.

"Wife Claims She Feels 'Lucky' to Clean Up Her Husband's Messes & It's Getting People Heated"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/wife-claims-she-feels-lucky-to-clean-up-her-husbands-messes-and-its-getting-people-heated/ar-BBVAx3d?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

Quote (not from the wife):

"I'll admit these particular comments gave me pause, because while I'm all for doing whatever works for your relationship, they also beg the question: Isn't part of loving and appreciating your spouse not making them be your own personal maid – and vice-versa?"

Exactly.

Also, from a October 20, 1974 column:

DEAR ANN LANDERS, I wrote a little poem but it won't mean anything unless you return the original from which I worked I hope you will think it is worth the space. Thanks Ann.

Whiskers in the sink
Why complain? It would be silly. They belong to my guy.
Soggy towels on the floor I pick them up and say nothing.
Sox and shorts that didnt make the hamper? I quietly put them where they belong.
Crumbs in bed
Hey Wheres my pillow
Newspapers strewn all over the place
As he sits and watches hockey and baseball on TV.
But what do I care? Im not alone.
That messy guy belongs to me
He bought our house
He loves our kids
He zips me up and pats my behind
He keeps me warm and smiles a lot
Hes faithful
And he loves me HIS WIFE

Heres MY Version:

Whiskers in the sink?
Not on your life my guv swished them out.
Soggy towels?
He picks them up and says nothing.
Sox and shorts hit the hamper as he quietly puts them there.
No newspapers strewn over the place.
We both sit and watch hockey and baseball on TV.
Do I care for him? You bet.
That neat guy belongs to me.
He bought our house.
He sets an example for the kids.
God bless his mother.
She taught him love means consideration for others.
I smile a lot. I'm faithful. And he loves me.

THE WIFE OF A MATURE MAN

DEAR WIFE Thank you for a zingy rebuttal. The key to the issue lies in the 12th and 13th lines of your poem. That's when the mold is cast Its awfully hard to start in adulthood to retrain a guy. Marriage was never meant to be a reform school.

And, I would add that there are two classic clashes when it comes to dividing household chores. One is where one spouse cleans and the other doesn't because the latter doesn't SEE the point of a house that's neat and clean and wouldn't care if you didn't clean either! Even when you two want to invite guests!

Naturally, this leads to resentment. Parents need to teach their kids that just because one's guests may be too polite to complain about dust mice, dangerous clutter (it takes just one transparent plastic bag on the floor to result in a broken leg), or bad smells that make guests think "maybe I shouldn't eat anything that was cooked here," that doesn't mean they aren't offended. Not to mention that the cleaning spouse deserves just as much free time as the other spouse, and it's not fair to deprive the former spouse of that time. Bottom line: It is NOT pickiness when the cleaning spouse demands that the above offenses be removed every day and that both of you do that.

The second scenario is when a spouse argues: "I hate housework ten times as much as you, so I shouldn't have to do it."

Would you have tolerated that argument from an older sibling when you were a kid? Of course not. So what gives anyone the right to make that argument? One might as well say that since boys often hate high school more than girls, we should make it easier for them to drop out. Or that a spouse who doesn't want to earn a living shouldn't have to. (Even a century ago, a woman couldn't become a middle-class housewife unless a middle-class man was WILLING to marry her - and poor women have always worked for pay.)

To put it another way, "play" and "fun" are not the same thing. It's no fun when you play a game that bores you. In the same vein, even if you enjoy cooking dinner, it's still officially work, since it typically needs to be done every day (buying groceries on sale can cost 1/10 of what takeout costs).

Dan Savage wrote, in 1998:

“Terry cooked for me, but I resented having to do dishes. As I saw it, Terry liked cooking-he enjoyed it, he told me so. Well, I didn't enjoy washing dishes- I hated it, and I'd told him so-and didn't see why I should have to do something I hated after he got to do something he liked. I mean, that wasn't fair, was it?”

I can only hope he was joking. I'd say to him: You hate work that needs to be done? Get over it. Turn it into a game. Then you and Terry would be even.

Harris is the most dangerous candidate if you value individual liberty and privacy.

Blacklisted: Members Of Trump’s Cabinet

https://freedomwire.com/blacklisted-members-of-trumps-cabinet/

Conan:

I don't know that I chose. Certainly one or two of Lincoln's immediate predecessors would be in the running, but one could argue there was little they could do to end slavery and head off the coming Civil War.

Don't let Buchanan off the hook quite so easily. You could argue that he couldn't have done anything to prevent the impending Civil War, but it's not like he actually tried.

Moreover, his needless and wildly inappropriate meddling in the Dred Scott decision exacerbated the situation. It is surprising that he supported slavery, considering he converted his own slaves (all two of them) to indentured servants.

Nixon, yes for price and wage controls, but I do see environmental regulation as a good thing. If corporations make a mess, they should pay for cleaning it up, not poison entire communities with their waste.

I'll agree with the choice of Hoover and FDR, for the reasons you gave.

JFK, fair enough. If Bush is to be remembered as bad because of Iraq, then JFK should be condemned for Viet Nam. Moreso, in fact, because of the far greater number of casualties.

Interesting little tidbit about Buchanan: he was probably our first gay President.

The evidence certainly suggests this. Not just because of his failure to marry, but at a time when a word for homosexuality didn't exist, he and his relationship with William Rufus Devane King (who became Vice President under Franklin Pierce, but died a month and a half after assuming office) was what had the Washington wagtongues gossiping.

They lived together in a boarding house for 13 years. Andrew Jackson often referred to King as "Miss Nancy" (a term for an effeminate but not necessarily gay man). Aaron Brown referred to King as "Aunt Fancy" and Buchanan's "better half" and "wife."

Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence is a letter that Buchanan had written to Cornelia Roosevelt while King was away in France.

I am now "solitary and alone," having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone, and should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection.

But doesn't really matter. There's simply too few gay presidents to conclude that gay people should never be President.

Another candidate: Andrew Jackson for the Trail of Tears, which certainly had long term effects and even defied a Supreme Court order.

Another reason for Obama (if he should be considered): the Dear Colleague letter, depriving many male college students (and at least one female student) of their right to due process.

I've visited California before, Crid, and it's a wonderful, lovely place. However, I do NOT envy you; your state government is a commie-progressive horrorshow. You and Amy will eventually find yourselves leaving, too.

Meanwhile, New York Democrats Pass a Tax on Pain

Coming to the United States in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

Oh, wait, it's already here (NYC).

Fined $55,000 for Calling a Male a Male (in Canada)

And some child abuse thrown in:

Testosterone being given to 8-y-o girls, age lowered from 13: doctors

As far as recent presidents go I put Obama as slightly worse than Jimmy Carter. Just like Carter he did everything he could to tank the economy. Though I'll admit he failed to implement the rationing system Carter got. But you add in all the racial politics Obama embraced (while also decrying), the corrupting the government to attack his political opponents (IRS, FBI, CIA, probably more), the dear colleges letter Patrick mentioned. All of it puts him under Carter for me.

More significantly I find the Carter/Obama and then Reagan/Trump parallels just plain creepy.

As for current possible Democrat candidates, I'm not sure any of them are viable. All of the known choices have such big negatives. I'd put at least a 30% chance of them pulling an Obama again and picking some no name without a record and hoping a dark horse candidate can win the race. And that may be the right call to make. When you poll Trump against any of the recent options Trump wins by a reasonable margin. But when you run Trump against a generic Democrat things don't look so well for him.

I have to add I am sad to say I probably can't vote for an openly gay president. Maybe not an openly gay politician at all. I thought Ann Parker was a great mayor here in Houston. And then she got her final term. At which point every cockamamie bullshit idea that came out of the gay community got implemented. Before that final term she had broad support. Now she has burned every bridge she had outside the gay community. And any bridges any other openly gay politicians had as well.

She also just about convinced me term limits are a bad idea. Having an president, governor, or mayor for life isn't a good thing. But having a politician who knows they can't get reelected and there is nothing voters can do to punish them isn't a good thing either. I don't really know what the solution is.

I don't have any issues with gay people Patrick. But that woman really scared me away from gay politicians. Which is tragic. Things were getting better before she ran nuts.

I wouldn't wish endometriosis on my worst enemy.

Painful, Heavy Periods Made Her Dread Running. A Diagnosis Helped Her Embrace It

Leftist students gonna Left:

College Students Push University to Cancel Class Taught by Kavanaugh

> You and Amy will eventually
> find yourselves leaving, too.

Well, Honey, there's a death out there for each of us. Meanwhile it's important to have truly lived.

Also, why do people care about Candace Owens?

It seems like these people come out of nowhere nowadays… Though even in middle school our motive for paying attention to George Will was kinda foggy. Social media seems to spin these people up so fast that nobody makes time to ask what body of study or course experience would make them famous.

Whether Right or Left, being a cute girl seems to help.

Possibly the worst conceit of all is that California is great because of the people in it.

I have to add I am sad to say I probably can't vote for an openly gay president.

I could vote for a politician who happens to be gay but not a gay politician. Let's not put gay issues at the forefront of any elected official's agenda, since gay people won the most important battle: the right to gay marriage. Not sure what else we need.

I suppose the right to have sexual orientation considered protected status in every state and the Federal level. But I don't really believe in protected status.

Maybe once upon a time, anti-discrimination laws made sense, like in early post Civil War America, when the local blacksmith refusing to serve black people meant a 90 mile trip on horseback to find a blacksmith that would.

But nowadays, I don't think we need those laws. If someone wants to put up a sign in their cafe saying, "NO FAGGOTS ALLOWED!" I think they should go right ahead. Let the free market decide if they want to give their business to them.

I'm sure you'll find another gay-accepting cafe three blocks away.

Whether Right or Left, being a cute girl seems to help.

I think calling her "cute" is a bit of a stretch. She has a pretty face, but I don't like the way she insists on doing her hair in styles that her hair just doesn't want to do. She straightens her and forces it to look like it just hangs down. Until she tilts her head and you see her hair tilting with the rest of her, rather than pointing straight down, as it would on a person with naturally straight hair.

Basically, it looks so stiff that if she fell down, she'd break her hair.

There are plenty of attractive styles for black women's hair. Trying to make it look like a straight-haired white or Asian woman's hair just isn't working.

> Possibly the worst conceit of
> all is that California is great
> because of the people in it.

The best of all is that Florida is hideous because of the people in it.

(snicker)

Crid:

The best of all is that Florida is hideous because of the people in it.

Shut up, you.

The best of all is that Florida is hideous because of the people in it.

As emphasized by #FloridaMan and even #FloridaWoman.

Just google "Florida Man" + your birthday, and you WILL find something wacky and probably criminal.

"I could vote for a politician who happens to be gay but not a gay politician."

That is where I am and that is how Parker ran and won in Houston. And then when she could no longer be elected she passed city ordinances that legalized the theft of businesses by gay people. I'm sadly not exaggerating here. You could go into any business with your friend, have them complain loudly about gay people, and then you could file to take over ownership of that business. The business didn't have to be involved in any form whatsoever. There were many other ordinances but that one was the worst. Every group has crazy fringe people. You are supposed to ignore them. Parker ended her career by embracing them and in the process ending the career of most any other openly gay politician in Houston.

I mainly brought it up because you have Butli-something or other running for president. And his main selling point appears to be being gay. He's tried to push an economic growth message, but it really doesn't work for him. And others have already run with the crazy socialist stuff, so no room for him there.

To add to what I said above:

If you can understand that it's just plain rude and unacceptable for your coworkers (as opposed to your supervisor) to dump their work on you without permission, why would you tolerate it from anyone else?

And, from Miss Manners, in 1995 (not verbatim):

"If manners between lovers are unimportant, why is it that when love dies of nonviolent causes, the cause of death is inevitably listed as bad manners?"

"If manners between lovers are unimportant, why is it that when love dies of nonviolent causes, the cause of death is inevitably listed as bad manners?"

I've never heard anyone make that claim Lenona so I'll have to take your word for it.

You don't have to. With luck, I'll post more of that column tomorrow - sadly, it's not easy to read online.

Yes, it's true that when it comes to divorce, per se, the top reasons listed tend to be sex and money. But I think MM was referring to the breakups of unmarried couples in particular.

Of course, cheating on one's spouse or gambling after promising not to are not exactly "bad manners," but they clearly fall under "inconsiderate behavior." See below.

Miss Manners, Feb. 12, 1995

"...All right, children, if the idea of combining romance with good manners is so funny, please explain something to Miss Manners:

"Why is it that when love dies of nonviolent causes, the cause of death is always cited as some form of inconsiderate behavior?

"Why is it that the birth of love is always accompanied by a burst of courteous behavior?

"And what happens in between?

"The accounts Miss Manners hears of love gone flat rarely mention the word 'etiquette.' They go something like this:

"'When I first knew her, she was always cheerful and made an effort to look great, and seemed interested in everything. i don't know what happened.'

"Or, 'He didn't used to go around looking like a slob and criticizing everything and making fun of my friends. But that was before he started taking me for granted.'

"...Miss Manners is less interested in who started lowering standards than the fact that they did get lowered. At the beginning, both lovers were on their best behavior (or what passes for that in today's no-frills relationships), and each liked the effect enough to want to live with the other on intimate terms.

(got kicked off)

"At that point, the idea kicked in that intimacy is incompatible with etiquette. Such pernicious thoughts appeared as 'Now we can relax; we needn't be so self-conscious' and 'We should always be totally open and frank with each other' and "I can really be myself with you.'...

"...Certainly the etiquette of intimacy is different from that of early acquaintance. Otherwise, nobody would ever get to pick up a chicken bone or spend a day in a comfy old bathrobe.

"But informal etiquette is still within the realm of manners. That is to say, it still exhibits consideration of others - and even laces that with such charming conventions as pretending to be interested in what the other person has to say, or to consider the other person worth making a fuss about.

"Otherwise, people who behave politely during early courtship, and then turn rude with the excuse that they are only being themselves, are committing fraud. That wasn't the self the other person signed on to love..."

I am sometimes annoyed as to how female mating competition is portrayed in the media.

Particularly Pride and Prejudice. Everyone makes fun of Mrs. Bennet for being obsessed with getting her daughters married, especially Mr. Bennet.

BUT

Mr. Bennet is a slacker who doesn't actually own his estate and can't pass it off to his daughters. He hasn't and won't earn any money of his own, he's too good to work as an attorney in Cheapside like his BIL, so has nothing to leave them.

Also, it is socially unacceptable for women to work, especially women of their rank.

So what are they supposed to do? Starve genteely? Become hookers like a large percentage of London women? Getting married is their only socially acceptable career option.

Again, he dies they get nada. I think she has a small amount of money of her own but not enough for six women.

Mr. Bennet needs to stop sneering at his wife and get off his ass and round up more eligible bachelors to invite to dinner.

I mean sure it all worked out... but still... he has 2 daughters left. Find someone nice for Kitty and Mary.