Having image googled Bush, Clinton and Pelosi, I'd say Pelosi is the only one that could benefit from much of a makeover. Laura and Hillary don't look like there's a quantum gain to be realised. Pelosi, OTOH, looks like she's wearing the same clothes as the Ladies First, but could do a lot snappier.
There's a chick in my team who has really snappy business wear every day. She really knows how to accessorise with strong colour, and always looks both stylish and professional. She could help Pelosi out.
Didn't she just turn 50?
She did. I believe it was in November.
Evil can be very sexy sometimes ...
Whenever Condi arrives to meet with foreign officials, they should play Darth Vader's theme.
Well, the person with the most power in this country does strike me as a dimwitted sort who desperately needs to be brought up to speed, and "whoa!" wouldn't sound all that odd coming from him. I can see certain parallels.
Maybe the thing that bugs me the most is that I hate Condi, but after reading the article and seeing the picture,
What bugged me is that I often wear an outfit much like that one, except entirely black. I do not want to be sharing fashion sense with Ms. Rice.
So, in your view, sperm bank donors are responsible for their progeny as well?
I'm definitely not in agreement with Cindy's view. But, DX, I'm in the camp that they are not responsible (fiscally at the very least) for their progeny. The person who procures the sperm is responsible in my view.
My shuffle is here. I realize that my gym mix still has another ~80 songs to go to fill up the shuffle.
But, DX, I'm in the camp that they are not responsible (fiscally at the very least) for their progeny.
I think that's DX's camp too -- that just because you know whose sperm it was, it doesn't mean there's any mandatory responsibility on the dude's part.
I figured it was DX's camp. I was just thinking about that and thought I'd chime in with agreement.
tommyrot, I get the Condi thrall. I find Angelus sexy. Also evil Spike.
So, in your view, sperm bank donors are responsible for their progeny as well?
That isn't the same issue though, is it? Haven't sperm donors already made sure to free themselves of all parental responsibilities before they make their deposit?
He wasn't taking that risk at all -- his activities were such that, no matter what sort of contraceptive was used or not used, there should have been a 0% risk of pregnancy. Not a tiny risk, but no risk at all, whatsoever, in any way.
That the risk didn't occur to or seem likely to him doesn't mean he took no risk.
If I was asleep in bed, in my own locked house, wearing a chastity belt, and someone broke in, drugged me, picked the chastity belt lock and and raped me and conception occured, *my* activities would be such that there *should* have been a 0% risk of pregnancy. And yet, I can be impregnated against my will. It is known that sperm can be used after the fact, to impregnate--otherwise we wouldn't have sperm banks. Furthermore, I would bear some measure of responsibility for a child born as a result of a conception in which I had no complicity. Why does "should have" work for him, but not for me?
Why shouldn't someone be more careful with discharging and disposing a substance known to cause conception? If you leave a chain saw on your front lawn and someone comes along and cuts his finger off with it, you have some legal responsibility. If you throw away a gun registered to you, in a park waste basket, and DX comes along, finds it, and shoots me with it, you bear some responsibility for improper disposal of your gun, more so, if it was loaded. If this man didn't properly dispose of a substance that has consequences, he's free from those consequences?
Again, I am not saying that anyone who did what he alleges she did is in the clear or right. I am saying the child shouldn't lose rights because of the mother's alleged actions. I think the biological dad should get to sue for damages. Maybe he'll be able to prove his allegations. Maybe he will and should receive damages in excess of whatever he will have to pay for child support. I am not questioning any of that.
Whether or not he was wronged should not be a reason to deprive the child of a child's rights. Whether or not he was wronged should be a deciding factor in deciding whether or not he is entitled to damages, and to the extent of those damages.
