Dr. Walsh ,'Potential'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
The Carlos Danger name for Carlos Danger is Benito Catastrophe.
Hmm. Here's the full recursion starting from Carlos Danger:
Carlos Danger
Benito Catastrophe
Luis Menace
Marcos Risk
Carlos Catastrophe
Luis Menace
I'm mildly disappointed it didn't return all the way to Carlos Danger.
My royal name is now Her Highness Adelaide The Allusive. I like it. You may live.
My Highness sexts as Manuel Peril, confusing the daylights out of the royal family when discovered.
Make way. My name is JUAN KILL.
Dude, you have got to enter the Nascar Drive for Diversity program with that name. I love it. One track, Juan Kill.
I am Bernardo Catastrophe.
It appears that William, Jessica's DH and I are siblings. Or possibly cousins.
I'm trying to decide if a politician who can't lie for shit is a good thing or a bad thing.
I think it's mostly an unusual thing.
Apparently I am Silvestre Verboten.
Apparently I am Silvestre Verboten.
Me too!
I'm trying to decide if a politician who can't lie for shit is a good thing or a bad thing.
It would be a good thing if they were even a halfway decent person. Maybe. People don't really like the truth.
Halfway decent person doesn't mean a good leader. I really think that Obama is a halfway decent person and he does an excellent job staying cool under pressure, but it still doesn't help him with being an ineffable good leader.
I wrote an essay about just this topic (should leaders have integrity. My answer is no, at least in the Stanley Fish version of integrity which includes consistent application of values irrespective of context).
So, a friend and coworker who is a Christian-Christian (caps intended) and active in her church told me that as an Elder in the church, she's been asked to participate in a meeting about gay marriage. She thinks it will be just an opportunity for people to try to persuade others to believe what they believe and therefore stirring up lots of angst with no resolution. I pointed out that it doesn't matter what people want to believe, the only thing that is important is that her church is clear on its policy (and even as a gay person, I think sacramental marriage should be decided by churches as befits the church. I would be aghast at a gay person suing a church to force the church to marry him or her to his or her partner. I also choose not to support churches that are not inclusive).
I was gobsmacked when she said they had already decided not to perform gay marriages because there was enough biblical evidence to suggest that marriage was intended, not to bond people in love but to glorify God and if that doesn't happen then it should be marriage. She actually said, "We've decided marriage isn't about love but it's about glorifying god." I wanted to point out that according to gospel, all sacramental acts are about Love ultimately; for example, baptism is about accepting God's grace (which is another form of love).
I bit my tongue but wanted to point out she is a 40 year old woman who is never likely to have children, therefore she herself is not glorifying god, but me and my gay partner? We've already bred. I did say that the issue is she was uncomfortable with acknowledging the exclusionary nature of her church and that's why she didn't want to go to this meeting.
It makes me think about her totally differently. So much so that I called her explanation of passive voice simplistic today.
I am Rolando Trouble.