joemturner

Edited. Never mind.

I think the reality is that many of us are simply compassionate enough to respect the right of a grieving spouse to feel hurt and angry without going into a theological disputation of the premise they expressed. Others may be itchin' for a fight, but I'm not. Love God. Love Others. Tell Everyone. That sums it up for me. That's the question the OP posed. The hard questions like the experience of the death of a loved one... they are real, but in my view, they deserve to be discussed in a setting that isn't publicly and directly confrontational of someone obviously in pain. Just my

Just to add -- I like Kaspersky for internet security.

It was a good meeting! I enjoy the brainstorming part.

Stay off the farmville, mafia, gifts, etc. apps and you will have a much easier time of it. It's all the add-on junk that is the most risky... in my opinion.

My grandmother's grandmother (or great-grandmother? I'll have to ask Dad) was Cherokee. We also had Choctaw in the family. The name "Ever" is an interesting one. I've known plenty of folks of European heritage who had that name, but it also has a poetic meaning that could easily have been a translation from some native word. I don't know what to tell you except to look for the oldest relatives you still have on that side of the family -- any great-uncles or great-aunts? Or any older cousins? They might have a family story to tell. Very interesting!

Wouldn't that be MILILF? Just kidding... what a mess this has become...

Here's an interesting question. Let's say the pressure ramps up even more, as we all think it could. Should the duly elected candidate resign before inauguration, does the office go to the next-highest vote getter? Or since Sibley didn't get 50%, would there then need to be a run-off anyway? Random question... but if the media pressure intensifies... well, I'm beyond surprises at this point.

I voted a little before noon yesterday and I was told I was the 7th person to show up.

I agree... this is just awful media. I still think he might have had the ability to defuse some of this up front. I still wouldn't have voted for him - on other grounds - but at least this business would be much less "hot."

What is there to say? What could he possibly say that would make most of the people in this thread feel any better? Beyond what he already said, what is there? "I'm sorry it happened, I've done my best to move on, and even though you didn't vote for me, I'll do the best I can to represent the district's interests the best I can." Heck, we could all write the press release ourselves. I'm not sure what we could possibly expect him to say. As bad as it was when his and his MIL's sin was first discovered, it must be at least as bad to read all the stonethrowing a decade later knowing that

I'm certainly not defending his action... or the MIL's actions, either. I'm just saying that it's a lot different to think about a 19-year-old making a dumb sexual choice when presented with the opportunity than if this had happened, say, six months ago. And if it had been a pattern of behavior over time, I think that's different from one stupid mistake as a teenager. This is not a question of whether the action itself was wrong. Certainly not. Regardless of what I believe about his teenage adultery, he still did not impress me as a candidate.

I blame 19-year-old Daniel Stout for most of this. Present-day Daniel Stout takes part of the blame. Present-day Daniel Stout is not the candidate I wanted to see even without the scandal. That said, I don't think the incident from back then is to be set entirely at his feet. JMT

No, I don't think the media will be inclined to notice the difference. But to my knowledge, the party did not endorse a candidate in the race. Anybody with a pen could sign up and write "R" next to his or her name. What private individuals did on their own initiative... sure. Some of them are involved in the party. But I didn't think any of them carried the entire endorsement of the party in their individual endorsement. Of course, there's no reason for anyone hostile to Republicans to notice that detail -- I totally agree.

I worked in a corporate bank in New York City during the summer of 1990. There was a really tall, really dark-skinned, really easy-going man who worked on the floor above ours. Our departments had a lot of back-and-forth "sneaker net" communications. Anyway, one day I overheard two people - local New Yorkers - talking about the guy and one said "you know, the tall black guy from upstairs." No joke, the other lady said, "I don't know what you're talking about. I don't see color. Do you?" I'm sorry, but I found that paranoid and frankly, idiotic. Race had nothing to do with the dis

Just for clarification -- in this election, "we" didn't run anyone. The party neither presented nor supported any candidate. Candidates presented themselves and declared affiliation with a party, but that is a different thing from a party "running" a candidate!

Believe it or not, I am also troubled by this perception.

It would certainly have been better if this had come out earlier. I have had a number of people tell me that it would have changed their early vote. Without commenting on whether it should or shouldn't be a consideration... being elected but having part of your constituency regretting their vote before you are sworn in is a really awful place to find yourself, I suspect. It certainly means you're starting in a deep, deep hole!

It's certainly an interesting situation we find ourselves in!

Here's a question I haven't seen asked. If your candidate loses tonight, would you recommend that they immediately requalify in April and just do this again?

GA Secretary of State's web site. And it looks like Pat has started a results thread.

I have to say I'm surprised this didn't generate more comment. I thought it was amazing. From the initial Christopher Reeve joke to the very moving conclusion... it really captivated me. I'm awed at the theatrical power of one man's thoughtful insight, simply presented.

Please recall that I was merely reporting a comment made by a presenter I saw today. I found that point interesting when it was raised today but there was not an opportunity to dig in at that moment. I will contact the presenter for clarification on that point. I do know that the comment was not made in specific reference to pcom but was in regard to larger national/international networking sites. Even so, it was an offhand comment and I'm not sure what the basis of his observation was.

Hey - better an open use of a forum to drive relevant and profitable internet traffic than the covert manipulation of a forum to boost its traffic, right?

What a mess. Sad for the family.