> > is it too much to ask that you mind your own goddam business
> > and stay out of other people's sex lives? apparently.
>
> It's not about sex. It's about deceit. And
> hypothetical persons have no need for privacy, Budge.
spoken just like a real impeachment committee republican!
what evidence do you, or mr prairie home companion for that matter, have that there was any deceit involved?
> > i can't believe i'm reading this sort of crap on lbo,
>
> Whatever. This conversation won't go anywhere until you
> say why you think infidelity is good (or, at least, not
> destructive) under most sets of circumstances.
i think 'infidelity' (if you mean fucking someone other than the one you have a license from the state to fuck)
> Impassioned defenses of hypothetical persons' right to
> privacy won't suffice.
where'd the 'hypothetical persons' trope come from? i believe the name in the subject: line is that of a real person that was just elected to the us senate.
-- no Onan
p.s. while we're at it, does anyone have the dope on the reportedly ugly marital problems of keillor? that's be fun to gawk at too!