Socks during sex: acceptable attire or fashion felony?
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
I don’t see anything wrong with them. Sunglasses on the other hand…
Ditto with mittens.
I didn’t present this correctly. Mittens are out. Socks are OK.
It really depends on if the socks are both of age..
Sex socks are a no no.
it depends.
in a tent during winter camping, socks, definitely.
outside, like when you take a break from a hike and use a tree or a large boulder for support? definitely: you’ll probably be wearing your boots too and have your pants around your ankles?
at home in a bed? no way. those socks have to come off, how else are you going to get any shrimping done?
You didn’t specify where the socks are worn.
Sex? What’s that?
Soft socks are definitely better than cold toes when it comes to playing footsie. As cold as it’s been lately, sex is not worth taking off our long-johns so socks aren’t even an issue.
Are we talking handmade socks of baby soft merino?
In my opinion, handmade socks of baby soft merino wool are better than sex.
Does this mean there should have been another category in the poll?
Really it depends on the day around here.
It means that we really really need a Knitapalooza!!
Take it from me after fifty years of direct experience. NOTHING is better than sex. Although last election night came close.
Sorry for not being frivolous..
Panetta sez no charges for CIA tortureres:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29054393/
While I don’t want these guys on trial, I do think the ‘moral’ only way to that end is to charge them for the crimes they committed and pardon them – or just pardon them. Let the law work as intended. Obstructing justice seems counter-“TheChangeWe’veAllBeenLookingFor”.
This is what law is for. It apparently seems like a quaint hoop to job through to Obama, but really is ignoring the law for convenience the ‘right’ thing to do? I guess moving from breaking to ignoring the law is an improvement of sorts.
If our boys at the CIA won’t endure being pardoned, then one wonders why torturing for their country is doable but having your wrist slapped for the rule of law is not.
While this would be a ‘hoop’ technicality, it shows that our laws cannot be ignored when inconvenient. The inconvenience is the point. Obama is just suiting his tastes with the same disregard for the rule of law we’ve enjoyed for some time from the Executive – just with lesser effects (maybe).
He basically doesn’t want to pardon accused torturers. Fine. But that is precisely what he’s done. This will not be seen as a technicality in the outside world.
It’s a lot worse that that, I am afraid:
“Leon E. Panetta, the White House pick to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, on Thursday left open the possibility that the agency could seek permission to use interrogation methods more aggressive than the limited menu that President Obama authorized under new rules issued last month.
“Under insistent questioning from a Senate panel, Mr. Panetta said that in extreme cases, if interrogators were unable to extract critical information from a terrorism suspect, he would seek White House approval for the C.I.A. to use methods that would go beyond those permitted under the new rules.
“He gave no specifics about what interrogation methods he would suggest, but he said that the agency would always abide by the law.
[Yeah, well, as we know from the last eight years, you can always find someone who will issue a memo saying the law says it is OK to do whatever those in power want to do.]”
What more is there to say?
I think a couple of letters were missing there. I’m sure the CIA will abide not by THE law but by THEIR law…!
In other words, all he left out was the ire?
Good point.
And so much for the Obama administration as holding to the high principles they so love to talk about. What is alarming is how early in the game they are stepping onto that slippery slope.
Since this is an open thread, I have a question.
What would it take to outlaw these CDS/CDOs that have gotten the banks in so much trouble?
They have a purpose but they need to be regulated. Synthetic CDS’s are pure gambling, contribute nothing to the economy and should be banned. Regular CDS’s are insurance and should be regulated as such.
I would propose that Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, et cetera, be merged and nationalized. They would buy all conforming mortgages and issue bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US government to pay for the mortgages. essentially, the new agency would be one giant CDO. Mortgages would be bought for say 50 basis points above the most recent bond sale.
on men or women?
Socks during sex: perfectly acceptable if one has a fetish for such things…
CIA leadership not being held accountable for torture: not acceptable in the least.
According to TPM, the field officers who acted according to the higher-ups instructions aren’t to be prosecuted. The higher-ups, including those at the White House, as of yet are still open for prosecution.
Prospective CIA leader opening the door to torture by admitting he would “seek White House approval for the C.I.A. to use methods that would go beyond those permitted under the new rules”: Beyond unacceptable.
Right on, on both points.
White cotton socks are OK. But black socks have the “businessman in a brothel” ick factor.
What about a tool belt?
Are you kidding me? Remember Lisa from Home Improvement?
No, I don’t, ID. But obviously you do!
There’s also Tim the Tool Man, for those inclined toward the opposite gender (or Al for that matter).
Just not Al’s Mom!
What brought this on?
::
Socks during sex? Ask Bill and Monica what effect it had on them when the cat walked in.
I only posted this because this sort of Clinton joke is already so close to archaic I figured it was my last and only chance, by the way.
Um, are you worried about being politically correct in a thread about socks and sex? 🙂
Nope. Just ambivalent about posting a gag that seemed at once perfectly timed (given the question you posted) and already well out of date (given how ancient Clinton sex jokes seem now, and, I’m guessing, how few remember the cat’s name right off).
If I were worried about being politically correct, I wouldn’t have posted, “Well, it depends on what boots she’s wearing over ’em,” would I?
What — I didn’t?
Oh — umm —
the half of voters who say “felony” must never have known the right sock-wearer.
keeping her pants on doesn’t work, but socks? who cares?
Was this inspired by the insipid Andrew Card?
who cares….just get to the SEX ; )
leather and lace….HooooooooooLaaaaaaaaawwwwwd
peace (piece) be with you ; )
“You can leave your hat on.” – Randy Newman