April 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

« Judges? | Main | Rubber stamp? »

Feb 10, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dave Ribar

Wow, cohabitation might be illegal? Somebody should tell all those college kids who share dorm rooms and all those folks who share apartments and houses.


Sharia don't like it.


Be sure and keep it missionary as well, for all us "legals"


Then here's an idea. Go over there and join the conversation. It's not that far a drive. Then you might understand, and well, might or might not get it.

Ed Cone

CP, I read the post, and I read the comments, just as I read the post and the comments a few years ago. I'll just have to live with my incomprehension.

What I'm doing here is using a "hyperlink" -- that's a fancy internet word for the underlined blue text, a click upon which will take others to Joe's site -- in order to let my readers know that there's something there they may find interesting.

Joe Killian

The idea is to make the government just small enough to fit into your bedroom.


CP, Ed isn't going to leave his safety zone and engage in a conversation without his fan club safety net.

Plus, this is one of his typical tactics of taking a topic that Joe or someone else started on another blog and trying to move the conversation to this blog.

As it stands, I happen to agree with Ed on the subject of cohabitation. Yet I find it hard to reconcile his position on this subject with his position on the Danica Patrick thread where he suddenly got all moralistic, lamenting the days when the South produced nice young ladies and gentlemen, and his concern that the "heinous" Go Daddy commercials might not be a good influence on his kids.

I suppose this is just another example of someone "looking for something to pick a fight with him" over instead of someone who sees a pretty obvious contradiction and questions it.


Won't work, Joe. Someone or something else would just as powerful would take government's place. The few always have, and alway will, tried to oppress the rest of us. People aren't angels.


Yet I find it hard to reconcile his position on this subject with his position on the Danica Patrick thread

That's because you're caught up in the naturalistic phallacy.


If it's an outing spree one wants, I'm happy to oblige

Let's start with the chair of the NC GOP. And I'm not even talking about him being "NOT GAY"

Who did he live with before he married that yung thang he's got now?

How long did he live with yung thang prior to the recent and rushed mawwage?

Just let me know when we're off to the races.


I'm just glad that Ed brought up that great old thread of his. There is an off topic hidden gem in there where in yet another attempt to discredit conservatives, Ed wrote:

"The "conservatives" in power are running huge deficits. The "liberals" they followed were much more fiscally responsible."

I wonder if he still feels that way now or will this pass without comment?


OK, Ed, but I hate that you would resign to live with your incomprehension when you just might learn something from the guy. You're always talking about how important it is to have a dialogue about so many things. You seem to display more interest in his opinions than vice-versa. Yet he had no hesitation coming over to play on your home court when you egged his the last time.

It’s odd that as a journalist/interviewer/reporter you would be content to cover his game from behind the bleachers when there are open seats on press row. I just thought that when you recycle these things a second or third time, a home-and-home arrangement might be a propos. And unlike most of us, he doesn’t even play dirty or foul hard.


So, I take some people in these parts are opposed to cohabitation?

Brandon Burgess

Joe's post seeks to understand the legal implications for breaking a law that may or may not exist. Whether or not one agrees with the law seems irrelevant with regard to Joe's post.


Brandon, I'd think the fact that a state supreme court declared a state law to be unconstitutional would be a rather strong defense for anyone charged with violating the law.

Judicial review would be an empty concept if laws remained in effect after they were struck down by a court.


my face is deeply embedded in the palms of my hands.


Shouldn't this conversation be taking place on Joe's thread?

Brandon Burgess

No Spag, Joe's thread deals with questions regarding the legality of cohabitation and the implications that holds for elected officials. He seems to have discovered information that adds more depth to the original topic.

This thread is for people who "don't get" cohabitation laws, which qualifies them to disrespect or mock another person's view.

Seriously though, I think this thread could become relevant. I think what Joe's post leads to, well for me, is questions of the necessity of cohabitation laws. I think first it is important to understand the context of the age when these laws were brought about. Are the concerns that led to these laws relevant today?

Doc Alexander

The issue is not if Deena Hayes is shacking up with that fellow Jon Greene. It's whether or not she is profiting from this relationship in a blatant disregard of impropriety and the rules preventing conflicts of interest. I'd say Deena is gleefully having her way, getting paid and laughing at all us poor suckers all the way to the bank.

Spag, Joe and a few others are the only ones with enough stones to call her on it. Roch has, too, to his credit.

Um, Ed? Ed?


I didn't even know the board of education had a vote on the hotel.

Ed Cone


Bloggers tend to appreciate links to their work. By calling attention to Joe's post, I'm (presumably) sending him traffic that he might not otherwise get, including, perhaps, people who have something fresh to say about this topic.

I've said what I have to say on the subject long ago. I comment on Joe's blog when I feel I have something to add; the fact I haven't commented on this thread yet does not preclude the possibility of future comments, should I think I have something interesting to say.

Doc A,

Once again you ask me for things I've already delivered. I have posted early and often about Hayes' economic interest in this deal, and the conflict it raises with her role as an advocate for the project.


Grant, LOL! You rock!


Doc, while I appreciate the props you begrudgingly give me, you are conflating two issues. There is the matter you and I rightly know should have been revealed: that a public official advocating for a publicly supported project is in a living arrangement from which she might reap some benefit should the project come to fruition. Then there is the second matter Joe undertakes: an attempt to smear someone as immoral with his wagging finger.


Again, "The "conservatives" in power are running huge deficits. The "liberals" they followed were much more
fiscally responsible."


The comments to this entry are closed.