Now if this had been a REPUBLICAN [Archive] - Dallas Cowboys Forum

View Full Version : Now if this had been a REPUBLICAN

burmafrd

12-05-2007, 01:41 PM

Imagine how much attention the media would have given this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071204/ap_on_go_co/senate_aide_arrest;_ylt=Apxu6_ZWsK1BI80yRJbXdTE8Kb IF

Sasquatch

12-05-2007, 02:28 PM

The clone of the cousin of the girlfriend of the brother-in-law of a former aid of Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) was accused of propositioning a minor?

For those interested in a REAL sex scandal, our friend Larry Craig is facing more allegations.

LINK (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-120407-craig,1,3069912.story)

Classic Larry Craig moment on Meet the Press discussing the Clinton impeachment:

LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_Vs5570pKw)

iceberg

12-05-2007, 02:30 PM

i lose interest when people say their group will be held to a different standard than another for the same sitaution. happens at times, but not ALL the time.

silverbear

12-05-2007, 03:34 PM

Imagine how much attention the media would have given this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071204/ap_on_go_co/senate_aide_arrest;_ylt=Apxu6_ZWsK1BI80yRJbXdTE8Kb IF

Don't know what you're talking about, I saw plenty of coverage of that sordid little story...

jimnabby

12-05-2007, 03:40 PM

BrAinPaiNt

12-05-2007, 04:05 PM

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f194/UndeadFaith/OH_NOES.jpg

A former Aid vs an actual Senator?

With all of the scum like Byrd, Teddy and others you could go after, you make something out of a former aid?:laugh2:

Hmm...may have to start calling you stretch armstrong.:D

jterrell

12-05-2007, 04:18 PM

I hate to defend Burm here but the former aide was only former when caught.

He wasn't some ex-employee years removed.

The employee was a scum-bucket and the Congresswoman needs to do a better job of ferreting out criminals if possible.

But this isn't Larry Craig who pleaded guilty and kept his job for however long.

thekavorka

12-05-2007, 09:58 PM

uhhhhhh

isn't there a big difference between senate aide and an actual senator?

iceberg

12-05-2007, 10:20 PM

uhhhhhh

isn't there a big difference between senate aide and an actual senator?

not really, no. : )

burmafrd

12-06-2007, 06:39 AM

That must have really hurt, JT, but I put a point up for you.
As was pointed out by him, he was only fired ONCE it got out.

jterrell

12-06-2007, 08:57 AM

That must have really hurt, JT, but I put a point up for you.
As was pointed out by him, he was only fired ONCE it got out.

yea I had to take two showers yesterday... and no none of them involved gold. :lmao2:

Hostile

12-06-2007, 09:28 AM

jterrell

12-06-2007, 10:09 AM

I never talk politics because frankly I don't for one minute believe either party really cares. I am amused by those who are staunch supporters of either side.

Regarding Larry Craig who is being villified by Democrats. Why isn't the Gay community coming to his aid? Is it simply because he's a Republican? I gotta tell you, I don't understand that at all. It seems to me that's just a little bit petty.

Note, I'm not defending what he is accused of doing. I just marvel at where the backlash is coming from. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. Then again, what's new about that in politics?

He actually has his defenders including the ACLU and some prominent Democrats.

He isn't going to get much love from Democrats because of how he blasted Bill Clinton for a little sexual indiscretion. You can youtube those rather nasty comments Craig made towards Clinton. If there was hypocrisy it belonged to Craig.

The NY Times and Wash Post both have op-ed pieces defending him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23rich.html

Op-Ed Columnist
Pardon Poor Larry Craig

By FRANK RICH
Published: September 23, 2007

"I DID nothing wrong," said Larry Craig at the start of his long national nightmare as America's favorite running, or perhaps sitting, gag. That's the truth. Justice lovers of all sexual persuasions must rally to save the Idaho senator before he is forced to prematurely evacuate his seat.

Time's running out. The final reckoning may arrive this week. On Wednesday, a Minnesota court will hear Mr. Craig's argument to throw out the guilty plea he submitted by mail after being caught in a June sex sting in the Minneapolis airport. If he succeeds, there's a chance he might rescind his decision to resign from the Senate on Sept. 30. Either way, he should hold tight.

Not only did the senator do nothing wrong, but in scandal he has proved the national treasure that he never was in his salad days as a pork-seeking party hack. In the past month he has served as an invaluable human Geiger counter for hypocrisy on the left and right alike. He has been an unexpected boon not just to the nation's double-entendre comedy industry but to the imploding Republican Party. Gays, not all of them closeted, may be among the last minority groups with some representation in the increasingly monochromatic G.O.P. If it is to muster even a rainbow-lite coalition for 2008, it could use Larry Craig in the trenches.

On the legal front, Mr. Craig is not without his semi-spirited defenders, an eclectic group including Arlen Specter, the A.C.L.U., The Washington Post's editorial page and scattered Democrats. While there's widespread agreement that Mr. Craig was an idiot not to consult a lawyer before entering a guilty plea (for disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor carrying a $575 fine), idiocy is no more a federal offense than hypocrisy, especially in Washington.

What Mr. Craig did in that men's room isn't an offense either. He didn't have sex in a public place. He didn't expose himself. His toe tapping, hand signals and "wide stance" were at most a form of flirtation. As George Will has rightly argued, if deviancy can be defined down to "signaling an interest in sex," then deviancy is what "goes on in 10,000 bars every Saturday night in our country." It's free speech even if the toes and fingers do the talking.

The Minnesota sting operation may well be unconstitutional, as the A.C.L.U. says. Yet gay civil rights organizations, eager to see a family-values phony like Mr. Craig brought down, have been often muted or silent on this point. They stood idly by while Republicans gathered their lynching party, thereby short-circuiting public debate about the legitimacy of the brand of police entrapment that took place in Minnesota. Surely that airport could have hired a uniformed guard to police a public restroom rather than train a cop to enact a punitive "Cage aux Folles" pantomime.

A rare gay activist to stand up forthrightly for Mr. Craig is Franklin Kameny, whom the Smithsonian Institution recently honored with an exhibition documenting his lonely Washington protests for gay civil rights in the pre-Stonewall 1960s. When I spoke to him last week, the 82-year-old Mr. Kameny said that many Americans don't seem to know how much the law has changed in recent years. Though he's no admirer of Mr. Craig, whom he describes as "a self-deluding hypocritical homophobic bigot," he publicly made the case for the senator's innocence in a letter to the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

"Fair is fair," Mr. Kameny wrote. Mr. Craig, guilty of no public sex act, "was the victim of a false arrest and a malfeasant prosecution." Even had he invited the police officer to a hotel room, there still would have been no crime. The last American laws criminalizing gay sex between consenting adults were thrown out by the Supreme Court in 2003.

The hypocrisy in some quarters of the left about the Craig case is arguably outstripped by that on the right, heaven knows. It has been priceless to watch conservative politicians and bloggers defend their condemnation of Mr. Craig in contrast to the wide stance of tolerance they've taken toward David Vitter, the inimitable senator from the Big Easy.

On the same day Mr. Vitter was deploring MoveOn.org at the Petraeus-Crocker hearings two weeks ago, a (female) prostitute was holding a California press conference with Larry Flynt about her alleged participation in the unspecified sins to which the senator has publicly confessed. "He was a very clean man," she helpfully explained to The Times-Picayune of New Orleans. "He came in, took a shower, did his business and would leave."

Mr. Vitter, a shrill defender of marriage, still has the support of the G.O.P. hierarchy. Many believe that the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, and his posse tried to Imus Mr. Craig and send him packing in a single week because Idaho has a Republican governor (nicknamed "Butch," no less) who would appoint a Republican successor. (The governor of Louisiana is a Democrat.) Others argue simply that Republican leaders are homophobes who practice a double standard for heterosexual offenders. But the reality is more complicated.

As we learned in the revelations surrounding the years-long cover up of the Mark Foley scandal, there may be more gay men in the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill than there are among the Democrats. Even Rick Santorum, the now-departed senator who likened homosexuality to "man on dog" sex, had a gay director of communications. Homophilia and homophobia have been twin fixtures in the modern G.O.P. at least since the McCarthy-era heyday of Roy Cohn.

As Rich Tafel, the former executive director of the gay Log Cabin Republicans, points out, this internal contradiction could not hold once Karl Rove and President Bush decided to demagogue the issue of same-sex marriage by pushing it into center stage of a national political campaign. That meanspirited and cynical election-year exploitation of homophobia accelerated the outing of Republicans by activists on the left.

"It made gay Republicans targets," Mr. Tafel told me last week. (Stories about Mr. Craig percolated on the Internet long before the airport incident.) In response, Mr. Tafel said, fearful gay Republicans on the Hill have retreated deeper into the closet. The Bush-Rove strategy "created the Larry Craigs," he said. "It created that man crawling around toilets."

Mr. Craig has denied being gay. Perhaps someone might believe him had he not, in 1982, gratuitously proclaimed his innocence in a pre-Foley page scandal, even though no one had accused him of anything. But whatever Mr. Craig's orientation, many closeted Republicans remain in place on Capitol Hill, easy targets for political opponents who want to expose G.O.P. hypocrisy.

Were Mr. Craig now to keep his seat, maybe his trial by fire would drive him to end his perennial gay baiting and become a latent proselytizer for a return to a more open, live-and-let-live Republicanism in the retro style of Barry Goldwater. Granted, Mr. Craig has shown no leadership of any kind in his career to date. But if Trent Lott can have a second chance after seeming to embrace the Dixiecrat racialism of Strom Thurmond, why not the toe-tapper from Idaho?

The G.O.P. needs at least one minority group in its ranks if it's going to be a viable political party in the 21st century. As the former vice-presidential nominee Jack Kemp asked rhetorically last week, "What are we going to do — meet in a country club in the suburbs one day?" His comment was prompted by the news that the major Republican candidates had claimed "scheduling conflicts" to avoid a debate at a historically black college in Baltimore. This was so obvious a slight that even Newt Gingrich labeled the candidates' excuses "baloney," and the usually controversy-averse Jay Leno was moved to call for the Republicans to "change their minds" after the debate's moderator, Tavis Smiley, aired the issue on "The Tonight Show."

The brushoff of that debate followed a similar rejection by the same candidates (except John McCain) of a debate sponsored by Univision, the country's most-watched Spanish-language network. It's only the latest insult to Hispanic voters, the fastest-growing American minority. Without Hispanics, the G.O.P. is doomed in swing states from Florida to Nevada. If you have any doubts, just look at the panic at the staunchly Republican Wall Street Journal editorial page. It has now even started attacking its own cohort — what it calls "Fox News populists and obsessive bloggers" — for driving away once-Republican Hispanic votes with over-the-top invective about illegal immigrants.

It would be unfair to say that the G.O.P. is devoid of sensitivity to all minorities. True, Peter King, the Long Island congressman, said last week that America has "too many mosques," but he was balanced by Mitt Romney, who sent out a press release wishing "the Jewish people" a hearty "L'Shanah Tovah" for the New Year. And let no one fault the Republican presidential field for not looking like America: Alan Keyes is back!

But the last minority with at least a modicum of influence in the party's power structure seems to be closeted gay men. As an alternative to cruising men's rooms, the least they could do is use their clout to stay the manifestly unjust execution of Larry Craig.

ConcordCowboy

12-06-2007, 10:09 AM

Sasquatch

12-06-2007, 10:13 AM

ConcordCowboy

12-06-2007, 10:15 AM

He isn't going to get much love from Democrats because of how he blasted Bill Clinton for a little sexual indiscretion. You can youtube those rather nasty comments Craig made towards Clinton. If there was hypocrisy it belonged to Craig.

He's the worst kind of hypocrite...he's in his wide stance all the while bashing gays...and the worst part is he's actually in a position to make legislation or vote for legislation that hurts gays.

ConcordCowboy

12-06-2007, 10:18 AM

All this is very true. I'm assuming the GLBT community is not rushing to Craig's defense because of his own hypocrisy on the issue. He's been an outspoken advocate of "family values," which often means anti-gay legislation, and was a prominent critic of President Clinton's sexual indiscretions.

Some relevant votes of Sen. Craig:

* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

Not going to get much gay support after those votes.

Maikeru-sama

12-06-2007, 11:12 AM

i lose interest when people say their group will be held to a different standard than another for the same sitaution. happens at times, but not ALL the time.

:hammer:

Hostile

12-06-2007, 11:50 AM

Because he's denied to his last bone that he's Gay and he's been a big anti-gay Senator.

No way are they going to stick up for him.

All this is very true. I'm assuming the GLBT community is not rushing to Craig's defense because of his own hypocrisy on the issue. He's been an outspoken advocate of "family values," which often means anti-gay legislation, and was a prominent critic of President Clinton's sexual indiscretions.

Some relevant votes of Sen. Craig:

* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)So, my question would be, doesn't he need them more than ever if he is repressing his true sexual identity?

JT, thanks for the article and link but that really shouldn't matter. The fact that it does just shows more hypocrisy if he truly is Gay. You can read all kinds of stuff about Gays who come out of the closet and before they did were very anti-Gay because they were repressing their true self.

Anyone who professes to care about all people's civil rights and condones this is posturing about what they really care about. You either care for everyone's rights or you don't.

It's fine that the ACLU is stepping up for him, but I still just find all of this hypocritical, and yes, that includes his hypocrisy over Clinton. Some can argue that an airport restroom is not the Oval Office and part of me will understand. The part of me that never will understand is that he took vows to his wife, same as Clinton. If some draw a line that's their business. I don't.

Just one of those things about politics (notice, I am critical of both parties in this issue) that doesn't smell right, and some seem perfectly willing to accept the hypocrisy while posturing about tolerance. It's a shame that it's only posturing.

Hostile

12-06-2007, 11:53 AM

Not going to get much gay support after those votes.
The problem is...he should get the support more than ever. That's the hypocrisy, and again, yes he is a hypocrite if he votes that way and is Gay. It's called repressing feelings. Not healthy.

Sasquatch

12-06-2007, 12:20 PM

So, my question would be, doesn't he need them more than ever if he is repressing his true sexual identity?

JT, thanks for the article and link but that really shouldn't matter. The fact that it does just shows more hypocrisy if he truly is Gay. You can read all kinds of stuff about Gays who come out of the closet and before they did were very anti-Gay because they were repressing their true self.

Anyone who professes to care about all people's civil rights and condones this is posturing about what they really care about. You either care for everyone's rights or you don't.

It's fine that the ACLU is stepping up for him, but I still just find all of this hypocritical, and yes, that includes his hypocrisy over Clinton. Some can argue that an airport restroom is not the Oval Office and part of me will understand. The part of me that never will understand is that he took vows to his wife, same as Clinton. If some draw a line that's their business. I don't.

Just one of those things about politics (notice, I am critical of both parties in this issue) that doesn't smell right, and some seem perfectly willing to accept the hypocrisy while posturing about tolerance. It's a shame that it's only posturing.

Mind you, although I'm the one that posted the link to the latest development on the Craig story, this is not an issue that resonates wit me apart form the hypocrisy of his stance. I think people's sex lives should be private although, given our culture, we have to question the judgment and responsibility of anyone who is willing to risk their careers by engaging in that sort of behavior.

I think the furor over the Craig, while regrettable from your compassionate perspective, is really quite typical when it comes to minorities who pass who then turn around to persecute other minorities, whether they be Jewish, Black, or Gay. Persecuting others who are just like you in order to save your skin or conceal your true identity has always inspired moral outrage.

But, in the end, you're right: it's all a hypocritical grab for power. That's really what it boils down to.

Hostile

12-06-2007, 12:29 PM

Mind you, although I'm the one that posted the link to the latest development on the Craig story, this is not an issue that resonates wit me apart form the hypocrisy of his stance. I think people's sex lives should be private although, given our culture, we have to question the judgment and responsibility of anyone who is willing to risk their careers by engaging in that sort of behavior.

I think the furor over the Craig, while regrettable from your compassionate perspective, is really quite typical when it comes to minorities who pass who then turn around to persecute other minorities, whether they be Jewish, Black, or Gay. Persecuting others who are just like you in order to save your skin or conceal your true identity has always inspired moral outrage.

But, in the end, you're right: it's all a hypocritical grab for power. That's really what it boils down to.Typical but regretable. That defines politics right to the T.

I'm not by any means defending him or his voting record or past stances. I just think that the backlash has been about as 2 faced as anything I've ever seen.

I probably need to fade away again. People are too easily offended by my views, adding politics to it is risky.

vta

12-06-2007, 12:49 PM

I probably need to fade away again. People are too easily offended by my views, adding politics to it is risky.

?? Quite the opposite. I often wondered why you don't post in here...
Conflicting views always makes for better discourse.

Hostile

12-06-2007, 02:29 PM

?? Quite the opposite. I often wondered why you don't post in here...
Conflicting views always makes for better discourse.Mostly because people do not like my political views that know me. My friend Jim is a staunch Republican. He thinks I am the world's staunchest Liberal Democrat. My friend Lee is a staunch Democrat. He thinks I am the world's staunchest Conservative Republican. I actually have a very funny story about Lee and his wife and their views of my politics.

In truth I am neither. I think believing that either political party can accomplish anything is silly. They don't want to solve the problems. The problems keep them needed. The longer things go undone the more they can point at the other side and get their minions to howl and chant for reform.

Understand something, I believe almost every politician gets involved because they believe they are the person who can make a difference. I think those ideals are quickly gone and they play the games.

I have liberal views. I have conservative views. I have moderate views. Mostly I'm a cynic that any of those in power can ever accomplish anything. I openly admit to not liking Bill Clinton, but I do like George Bush. Some would then paint me as a Republican. That would be wrong. My Governor is a Democrat and I think she's the best thing ever to happen to my state.

My reasons for disliking Clinton have very little to do with his politics. Same as why I do like Bush. Nothing to do with his politics. They could flip parties and I'd feel exactly the same way I do now.

ConcordCowboy

12-06-2007, 02:35 PM

So, my question would be, doesn't he need them more than ever if he is repressing his true sexual identity?

Would you support someone who has done nothing but try to screw you over...time and time again?

I would think not.

This isn't just a man who's hiding his sexuality...this is a man that voted for laws that discriminated against you!

I think the gay community is loving it...it puts their fight in the forefront and shows just how hypocritical his votes were.

ConcordCowboy

12-06-2007, 02:39 PM

I have liberal views. I have conservative views. I have moderate views. Mostly I'm a cynic that any of those in power can ever accomplish anything. I openly admit to not liking Bill Clinton, but I do like George Bush.

You're right...you should probably fade away.:D

Hostile

12-06-2007, 02:55 PM

You're right...you should probably fade away.:DRather than answer the other post I will do just that.

Ciao.

ConcordCowboy

12-06-2007, 03:06 PM

Rather than answer the other post I will do just that.

Ciao.

Hey I was just kidding.:D

Sasquatch

12-06-2007, 03:10 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Larry_Craig_official_portrait.jpg/476px-Larry_Craig_official_portrait.jpg

"I'm the victim here; I just have a wide stance. Would you like to hang out later?"

jterrell

12-06-2007, 03:16 PM

The problem is...he should get the support more than ever. That's the hypocrisy, and again, yes he is a hypocrite if he votes that way and is Gay. It's called repressing feelings. Not healthy.

He hasn't come out and admitted anything or changed his voting ways though.

His votes reflect negatively on their rights and their day to day activities.

If a Redskin fan kneecaps Romo(as many of them dream of doing I am sure) then decides he is a Cowboy fan later on, probably always was a Cowboy fan and all is well? Of course not. If we suffered injury due to someone's actions we'd want to indulge in a little petty sack punching before allowing him into the fold.

But, yea, if he comes out and admits he is gay and says he wants help then the GLBT or however its acronym'd would back him.

I certainly see what you are saying here with regards to politics as a whole but not sure this case that fits that example just yet.

For me personally I absolutely chide Repubs on gay and other acts because it is their tenet that being gay is an affront to God and is unnatural and is a choice. I always chide moralists who are proven to be immoral by their own standards. Then again I am not trying "help them or accept them" but rather to point out the hypocrisy of their actions as their opponent. I honestly could care less about what 2 adults do in the bedroom. I do care if those 2 consenting adults want to tell me what to do in mine while making it happen in theirs with a hamster and some duct tape and the whole while sitting in judgment over everyone else.

vta

12-06-2007, 03:29 PM

In truth I am neither. I think believing that either political party can accomplish anything is silly. They don't want to solve the problems. The problems keep them needed. The longer things go undone the more they can point at the other side and get their minions to howl and chant for reform.

Then you're sane. Most people don't recognize such sanity so they're impelled to affix a label on you in the hopes of being able to identify you.

Following staunchly to a single minded ideology is terribly limited at it's tamest and awfully dangerous at it's worst.

You should post here more often.

ConcordCowboy

12-06-2007, 03:39 PM

Following staunchly to a single minded ideology is terribly limited at it's tamest and awfully dangerous at it's worst.

Couldn't agree more.

Hostile

12-06-2007, 03:41 PM

Hey I was just kidding.:DI know, but for every joke there are 12 people who are dead serious.

Hostile

12-06-2007, 03:45 PM

He hasn't come out and admitted anything or changed his voting ways though.

His votes reflect negatively on their rights and their day to day activities.

If a Redskin fan kneecaps Romo(as many of them dream of doing I am sure) then decides he is a Cowboy fan later on, probably always was a Cowboy fan and all is well? Of course not. If we suffered injury due to someone's actions we'd want to indulge in a little petty sack punching before allowing him into the fold.

But, yea, if he comes out and admits he is gay and says he wants help then the GLBT or however its acronym'd would back him.

I certainly see what you are saying here with regards to politics as a whole but not sure this case that fits that example just yet.

For me personally I absolutely chide Repubs on gay and other acts because it is their tenet that being gay is an affront to God and is unnatural and is a choice. I always chide moralists who are proven to be immoral by their own standards. Then again I am not trying "help them or accept them" but rather to point out the hypocrisy of their actions as their opponent. I honestly could care less about what 2 adults do in the bedroom. I do care if those 2 consenting adults want to tell me what to do in mine while making it happen in theirs with a hamster and some duct tape and the whole while sitting in judgment over everyone else.Doesn't that make you a moralist yourself, and aren't you sitting in judgment? Do you chide yourself, or just those who disagree with you on this topic?

See, IMO both sides claim moral superiority of one type or another. You cited one and promoted another. Will you see that? I don't know. But that is the danger I see and why I steer clear of these topics.

Hostile

12-06-2007, 03:47 PM

Then you're sane. Most people don't recognize such sanity so they're impelled to affix a label on you in the hopes of being able to identify you.

Following staunchly to a single minded ideology is terribly limited at it's tamest and awfully dangerous at it's worst.

You should post here more often.Thank you. I probably won't once I've said my piece on this though. Trust me, someone will get terribly offended sooner or later, and over nothing other than my unwillingness to paint one side or ther other with the same paint they like.

jterrell

12-06-2007, 10:40 PM

Doesn't that make you a moralist yourself, and aren't you sitting injudgment? Do you chide yourself, or just those who disagree with you on this topic?

See, IMO both sides claim moral superiority of one type or another. You cited one and promoted another. Will you see that? I don't know. But that is the danger I see and why I steer clear of these topics.

Nope. I am not a moralist. If you follow these threads closely you'll see I argue we can not legislate morality and that attempts to do so are wrong.

I am sitting in judgment of their arguments not their morals.
I don't think Craig is bad because he wants ghey sex outside of his marriage, I think he is bad because he wants to deny other people the rights he takes upon himself.

And you argue both sides claim to be more moral and I can accept that in a certain sense but it the Republicans who run on Family Values and who swept into office on that very platform, while the leaders outing it were violating every basic tenet they laid out. In many cases it wasn't just immoral it was actually illegal.

Hostile

12-07-2007, 08:13 AM

Nope. I am not a moralist. If you follow these threads closely you'll see I argue we can not legislate morality and that attempts to do so are wrong.

I am sitting in judgment of their arguments not their morals.
I don't think Craig is bad because he wants ghey sex outside of his marriage, I think he is bad because he wants to deny other people the rights he takes upon himself.

And you argue both sides claim to be more moral and I can accept that in a certain sense but it the Republicans who run on Family Values and who swept into office on that very platform, while the leaders outing it were violating every basic tenet they laid out. In many cases it wasn't just immoral it was actually illegal.Riiiiiiight.

:wink2:

iceberg

12-07-2007, 09:54 AM

Thank you. I probably won't once I've said my piece on this though. Trust me, someone will get terribly offended sooner or later, and over nothing other than my unwillingness to paint one side or ther other with the same paint they like.

i'm with vta - i think you should. i post here more often than in the cowboys forums cause oddly enough there's less arguing.

Hostile

12-07-2007, 04:15 PM

i'm with vta - i think you should. i post here more often than in the cowboys forums cause oddly enough there's less arguing.The difference is, I enjoy talking about football, even if the person I'm debating is a bit upset. I don't enjoy talking about politics because there is no way to change anyone's mind. No matter what is printed, it was manufactured and not the real truth. Fox News vs. CNN. Democrats are evil, Republicans are evil. It never changes. You can show a candidate to be a total train wreck, and he is isn't as bad as the train wreck from the other party.

I'm no good at playing a sheep.

BrAinPaiNt

12-07-2007, 04:25 PM

The difference is, I enjoy talking about football, even if the person I'm debating is a bit upset. I don't enjoy talking about politics because there is no way to change anyone's mind. No matter what is printed, it was manufactured and not the real truth. Fox News vs. CNN. Democrats are evil, Republicans are evil. It never changes. You can show a candidate to be a total train wreck, and he is isn't as bad as the train wreck from the other party.

I'm no good at playing a sheep.

What do you think you are doing in here PooPoo Head?!?!

You are not allowed in here.

You are going to get yourself in trouble and I am not bailing your big butt out of jail this time.

/sarcasm off

On a side note...I like when you play a sheep, makes me feel naughty.