Bob Allen (R-Florida) Offers Undercover Male Officer $20 to Give Head

republicans are some freaky bastards...didnt that one guy write to little boys in chat rooms?

 

So it is more rational to smear an entire political party made up of how many tens of millions of individual American citizens?

All I said was that it was a possible explanation-- a hundred times better than the one offered by krosfayah.

Get real.

The point is the LC Republicans are not secret in any way nor are they hiding anywhere. That completely crushes the comparison that nyquil was trying to make to my suggestion about why Allen/Foley or any of those types could possibly be found hiding in the right wing of the Republican party.

Isn't it the same reason that so many child molesters are devoted uncles or troop leaders or trusted teachers?

If the Republican Party platform included going after minors and having extramarital affairs I'm not aware of it...

Gee, I thought being rational was a good thing...

You just want to make a broad, brainless swipe at someone you consider your enemy. It's just silly really.....

 

You should be allowed to vote people out of office, too, I think.

 

That's the point, I was using your logic to show that it was idiotic, so you basically agree with me that you said something idiotic. Thanks

You clearly read what you want to read and assume that its about hate. Its not, its about hypocrisy, and by using your own logic, I think hypocrisy happens to be common trait in those in the extreme right. I don't intend to prove to you that your brain goes into overdrive to make up idiotic logic that stretches to the extreme to defend people in your group, but I did prove that I can make you disagree with yourself when faced with your own "plausible explanations". If it defends your people, then its fine, but if it doesn't it must be wrong.



or maybe you want to keep on defending this guy because, well, you share the same fetishes so you hide out in the same group where you won't be discovered. You hate your deviant acts so much that you adhere strictly to your conservative values, but at night...well, you'll be a baaaad little boy.

 

I'm sorry, I couldn't let this one go.

The LC Republicans are a terrible example to use if you're going to defend the GOP party's stance on gays. It's not the fact that they're in the open which is the problem, it's the fact that they're in the open and have never gotten any concessions or even acknowledgment from the GOP leadership. They helped put Bush and his ilk in power, and now they want to work within a party that largely dismisses any of the gay community's attempts to get civil union or marriage rights. If you help to start the fire you don't get credit for working to stamp it out.

David Rakoff wrote a piece on the LCR in "Don't Get Too Comfortable" where he spent some time with their former leader, Patrick Guerriero. He talked for a bit about it on The Daily Show a while back.
Part 1 Part 2

 

Nicely done.

 

Here's your logic: take a hammer and knock a 16-penny nail through a board so, instead, let's take a squash and knock a baby carrot through a steel girder.

People are people and parties are parties. The former are private while the latter are public.

There's more to contrast (which is what I did) than to try and compare (which is what you tried to do).

If you can't discern the difference... well I don't know what to say.

You used the word "hate." Didn't you say something about "Republicans who hate America..."

Why not defend people in the Group? The Group does not deserve to be slammed because of the failing of one guy. That's fascist of you and nothing more than politically opportunistic. How brave! How fair! How sad!

Grow up.

I didn't defend the guy. I defended the Group. If you were even attempting to understand my POV, you would know that. My remark was made about people "like this" could have this modus operandi for these very logical reasons. Other people do it in their own ways. Pedophiles come at children from a position of trust (i.e. family member, neighbor, coach, leader).

 

I bring up the LC Republicans to defend Republicans not the Republican Party. There is a difference. One is amorpheus and adaptive; the other is not. Guess which is which.

 

Here's what he wrote about hate:

 

oh comon giddy. the logic is the same you used in the other thread. thus the amusement.

 

As I said, I can't convince giddyup, I can only make him look as hypocritical as the people he supports. All he does is look at something that he disagrees with and sees "oh, they hate us." Such a sad, sad life. This is the attitude that is causing failure in Iraq, which caused the republicans to lose in congress. If you don't learn, you crash and burn. In this case, you only make a fool of yourself, so consider yourself lucky.

 

Two problems:

1. He said "lots"

2. Unless it is part of the agenda (i.e. al Qaeda), the Group is not responsible for the actions of the Individual. Is infidelity part of the Republican Party's platform? Show me. Can't? How then is the Republican Party or Republicans in general in any way responsible?

 

Did I mis-represent or mis-interpret this:

Hyperbole and Guiltlessness all wrapped up in one.

 

So you are telling me that republicans have no problem with infidelity, homosexuals, or prostitution? Because if they did, they should be just as critical of their own as they are when they try to pass marriage laws that are based on "the sanctity of marriage" and the "sacredness".

Meanwhile, you have Mark Foley, who was the biggest Republican proponent against child exlpoitation- got caught molesting underage boys

Bob Allen headed a bill to stop sex in public- got caught soliciting for sex
Allen was also strongly against gay marriage or gay rights

David Vitter was strongly for abstinence-only education saying "Abstinence education is a public health strategy focused on risk avoidance that aims to help young people avoid exposure to harm...by teaching teenagers that saving sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards is the best choice for health and happiness."
He also is against same sex marriage, stating that marriage is a sacred vow between men and women. - obviously not sacred enough to commit adultery.

Look, its fine if the republicans have viewpoints on certain things, but I and no one else should be tolerant of politicians, any politicians, who try to legislate morality and are people who are guilty of violating what they want to push on others. If you don't have a problem with that, then you can't be fixed.

If you can find any democrats that legislate against things they violate, I'll gladly oppose them, too (but it would be hypocritical for you to oppose them). It just so happens that Republicans happen to be heavy in legislating restrictions on social order, but are in a messy straight right now of their top proponents being caught doing acts they oppose.

 

Are you really arguing that the GOP doesn't assert itself as being more God-fearing and upstanding than the Democratic Party? The sheer hypocrisy of these busted lawmakers is what grates. Take David Vitter, who advocated abstinence-only sex ed out of the right corner of his mouth while he was making calls to hookers with the left. It's highly unlikely the Dems are any more or less pure than Repubs, but they don't court votes by saying they're the party of morality.

 

Well yes. Because there has been a "lot" of this lately. And a "lot" historically.

The party is responsible inasmuch as they have chosen to brandish a platform heavy on family "values" they themselves can't even begin to uphold.

 

What fairly political land do you live in where someone criticizes themselves as much as their opponent? That runs both ways.

Mark Foley didn't get caught molesting anybody. He was sending text messages or emails as I recall.

My agenda here is not to defend these individuals. Go back and read the Foley thread. Same thing there: my job was to stand up to the slandering of all Republicans because of the act of one-- be that one Mark Foley or Bob Allen.

You are politicizing individual failures. Bravo?

 

Yes, the Republican Party does promote itself as more God-fearing that the Democratic Party. Did I say anywhere that their individual hypocrisy is not grating and shameful?

I don't believe I've written a word in defense of Allen, yet each of you keeps accusing me of defending him. I defend all other Republicans not Allen.

This may be tough for you; I don't know. Name a Republican that you admire... does s/he deserve to be dragged down by the actions of Allen?

I would disagree with your final point. The Dems do also identify themselves as the party of morality.

 

A lot? Not really but I guess that's just a matter of opinion.

Pure hyperbolic bunk. The vast majority of Republians (and Democrats) probably live upstanding lives but you choose to observe that Republians "can't even begin to uphold" family values.

You are just too objective for your own good!

 

and how much success have they had w/in your party? i find it funny that you are trying to act like the republicans as a whole are the slightest bit tolerant of homosexuals. the republican party under this administration has been strongly pushing an anti-gay agenda - can anyone seriously deny this? when "the hammer" stepped down wasnt the next guy in line gay, so they had to bypass him for majority leader? not very gay-friendly.

but the real issue is the hypocrisy of the republican leadership when it comes to homosexuals.

just a few examples...

bush having a gay male hooker visit the white house over 200 times.
mark foley, chairman of the child abuse committee, caught sending dirty emails to children.
ted haggard, who had a weekly phone conference w/ bush.
bob allen paying undercover officer to GIVE a b.j.
rudy guilianni is a transvestite.