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

I don't agree. I didn't think that was right either.

That is a universal MO. Because it is right.

Unless it lines up with the agenda of the group (i.e. al Qaeda), no group is blameworthy for the criminal or immoral behavior of an individual who is a member of that group.

What Gary Hart or Bill Clinton or James MacGreevey "did" in their life to their families has no bearing on other Democrats or the Democratic Party.

Is that part of the Democratic Party's platform? I didn't think so; nor is it part of the Republican Party's platform.

But look at the widespread defamation here thrown at the Republican Party.

I haven't typed one keystroke in defense of Allen or Foley for that matter. Mine were save for others who were being dragged into the fray for political reasons. It's wrong.

Ironically, we still find people clinging to the notion that Clinton got impeached because he got sexual favors from a subordinate. While that is probably criminal, his impeachment was about lying before the Grand Jury.

The problem here is that we as individuals are not responsible for what others in our group do, yet there is a great tendency to lump them all together especially when there is blame to distribute.

 

me thinks the lady doth protests too much!

 

the president of the united states is not a leader? is he not the decider? the commander-guy?

we have named alot more than two. and even that is more than i would have expected from a party which advocates an anti-gay agenda.

people who think homosexuality is a sin yet continue to vote for and support people who hang out with gay male hookers, send dirty emails to children and proposition men for sex in public bathrooms are being hoodwinked.

 

Getting sexual favors from a subordinate isn't criminal, unethical but I'm not aware of any law that would prohibit two consenting adults having sex.

[edit]Just to add I think that since you have brought up that you think it was criminal shows that even you think the BJ was a factor in the impeachment and that its not solely about perjury.

 

This is just too rich. Do you have Bush on gay porno film or something?

When asked you named three. I gave you two and distanced myself from the third.

You said I was being hoodwinked, didn't you? I'm not into the sin thing. Who are you saying is hanging out with gay male hookers... Pres Bush? Evidence please. Since I didn't vote for either Vitter or Foley, I'm not sure how I supported them. I haven't even defended them here...

 

1. Workplace sex is a dicey prospect. In the real world, most execs wouldn't do it with an underling-- especially someone as powerless as an intern. It's a legal trap.

2. Were the sexual favors cited in the articles of impeachment? Obviously they are a factor because they were what was lied about, but I believe the answer, technically, is no.

 

I'm not a lady.

People keep mis-representing what I've said. Check the record.

 

Obviously?!!! That's it!!! If like you said earlier

If that's the case, then Clinton should have never been asked about his relationship with Lewinsky in the first place. Right?

 

So Clinton is a party?

Talk about taking something out of context.....

 

Dude, read the whole post again and then answer the question. Should Clinton have been asked about his relationship with Lewinsky in the first place?
Either you are truly an idiot or you just like playing one on the forums.
Or maybe you just don't like answering simple questions ala the decider.

 

no, just the secret service records that show jeff gannon, a gay male hooker, visiting the white house over 200 times. and the fact that this administration planted him in the white house press corp to field softball questions to "the decider" while at the same time he was running a gay escort website.

more than 3 have been named, but at this point there have been enough to make it an issue. back again to the main point, which is the hypocrisy of your parties leadership. your party promotes an anti-gay agenda. prominent members of your party engage in homosexual behavior while publicly speaking out against homosexuality.

i did say "you are being hoodwinked", but i wasnt speaking of you persay, as much as the average republican voter. i had said that in the post, but perhaps i should have said it a second time for you. either way, my point was that your party plays to the anti-gay element w/in the conservative movement, while many of your leaders engage in homosexual behavior - that makes them hypocrites. by definition, people who are anti-gay yet continue to support gay politicians are being hoodwinked. they are being deceived, are they not?

i cant believe you are even arguing this. this thread is like mcdonalds.
DA DA DA DA DA - IM LOVIN' IT!

 

My remarks that you tried to use to cross me up were made about the public formation of an entity that someone was wrongly accusing of wanting to have a hidden agenda. The LC Republicans have never been secretive about who they were or what they are. They have no privacy; they are a public entity.

Obviously the Grand Jury felt a need to ask Clinton those private questions. I think, however, that you are really referring to questions asked at the impeachment proceedings.

The idiocy is in your trying to blend the two together. My answer stands. I understood it; I didn't fall for it. Thank you.

 

Giddy:

I've been thinking about your request for "stupid" legislation from the GOP other than that which concerns homosexuality or abortion and it's not making sense to me. I mean, I can find silly laws sponsored by the GOP about gambling, public nudity, and a host of other bizarre occurrences that should be wholly outside the realm of legislation - but the big ones are that which youa re asking me to ignore. Why is that?

And at what point should continual hypocritical actions by individuals either be indicative of the majority, or better yet, stir some changes within the touted platform?

Ignoring the apparent double standard here, shouldn't these continual "scandals" cause the republican party leadership to rethink their stance on traditional morality? Heck, isn't a president with a DUI and a history of cocaine use enough of a hypocritical mountain to perhaps make you rethink the appropriateness of the current republican "family values" ideology?

If you really think we can't generalize these things - then why does the "standard" republican moral stance continue to generalize all homosexuals as freaks, and all abortionists as murderers? Where do these things become hypocritical?

 

I am the average Republican voter. Neither Foley or Allen has appeared on one of my ballots.

Party politics is about compromise; look at the Log Cabin Republicans!

Anyone who says one thing and does another is a hypocrite. There is no argument there. Just slow down with the extrapolation of the problem. A few is not many.

 

THere is still no law forbidding it that I'm aware of.

Let me ask you if Clinton had been suspected of lying about eating a ham sandwich would there have been an impeachment?

 

What answer?!!! Was there even an answer in your post? All you have to say is yes or no. Now I can understand that yes and/or no are really, really big words for you to understand but is it really that tough?

 

Have you heard of CONTEXT

If you read that sentence in isolation of the preceeding sentence, then yes, I understand how you feel I'm making a generalization.

Nice "spin" attempt.

Giddy, I've got a challenge for you:

You provide me a list of public figures that are Democrats/Liberals that were guilty of:
1. Phedophila
OR
2. Enganged in homosexual behavior while publicly decrying homosexuality.
OR
3. Enganged in adulty while opening promoting a platform of "family values."

In return, for every democrat you give me that fits any of the lables above, I suspect I (or somebody here) can give you at leave 5 Republics guilty of the same thing.

I'd suspect it's going to easily be a 5-1 ratio Republicans.

GIDDY, the gauntlet has been thrown. Are you man enough to accept the challenge?

 

This coming from a self-admitted republican? Hilarious.

 

ok, what about them? can you seriously argue that they have any sway w/in the gop or that they are accepted by the mainstream conservative?

furthermore, if a log cabin republican was caught in a gay affair that wouldnt be too much of a shock, would it? they are openly gay. but we are talking about republicans who not only speak out against homosexuality, but promote policies against them while at the same time engaging in homosexual acts.

 

Simply because they were already on the table. Your remark indicated that there was lots of it and, with the pro-Life and anti-Gay Marriage on the table, I was just looking for the rest of what you considered "goofy" (not sure if that was your term or someone else's).

Any platform is a compromised statement. The point is that every registered Republican agrees with the Republican platform moreso than the Democratic platform-- otherwise they would be a registered Democrat.

It's not a pledge. It's a statement from among the two (excluding third parties) which most closely aligns with your political POV. That's all.

Somebody like Foley is particularly hypocritical because he sponsored the very legislation and headed the committee that defined the laws he broke. That has nothing to do with every other Republican-- unless they are guilty of same. Or unless they have defended him after the fact beyond protecting his civil rights.

No. Platforms are about aspirations. Everyone has a past. More importantly everyone has a present. If we smacked down everyone for their past, we'd have only a segment of the Boy Scouts as our leaders and I don't think you'd be happy with that.

I can't find the "freak" language in anything. The usual argument has to do with sanctity of marriage as an institution to promote family unity. Heterosexual marriage (the poor record of it) has destroyed that myth, therefore I am in favor of gay marriage. Not every Republican feels that way, but it's not a single issue platform for me.

It is radical to call abortionists murderers but if you believe that life begins at conception how do you elude that? I don't find it to be productive to go there much but some do... or they just can't control their emotions over the issue. I have gotten to that place before but not often.

Dead babies due to Roe v Wade number some 30+ Million. That's almost a 10,000 time factor of the US casualties in the War on Terror.

I guess we all have our pet issues.