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

Well, that came from a self-admitted liberal (I guess).

Why do you insist on supposing that every Republican is anti-homosexual?

 

If he had done it before a Grand Jury.... probably yes.

He should have just told the truth. He'd spent most of his political career being caught at this kind of thing and controlling the damage. Evidently the soccer moms loved that bad boy side of him.

 

Look, you are the one who separated the two lines and you accuse me of taking it out of context. The first sentence doesn't say "all" the second clearly implies it.

You use the first one in your defense and ignore the second one. I originally quoted the WHOLE DAMN THING. It is you who cherry-picked your remarks. I simply added what you left out and that made your remark sweeping.

Spin was yours not mine.

 

Such as?

Sanctity of marriage? That only deals with marriage. Not even all gays want that one; many don't desire marriage.

The bottom line is that they are Republicans; they could have been Democrats or Independents or Libertarians or Greenies.

See my remarks elsewhere about platforms. The are approximate aspirations not pledges.

 

The answer is that President Bill Clinton is not a political party but as holder of the office, he has a severe loss of privacy since as the office-holder, he is not just a private citizen.

I guess he should have gotten a suite at the Watergate Hotel instead of somewhere in the White House, but oh that's where Monica roamed....

A Grand Jury wanted to investigate certain improprieties. They caught him in a lie. End of story.

Is that a yes or no. I don't remember the question.

 

Cool. Almost a whole page of delicious giddyness!

 

Both sentences were to be read as a whole. If one setence is sweeping and the 2nd is specific, then wouldn't a reasonable person conclude that the topic is regarding the specific topic since the author brought it up?

You misinterpreted my statement. The problem is yours ...not mine.

And I'm waiting for your list Democrats/Liberals of Pedophiles, Cheaters and Homosexuals ...that turned out to be hypocrites.

 

So why did YOU separate them?

Your "specific" observation says that if there is a sexual scandal, the perpetrator is more than likely a Republican.

Your "sweeping" observation is that "Dems ain't perfect either ...but they aren't a bunch of pedifiles or closet homosexuals praising the word of God."

You want to explain that one again? All it says, literally, is the Republicans are a bunch of "pedifiles or closet homosexuals praising the word of God" and if a sexual scandal breaks, it more likely than not involves a Republican.

If you had just stuck with your "statistical" observation, you would have been okay in my book... but you didn't.

I'm not obligated to do your homework. I don't have the time or the inclination. Let's just say that I concede that point. I don't know about your numbers but they probably aren't that far off from the truth. Happy?

 

Sorry but I do my best not to dodge the "tough" questions.

 

A "pro-homosexual" (if there is such a thing) person who supports the republican platform is one confused individual.

Your other post seems to imply some weird world where the only choices are "democrat" or "republican".

In response to the above question, allow me to pose my own? Why would anyone sign up to be a member of the republican party if you disagreed with even one iota of the mainstream ideology it represents? That's just stupid.

If you are "not" anti-homosexual, then stop supporting the republicans. Otherwise you are tacitly indicating that you are anti-homosexual, or that you don't care.

 

i think what giddy is saying is that both parties are far from perfect. nobody agrees hook line and sinker with a parties entire platform unless they are partisan tools. you have to choo-choo-choose the party that best fits your worldview. that being said, it's clear that republicans are all either closeted homosexuals or deeply in denial.

 

You, sir, are an extremist or an idealist. Take your choice.

Uncle!

Party Politics is about compromise; if you want to stay on the outside and peck away at issues as a Libertarian or a Greenie or an Independent or a Communist... go ahead. You have my blessing--- unless you are a Communist!

Party politics is about compromise. I don't see how you can avoid that other than choosing to participate from the outside looking in.

I don't particularly feel the need to demand that anyone's platform line up perfectly with my own preferences. I feel that is unrealistic and even probably weakens the party if everyone agrees on everything. It is probably doomed to implode as life carries on and things change.

 

I didn't.

and I stand by that observation ...you so do you.

...But as clarification: scandal PLUS hypocracy ...not just scandal.

I never once uttered this sentence or quoted this sentence in isolation of my original post. My orignal post DID have this sentence but only within the context of the larger post which CLEARLY was about Replican officials.

That's what I thought.

 

You didn't? What's this then?

Here you only mention the one more specific (but no less scandalous) half of your two-pronged attack on Republicans. You left out the sweeping one where you contrast them to the admittedly imperfect but less-perverted Democrats.

 

But that wasn't my question and you know it.

Again it's a non answer. Your choices are either yes or no. So one more time, giddy do you, and ONLY YOU, believe that Clinton should have been asked about his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Yes or no. It's not that tough.

I know you have strong opinions, but he is one person who doesn't represent the whole party or even the whole country even though he is the president. And by trying to embarrass him maybe the repubs could discredit his party as well. It's possible isn't it?

But then again that's not the question I want answered. Yes or no. Do YOU believe Clinton should have been asked about his affair with Lewinsky? Yes or no. If you want to elaborate, fine. But the first word of your post has to be either Yes or No. It's not that tough or is it?

 

I'll answer the way I see fit, thank you!

I truly didn't remember what your question was and I was too busy at the time to go back and look it up to be certain. Kind of huffy, aren't we?

Asked by whom? Hillary? A Grand Jury? The US Senate?

YES. YES. YES.

Of course there will be collateral damage to his party. Two angles here:

1. Politics is a dirty game... but I never posted anything like this: "Most federal interns getting the business from their bosses work for Democrats." That's the kind of stuff written here about Republicans. I don't remember ever reading anything like that about the Democrats in Washington following those scandals, yet it abounds here about the Republicans across this land.

2. The president is held to the highest standard. S/he is the pinnacle. It is a bit worrisome to me when the president of the US acts like a horny 17 YO in the White House.

Again, again, again I didn't defend Allen or Foley or Vitter; I defended every other Republican who was smeared by remarks here that characterize them as perverted sexual beings.

 

of course he should have. he was involved in a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment against him. his relationships with underlings are entirely relevant in that context.

 

But what people forget was that was not what Starr was investigating. He was investigating Whitewater.

 

Collateral damage because he is the prez, right? Well like you said politics is dirty and what you're hearing from the other side of the aisle is that collateral damage. From Senators to Congressman to State Officials the repubs have proven to be hypocrites on many levels not just political and yet you protest at the broad accusation. Well tough, this is politics. A dirty game. One were liberals and/or democrats can be labelled terrorist sympathizers and such by repubs and conservatives. Do you have any comment on those accusations?

It's funny that you stick up for the repubs like these guys were the only bad apples. I wonder if you can tell me if Mr. Allen or Foley were ever part of the LC repubs. You know the group you like talking about so much, showing that repubs are really a diverse group. I mean how hard can it be to openly say your gay and get elected to Congress? It didn't hurt Barney Frank.

I hope there are more things about a president you would also look for. But I guess raging hormones top that list. But I guess only 17 YO are horny, right? Is that the last time you've felt horny or is that how you "believed" Clinton acted? I mean if you can be so flippant about character flaws of others no matter who they are. But see you believe that the president should be held to the highest standard of what? Criticism, like "acts like a horny 17 YO".

Every other repub politician or voter? Or both? Or is this another attempt to argue the semantics of what you mean by "Republicans". Like I hinted at earlier, were these the only ones? How do you know there aren't a **** load more? But you will defend those that haven't been caught yet, right?

Not all repubs are perverted sexual beings, is about the only thing I can agree with you on. But these people who were caught are Republicans and there isn't a damn thing that is going to change that. No matter how much you protest. And they and people connected to them, whether family, friends or co-workers, will have to hear and live with it.