Republican Senator - family values!

[DeadCanDance]

Here's a couple other takes:

Not Funny: Watching Representative Barney Frank get reelected after sodomizing a minor and running a prostitute business from his home.

Funny: Watching Senator Craig try to claim he's not a pervert.

I'm surprised that rightwing so-called "christians" like you have to resort to lying on this thread. I guess when you start lying, its basically an admission that you've lost the debate.

Barney did not run a prostitute business. His male lover claims to have run one.

Barney's male lover was of consensual age.

Now, the fact that this episode involved paying for sex, and some other seedy things, is certainly nothing to be proud of. As far as I know Barney was reprimanded in the House. And the point is, Democrats don't potray themselves as the protector of perfect family values and morality. Humans are flawed. As far as I know, Frank wasn't found to have done anything illegal.

BTW: I WANT Craig and Vitter to stay in the Senate. I haven't said they should resign.

 

[maineman]

it is funny how the righties will go so far as to purposely misstate the issue and blame Studd's transgressions on Frank...just so they don't have to deal with that inconvenient Crane issue.

and the point about the age of consent in DC is a good one...but the self righteous will never admit it.

Bottom line: Studds and Franks were gay. They never tried to hide that.

Craig is also, but not only did he hide it, he voted against gays for the sole reason of gaining votes from his constituents and curry favor from the republican caucus.

As I have said over and over again here...I have no problems with Craig's sexuality....ONLY his profound hypocrisy.

 

[DeadCanDance]

it is funny how the righties will go so far as to purposely misstate the issue and blame Studd's transgressions on Frank...just so they don't have to deal with that inconvenient Crane issue.

and the point about the age of consent in DC is a good one...but the self righteous will never admit it.

Bottom line: Studds and Franks were gay. They never tried to hide that.

Craig is also, but not only did he hide it, he voted against gays for the sole reason of gaining votes from his constituents and curry favor from the republican caucus.

As I have said over and over again here...I have no problems with Craig's sexuality....ONLY his profound hypocrisy.

I think that guy Frank had a affair with was in his twenties. I don't know where lying republicans are getting that he was either a minor, or in the page program.

Frank didn't do anything illegal. Paying for gay sex is most certainly not my cup of tea. But, whatever.

 

[Shogun]

I notice you conveniently neglected to respond to my post #264.
Again...NOBODY is saying that homosexuality is RARE. We ARE saying that a gay man who stays in the closet and spends his career castigating gays in order to garner votes from his constituency and favor from his caucus is a FUCKING HYPOCRITE.
this righteously indignant obtuse act of yours is wearing really fucking thin.

uh, so? Do you think it's going to chaffe less every time you claim this is not about homosexuality when it's obvious that it is the SOLE midigating variable in your monkeydance? His motivation for supporting whatever political ideology, whether you think it valid or not, is just as important to him as yours is to you. When you start dictating what political party any particular sexuality can or cannot belong to or vote with you cross the line from happy go lucky lefty to just another partisan asshole who can't see beyond their own life schema. Much like blacks, you do not have a monopoly on every minority voter and, as much as it may blow your fucking mind, sometimes blacks don't fall in line behind affirmative action and sometimes there are other issues that are more important to gays than gay issues. If Craig wanted to tow the conservative party line on gay issues inorder to champion OTHER ISSUES THAT HE AS A GAY MAN MIGHT ALSO THINK IS IMPORTANT then so be it. At this point you are acting like a bunch of college republicans trying to check for valid social security cards at the campus multicultural center. Like I said, enjoy it while it's on this side of the cycle.


sorry, still looking for that one gay, left handed, non-circumcized, hair parted on the right, two eye color having one legged son of god elected log cabin republican. Did you want to narrow the search perameters?

 

[mattskramer]

Here's a couple other takes:

Not Funny: Watching Representative Barney Frank get reelected after sodomizing a minor and running a prostitute business from his home.

Well, are you going to be a man and say that you were mistaken, or do you have proof that Barney Frank had sex with a minor? I’m waiting but I won’t hold my breath.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You mean the sex scandal in which democrat Gerry Studds was censured, along with republican Dan Crane, for having relations with !7 YEAR old pages? (age of consent in D.C. is 16, btw, so it wasn't illegal).

If he was all so innocent then why did the House censure him by a vote of 420-3?

Your point? No laws were broken, but they acted in a manner I, personally, would think as inappropriate as any other affair with an underling at work. The fact that Crane won the primary but was defeated in the general election after is neither here nor there.

My point being that you pervert-supporting liberals re-elect perverts. The fact that Crane lost his election is pertinent. Crane issued tearful apologies for his perverted behavior whereas Studds stood with his back to congress in protest. Crane was not re-elected and went back to being a dentist. Studds was re-elected six times. Go figure.

What's your problem with the Frank rule? .... I figure it's a good idea not to vilify other people and then go out and do exactly the same thing. In other words, if you're going to talk the talk, you should walk the walk. That said, I don't hear any democrats asking for Craig's resignation. That would be the right, for whom he's no longer holier-than-thou enough.

You don't understand, do you? If privacy is the basis for perversion, then privacy should also be the basis for hypocrisy which is a perversion in itself.

As for the beloved perverts crack... not worth a response because it's so very ignorant.

Not ignorant at all. I know where to draw the line whereas you don't.

I'm surprised that rightwing so-called "christians" like you have to resort to lying on this thread. I guess when you start lying, its basically an admission that you've lost the debate.

Barney did not run a prostitute business. His male lover claims to have run one.

Barney's male lover was of consensual age.

Now, the fact that this episode involved paying for sex, and some other seedy things, is certainly nothing to be proud of. As far as I know Barney was reprimanded in the House. And the point is, Democrats don't potray themselves as the protector of perfect family values and morality. Humans are flawed. As far as I know, Frank wasn't found to have done anything illegal.

BTW: I WANT Craig and Vitter to stay in the Senate. I haven't said they should resign.

Ah, yes, here come the leftie Christian putdowns. I did NOT lie but got two of your elected perverts mixed up. If you can manage to read post #299 it will explain matters to you. And, in the context of my earlier post, the mix up does not really matter anyway.

btw I just love the way you defend your hero perverts….I certainly agree that you Democrats do not support family values nor morality.

So why do you want Craig to stay in the Senate? Because he is homo/bi or because he broke the law and appears to be a liar in-the-making? Or because he supports amnesty? Or?

it is funny how the righties will go so far as to purposely misstate the issue and blame Studd's transgressions on Frank...just so they don't have to deal with that inconvenient Crane issue.

and the point about the age of consent in DC is a good one...but the self righteous will never admit it.

Bottom line: Studds and Franks were gay. They never tried to hide that.

Craig is also, but not only did he hide it, he voted against gays for the sole reason of gaining votes from his constituents and curry favor from the republican caucus.

As I have said over and over again here...I have no problems with Craig's sexuality....ONLY his profound hypocrisy.

Learn how to read, I did not purposefully misrepresent anything. And the Crane issue only goes to show that liberals support perverts while conservatives do not. Please actually read my posts for better understanding.

Bottom lines:
Studds misued his power by going after young Congressional pages which is wrong for both homos and straights.
Franks was associated with illegal sleaze in his own home.
Liberals condone immoral actions by re-electing these sleazebags.

Well, are you going to be a man and say that you were mistaken, or do you have proof that Barney Frank had sex with a minor? I’m waiting but I won’t hold my breath.

You libs really need to learn how to read before going off half-cocked in defense of your sleazy perverts.

 

[mattskramer]

You libs really need to learn how to read before going off half-cocked in defense of your sleazy perverts.

First of all, I am not a lib. Secondly, I am not defending sleazy perverts. I am simply asking you for proof to your claim that Barney sodomized a minor. It is as simple as that. Do you have it or not?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

First of all, I am not a lib. Secondly, I am not defending sleazy perverts. I am simply asking you for proof to your claim that Barney sodomized a minor. It is as simple as that. Do you have it or not?

As I already said to DCD, go back and read post #299. Or do I need to reprint it here because you're lost and confused? Maybe that's why I think of you as a lib - you seem lost and confused alot.

 

[Ninja]

Why didn't Welfare with Badges wait until Sen. Craig had actually done something lewd to arrest him?

How does pleading guilty to disorderly conduct make someone gay?

How many of the board liberals currently gloating over this complete non-story have a little sugar in their own tanks?

Shows you how far South things have gone for the Democrats if a guy taking a shit with a wide stance is all they have to talk about

What an utter failure that this Congress has been. It's almost as if the Republicans are still in control

 

[ReillyT]

Why didn't Welfare with Badges wait until Sen. Craig had actually done something lewd to arrest him?

Apparently (this is what I read on Slate), Craig's gesture called for the officer to take the first "lewd" action, which he could not of course do. That is just what I heard. Can't promise it is accurate.

How does pleading guilty to disorderly conduct make someone gay?

It is not the plea. It is the underlying conduct that suggests (doesn't prove) he is gay.

How many of the board liberals currently gloating over this complete non-story have a little sugar in their own tanks?

"Sugar in their tank;" I like that phrase. Catchy.

Shows you how far South things have gone for the Democrats if a guy taking a shit with a wide stance is all they have to talk about

We (all, including yourself) are talking about it because it is news, and for once, it is news that doesn't involve people being blown up. As for the partisanship angle, it is the Republicans, and not the Democrats, who are going to force this guy out of the Senate.

What an utter failure that this Congress has been. It's almost as if the Republicans are still in control

I think I have to agree with you.

 

[mattskramer]

As I already said to DCD, go back and read post #299. Or do I need to reprint it here because you're lost and confused? Maybe that's why I think of you as a lib - you seem lost and confused alot.

I read post 299 very carefully. There was no evidence that Frank sodomized a minor. So I will ask you again. Do you have proof that Frank sodomized a minor or will you admit that you were wrong?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Good God, screaming eagle...what would you NeoCons do, if you couldn't travel back a quarter century or more, to talk about some Democratic sleaziness in the ancient past?...what would you guys do, if you didn't have the ancient history of Garry Studds and Chappaquidick to talk about? All I can say, is that Dems must have been pretty well behaved generally in the last quarter century, if you have to keep time traveliing to the 1970s and early 80s.

I don't think Larry Craig should resign. Part of me feels sorry for him - living a lie all these years, has to tear one apart mentally and emotionally. His crime was not so egrergious, that its inexcusable. Its certainly sleazy, and I'm disturbed that he's obviously lying to the cop on the audio tape, during the interview. But, I know that humans are imperfect. They're going to make mistakes. Unless they commit felonies, or very egregious ethical lapses, I'm not going to judge whether they should serve or not. That's up to their constituents. That's what makes me a Democrat and you a NeoCon.

 

[hjmick]

It's not that Dems have been better behaved, they're just better at not getting caught.

 

[jillian]

It's not that Dems have been better behaved, they're just better at not getting caught.

I don't think either is true. I just think there's no politicl mileage in "outing" a dem pol.. because we don't tend to give a hoot if they're gay. It isn't either a negative or a positive for most of us. With the repubs, they've spent so much time building gay-bashing into their party platform that a) gay repubs closet themselves; and b) there can be a political benefit in outing them. Plus, there's the hypocrisy issue.

Interestingly, I heard a "leftie" commentator today who probably would be Craig's greatest defender... she thought the whole thing was absurd because women deal with come-ons all the time and she felt men should "man up" and cope if someone approaches them... male or female... and not expect the law to protect grown-ups from someone who propositions them.

 

[maineman]

uh, so? Do you think it's going to chaffe less every time you claim this is not about homosexuality when it's obvious that it is the SOLE midigating variable in your monkeydance? His motivation for supporting whatever political ideology, whether you think it valid or not, is just as important to him as yours is to you. When you start dictating what political party any particular sexuality can or cannot belong to or vote with you cross the line from happy go lucky lefty to just another partisan asshole who can't see beyond their own life schema. Much like blacks, you do not have a monopoly on every minority voter and, as much as it may blow your fucking mind, sometimes blacks don't fall in line behind affirmative action and sometimes there are other issues that are more important to gays than gay issues. [COVERED BEFORE!] If Craig wanted to tow the conservative party line on gay issues inorder to champion OTHER ISSUES THAT HE AS A GAY MAN MIGHT ALSO THINK IS IMPORTANT then so be it. [bullshit. nobody has to vote with their caucus on every issue. the fact that this asshole was so vocal against gays is THE only thing that concerns me...it is hypocrisy - or self loathing - or both.] At this point you are acting like a bunch of college republicans trying to check for valid social security cards at the campus multicultural center. Like I said, enjoy it while it's on this side of the cycle. [read my post and have the balls to respond to it.]


sorry, still looking for that one gay, left handed, non-circumcized, hair parted on the right, two eye color having one legged son of god elected log cabin republican. Did you want to narrow the search perameters?

I am just looking for one openly gay republican legislator anywhere who has voted against maintaining or expanding gay rights in America. MAN...you sure can run away from a post faster than anyone I have ever fucking seen. It is almost like you didn't even fucking bother to read my post given the shit you say above.


Address these points and quit hiding from them:

1. No one is doubting that there are gay republicans.
2. No one is suggesting that there is anything wrong with gays who are republicans and who value many MORE things about the republican party and can live with their stance against gays as one area that they disagree upon
3. No one is suggesting that there are not openly gay republican elected legislative officials in all levels of government.
4. No one is questioning their priorities or castigating them for being republican when the republican party is, at its core, and in its actions, openly anti-gay. I understand and accept the fact that there can be - and undoubtely are - many many gay men and women in America who embrace and value the republican agenda in toto and can disregard the fact that the party differs from them on the one issue having to do with THEIR sexuality- because that issue is not the most important issue for them.
5. NO ONE is telling them that they ought to put gay issues above all others...NO ONE is trying to tell them what their priorities are! If gay men and women want to vote for republicans because they embrace the vast majority of the party's agenda....That's GREAT! Good for them!
6. I AM questioning your assertion that openly gay republican legislators follow their party leadership on each and every issue and vote with their caucus on issues such as gay marriage or gays in the military or civil unions or the defense of marriage act.... and you have YET to show me ONE vote by ONE openly gay republican legislator that was AGAINST gay rights, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE REST OF HIS PARTY VOTED.
7. I am not suggesting that such a vote makes that openly gay republican legislator a bad person or a bad republican.
8. I AM saying, that when a gay republican legislator is IN THE CLOSET and repeatedly votes WITH his party's leadership AGAINST gay rights issues - AND THEN GETS CAUGHT TROLLING FOR MAN ON MAN ASS SEX IN AN AIRPORT RESTROOM, he rightfully deserves all the public condemnation that we can heap on him - not because he is gay, BUT BECAUSE HE IS A FUCKING HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jillian]

If he was all so innocent then why did the House censure him by a vote of 420-3?

Because they conducted themselves inappropriately..... not illegally. The House, also, I might add, went beyond the recommendation of the judiciary committee.

I'm not quite sure why you feel you can make untrue, defamatory statements just because you're on the internet.

My point being that you pervert-supporting liberals re-elect perverts. The fact that Crane lost his election is pertinent. Crane issued tearful apologies for his perverted behavior whereas Studds stood with his back to congress in protest. Crane was not re-elected and went back to being a dentist. Studds was re-elected six times. Go figure.

Again, not worth responding to....

You don't understand, do you? If privacy is the basis for perversion, then privacy should also be the basis for hypocrisy which is a perversion in itself.

I have no clue what that means,.. it's just rambling.

Not ignorant at all. I know where to draw the line whereas you don't.

Do you? I guess that's one opinion. Do you mean drawing the line like saying if Roe v Wade were repealed there'd be fewer rapes because women would have to be "more careful"?

 

[mattskramer]

I still can’t find where Frank committed statutory rape on a young man – a minor. If I had, then I would have been very surprised that Frank was still in office. Now, someone said that Frank sodomized a minor. Where is the information? Give me a link, a web site, anything. Well, luckily I’ve been taught to question what I’m told. Otherwise, I might think that Frank committed statutory rape. Where is the retraction or where is the evidence?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I still can’t find where Frank committed statutory rape on a young man – a minor. If I had, then I would have been very surprised that Frank was still in office. Now, someone said that Frank sodomized a minor. Where is the information? Give me a link, a web site, anything. Well, luckily I’ve been taught to question what I’m told. Otherwise, I might think that Frank committed statutory rape. Where is the retraction or where is the evidence?

I notice your "questioning" is almost always one sided. I do not recall you wanting evidence when Jillian proclaimed the FEC was all a bunch of Bush Stooges that made political decisions without law or any legal basis. I don't recall you questioning Ruby when she insisted American troops were mass murderers and terrorists and the Bush Government Nazi's.

Ohh wait, I know, you never saw those threads right?

 

[mattskramer]

I notice your "questioning" is almost always one sided. I do not recall you wanting evidence when Jillian proclaimed the FEC was all a bunch of Bush Stooges that made political decisions without law or any legal basis. I don't recall you questioning Ruby when she insisted American troops were mass murderers and terrorists and the Bush Government Nazi's.

Ohh wait, I know, you never saw those threads right?

You are absolutely right. I have other duties and responsibilities- a wife, a couple of jobs, college activities and studies, and other interests, etc. I don’t have time to look at each post on each thread and evaluate it each day. Though some posts catch my attention while a briefly look at this bulletin board, I might miss an occasional questionable post. Please feel free to direct me to the specific posts that caught your attention. I’ll read them carefully and ask for proof if I question them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are absolutely right. I have other duties and responsibilities- a wife, a couple of jobs, college activities and studies, and other interests, etc. I don’t have time to look at each post on each thread and evaluate it each day. Though some posts catch my attention while a briefly look at this bulletin board, I might miss an occasional questionable post. Please feel free to direct me to the specific posts that caught your attention. I’ll read them carefully and ask for proof if I question them.

Here is the one that Jillian proclaimed that the FEC was just a bunch of political hacks for George Bush.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=50319

The one with Ruby is a bit older, I can't remember the thread title. I will look for it though, she made more than one post in more than one thread saying our troops were terrorists and mass murderers though.