Hello:

I posted a question a few moments ago wherein I used the word "faggot". The word was used by Ann Coulter on national TV without being censored, so I would have thought I could use it here... I was wrong. This question might just disappear too, like my last question did.

In any case, I was wondering why some homosexual people of the right wing persuasion, would rather be called liars and hypocrites than homosexuals?

excon

Well I guess we can chalk it up to hypocrisy . Craig is just another one of those Elmer Gantry types ;preaching one thing while allegedly practicing something else.

I guess the big difference between him and Democrat hypocrites will be the fact that his political career is toast .

William Jefferson stuffed bribe money in the freezer and is still staking the halls of Congress.

Al Gore preaches environmentalism and leaves one of the largest individual carbon footprints in America. Despite that he will soon collect his Nobel prize.

John Edwards bemoans the plight of the New Orleans poor while working for a fund that floats bad loans to them and pads his personal wealth as a result. He is now a candidate for the Presidency still spouting his two America jive. He will continue to get his ego stroked by the MSM and his hypocrisy is white washed and swept under the rug.

Guv. Jim McGreedy of NJ made a snivelling confession about his life style to the press when he decided to resign instead of getting nailed for real estate swindles and putting the security of the entire state of New Jersey at risk.He then claimed that his reason for resigning was because he was gay. He also found solace in brokeback bathrooms.

That was considered courageous by the press. He made a fortune on the subsequent book deal ;a slot in the Oprah show;and favorable reactions from the NY Slimes.

That is how hypocrites on the left are treated . Craig will be the subject of a GOP inquiry and then will be persuaded to resign even though he occupies a key Senate seat that will now most likely go to a Democrat.Foley left congress and Craig won't be far behind.

He is also now the subject of derision of the supposedly gay loving liberals .Craig is the deviant . McGreedy the courageous hero to the cause.

Ex,

I guess that depends on whether you intend to leave your wife for your lover. At least thanks to Craig I now know to get the heck out if the guy in the stall next door starts tapping his foot.

Steve

I'm glad he's out of the stall... oops I mean closet. The last thing we need is a Senator who can be compromised and black-mailed because he is trying to hide his picadillo.

Yeah - when you claim values and moral standards, some are bound to fall - just the
human conditions.
Question is are those who casting stones going to realize, hey I've scewed up also - just in a different area of life - and be willing to forgive?

However: when you don't claim to have any set values or moral standards, then anything is permissible in the name of "tolerance."


Read the same article too, Tom, who would've thought!





Grace and Peace

Good question. I guess the answer is probably the same as why some Dems would rather be called homosexuals than liars or hypocrites... like Jim McSkeevy. Personally, not being a liar, hypocrite, criminal or homosexual, I can't really answer your question with any authority.

I guess Democrat liars and hypocrites are a dime a dozen... no big deal. But a Democrat homosexual is a HERO. Whereas Republican liars and hypocrites are a dime a dozen also... no big deal. But a Republican homosexual is the devil incarnate and an object of vilification. Ergo, Dems would rather be labeled gay, and Republicans would rather be labeled liars and hypocrites.

Elliot

I'm a hypocrit(e?) by nature, though I try my best to not by hypocritical. I, however, am not a homosexual. In this case, I would rather be called the hypocrit(e?) because it's true. At least, to some extent.

Hello again:

I find it interesting that Larry Craig, Republican gets caught with his pants down, and you attack Democrats. Huh?? What's up with that? I'm not a Democrat, but I'm SURE the Democrats didn't make him do it.

Why does his being gay piss you off so much? Is it that the house of cards the right wing built based upon "family values" is crumbling?? I think so...

excon

Oh, no, I attack Craig too. But the standards seem to be different for Dems and Republicans. Dems see any Dem who is gay as a hero, but any Republican who is gay as someone to be attacked and vilified. Republicans see any gay person as someone to be attacked and vilified, which at least makes them consistent, without any doublt standard. And if I read the news reports right, it is the REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP that is calling for an ethics investigation of Craig, which means they are holding to their standards. THAT is why I attack Dems.

Hello:

I posted a question a few moments ago wherein I used the word "faggot". The word was used by Ann Coulter on national TV without being censored, so I would have thought I could use it here..... I was wrong. This question might just disappear too, like my last question did.

In any case, I was wondering why some homosexual people of the right wing persuasion, would rather be called liars and hypocrites than homosexuals?

excon
Trust me; he was framed by the hypocrites. :D

But the standards seem to be different for Dems and Republicans. Dems see any Dem who is gay as a hero, but any Republican who is gay as someone to be attacked and vilified. Hello again, El:

I don't know. For a smart guy, you sure miss a lot. I agree, the standards ARE different. But, it's the Republicans who are setting themselves apart, not the Dems. The Republicans are the ones who proclaim that they have "family values" and the Dems don't. The Dems don't set themselves apart. They are the ones BEING set apart FROM.

Since it's the Republicans who say they're different, when one of them turns out NOT to be different, it IS a BIG DEAL. He should be derided.

But, when a Democrat turns out to be just an ordinary person, it AIN'T no big deal - it just ain't.

excon

I'm glad that the Democrats don't need to worry about keeping any moral standards. It must be a big relief.

However I did say that Craig will go down for his hypocrisy . Good riddance . He should've resigned before he was championing shamnesty . I just observed that the Democrats pay no penalty for their hypocrisy . So which party is better ? The one that holds it's members accountable or the one that doesn't ?

Oh, no, I attack Craig too. But the standards seem to be different for Dems and Republicans. Dems see any Dem who is gay as a hero, but any Republican who is gay as someone to be attacked and vilified. Republicans see any gay person as someone to be attacked and vilified, which at least makes them consistant, without any doublt standard. And if I read the news reports right, it is the REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP that is calling for an ethics investigation of Craig, which means they are holding to their standards. THAT is why I attack Dems.
Logic, again flying out the window….Hitler was consistent about the “Jewish Problem” too.

:eek:

Hello again, El:

I don't know. For a smart guy, you sure miss a lot. I agree, the standards ARE different. But, it's the Republicans who are setting themselves apart, not the Dems. The Republicans are the ones who proclaim that they have "family values" and the Dems don't. The Dems don't set themselves apart. They are the ones BEING set apart FROM.

Yes, and when a Republican is caught breaking those family values, the other Republicans go after him as they would a Dem. But the Dems ONLY go after Republicans, and ignore or even iconisize (is there such a word?) them. It is the DEMS who act in a double standard. The Reps act the samke toward both parties. They create a single standard... one that you happen to disagree with... but they apply that standard evenly across the board. The Dems have no such even application of standards.


Since it's the Republicans who say they're different, when one of them turns out NOT to be different, it IS a BIG DEAL. He should be derided.

Sorry, not "different". Just not upholding the standards of American family values. Republicans aren't holding themselves out as different or applying the standards differently to different groups.


But, when a Democrat turns out to be just an ordinary person, it AIN'T no big deal - it just ain't.

excon

Not ordinary... just not upholding American family values... the values agreed upon by the vast majority of Americans. And the fact that the Dems have no standards for themselves doesn't mean that the rest of America shouldn't apply their standards to them as they would to Reps.

And are you arguing that its okay for Dems to be immoral, law-breaking, promise-breaking criminals and liars, because they have no standards? Interesting line of defense of the Democrat party, Excon. I agree that they have no standards, but I don't think that's a reason to let them off the hook for ethical misconduct. They should be held to the same standards that Reps are held, both by the Dems and by the Reps.

The Dems should apply a single standard across the board, and the Reps should apply a single standard across the board. They don't have to be the same standards for both parties. But each party should apply whatever standard that party decides on evenly across the board. Anything less is hypocrisy and partisan BS, and you know it.

Elliot

The difference between him and Clinton is public display; Clinton had the good sense to get his in private.

Does that say anything for either Democrat or Republican… no.

No matter what party one belongs to, this sort of thing will ruin their lives forever.

Can the Oval Office, with secret service personnel, White House Staff and assorted aides just outside the door really be called "private"? More so than a mens-room stall at a train station?

Hello again, El:

I dunno. For a smart guy, you sure miss a lot. I agree, the standards ARE different. But, it's the Republicans who are setting themselves apart, not the Dems. The Republicans are the ones who proclaim that they have "family values" and the Dems don't. The Dems don't set themselves apart. They are the ones BEING set apart FROM.

Since it's the Republicans who say they're different, when one of them turns out NOT to be different, it IS a BIG DEAL. He should be derided.

But, when a Democrat turns out to be just an ordinary person, it AIN'T no big deal - it just ain't.

ex, that depends on what values you're talking about. The Dems set themselves apart EVERY DAY as having the moral high ground on issues like global warming, health care, poverty, and yes, family values. Measure their lifestyle and actions against their 'preaching' and tell me what you find. There are enough hypocrites on both sides - Craig is just the latest to get caught - and he'll pay the price where a Dem would get a committee appointment.

Yes, and when a Republican is caught breaking those family values, the other Republicans go after him as they would a Dem. But the Dems ONLY go after Republicans, and ignore or even iconisize (is there such a word?) them. It is the DEMS who act in a double standard. The Reps act the samke toward both parties. They create a single standard... one that you happen to disagree with... but they apply that standard evenly across the board. The Dems have no such even application of standards.



Sorry, not "different". Just not upholding the standards of American family values. Republicans aren't holding themselves out as different or applying the standards differently to different groups.



Not ordinary... just not upholding American family values... the values agreed upon by the vast majority of Americans. And the fact that the Dems have no standards for themselves doesn't mean that the rest of America shouldn't apply their standards to them as they would to Reps.

And are you arguing that its okay for Dems to be immoral, law-breaking, promise-breaking criminals and liars, because they have no standards? Interesting line of defense of the Democrat party, Excon. I agree that they have no standards, but I don't think that's a reason to let them off the hook for ethical misconduct. They should be held to the same standards that Reps are held, both by the Dems and by the Reps.

The Dems should apply a single standard across the board, and the Reps should apply a single standard across the board. They don't have to be the same standards for both parties. But each party should apply whatever standard that party decides on evenly across the board. Anything less is hypocricy and partisan BS, and you know it.

Elliot
Yes, it’s frightening to people like me who belong to one of the smallest minorities; my behavior is judged on the basis that evil is a moral category whose definition is permanently set and not contextual; God Given.

On the other had, I believe evil to be a contextual and relative moral category; that is, not given to me by a tooth ferry or any other supernatural enity.
:D

Can the Oval Office, with secret service personnel, White House Staff and assorted aides just outside the door really be called "private"? Moreso than a mens-room stall at a train station?
Why am I not surprised you can't make the distinction.;)

The difference between him and Clinton is public display; Clinton had the good sense to get his in private.

Does that say anything for either Democrat or Republican… no.

No matter what party one belongs to, this sort of thing will ruin their lives forever.

I was unaware Clinton's life had been ruined forever. Last I heard he could be the first "First Man" with a shot at being "a roaming ambassador (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001435.html), using his talent to repair the tattered image of the United States abroad."

I was unaware Clinton's life had been ruined forever. Last I heard he could be the first "First Man" with a shot at being "a roaming ambassador (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001435.html), using his talent to repair the tattered image of the United States abroad."
Of course not, Clinton had the good sense to get his in private. But you can be assured of the fact that if he had been the one ‘peeking through the crack and making overtures with his hands’ his life would be ruined too. These kinds of indiscretions transcend Party lines.

Why am I not suprised you can't make the distinction.;)

A public rest room at Union Station is publicly owned property. The Oval Office is, technically, publicly owned property. The public restroom is a place where one is SUPPOSED to expect a bit of privacy in order to take care of bodily functions. The Oval Office is the official office of the President of the United States, with functionaries all around at all hours of the day, where no privacy is or should be expected. If anything, having sex in the Oval Office is a greater violation of public trust than having sex in a restroom.

You want distinctions? You got distinctions.

But I wasn't asking for distinctions. I was asking if having sex in the Oval Office counts as "in private" more so than having sex in a public restroom. I don't think so. There are more people in and around the Oval Office on most occaisions and for longer periods than there are at any public restroom.

Elliot

A public rest room at Union Station is publicly owned property. The Oval Office is, technically, publicly owned property. The public restroom is a place where one is SUPPOSED to expect a bit of privacy in order to take care of bodily functions. The Oval Office is the official office of the President of the United States, with functionaries all around at all hours of the day, where no privacy is or should be expected. If anything, having sex in the Oval Office is a greater violation of public trust than having sex in a restroom.

You want distinctions? You got distinctions.

But I wasn't asking for distinctions. I was asking if having sex in the Oval Office counts as "in private" moreso than having sex in a public restroom. I don't think so. There are more people in and around the Oval Office on most occaisions and for longer periods of time than there are at any public restroom.

Elliot
You can believe what you like, but that does not change the fact that you can freely make use of the public restroom he did, but I feel pretty certain you can’t freely walk into the restroom in the oval office; in fact I don’t think you can get past the barricade in front of the citadel.

Of course not, Clinton had the good sense to get his in private. But you can be assured of the fact that if he had been the one ‘peeking through the crack and making overtures with his hands’ his life would be ruined too. These kinds of indiscretions transcend Party lines.

One would hope DC, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Craig is being held accountable by the GOP - as opposed to say how the Dems treated the guy caught with 90k in his freezer. He was re-elected handily and Pelosi's plan was to "place him on a lower-profile committee and hope the controversy dies down (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101136.html)," Bill Clinton is a Democratic god and McGreevy gets a college gig teaching "ethics, law and leadership (http://www.insidehighereducation.com/news/2007/04/20/qt)."

One would hope DC, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Craig is being held accountable by the GOP - as opposed to say how the Dems treated the guy caught with 90k in his freezer. He was re-elected handily and Pelosi's plan was to "place him on a lower-profile committee and hope the controversy dies down (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101136.html)," Bill Clinton is a Democratic god and McGreevy gets a college gig teaching "ethics, law and leadership (http://www.insidehighereducation.com/news/2007/04/20/qt)."
I certainly agree, more often it's who you know, than what you did.

This guy in the toilet is not very bright; for instance, had it been Clinton he would have denied everything, had the witness paid off or desecrated, and Clinton would have walked away with the news media writing stories about how the witness was unstable or a flat-out criminal

I thought it was the term "wrongwingers that got you into the trouble excon.

I certainly agree, more often it’s who you know, than what you did.

This guy in the toilet is not very bright; for instance, had it been Clinton he would have denied everything, had the witness paid off or desecrated, and Clinton would have walked away with the news media writing stories about how the witness was unstable or a flat-out criminal

Yep, any idiot that plans on pleading his innocence to the public and blaming a newspaper for his troubles should not first plead guilty and pay the fine.

I had not planned on discussing BJ Clinton but since he may become First Philanderer soon then maybe he is still relevant.

Everyone concentrates on the consentual sex he had . There were many reasons that was in extremely poor judgement . But it was a minor sexcapade in my view compared to the sexual harassment allegations and in one instance a convincing allegation of rape that the press to this day sweeps under the rug. The whole revelation about Monica only became important because of his pergured testimony during a law suit by Paula Jones over sexual harassment .

These instances make playing footsie with an undercover cop look minor league . Yet Clinton is still treated like a rock star. Go figure. Feminist who should be outraged at his abuse of women cream when they see him.

Was what Clinton did worse than what Larry Craig did ? I would ask Juanita Broaddrick , Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones,and yes... even Monica Lewinski, what they think.

These kinds of indiscretions transcend Party lines.

I'm not sure of that . Barney Frank had a gay prostitution business being conducted in his apartment and he still serves in the House.

Where excon has a point is that if you are going to play on the moral high ground you had better walk the walk also .

Hello again, El:

This is an educated man who MAKES law. He has access to the BEST legal minds in the country. If he didn't know enough to get a lawyer, then he was suffering from slippage of the mind. Further evidence of his long slide is his recent attempt at recantation... Because you can't recant a guilty plea. You just can't.

Before a judge accepts a guilty plea, he goes through a litany of questions, making absolutely certain that a defendant knows and fully understands what he is about to do, and what the full and complete consequences are. Then he's asked again.

Given the above, he's facing an impossible task. I can only imagine his torment, that he would humiliate himself and his family, instead of simply speaking the truth.

But, he gets no sympathy from me. If he was just some schmuck who got caught with his pants down, I'd feel sorry for him. But, he's a LAWMAKER. He makes laws based on how much he hates himself. That kind of guy SHOULD be publicly scorned, and he's doing a great job of doing it to himself. If you live by "family values", then you die by "family values".

Of course, you'd think the Dems had something to do with it.

excon

PS> What happened to your post? Chicken??

I'm not sure of that . Barney Frank had a gay prostitution business being conducted in his apartment and he still serves in the House.

Where excon has a point is that if you are going to play on the moral high ground you had better walk the walk also .
Guess we will see how it all plays out.

I stand by my judgment; “Public Toilets” is where people often have to take their children, and there is no Toilet constituency to vote Larry Craig into, or, out of office. Frank remains one of the Democrats' most respected members and continues to fight for gay rights, including same-sex marriage; no comparisons exist between the two.

I don't think, high moral ground, makes t hoot of difference in this particular case.

But, he gets no sympathy from me. If he was just some schmuck who got caught with his pants down, I'd feel sorry for him. But, he's a LAWMAKER. He makes laws based on how much he hates himself. That kinda guy SHOULD be publicly scorned, and he's doing a great job of doing it to himself. If you live by "family values", then you die by "family values".

He gets no sympathy from me either, ex... I don't think he gets sympathy from any of us here. I have no sympathy for anyone that solicits sex with strangers, especially perverts of any orientation that can't get from one airport to another without controlling themselves in public restrooms. He's getting the scorn, and deservedly so, but for different reasons. Republicans are angry and disappointed over the damage he's caused, Democrats are all over this for political gain, and gays are upset that he just doesn't come on out. I can only imagine how his wife feels.

I do agree that "If you live by "family values", then you die by "family values," but still can't help wondering why the left seems immune to accountability to any standards.

Contrary to Republicans, the Dems don't think homosexuality is wrong, therefore practicing it doesn't violate any standard. Makes sense to me.

Ex, not on any specific issue, I said and meant "any standards."

still can't help wondering why the left seems immune to accountability to any standards.Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I think the Dems have a standard or two that rank much HIGHER on the moral playing field. Things like torture, like being illegally searched and spied upon, like habeas corpus, like having our justice department turned into an arm of the Republican party. Things like that...

Indeed, in terms of standards, I think the Dems have better ones.

excon

This is not necessarily the case, excon, “…the Dems don't think homosexuality is wrong”. Perhaps they only feel it is wrong to discriminate against them.

PS> What happened to your post?? Chicken???

Nah... I decided it was worthy of a sepparate string. Have you ever known me to duck out of a political debate?

excon Huh? The Dems don't discriminate. They believe in same sex marriage...

How is believing in same sex marriage discrimination?

How is believing in same sex marriage discrimination?Hello again, DC:

I'm missing something here.

excon

Hello again, DC:

I'm missing something here.

excon
When you find it let me know;)

Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I think the Dems have a standard or two that rank much HIGHER on the moral playing field. Things like torture, like being illegally searched and spied upon, like habeas corpus, like having our justice department turned into an arm of the Republican party. Things like that....

Indeed, in terms of standards, I think the Dems have better ones.

I see, like the Goracle and his support for renditions that Bush is excoriated for; "Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ." It seems there have been a lot of standards that the Clinton administration set that only the GOP is held accountable for, renditions, regime change, attorney firings, etc. You know as well as I do that neither side is virtuous, but again it appears the GOP is held to even the same standards unequally. This is no defense of Craig, the idiot should go, but since the issue of accountability was raised (and has been many times) it seems fitting for someone to explain the double standard.

Well, let's click off a few differences between the two parties:

1) The Republican party was created in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas.

Which party would have got your vote, excon?

like having our justice department turned into an arm of the Republican party

Is the FBI a branch of the justice dept ?

CNN - FBI files, travel office case dog Clinton - June 23, 1996 (http://www.cnn.com/US/9606/23/fbi.files/)

Abuse of the justice dept.. . How about the firebombing of the Branch Davidians ?

How about trampling on the 4th amendment rights of Elian Gonzalez ?

And how about the independence of the District attorneys ; Clinton had Reno fire all 93 of them so he could appoint cronies .

Even when matters as serious as illegal foreign campaign contributions and the resulting compromise of national security were involved, Reno used her office to insulate Clinton and Gore from scrutiny .

is the FBI a branch of the justice dept ?

CNN - FBI files, travel office case dog Clinton - June 23, 1996 (http://www.cnn.com/US/9606/23/fbi.files/)

abuse of the justice dept. ..... How about the firebombing of the Branch Davidians ?

How about trampling on the 4th amendment rights of Elian Gonzalez ?

and how about the independence of the District attorneys ; Clinton had Reno fire all 93 of them so he could appoint cronies .

Even when matters as serious as illegal foreign campaign contributions and the resulting compromise of national security were involved, Reno used her office to insulate Clinton and Gore from scrutiny .
There was Joseph McCarthy:D