[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[inthebox]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[retsoksirhc]

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.

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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.

[Dark_crow]

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

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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 ?

[Dark_crow]

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:

[ETWolverine]

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

[Dark_crow]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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?

[speechlesstx]

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.

[Dark_crow]

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

[Dark_crow]

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.;)

[speechlesstx]

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, using his talent to repair the tattered image of the United States abroad."