Republican Senator - family values!

[ReillyT]

ReillyT: "First, I am pointing at Republican hypocrites because they are hypocrites, and their actions call into question their message, which I find asinine to begin with. So you see, I question them and their policy. "

Reply:
oh well, THAT sure is a unique perspective. Gee, tex, you think that anyone on the right feels exactly the same way about your parties message? no? YOU are the sole bearer of of that flame, eh dude?

Of course that there are people that think the democratic party's message is foolish. That's cool. It is good for everyone that they voice this opinion.

ReillyT: "You are right, policy can be a reflection of political base. However, for a person with integrity, the political base shouldn't overwhelm personal belief. When one identifies such a circumstance, one has identified a person lacking integrity. This happens to be important to know when one is talking about elected leaders."

Reply:
HAHA!
Lemme guess.. YOUR side is the ones with all that integrity, eh? hehehehe.
yet, when you find yourself having your ass handed to you because some liberal fucks up....

No, there is integrity (and a lack thereof) on both sides of the aisle. I have never claimed otherwise. This is not an issue of political parties. We both have our share of bad apples. When a liberal fucks up, it is and should be newsworthy.

ReillyT: "With respect to homosexuality, the Phelps family aside, conservative republicans and I won't agree on a whole hell of a lot."

Reply:
That's too bad for you. It's nice to see that you are willing to keep that tolorant mind of yours open!

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that two views are diametrically opposed. Sometimes there is no common ground. It has nothing to do with being tolerant. I am tolerant about some things (sexual orientation, for instance) and intolerant of others (racism, for instance).

ReillyT: "Of course, their views are informed by and erected upon a certain set of moral beliefs. Therefore, it is interesting when one finds that these moral beliefs are in fact a charade."

Reply:
HA!
yea, THEIRS are a charade while YOURS is the word of... good grief, are you even listening to yourself at this point?.

Craig's beliefs appear to be a charade, because what he does and what he says are incongruous. I was never referring to conservatives in general.

As for my moral beliefs, they are just my moral beliefs. Do I think that they are a better set of moral beliefs than many conservative republicans? Sure I do. Otherwise, I would hold their beliefs instead of my own. Do I expect them to feel the same way? Of course. Otherwise, they would hold my beliefs instead of their own.

ReillyT: "Why would you ever think that pointing out hypocrisy is off-limits? What real purpose does turning a blind eye to those of questionable integrity serve?"

Reply:
a BLIND eye? what, is it a shocker to you to find out that there are gay republicans who vote against gay issues? For real, is this your first day venturing into the world of American politics? You haven't discovered atlantis with this story. Sorry to break it to you. But hey, at least you are showing how tolorant the supporters of dems can be! This was nothing more than "gotcha politics" that you'd be crying about if applied to your side.. not to mention jumping on the bandwagon when Gunny was on the hotspot.

First, I really don't understand what tolerance has to do with any of this.

I wouldn't be upset if the tables were reversed in this case. I can't be anymore more clear than this: It is good to point out hypocrisy, regardless of the political party involved.

With regard to Bill Clinton (which you mentioned earlier), I don't know what you want me to say. He lied with respect to Monica Lewinsky. Everyone acknowledges that. I don't deny it.

I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to Gunny.

 

[Gunny]

Of course that there are people that think the democratic party's message is foolish. That's cool. It is good for everyone that they voice this opinion.




No, there is integrity (and a lack thereof) on both sides of the aisle. I have never claimed otherwise. This is not an issue of political parties. We both have our share of bad apples. When a liberal fucks up, it is and should be newsworthy.




There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that two views are diametrically opposed. Sometimes there is no common ground. It has nothing to do with being tolerant. I am tolerant about some things (sexual orientation, for instance) and intolerant of others (racism, for instance).




Craig's beliefs appear to be a charade, because what he does and what he says are incongruous. I was never referring to conservatives in general.

As for my moral beliefs, they are just my moral beliefs. Do I think that they are a better set of moral beliefs than many conservative republicans? Sure I do. Otherwise, I would hold their beliefs instead of my own. Do I expect them to feel the same way? Of course. Otherwise, they would hold my beliefs instead of their own.





First, I really don't understand what tolerance has to do with any of this.

I wouldn't be upset if the tables were reversed in this case. I can't be anymore more clear than this: It is good to point out hypocrisy, regardless of the political party involved.

With regard to Bill Clinton (which you mentioned earlier), I don't know what you want me to say. He lied with respect to Monica Lewinsky. Everyone acknowledges that. I don't deny it.

I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to Gunny.

He has no idea either. Apparently, he is incapable of even posting in a thread I'm no part of without saying my name.

 

[ReillyT]

Okay. There may be a small difference between pleading guilty in order to get an incident behind you and fighting until you decide to settle. Yet, I consider the difference to be minor.

In most cases, there is a significant difference between pleading guilty to a crime and settling a civil case. Often, settlements occur because the settlement figure is equal to or less than the probability of losing the case multiplied by the anticipated potential costs of losing. After all, if you have deep pockets, it is only money. You minimize the possibility of large losses. A similar analysis might take place in criminal cases (with high penalties corresponding to high monetary losses), but since there was no jail time likely here, even that doesn't factor into it (although I acknowledge that fear of publicity does factor into it).

Is it possible that Craig is innocent and plead guilty just to put this behind him? Yes, it is definitely possible. However, when did it come to pass that a guilty plea (not even "no contest," but "guilty") to a crime no longer raises the presumption that the person is guilty of that crime.

 

[ReillyT]

He has no idea either. Apparently, he is incapable of even posting in a thread I'm no part of without saying my name.

Maybe that just demonstrates the high regard that he holds for you.

 

[Gunny]

Maybe that just demonstrates the high regard that he holds for you.

Yeah, I'm sure THAT's it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Reilly I suggest you READ what Maineman said. I have him blocked but enough has been quoted to tell he SPECIFICALLY DID equate this persons actions as those of the ENTIRE Republican party.

 

[ReillyT]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
we don't need too damn many more of those fucking republican perverts in the senate to be "exposed" and 60 votes after 08 will be a cakewalk!

Reilly I suggest you READ what Maineman said. I have him blocked but enough has been quoted to tell he SPECIFICALLY DID equate this persons actions as those of the ENTIRE Republican party.

I guess there are two ways to read his comment. I construe it to mean that the identification of additional Republican "perverts" (ala Foley, Craig, Haggard (sp?), etc) will impair the chances of the Republicans in 2008.

One could, I suppose, read this to imply that he thinks all Republicans are perverts. However, this seems like an overly inflammatory interpretation of what he wrote. In addition, it would be so silly a statement (and obviously untrue) that I doubt very strongly that this is what he meant.

This is backed up by the fact that in a post just a few inches down the thread, he states "And of course....a minority of republicans are perverts...." He also states "Clearly, all republicans are not perverts."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I guess there are two ways to read his comment. I construe it to mean that the identification of additional Republican "perverts" (ala Foley, Craig, Haggard (sp?), etc) will impair the chances of the Republicans in 2008.

One could, I suppose, read this to imply that he thinks all Republicans are perverts. However, this seems like an overly inflammatory interpretation of what he wrote. In addition, it would be so silly a statement (and obviously untrue) that I doubt very strongly that this is what he meant.

This is backed up by the fact that in a post just a few inches down the thread, he states "And of course....a minority of republicans are perverts...."

He has ,from what I have seen quoted , intended to attack all Republicans. His excuse being that someone else attacked all Liberals ( or democrats to be more precise).

This is just another example of your selective interpretation of those you support. In my honest opinion.

 

[ReillyT]

He has ,from what I have seen quoted , intended to attack all Republicans. His excuse being that someone else attacked all Liberals ( or democrats to be more precise).

This is just another example of your selective interpretation of those you support. In my honest opinion.

How is it selective to interpret "Clearly, all Republicans are not perverts" to mean that he doesn't think all Republicans are perverts?

He does point out the incongruity of Republicans claiming to the be the party of family values in light of the recent transgressions of its members. However, this is far different from making the claim that is being attributed to him.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How is it selective to interpret "Clearly, all Republicans are not perverts" to mean that he doesn't think all Republicans are perverts?

He does point out the incongruity of Republicans claiming to the be the party of family values in light of the recent transgressions of its members. However, this is far different from making the claim that is being attributed to him.

Yes yes and Ruby doesn't REALLY mean all our troops are mass murderers and our Government a pack of Nazi's. I get it. I really do.

 

[ReillyT]

Yes yes and Ruby doesn't REALLY mean all our troops are mass murderers and our Government a pack of Nazi's. I get it. I really do.

Not every thread need concern Ruby.

Look, you don't have to take my word for it. I have quoted you the post that started all this, and I quoted a couple of his subsequent posts. He never said that all Republicans are perverts. If you feel he did, show me in the quotes where he said such.

 

[maineman]

do you understand the ridiculousness of this argument?

here is a guy who supposedly has me on "ignore", yet brings me into all sorts of thread conversations...he even has me quoted in his signature line, and wants to get into an argument with YOU about what I really said, when he can supposedly only read those statements of MINE that are quoted by OTHER people, because he doesn't want to have to deal with my posts.

what a twit.

 

[ReillyT]

do you understand the ridiculousness of this argument?

here is a guy who supposedly has me on "ignore", yet brings me into all sorts of thread conversations...he even has me quoted in his signature line, and wants to get into an argument with YOU about what I really said, when he can supposedly only read those statements of MINE that are quoted by OTHER people, because he doesn't want to have to deal with my posts.

what a twit.

What can you do? I gave him your quotes verbatim, but I doubt it will matter.

What I can't figure out is where this holier than thou attitude has come from during the last couple of days - from more liberal and more conservative posters? Talk about hypocrisy. I am sure that none of these posters have ever pointed out when a politician's actions haven't conformed to their words (as if that were a bad thing).

 

[ErikViking]

do you understand the ridiculousness of this argument?

here is a guy who supposedly has me on "ignore", yet brings me into all sorts of thread conversations...he even has me quoted in his signature line, and wants to get into an argument with YOU about what I really said, when he can supposedly only read those statements of MINE that are quoted by OTHER people, because he doesn't want to have to deal with my posts.

what a twit.

 

[maineman]

I have never had a problem with gay politicians.

I have always had a problem with politicians who castigate gays and rail against them, and campaign on promises to maintain their second class status and deny them the rights that other citizens have, and go after that strong religious right holier than thou voter....and then turn up cruising for anonymous gay buttsex in an airport restroom.

the fact that Craig is gay is not the issue at all. the fact that he is an incredible hypocrite IS.

 

[Shogun]

Keep throwing stones you shit stained motherfucker because your shit stinks as bad as anyone elses. Let me be as clear as I can so you can dismiss me as just another person who hates you or who is intolerant. You are a piece of shit, you have demonstrated that you are a bastard, and that you think you are better than everyone else. It is also obvious that you are an egocentric bastard who gets off on thinking you are on some moral high ground and you accuse others of resorting to ad hominems in the same post where you call their attitude shitty. If that isn't hypocrisy than I don't know what is but I do know that you are a fucking idiot and that those who say this about you are right and that you are wrong in your assessment of yourself. Of course you don't want to believe you are a fucking idiot and that is why on election day you cast a vote for those who talk out of their asses and make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside about yourself. I suggest you wipe the shit off your face because you are starting to smell as bad as those you vote for.

HA!
Did you get it all out, lil guy? Did mommy have to come and tuck you in after that IMPRESSIVE tantrum? I bet you are hell on mommy and daddy in the toy department at wal mart, arent you? The punchline of your entire rant being that you seem to think im a neocon bush loving conservative just because I can see how this RETARDED thread would be taken by the right. HAHA! Indeed, tell me how narrow minded those EVIL republicans are while showing us how spactacular your reptilian brain is at jumping to conclusions. I tellya, nothing says pertinent quite like calling someone a fucking idiot. Your hooked oh phonics coach must be real proud of ya!

 

[T-Bor]

Yeah, like holding Bush accountable for going to War with IRAQ for bogus reasons. Yeah your party sure does hold people accountable. And what about the gay prostitute that was hanging around the white house all the time a few years ago. Who was accountable for that? Please...your party is no better.

People are people and they all act the same way. Friends cover each others asses whether republican or democrat.

Good. get rid of the guy.

See unlike Democrats, when Republicans actually act badly we hold them accountable.

Of course Democrats will probably try to make it worse than what it actually is... Im not sure how thats possible but they always try to.

Meanwhile another Democrat Representative assaults people in the airport and its completely ignored by the media and the Democrats who dont want to address their candidates hypocrisy for being such a violent anti violence candidate.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah, like holding Bush accountable for going to War with IRAQ for bogus reasons. Yeah your party sure does hold people accountable. And what about the gay prostitute that was hanging around the white house all the time a few years ago. Who was accountable for that? Please...your party is no better.

People are people and they all act the same way. Friends cover each others asses whether republican or democrat.

The reasons given for going to War with Iraq were and still are valid. 4 years later and you still can not provide any evidence that anyone lied about the reasons we invaded.

As I recall, as soon as the Democrats took over Congress we would be snowed under with all the damning evidence that Bush had hidden from us. Still waiting. All you got are the same old tired bullshit claims from 4 years ago, that were proven wrong then and continue to be wrong now.

As for holding Bush Accountable for the war in Iraq, he is quite willing to be HELD to that. He felt then and continues to feel it was the right thing to do. Please provide some statement where Bush has claimed he didn't take us to war with Iraq. Unlike the democrats in Congress that all pretend they had nothing to do with the approval for that War Bush is not claiming he was against it before he was for it.

 

[Shogun]

"Perhaps we have gotten off on the wrong foot, and this has made you unable or unwilling to actually read what I am writing. Or, perhaps, I haven't been clear enough. I will try one more time.
First, political affiliation is irrelevant except insomuch that it draws out the hypocrisy.
Second, we are not talking about the hypocrisy of all Republicans or all Democrats or all Greens. We are discussing the hypocrisy of specific politicians (in this case, Craig), be they Republican or Democrat or whatever."


Hey, you can take my word for it or you can reread the postsings from the local known conservatives who are busy telling you the exact same thing. If you are too dense to see how this is the exact same thing as when you jumped on the bandwagon dogging Gunny about christian haters then so be it.



"First, I don't bitch about private interests at all, because I think that is just part of the game. This is purely hypothetical."

hey, it was YOUR hypothetical. Don't cry on my shoulder if I answered you a little too clearly.


"Further, this one was directed more at Democrats, who preach more about taking the money out of Washington, but still accept large contributions from private interests. As for Jefferson, that isn't so much hypocrisy as flat-out corruption. Still important, and I have no problem with anyone pointing this out."


Yet, did YOU point it out with such excitement as you have shown in THIS thread? Indeed, why speak up about corruption in your own party when there is a gay republican to focus on?



"Bring the Byrd jokes on. I have no problem with anyone pointing out hypocrisy. However, the effect is lessened somewhat when a person confesses their past and states that they have changed. It is similar (but not exactly like) someone who was an Vietnam protester when they were young, but now is a pro-Bush Republican. It isn't so much hypocrisy here. It is more just that someone's mind changed as they got older. Happens to all of us."

HA! Are you familiar with the word Rationalize? Is it conducive to relevant conversation to drag up Byrd's sheeted past? Say, for someone giving lessons on hypocricy you sure were quick to play down the reality of a current dem with a klan history.. gee, you aren't doing so because of your similar team jersey, are you?



"Once again, none of this is directed at parties as a whole, just individual members."

nice tap dance. Did your hypothetical not yield what you thought it would?



"Everybody has views that someone else disagrees with. Pointing out a case of hypocrisy doesn't change this. Yes, it is my opinion that Craig is a hypocrite, but it is not exactly a groundless opinion in light of recent events. I apply the same standard to all politicians. I am perfectly okay with anyone pointing out the hypocrisy of a Democrat (although I may not always agree that the assessment is accurate). "


yea, unless they were in the klan or CORRUPT.. after all, there are gay republicans to unmask!



"I don't know if I have ever "pounced" on a Democrat for being a hypocrite (other than Reid earlier in the thread). I guess I just post in the threads that move me. However, I have no problem with anyone else pointing out the hypocrisy of democratic politicians. If Al Gore is driving a hummer or flying in a private jet, I think this is fair game. In fact, I think it is healthy for democracy that this stuff gets pointed out."


fair game that YOU would post a thread fishing for a little instigated messageboard fun or would that not interest you as much as finding out that a republican is *gasp* gay?




"Generalizing is usually a bad idea (although not always). We are talking just about Craig, not Republicans in general."


And, if that was the tone of the original post then this thread wouldnt have seen this many pages. As it is, the poster knew he was slinging shit and you are defending it with every trick in the book.


Hey, why don't you take a play out of Edwards book and label me as a bush fundy conservative rove lover. I'm sure believing as much will help explain away the objectivity of my posts.

 

[Shogun]

"With regard to Bill Clinton (which you mentioned earlier), I don't know what you want me to say. He lied with respect to Monica Lewinsky. Everyone acknowledges that. I don't deny it."

Yet how longdid it take for the same ole "boohoo look what they did to bill so now it's time for REVENGE"? not long. Did you enjoy it then?


"I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to Gunny."

Evangelist Bill Graham hospitalized