Republican Senator - family values!

[mattskramer]

You're dumber than mattskramer.

Most people are – including you.

 

[Gunny]

Most people are – including you.

You spend too much time playing semantics and not enough addressing the issue.

 

[mattskramer]

You spend too much time playing semantics and not enough addressing the issue.

Give me an issue. I pretty much covered my favorite topics: gay rights, drug use, “consensual crimes”, ethics, etc.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You spend too much time playing semantics and not enough addressing the issue.

Mattskrammer is a lot less involved in the word games of people like maineman and Larkinn. I do not see it much from him, just the " I never saw it" excuse when confronted with the fact he almost never addresses Liberal comments that are , shall we say, less then truthful.

 

[mattskramer]

Mattskrammer is a lot less involved in the word games of people like maineman and Larkinn. I do not see it much from him, just the " I never saw it" excuse when confronted with the fact he almost never addresses Liberal comments that are , shall we say, less then truthful.

I think that you are probably right. I guess that outlandish absurd comments from such people don’t pop out at me as they do from other people. Anyway, I did catch a comment from MM that seemed to go “over the top”. I sort of hounded him on it.

See http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=562294&postcount=10

 

[DeadCanDance]

Mattskrammer is a lot less involved in the word games of people like maineman and Larkinn. I do not see it much from him, just the " I never saw it" excuse when confronted with the fact he almost never addresses Liberal comments that are , shall we say, less then truthful.

LOL

For an alleged retired gunny sarge, you do an inordinate amount of whining and crying on this board. Hardly a day goes by, when I don't run across a post of you crying that some moderate isn't going after liberals enough.

calm down dude, no one signed up on this board, under the promise that they would go after each side equally. Besides, from what I've seen, the amount of ignorant statements and low IQs tends to be on the Con side on this board. Although, there certainly knuckleheads everywhere.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL

For an alleged retired gunny sarge, you do an inordinate amount of whining and crying on this board. Hardly a day goes by, when I don't run across a post of you crying that some moderate isn't going after liberals enough.

calm down dude, no one signed up on this board, under the promise that they would go after each side equally. Besides, from what I've seen, the amount of ignorant statements and low IQs tends to be on the Con side on this board. Although, there certainly knuckleheads everywhere.

Yup. You got us there, all us Neocon knuckledragging Neanderthals. How did we ever think we could hide our ignorance from our Intelligent betters like you? Does it help you sleep at night believing that more than half the voting public voted in Bush because they are dumber than you? That nearly half the voting public elected those damn dumb Republicans to Congress?

 

[maineman]

Yup. You got us there, all us Neocon knuckledragging Neanderthals. How did we ever think we could hide our ignorance from our Intelligent betters like you? Does it help you sleep at night believing that more than half the voting public voted in Bush because they are dumber than you? That nearly half the voting public elected those damn dumb Republicans to Congress?

more than half the voting public equates to less than 27% of the eligible voters.

There are plenty of smart republicans on this site....you just don't happen to be one of them

 

[DeadCanDance]

Yup. You got us there, all us Neocon knuckledragging Neanderthals. How did we ever think we could hide our ignorance from our Intelligent betters like you? Does it help you sleep at night believing that more than half the voting public voted in Bush because they are dumber than you? That nearly half the voting public elected those damn dumb Republicans to Congress?

Yet again, your reading comprehension skills need a little brushing up.

I didn't say anything about america at large. I specifically referred to this board. Yes, there are a few smart cons here. You're not one of them. You're barely above RSR-level. A simple propagandist, for the GOP.

Now, in terms of the nation, Bush hasn't had a approval rating much above 35% of registered voters in about two years. That probably means in terms of ALL adults (registered and unregistered) he is recording approval rating of maybe around 20% of americans. In short, the american people have finally seen the incompetent boob you helped elect. In 2001, I don't think a lot of people knew how truly incompetent and moronic bush was. And in 2004, he was still sort of basking in the shadows of 9/11. But those days are over. The overwhelming majority of americans can see how incompetent your hero is. Sorry.

 

[Shogun]

Here is a pic of a puppy looking at a fish.

 

[DiogenesDog]

Senator Craig wants to change his plea and wipe his "My Bad" slate clean.

Senator Craig participated in flirtatious behavior that was out of order for a public facility in a public transportation hub where one may be expected to allow touching of their bodies by way of a legally necessary procedure called a pat down. That would be done by a law enforcement officer or a specifically designated and licensed security officer employed by a civil authority.

Such behavior could have led to unwanted violent outcomes or other crimes such as robbery. Senator Craig put himself in danger and created a state of insecurity that had a very good chance of becoming disorderly. It was ill mannered and completely out of bounds for the place and the reasonable expectation of absence of social discomfort that others not of Senator Craig's predilections and sexual mores would find outrageous and insulting. The same standard for heterosexual flirtation would fall under the same expectations of manners and orderliness.

If there had been a drink or eating establishment on site with a name such as "The Raging Queen" then there might be some indication that behaviors and ritual which Senator Craig displayed would be permissible within the privacy of the establishment and that limits for outrage would be much more accommodating within the confines of that establishment.

That the behavior for which Senator Craig has been sanctioned had risen to the level of outrage for the public mores and was cause for complaint from a citizen, then he has not a legal leg for avoiding a charge or the reversal of conviction for disorderly conduct.

The plea and conviction must stand for the general good and orderliness of the most public of public places.

A reversal would be based in hair splitting and a signal for the privileged and powerful to make up the rules as they go along . It is the worst kind of justice.

I AM

 

[William Joyce]

I thought msk was leaving.

 

[Doug]

The male sex drive is extremely powerful. It is as powerful in homosexual males as in heterosexual males. Since there are almost no internalized social inhibitions on its expression among homosexuals, we can see in male homosexual behavior what 'natural' male behavior with respect to sex would be, were there not powerful social inhibitors on males having unlimited frequent partners.

In other words, if enough girls were willing, and there were not all that socialization about "being faithful," then males would be out "doing it" as much as possible. Indeed, a lot of college campuses have begun to approach this state.

This is perfectly 'natural'. There are good, easy-to-understand Darwinian explanations for this. Men like to copulate a lot for the same reason gazelles run fast. There may have been low-sexed men, and slow gazelles, once upon a time, but they had fewer descendants than their sex-seeking and fast pals.

In most animal species, copulation is free-wheeling. Among most primates, dominant males try to monopolize the females in the troop. Among some mammals, dominant males even kill the offspring of other males. This makes utter Darwinian sense.

But humans are different. Somehow, our species of primate has evolved the institution of marriage. Free, unlimited copulation has been severely restrained. At first glance, this is paradoxical. It seems to run counter to the genetic interests of the dominant males. But, however it came about, this restraint serves a powerful social end: it allows humans to live and work together without constant warfare over access to women. (Of course, it is far from perfect, and deadly conflicts over real or imagined sexual infidelity are a staple of world literature.)

With monogamy, or severely restricted polygamy, every male has a very good chance of finding a mate who can help him replicate his genes. Strong emphasis on the family provides assurance to females that they will have a mate who, even if he occasionally strays, will stick around to help raise his children. The especially great emphasis on female sexual fidelity helps reassure him that they are his children (genetically). (Of course, in real life, they sometimes are not. Some studies have indicated that maybe ten to twenty percent of the first-born offspring of a couple are not the husband's.)

So, for a stable society, not continually riven by internal warfare, with children having both a mother and father to raise them (the best model in terms of outcome), we need to emphasize monogamous marriage and sexual fidelity, even though this runs counter to a powerful biological drive. Otherwise, we would probably still be just colonies of very intelligent, hairless chimps.

Now, if there are two political parties, and one does emphasize traditional marriage and sexual fidelity, and one does not, but both are run by sex-crazed males (and all males are sex-crazed), then the party which emphasizes marriage will be open to the charge of 'hypocrisy' when its males are caught out.

However, this is to its credit. If one party condemned rape, and a second party condoned it, then when members of the first party were caught taking part in a rape, that party would be open to the charge of hypocrisy. The second, rape-celebrating, party, would not. But we would all agree that the first party is the preferable one, even though some of its members do not practice what the party preaches.

Note that these are hypothetical examples. I expect most Democrats, at least most Democratic politicians, would definitely be in favor of traditional marriage, although with various small amendments and qualifications. It is mainly radical ideologues and extreme feminists who actually celebrate the demise of the family.

Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. But what shall we call the act of not even paying tribute to virtue?

 

[Cynic-American]

more hypocrisy form the left-
remember when Clinton had the Lewinsky scandal?
The please were "leave him alone, its his personal business."
Oh, then why not leave Craig alone?

Also, he is gay. I thought we are told to not attack the gay community?

Try to justify the public crucifixion of Craig now.

 

[lieberalism]

they are bashing his hypocrisy. he was an anti gay warrior who turned out to be a wolf in queens clothing. sorry, but he is beyond defense. the left hates his behavior because it conflicts with his political stance on issues. i disapprove of his closet fagot lifestyle choice, which i call the "pro aids" movement.

 

[Psychoblues]

LEAVE THE DICK SUCKER ALONE!!!!!!! YOU'RE FORTUNATE THAT HE WILL PERFORM FOR YOU!!!!!! IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DICK LICKER YOU HAVE SENATOR McCAIN TO DEAL WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!!!!!!!! HE IS ONLY HUMAN!!!!!!!!! LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!!!! SENATOR CRAIG IS JUST A CLOSET QUEER!!!!!!!!!! HE CAN'T HELP IT!!!!!!!! IT'S IN HIS BLOOD!!!!!!!!!! LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!!!!!!!

OK?

 

[lieberalism]

LEAVE THE DICK SUCKER ALONE!!!!!!! YOU'RE FORTUNATE THAT HE WILL PERFORM FOR YOU!!!!!! IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DICK LICKER YOU HAVE SENATOR McCAIN TO DEAL WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!!!!!!!! HE IS ONLY HUMAN!!!!!!!!! LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!!!! SENATOR CRAIG IS JUST A CLOSET QUEER!!!!!!!!!! HE CAN'T HELP IT!!!!!!!! IT'S IN HIS BLOOD!!!!!!!!!! LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!!!!!!!

OK?

too over the top man. sucks, because i am on same side as ur fake persona is on. next time whoever u are posting for, make it more realistic. fagit.

 

[Ruby]

too over the top man. sucks, because i am on same side as ur fake persona is on. next time whoever u are posting for, make it more realistic. fagit.

This is the persona you are on the same side with? (its even funnier that you called him a faggit considering the "side" you are on")

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc[/ame]

ROFL!!

 

[Doug]

Homosexuality is a funny topic. It brings out the idiotic element from both Left and Right.

"Homosexuality is a gift from God!" say the ever-so-tolerant Christians. Are you kidding? Tell that to the homosexuals being strung up by the Muslims. If homosexuality is a gift from God, then it is right up there with His other gifts bestowed upon random innocent childen, like Down's syndrome, spina bifada and childhood leukemia.

"Homosexuals are sissy-boy faggots" shout the moron-Right, between drinks. When these pathetic little men die, their particular circle of hell will be to be endlessly sodomized by an insatiably horny Alexander the Great and a few hundred big hulking Greek warriors from the Sacred Band of Thebes.

In fact, homosexuality will soon be a thing of the past. Among males anyway it almost certainly has biological roots -- perhaps genetic, perhaps the result of some biochemical insult in the womb. (This is why it is so hard for de-homosexualized homosexuals to stay straight, even when they get "cured" by fundies and even get married. Their biological impulses are too strong -- like the difficulty straight men have remaining faithful to one woman.)

Within a few decades, we will be able to control for that. We will either be able to ensure that no fetus is exposed to whatever makes homosexuals, or we will be able to control the genetic package passed on to fetuses.

And since no normal parent wants a homosexual son -- no matter what hypocritical rubbish liberals pretend to believe about the subject -- homosexual males will soon become a very rare breed. (This may be a bad thing for humanity -- there is some evidence that male homosexuality is associated with various kinds of creativity. But no matter. Mothers don't have children for the good of humanity.)

Of course, just as some deaf people demand the right to deliberately produce deaf babies, there will be homosexuals who will demand -- and probably get -- the right to produce and raise homosexual children. But the numbers will be very small, compared to the present.

(If there is anyone I have not made angry with this post, please let me know.)

 

[Diuretic]

You spend too much time playing semantics and not enough addressing the issue.

Nothing wrong with playing semantics, how about them Canadiens eh?