martha
Blue Crack Supplier
joyfulgirl said:
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Like I said, the higher the horse, the longer the fall.
One more > for Family Values???
- Thread starter deep
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Like I said, the higher the horse, the longer the fall.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
what law did Clinton break? perjury? only maybe ...
but he was impeached. he apologized, on television, and his wife forgave him. what more needs to happen?
i do not defend Craig's actions, either in the toilet or in the Senate. but i see no reason why his colleagues have fed him to the wolves, whereas they've stood by a frequenter of DC prostitutes and a drunk driver.
lots and lots of people have been killed or maimed by drunk drivers. no one's ever been killed by a blow job in the men's room.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Irvine511 said:
You fail to appreciate that he's usurping the law. Vitter didn't.
Clinton tried to this, was nailed, begrudgingly apologized, and for this reason with his shrew of a wife and his disrespect of the law of the land and office of the presidency, Hilary, the self serving, irrepressible termagant will never be elected.
Mark my words, hang on to this post, place this thread in your favorites, if you're honest enough in Nov of 2008 you'll dust this off, reread it and all collectively say, "By Golly Diamond was right again, drats."
dbs
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
Are they teaching you this in church?
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
martha said:
Are they teaching you this in church?
My church endorses no candidate, nor do we preach politics from the pulpit, that said, do they teach this at your church:
dbs
dazzlingamy
Refugee
I love how Clinton is dragged out as the devil, yet republicans can look you in the eye and defend the horrendousness that has been the reign of terror of the Bush, and truly believe it.
It truly boggles the mind
It truly boggles the mind
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
diamond said:
So, in summary, you think Clinton was the devil (coincidentally, he is not from your set of beliefs), his wife is guilty by association (?), she'll never be elected, you're always right, and you don't want to address the major issue again .
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
diamond said:
I will absolutely save this one and dust it off next November for you, db.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
anitram said:
And call their fellow women shrews.
But I must ask, to start things off, Mr. President, your thoughts on the Senator Craig matter. He is going to resign. He may resign. What do you -- what are your thoughts on the whole picture?
CLINTON: Well, first of all, I think we ought to recognize that this is a very traumatic time for him and his family. And whatever happens or doesn't, most of his political career was behind him. So whatever your party, we should be hoping that he and his family can work through this in a way that leaves them as whole as possible.
I think that that is more important than the politics of this. The politics of this will have to be resolved by him and the Republicans in the Senate. All I know about this is what I read in the papers. The morning papers say that his lawyer has advised him not to resign because he thought he would lose leverage.
Now he was simply given, I think, one year of probation or something, or a fine. So I don't know if they are trying to renegotiate the plea or something. It sounded like he wasn't really seriously thinking of staying throughout his term that he was trying to follow his lawyer's advice. But it looked awkward after he had said he was going to quit.
KING: Did you get any sense of satisfaction, since he was such a critic of yours during the impeachment thing, and using terms very demeaning about you?
CLINTON: No.
KING: No?
CLINTON: No. Because when it was going on, I knew that, you know, a lot of them were outed for hypocrisy long before this. And everybody knew that -- every serious student of the Constitution knew that the whole thing was bogus and that they were just jumping on a terrible personal mistake I made.
But I -- one of the things I did to try to get though that period was to think long and hard about times in my past when I had judged people too harshly because they had a problem I didn't have.
We all find it easy to judge somebody. You can always say, well, I may not be the best person in the world, but at least I never did that, you know, or the other thing, whatever it is.
And I promised myself that I would never do that again. And I'm trying to keep that promise. And so I honestly didn't feel any great joy. I don't like to see a person suffering from a self-inflicted wound that comes the inability to resolve some conflict in his or her life.
I mean, that is something everybody has to deal with. And to see it played out in public is painful to me. I didn't enjoy it at all.
KING: And one other thing in that area. What do you make, just as a student of life, of people who rail against things they do themselves?
CLINTON: I think maybe it is a little -- I don't know, subconscious self-hatred. Maybe it is a desire to avoid being caught, maybe it is just a desire to deal with what they can perceive to be the social and political realities that they found themselves in.
He came from a very conservative culture in Idaho. I think it has the smallest number of Democrats in the state legislature in the country. I don't know. But I just know right now he and his family have got to be hurting.
And I think the rest of us should just be pulling for their personal lives, their family lives, and the politics will just play itself out.
Last edited:
CTU2fan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,366
phillyfan26 said:
Well played Philly.
Regarding Vitter, prostitution is illegal so yes he did break the law. And why not defend the drunk driver too, since he's apparently a saint compared to Craig.
I don't really think Craig should resign, unless he wants to. No one can make him, can they? I mean, chances are his political career is history anyway, so he can't really do any more damage (to himself anyway) by serving out his term, can he? His worst crime in my book is hypocrisy, championing anti-gay legislature while cruising the john for sex...the other stuff I could care less about, that's between him & his wife.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
diamond said:
not bloody likely.
nobody says "golly" or "drats" anymore.
CTU2fan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,366
I think "gee whiz" is still in play though.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
anitram said:
I know, unfortunately. I just ignore it but once in a while I make a futile attempt to point it out. Maybe it's some bizarre from of attention seeking.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
again?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
MrsSpringsteen said:
pssst -- diamond: take a read and get some Jesus-forgiveness/compassion tips from Clinton.
(and don't worry, i still think you're sexy)
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
But Bill Clinton doesn't know the correct things about Jesus and compassion because he's a Democrat-and married to that feminist shrew.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
CRUISING WHILE REPUBLICAN
By Ann CoulterWed Sep 5, 7:56 PM ET
If you've just returned from your Labor Day vacation and are scanning the headlines from last week's newspapers -- don't panic! America is not threatened by a category 5 hurricane named "Larry Craig."
Despite the 9/11-level coverage, Larry Craig is merely accused of "cruising while Republican." There is nothing liberals love more than gay-baiting, which they disguise as an attack on "hypocrisy."
Chris Matthews opened his "Hardball" program on Aug. 28 by saying Larry Craig had been "exposed as both a sexual deviant and a world-class hypocrite."
Normally, using the word "deviant" in reference to any form of sodomy would be a linguistic crime worse than calling someone a "nappy headed ho." Luckily, Craig is a Republican.
As a backup precaution, Matthews has worked to ensure that there is virtually no audience for "Hardball." I shudder to think of the damage such a remark might have done if uttered about a non-Republican on a TV show with actual viewers.
The New York Times ran 15 articles on Craig's guilty plea to "disorderly conduct" in a bathroom. The Washington Post ran 20 articles on Craig. MSNBC covered it like it was the first moon landing -- Three small taps for a man, one giant leap for public gay sex!
In other news last week, two Egyptian engineering students, Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed and Youssef Samir Megahed, were indicted in Tampa on charges of carrying pipe bombs across states lines. They were caught with the bombs in their car near a Navy base.
But back to the real news of the week: CNN's Dana Bash reported that the Larry Craig story was "everywhere and it is not going to let up."
If liberals were any happier, they'd be gay.
Just as liberals were reaching a fever-pitch of pretend shock and dismay at Larry Craig, it was announced that Craig was resigning. And there went MSNBC's fall program schedule.
Indignant that Craig had short-circuited their gleeful gay-baiting, liberals quickly switched to a new set of talking points. In the blink of an eye, they went from calling Craig a "deviant" to attacking Republicans for not insisting that Craig stay.
Liberals said the only reason Republicans were not blanketing the airwaves defending Craig -- maybe running him for president -- was because of Republican "homophobia." After howling with rage all week about gay Republicans, to turn around and call Republicans homophobes on Friday was nothing if not audacious.
But last Friday -- or, for short, "the day the two bomb-carrying Egyptian students were indicted and the mainstream media was too busy jeering at Larry Craig to notice" -- The New York Times editorialized:
"Underlying the (Republicans') hurry to disown the senator, of course, is the party's brutal agenda of trumpeting the gay-marriage issue. To the extent Sen. Craig, a stalwart in the family values caucus, might morph into a blatant hypocrite before the voters' eyes, he reflects on the party's record in demonizing homosexuality. The rush to cast him out betrays the party's intolerance, which is on display for the public in all of its ugliness."
Liberals don't even know what they mean by "hypocrite" anymore. It's just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like "extremist" -- or, come to think of it, "gay." How is Craig a "hypocrite," much less a "blatant hypocrite"?
Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk! Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."
And why is it "homophobic" for Senate Republicans to look askance at sex in public bathrooms? Is the Times claiming that sodomy in public bathrooms is the essence of being gay? I thought gays just wanted to get married to one another and settle down in the suburbs so they could visit each other in the hospital.
Liberals have no idea what they think about homosexuality, which is why their arguments are completely contradictory. They gay-bait Republicans with abandon -- and then turn around and complain about homophobia.
They call Larry Craig a "deviant" based on accusations that he attempted to solicit sex in a public bathroom -- and then ferociously attack efforts to prevent people from having sex in public bathrooms.
They say people are born gay -- and then they say it's the celibacy requirement that turns Catholic priests gay.
They tell us gays want nothing more than to get married -- and then say it's homophobic to oppose homosexual sex in public bathrooms.
Unlike liberals, the "family values caucus" that the Times loathes has only one position on homosexuality: Whatever your impulses are, don't engage in homosexual sex. In fact, don't have any sex at all unless it is between a husband and wife.
The Idaho Statesman spent eight months investigating a rumor that Craig was gay. They interviewed 300 people, going back to his college days. They walked around Union Station in Washington, D.C., with a picture of Craig, asking people if they had seen him loitering around the men's bathrooms.
And they produced nothing.
All they had was the original anonymous charge of sodomy in a bathroom at Union Station that started the eight-month investigation in the first place -- and his plea to "disorderly conduct" after an ambiguous encounter in a bathroom in Minneapolis. Even his enemies said they had never seen any inappropriate conduct by Craig.
If the charges against Craig are true -- and that is certainly in doubt -- he's a sinner (and barely that, according to The Idaho Statesman), but he is among the least hypocritical people in America.
By Ann CoulterWed Sep 5, 7:56 PM ET
If you've just returned from your Labor Day vacation and are scanning the headlines from last week's newspapers -- don't panic! America is not threatened by a category 5 hurricane named "Larry Craig."
Despite the 9/11-level coverage, Larry Craig is merely accused of "cruising while Republican." There is nothing liberals love more than gay-baiting, which they disguise as an attack on "hypocrisy."
Chris Matthews opened his "Hardball" program on Aug. 28 by saying Larry Craig had been "exposed as both a sexual deviant and a world-class hypocrite."
Normally, using the word "deviant" in reference to any form of sodomy would be a linguistic crime worse than calling someone a "nappy headed ho." Luckily, Craig is a Republican.
As a backup precaution, Matthews has worked to ensure that there is virtually no audience for "Hardball." I shudder to think of the damage such a remark might have done if uttered about a non-Republican on a TV show with actual viewers.
The New York Times ran 15 articles on Craig's guilty plea to "disorderly conduct" in a bathroom. The Washington Post ran 20 articles on Craig. MSNBC covered it like it was the first moon landing -- Three small taps for a man, one giant leap for public gay sex!
In other news last week, two Egyptian engineering students, Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed and Youssef Samir Megahed, were indicted in Tampa on charges of carrying pipe bombs across states lines. They were caught with the bombs in their car near a Navy base.
But back to the real news of the week: CNN's Dana Bash reported that the Larry Craig story was "everywhere and it is not going to let up."
If liberals were any happier, they'd be gay.
Just as liberals were reaching a fever-pitch of pretend shock and dismay at Larry Craig, it was announced that Craig was resigning. And there went MSNBC's fall program schedule.
Indignant that Craig had short-circuited their gleeful gay-baiting, liberals quickly switched to a new set of talking points. In the blink of an eye, they went from calling Craig a "deviant" to attacking Republicans for not insisting that Craig stay.
Liberals said the only reason Republicans were not blanketing the airwaves defending Craig -- maybe running him for president -- was because of Republican "homophobia." After howling with rage all week about gay Republicans, to turn around and call Republicans homophobes on Friday was nothing if not audacious.
But last Friday -- or, for short, "the day the two bomb-carrying Egyptian students were indicted and the mainstream media was too busy jeering at Larry Craig to notice" -- The New York Times editorialized:
"Underlying the (Republicans') hurry to disown the senator, of course, is the party's brutal agenda of trumpeting the gay-marriage issue. To the extent Sen. Craig, a stalwart in the family values caucus, might morph into a blatant hypocrite before the voters' eyes, he reflects on the party's record in demonizing homosexuality. The rush to cast him out betrays the party's intolerance, which is on display for the public in all of its ugliness."
Liberals don't even know what they mean by "hypocrite" anymore. It's just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like "extremist" -- or, come to think of it, "gay." How is Craig a "hypocrite," much less a "blatant hypocrite"?
Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk! Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."
And why is it "homophobic" for Senate Republicans to look askance at sex in public bathrooms? Is the Times claiming that sodomy in public bathrooms is the essence of being gay? I thought gays just wanted to get married to one another and settle down in the suburbs so they could visit each other in the hospital.
Liberals have no idea what they think about homosexuality, which is why their arguments are completely contradictory. They gay-bait Republicans with abandon -- and then turn around and complain about homophobia.
They call Larry Craig a "deviant" based on accusations that he attempted to solicit sex in a public bathroom -- and then ferociously attack efforts to prevent people from having sex in public bathrooms.
They say people are born gay -- and then they say it's the celibacy requirement that turns Catholic priests gay.
They tell us gays want nothing more than to get married -- and then say it's homophobic to oppose homosexual sex in public bathrooms.
Unlike liberals, the "family values caucus" that the Times loathes has only one position on homosexuality: Whatever your impulses are, don't engage in homosexual sex. In fact, don't have any sex at all unless it is between a husband and wife.
The Idaho Statesman spent eight months investigating a rumor that Craig was gay. They interviewed 300 people, going back to his college days. They walked around Union Station in Washington, D.C., with a picture of Craig, asking people if they had seen him loitering around the men's bathrooms.
And they produced nothing.
All they had was the original anonymous charge of sodomy in a bathroom at Union Station that started the eight-month investigation in the first place -- and his plea to "disorderly conduct" after an ambiguous encounter in a bathroom in Minneapolis. Even his enemies said they had never seen any inappropriate conduct by Craig.
If the charges against Craig are true -- and that is certainly in doubt -- he's a sinner (and barely that, according to The Idaho Statesman), but he is among the least hypocritical people in America.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i don't even know what she's talking about.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Neither do I
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
Ann Coulter...
Craig can drag this thing out all he wants
Craig can drag this thing out all he wants
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Irvine511 said:
of course you guys dont; you only hear things you want to hear.
dbs
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Irvine511 said:
Neither does she.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
she has so many mixed up thoughts and has nothing remotely related to a clear thesis, and she's intentionally obfuscating what has been said by "liberals" and ignorning any sort of nuance. i.e., no one is saying that cruising bathrooms is at the heart of being gay, but that closeted gay people often resort to cruising bathrooms because of the environments in which they live that causes them to live in a deep well of shame.
of course, that would require Ms. Coulter to have two thoughts in her brain at once, so i suppose we'll have to take what we get.
she writes like Miss Teen South Carolina speaks. only she gets to proofread and has an editor.
CTU2fan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,366
Oh yes Ann, the evil liberal gay-baiters. Next thing you know they'll be calling Republican presidential candidates "faggots"...oh the horror.
Ann Coulter is just vile.
Ann Coulter is just vile.
The pot and kettle
Another nugget of comedy gold from diamond.
diamond said:
Another nugget of comedy gold from diamond.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Comedy or projection in the highest degree?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
you know what i'm struck by?
Craig didn't do anything wrong. legally. it seems like he was nailed by a way overeager cop. there was toe-tapping, but there were no words exchanged, and certainly no sex proposition let alone indecent exposure or (gasp) an actual blow job.
you know who else didn't do anything wrong? Mark Foley. legally, i mean. he had what might be deemed inapporpriate conversations with late-teenaged males. but there was no sex. no proposition. no indecent exposure. and he waited until the pages were of the age of consent (18) before he apparently had sex with some of them (who seemed to want to have sex with him).
both men are creeps and jerks and hypocrits and all that. but they are not *criminals*.
Vitter is a criminal. Kevin Brady is a criminal.
but who gets thrown to the wolves by the GOP, a party that has used "God Hates Fags" as one of their centerpieces of social legislation?
the fags.
it's so profoundly upsetting on so many levels.
and Mike Rogers, the DC professional out-er who told anyone who was patying attention about Craig last October, puts it best:
[q]Unfortunately, when he resigned (and trust me, regardless of yesterday's messaging, he's leaving the Senate), Larry Craig apologized to everyone except the people he has most harmed by his actions -- gay and lesbian Americans. His legacy will include his career-long work in opposing basic civil rights for all, creating an atmosphere where it is unsafe for many to be honest about their lives.
Those in American politics who use anti-gay sentiments for political purposes would be wise to stop using my community as a political punching bag. Politicians like Larry Craig, David Dreier (R-CA), James McCreary (R-LA), and Former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman have helped to create a society that drives many men and women into the closet. Craig's arrest when coupled with the hypocrisy of his seeking sexual encounters from the very men he actively legislates against, becomes merely the catalyst to expose the dishonesty and secrecy of anti-gay politicians who expect a community to harbor its own.
[...]
The time when politicians can stand with one foot on the platform of homophobia and the other in the closet has come to an end. During the '08 election, images of Craig, Foley, David Vitter, Bob Allen and a host of others will remind the "family values" crowd that these guys are not so family friendly.
Whenever I begin to feel sorry for Craig, his wife and her three children from her previous marriage (and how can you not have some sympathy for them?), I recall what Nick Langewis, associate editor of PageOneQ, noted in the midst of Craig's repeated denials:
Had Craig been active duty and plead not guilty he could have been charged and tried in two separate courts (military and civilian and that one encounter likely would have swiftly stripped him of his years of service, health care and pension.
There's no doubt Craig's being coldly and hastily abandoned by his party, much like an openly gay service member by one's country. Compared to the soldiers he helped sell out, though, he's getting off easy; he'll at least get out with his shirt, American flag lapel pin firmly attached.
On August 17th, just two weeks after his guilty plea, Larry Craig wrote to a constituent:
It is unacceptable to risk the lives of American soldiers and sailors merely to accommodate the sexual lifestyles of certain individuals
Enough is enough.
http://www.blogactive.com/2007/09/enough-is-enough.html
[/q]
Craig didn't do anything wrong. legally. it seems like he was nailed by a way overeager cop. there was toe-tapping, but there were no words exchanged, and certainly no sex proposition let alone indecent exposure or (gasp) an actual blow job.
you know who else didn't do anything wrong? Mark Foley. legally, i mean. he had what might be deemed inapporpriate conversations with late-teenaged males. but there was no sex. no proposition. no indecent exposure. and he waited until the pages were of the age of consent (18) before he apparently had sex with some of them (who seemed to want to have sex with him).
both men are creeps and jerks and hypocrits and all that. but they are not *criminals*.
Vitter is a criminal. Kevin Brady is a criminal.
but who gets thrown to the wolves by the GOP, a party that has used "God Hates Fags" as one of their centerpieces of social legislation?
the fags.
it's so profoundly upsetting on so many levels.
and Mike Rogers, the DC professional out-er who told anyone who was patying attention about Craig last October, puts it best:
[q]Unfortunately, when he resigned (and trust me, regardless of yesterday's messaging, he's leaving the Senate), Larry Craig apologized to everyone except the people he has most harmed by his actions -- gay and lesbian Americans. His legacy will include his career-long work in opposing basic civil rights for all, creating an atmosphere where it is unsafe for many to be honest about their lives.
Those in American politics who use anti-gay sentiments for political purposes would be wise to stop using my community as a political punching bag. Politicians like Larry Craig, David Dreier (R-CA), James McCreary (R-LA), and Former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman have helped to create a society that drives many men and women into the closet. Craig's arrest when coupled with the hypocrisy of his seeking sexual encounters from the very men he actively legislates against, becomes merely the catalyst to expose the dishonesty and secrecy of anti-gay politicians who expect a community to harbor its own.
[...]
The time when politicians can stand with one foot on the platform of homophobia and the other in the closet has come to an end. During the '08 election, images of Craig, Foley, David Vitter, Bob Allen and a host of others will remind the "family values" crowd that these guys are not so family friendly.
Whenever I begin to feel sorry for Craig, his wife and her three children from her previous marriage (and how can you not have some sympathy for them?), I recall what Nick Langewis, associate editor of PageOneQ, noted in the midst of Craig's repeated denials:
Had Craig been active duty and plead not guilty he could have been charged and tried in two separate courts (military and civilian and that one encounter likely would have swiftly stripped him of his years of service, health care and pension.
There's no doubt Craig's being coldly and hastily abandoned by his party, much like an openly gay service member by one's country. Compared to the soldiers he helped sell out, though, he's getting off easy; he'll at least get out with his shirt, American flag lapel pin firmly attached.
On August 17th, just two weeks after his guilty plea, Larry Craig wrote to a constituent:
It is unacceptable to risk the lives of American soldiers and sailors merely to accommodate the sexual lifestyles of certain individuals
Enough is enough.
http://www.blogactive.com/2007/09/enough-is-enough.html
[/q]
Similar threads
