A lot of people cheat on their partners. A recent University of Washington study found a lifetime infidelity rate of 28 percent for men, 15 percent for women. If anything, I’m surprised the rate is so low.
So while I personally believe that fidelity is an integral part of a committed relationship, have never been unfaithful myself, and would have been inconsolably heartbroken to have been the victim of such, it’s not really any of my business what goes on within (or without) someone else’s marriage. Unless, they make it my business, by being an arrogant, holier than thou, family-values hypocrite.
You know, like Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC). Or US Sen. John Ensign (R-NV). Or US Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). Or any number of other pro-family, conservative politicians who have recently fallen victim to scandals of a sexual nature.
That Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is “packing fudge,” as one of my vile trolls puts it, is not a scandal, because he is openly gay, but would have been had Rep. Frank earned a reputation as a hateful, anti-gay bigot like the recently disgraced and deceased Spokane Mayor Jim West. Even former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat who never ran on a family values platform, ultimately fell victim more to his own hypocrisy than his sexual proclivities, when the former state Attorney General who had aggressively prosecuted prostitution rings, got caught frequenting one himself.
It’s the hypocrisy, stupid.
And that is what has always been so infuriating and offensive about righteously indignant Republicans attempting to brand themselves as the family values party—not their human frailty; we all suffer from that—but rather the sheer arrogance of their claim to be morally superior over others.
The scorn and ridicule now being heaped upon Sanford and Ensign is well deserved, for those who choose to wield their Christian faith as a political sword would do well to read their own Bible: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”
Amen.
Here’s what I just posted on The “Singing” Republicans thread:
Hey Everyone!
How about a simple standard for everyone? Anyone in office, either elected or appointed, or any candidate for office who lies about his personal life or persoal business is to be considered untrustworthy to tell the truth about other things.
Include in this affairs, illegitimate children, reporting car accidents, favorable loans, plagarism, running of illegal operations out of his or her home or office, or similar stuff.
Run them out of town – out of the country, for that matter – on a rail. And do it without respect to party or ideology.
When any of them do it, we all suffer.
The Piper
Piper @ 1
Perfection is a difficult standard to meet. Even you, I would bet, have “fallen short of the glory of God.” All of us have lied. Hell, we even lie to ourselves. Recognition of human frailties and foibles, and of our own imperfection, is something that should work its way into our own personal ideologies. To wit, my own recognition of my (occasional) inability to live up to my own standards translates into an unwillingness to impose my standards on others. I don’t expect politicians to never lie and to lead perfect lives. When they engage in blatant hypocrisy, however, I don’t have much patience with them. Infidelity occurs. I would not, however, disqualify an individual for public office because he or she engaged in infidelity. On the other hand, if the philanderer wants to criminalize adultery, I would disqualify that individual. As Goldy stated, it’s all about hypocrisy.
@2…PL…
Fair points…to a point.
We’re talking the difference between personal issues/relationships that have no public impact versus those that do.
Those who hold a public trust should be held to a higher standard – period and without exception. It’s oft stated – perhaps even cliched – but true: if you lie about your vows (or oath of office, or business dealings, or when something happened), you’ll lie about other stuff too.
The American people, irrespective of party or political ideology, deserve nothing less than public officials who are honest both in their private and public dealings. You can’t have them untrustworthy in one and expect them to be trustworthy in the other.
The Piper
re 1: It’s not the lying, it’s the hypocrisy AND the lying.
You just don’t get it. Someone willing to punish another for something he is secretly doing himself is the one not to be trusted.
I’d like to give the Piper 30 lashes with a wet noodle — and I’m thinking he’d like it.
@5…Elevator Music…
Try it…if you dare.
The Piper
Goldy @0: Yes, and Amen to the post.
Piper @ 3: “Those who hold a public trust should be held to a higher standard – period and without exception.”
I agree with that, but I still can’t hold public officials to a standard of flawlessness. Most people who commit adultery don’t set out to do it. Sexual temptation is a powerful force, and it can overcome some strong people with strong values. The individual who is so overcome does not ipso facto become untrustworthy. The range of untrustworthiness is, of course, broad. A person’s trustworthiness needs to be gauged by the whole course of his or her acts, not just by mistakes.
There’s something to keep in mind here about who should cast the first stone, but….
It’s also worth keeping in mind that Jesus showed great compassion for tax collectors and prostitutes, but reserved his harshest language for hypocrites.
We might all be better off keeping our wet noodles to ourselves. On the other hand, knowing we’re all sinners on this bus, I might be able to forgive someone a lie or three, or even a great lapse in judgement, but subsequently be disinclined to trust that person to hold sway over me.
The South Carolina newspaper “The State” just released copies of e-mails between Stanford and his lover, which it says were from his personal computer. The paper also says it has had the e-mails since December.
Sanford E-Mails
Which raises a few questions:
1. Stanford braggs about visiting with McCain last July at McCain’s house in Colorado, and can’t help but mention that the visit attracted much speculation about him being a potential VP nominee. What would have happened if he had indeed become the VP nominee? Did the McCain camp vet him in advance and know about this little indescretion? What if McCain had been elected President, and this affair became known after Stanford was VP – would he be subjected to the same standard (i.e., impeachment) that the Republicans insisted of Clinton?
2. Why did The State sit on this story since December?
3. How did The State get these e-mails from Standford’s personal computer?
4. Will Stanford now retire to become the author of women’s erotic novels?
@9…AF…
“Knowing we’re all sinners on this bus, I might be able to forgive someone a lie or three, or even a great lapse in judgement, but subsequently be disinclined to trust that person to hold sway over me.”
That’s a fair and generous way of stating it.
No point holding a grudge, but there’s also no point continuing to claim you’re entitled to hold public trust.
The Piper
NO NO NO NO NO
You’re all missing the point of the blatant hypocrisy.
It isn’t that they fall short of being perfect while claiming moral superiority and whether or not that should be the benchmark to hold public office. That is a red herring debate.
The true hypocrisy is USING the mantel of morality as justification to preclude other American citizens form enjoying the same civil liberties that they have — like GAY marriage.
That’s the problem – the abandonment of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” or “. . . with Liberty and Justice for all” and use it as a wedge issue to push their own personal agendas of personal gain via public office.
Get it NOW?
12 Or, like the song lyric goes, “He can’t even run his own life; I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine!”
@12…GBS…
Sorry, you can’t twist the issue to make it partisan in your favor.
It’s about public officials who betray their trust by betraying those with whom they live or work or associate. The list is long, sordid, exclusive of race, gender or sexual orientation, and just plain sucks.
You can’t “criminalize” a difference of opinion on an issue, which is what you try to do.
The Piper
re 9: It’s amazing the trivia that people pick up on. Who gets lashed with my wet noodle is a personal decision.
It’s a metaphorical noodle.
Haha. This coming from Goldy; a guy that couldn’t get laid in a whore-house with a hundred dollar bill.
re 14: “It’s about public officials who betray their trust by betraying those with whom they live or work or associate.”
You refuse to accept the central proposition of Goldy’s post that the hypocrisy is the evil deed. It’s pointless to discuss it with you anymore.
You’re an idiot — with a mediocre vocabulary – and an almost gay bon homie about your pronunciamentos. I think you model yourself after WFBuckley jr.. But you suffer by the comparison.
15
I fear that your reference to lashes with a wet noodle, metaphorical or otherwise, probably has some of our trolls panting.
Piper @ 14:
If, I were twisting an argument for a partisan issue, I might agree with you.
However, history proves me right, not my opinion. It is well known and documented fact that Republicans have ran on the “Vote Your Values” and “Family Values” theme for decades.
It’s also a fact that Republicans have used the Gay Marriage issue as a means to whip up their base. So much so, as to get “definition of marriage” issues on ballots to improve GOTV turn out.
When men like Sen. Craig, Sen. Ensign, Newt Gingrich, Rep. Foley, et al use the “sanctity of marriage” argument as a reason to DENY equal rights to fellow Americans, then violate and rape their sanctity of marriage vows at every opportunity and in every way imaginable, with the notable exception of bestiality – for now — , the intent of my original argument stands.
But, thanks for playing.
@16: “….a guy that couldn’t get laid in a whore-house with a hundred dollar bill.”
A c-note doesn’t buy much these days.
As for Piper: To be honest, I’ll give an officeholder whom I support a break (depending on the offence). We have lefty hypocrites in office, too. Bright moral lines are for philosophical morons. Everybody draws them. Practically nobody lives them.
@17: Well and soundly put. The breeziness with which The Piper mounts his endless string of factless assertions is a wonder to behold, not a serious effort at conversation or debate.
Speaking of hypocrites.
Our Mr. Klynical had something to say earlier about bigotry.
heh- What does our Mr. Klynical really think about gays?
I’d recommend for Mr. Klynical some of that serious counseling he spoke of.
Fucking wingnut hypocrites.
Barney Frank just told Bill O’Reilly you are NOT A BIGOT IF YOU ARE AGAINST gay marriage.
How interesting…
@22 Say, Puddy, did Barney say anything about wingnuts spewing the “F” word?
Piper:
PS:
1) I didn’t “criminalize” anything.
2) Which party wants to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman, thus making gay marriage by default, illegal?
Read post 17 again, if you haven’t already.
Well, not really very interesting at all.
Bigot? No.
Hypocrite? Yes.
Steve, keep going will you? Puddy gave his reason long ago. Why don’t you search for it unlike when you claimed Puddy never told Republicans off.
GBS, Ohhhh… so the only people who are not hypocrites and are allowed to have differing opinions are libtardos?
Thanks for clarifying that worthless position.
@17: I think the descriptive word for piperism is ‘feckless’, but I’m open to suggestions.
Puddy, Puddy, Puddy,
Why is it “worth so much to you” do deny other Americans the same rights you enjoy today?
Why can’t you stand on the principles of “life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of Happiness”?
What about ” . . . with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all”?
See, the difference between having an opinion like “The Gay lifestyle isn’t for me, so they CANNOT marry like I can” and “The Gay lifestyle isn’t for me but the American principle of equal rights, should be applied to every American citizen” is hugely profound and different.
One opinion doesn’t understand what “ a more perfect Union” means and the other opinion does.
If you still can’t comprehend the difference ask the intelligent and beautiful wife of yours to explain it to you.
M’kay?
@ 27:
Here’s my list:
Incompetent, good-for-nothing, useless, hopeless, spineless, feeble, weak, ineffective, worthless, ineffectual, unreliable, irresponsible, aimless
GBS, then go ahead and change the constitution since the majority of Americans are still against gay marriage. In fact the number of libtardos supporting it are down 8 points. Source Gallup, not Rasmussen.
BTW there you go again with the missing rights argument.
And Puddy comes back with…
I told you early on what I was finding in the archives. I told you that I had no desire to drag you into this. And yet this morning you jumped into it head first. You have no one to blame but yourself.
“Steve, keep going will you?”
It was Marvin who kept going. As usual, you failed to take a stand, even when GBS was being tarred by Marvin as a racist and bigot. If you don’t like where this is now headed, you have no one to blame but yourself and Marvin. You’re not stupid. You could put a stop to this with your next comment.
I told you and I told you true, from what I know of you, I believe that you’re no bigot. It ain’t much, but at least you’ve got that going for you. But, sorry to say, if you want to take sides, you’ll have to take the return fire.
re 30: Once again, you totally miss the point. Your side wants to change the constitution by denying rights to other citzens.
It’s a situation so comparable to the black experience, that I’m surprised you continue to deny its validity.
If you think you are right, do you want all those crackers north and south to apply the same reasoning to you and yours?
That’s their ‘timeless principle’. You lose.
Ferrante, or is this another headless lucy name? This one isn’t that bad lucy.
Rights? Now there’s a call for the standard…
BULLSHITTIUM ALERT BULLSHITTIUM ALERT Star Trek Klaxon horn sounds.
What?
What a moron to say this. You have no idea the black experience headless. You look at a black person and you know they are black. They only way you know someone is gay is from their actions or how they talk. If they say nuthin no one knows.
More of the standard convoluted and specious argument…
END of BULLSHITTIUM ALERT Star Trek Klaxon horn sound ends.
Steve, Steve, Steve, Puddy told you earlier this week when you venture into the goats Puddy can’t support you. Your fight is between Marvin and you. You asked Puddy a question and Puddy answered.
Regarding the comment you continually put forth Puddy has told you to research the reason Puddy wrote what he wrote. It has to do with a certain Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco and the pictures Puddy put forth in front of little kids Steve. You need to perform more homework. BTW Puddy gonna cut his grass now and send to compost.
See ya Steve. Keep up your dopey work!
Puddy,
You’re stunning lack of understanding regarding the Constitution is laughable.
First off, it’s your party that wanted to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.
Second, The Constitution is in ‘inclusive’ document not an exclusionary one.
And, the principle of equality among Americans is EXACTLY that of Women’s Suffrage and the BLACK CIVIL rights movement.
Operative word, Puddy, is PRINCIPLE.
The same PRINCIPLE that was wrong to deny a person to vote based on the color of their skin is NO different than denying a person to marry because of the formation of their genitalia.
In both cases NEITHER person could control how they were created.
And to deny an American citizen equal rights based on the way they were BORN is wrong.
I answered your Constitutional questions the CO2 thread.
goldstien, is it illegal to be a hypocrite? then shut the fuck up. because if it was illegal, liberals would win the booby prize
I think what’s being dealt with here is the hypocrisy of pols who use ‘family values’ as a major political platform, who themselves seem to have a problem with that concept. And this includes Bill Clinton as much as it does any Republican. And then there’s the related topic of anti-gay crusaders who turn out to be gay themselves….
Give credit where it’s due, though. Sanford fessed up as soon as the jig was up, although this will likely severely damage any future ambitions of his. But I doubt he’ll be punished (much) by his own constituents just yet. Similarly, here in Nevada a recent poll in the Las Vegas Review-Journal showed a majority of Nevadans didn’t want Sen. John Ensign to step down or otherwise be removed from his post after he admitted to his affair recently.
The sheer arrogance of warmongers and torturers claiming “moral superiority” over others is breathtaking. One is left speechless by the absurd pretensions of these people and their defenders.
@1 Geez Pooper, even the bar association is more forgiving than you — all they do is disbar you.
@2 “Perfection is a difficult standard to meet.”
Pooper certainly doesn’t meet it. He couldn’t even keep his bar dues and MCLE requirements current.
@3 “The American people, irrespective of party or political ideology, deserve nothing less than public officials who are honest both in their private and public dealings.”
True enough, as far as it goes. But America’s workers and consumers are no less deserving of honesty from bosses and businesses. There’s no reason to accept lower standards in the private sector.
Oh geez, I just now read about Sanford. Crying in Argentina?? WTF? Oh, and Fox News identified him as a Democrat. That figures. In a year or two they’ll hire the sorry fuck and put him on the tube to tell wingnuts what to think. Heh- Wingnut welfare. A very lucrative gig, I’m sure, but I suspect one must sell their soul in order to cash the check.
by the way, if you need a definition of hypocrisy, here it is. a group of people who watch movies like, lets say, hannibal, where anthony hopkins cuts off the top of ray liotta’s skull, slices some of his brain off, cooks it and feeds him his own brain. and then they watch a move like mel gibson’s the passion of the christ, and call it too violent. all you need to know about who runs this country.
another defintion is, the msm celebrating iran’s democratic protests, only weeks after they said the tea party protesters should pack it in.
@9 “we’re all sinners on this bus”
Well, not exactly all of us. Feral animals are sin-free. We live by the laws of Nature — eat or be eaten, fight or flight, perpetuate your species. It’s not “sin” to do what Nature designed you for. For us wild critters, eating, fighting, and fucking come naturally, and we’re not burdened with human-like hangups.
http://files.myopera.com/Pain%.....lation.jpg
@43 Now you’re a movie critic? What will the rednecks watch if you take away their Hannibal Lector films?
@44 I don’t recall anyone saying the teabaggers can’t have their silly little protests. More power to ’em. I do recall, however, that not so long ago righties were loudly proclaiming that anyone who objected to the lies and boneheaded policies of their illegitimate organ grinder monkey should be put in concentration camps if not gas chambers. Now all of a sudden you asswipes think your free speech rights are being infringed just because someone opines that you’re full of shit? Don’t worry about it; that’s just us exercising our free speech rights.
Interesting, I believe Goldy remained silent when the Muslim man shot up the holocaust museum, and killed a guard, didn’t he?
He wasn’t outraged about a hate crime murder, but he devotes a whole post to an extramarital affair?
Why didn’t he contrast what Islam teaches, with the actions of the shooter, like how he’s contrasting … business call. brb.
A while back I was sorely tempted to out a rightie blogger who preached (including in church) the standard “respect and respectability” line that was cheating on his wife. I didn’t, it came out, his wife left him and so on and so forth.
I suppose I might have been ‘right’ to out him in some peoples eyes. But, it really wasn’t any of my business and it would have been done more out of spite than anything. And I’m not OK with acting like that. I would have been a hypocrite as well. I’m glad I held my fire.
another definition of hypocrisy. 90 per cent of the prison population is black or latino. tv commercials that show burgleries like for alarm systems, are 100 per cent, not one exception, white burglers.
@48
A Muslim shot up a recruiting station and killed a soldier.
A white supremacist shot up the holocaust museum.
We’re all concerned about hate crimes and deplore the recent politically motivated murders. I hope all three are tried as terrorists.
In Sanford’s case it’s the going missing for a week and fleeing the country that should get him (and any other governor that does that) kicked out of office.
“Those who hold a public trust should be held to a higher standard – period and without exception.”
This sort of absolutism may seem to be reasonable, until you actually consider the consequences. I, for one, am thrilled that such values were never used to assert moral authority on our founding fathers and earliest “public officials” (Why do we keep forgetting that they really are our public servants, eh?). Afterall, the litany of those who failed to meet Piper’s impossible standards of excellence include the finest minds this nation has ever elected/selected to serve. Again, the substantive difference: they weren’t fucking hypocrites.
hey mike, whats the difference between a “crime” and a “hate crime”? is one of them done with love?
KKK’r @54
Fuck off.
Goldy is promoting the days of Sodom & Gommorah. No morals whatsoever…anything goes.
Frankly, it’s the only way Goldy has a remote chance of ever getting laid again.
He’s hoping Darcy buys into his “No Morals” ever philosophy so he can indulge in a little Darcy Pie.
If you have zero morals professed…how can you ever fail!
Makes sense Goldy.
@53
So much for Thomas, I can’t keep it in me britches, Jefferson!
@56
You’ve promoted that it’s the ‘end times’ and that your religion should have something to do with running of our government.
I’ll take Goldy’s version.
I read this sentence once and it has stayed with me:
If the world hates a hypocrite, what must they think of them in heaven?
Okay, Im going to let you tards in on a little secret. When republicans cheat at least the women are HOT and I mean HOT. Clinton would fuck a mole if you tied its feet together.
@55
good answer mike..just what i expected
Actually, not. Since the Democrats don’t have any standards, it’s not hard to meet them. Sanford at least manned up and admitted he was unfaithful (and his constituents will render their level of justice)…something a fucking coward sack of shit named Clinton couldn’t do even while committing perjury before a grand jury. After the shitheads like Blago, Spitzer and Burris in the last 6 months, it’s hard for the turds on the left be claiming the “moral” high ground.
…oh, and let us not forget John Edwards infidelity to his cancer stricken wife.
Why is it that people in elected public office find it so hard to be faithful, is it fame ya think? I guess they are just human, we all need forgivness for somthing, so maybe we should step back and look at ourselves before we condemn them.
Accountability is another issue, every action has a reaction, the reaction is definately huge,i feel that leaving office quietly,would be the best for all concerened,my prayers will be with thier partners and children,they are the ones that will suffer most.
GBS, GBS, GBS…Yes, Puddy knows all about the march of heterosexual marriage. Why? Because your side using the court system to legislate from the bench. Every time the people speak, libtardos start law suits because libtardos do not respect the will of the people. Right now the majority of Americans are against gay marriage. Do libtardos respect their decision? HELL NO!
For example, the people voted for Prop 8 in CA. What did the libtardo backed gays do? Run to the courts to get the voter approved referendum rejected. Didn’t Jerry Moonbeam Brown lead the charge?
Hey Lex you forgot David Patterson NY guvnur who admitted he cheated on his wife when he took office.
GBS, GBS, GBS
Sorry dude, you are WRONG WRONG WRONG! There is no comparison. Even the “great” libtardo black leaders disagree with GBS, yet you march on to that “drummer”.
@63 “it’s hard for the turds on the left be claiming the “moral” high ground.”
Democrats make no such claim, RickyD. Dems simply scoff at Republican claims to a higher moral ground and laugh at the absurd Republican house-of-cards construct of a “moral majority”. It’s the shits, I’m sure, but the Republican fall from grace was of their own doing.
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/Pedophiles.html
No wonder that recent Rasmussen poll showed that 69% of Republicans think Republicans suck.
You’re right Puddy, I forgot about Patterson. The thing with democrats is that marital infidelity and overall perverse sexual behavior is so prevalent that we forget to even take notice it anymore. Just like most can’t remember that Barney Frank’s gay lover ran a male prostitution ring out of his (Frank’s) own home….supposedly without his um, knowledge….Um, sure Bwaney, we beweive you. Whether it’s “kickbacking” or “barebacking”, Bwaney is your man in Taxachussetts.
@55
I aim to please.
@12
Exactly.
.
There are no “civil liberties” denied any gays that straights don’t have, so this is an asinine comment.
@70 well, mike, i said i expected it, not that i was pleased. its funny how liberals never answer a question when they know the answer ruins their position. all i wanted to know was if a hate crime means it was done with hate, is there love in the heart of a person who commits a crime thats not classifeid as a hate crime. mike, i assume your last name is silverman. so what you hope is that hate crimes lead to hate speach and then the government will deem anything you say that they dont like a crime.
@73:
You argue If A implies B then not A implies C. This does not logically follow, so you are either:
a. a moron
b. ignorant
c. arguing in bad faith
Pick one.
@73: Tell us when you have stopped beating your wife, mr. ‘truth’.
bigoted fuck at 72 avers: “There are no “civil liberties” denied any gays that straights don’t have..”
I see English may not be your native language, but I digress.
Let me ask you this: If you’re hetero and married, do you consider visitation rights if your spouse is in the hospital a ‘civil right’ or not? If not, what is this “right”?
Come on ignoramus. Give it your best. Make Antonin Scalia proud.
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset.
Very interesting so does this mean gays are bigots?
@76 Let me ask you this: If you’re hetero and married, do you consider visitation rights if your spouse is in the hospital a ‘civil right’ or not? If not, what is this “right”?
Its called hepa laws anyone can visit you and get your health updates if they have your permission. Period,
so if the dumbass on the wall ever makes sense, will a bear shit in the woods?
so if the dumbass on the wall ever makes sense, will a bear shit in the woods?
twice!
nice…
HIPPAA LAWS
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/,
So rujax you can eat twice the same shit.
@78: Not true. Try again.
@79&80 No, but we see the bear shit in your brain socket each day.
@78: “Its called hepa laws anyone can visit you and get your health updates if they have your permission.”
Does a wife need “permission” to visit her husband or visa vera? Does it have to be in writing? Doctor’s permission?
Yes or no? Wingnuts just get their rocks off asking that…tables turned, moron.
@77: “Very interesting so does this mean gays are bigots?”
Cite statutes and case law proscribing your standard Ozzie and Harriet marriage. Tell us how traditional married people are part of an oppressed minority.
Can’t, can you. You lose, moron. Better wingnuts, please.
manoftruf’ know what bullshitium libtardo beef!! What be the free handout libtardo grab on healf reform.
manoftruf tol’you so!!!
lets see if we can figure this out kiddies. everything you are is formed from millions of years of evolution. anything that was useless or uneeded disappeared by natural selection. two guys having sex does not fit with darwins theory of natural selection. if you had gay tendencies you would have died off. so, gays are exhibiting defective emotions in the same way that pollution and poor diet have contributed to our epidemic of biological illness’.
It is so awesome to be free, white, and 21 in America.
PuddWaxx has no way of knowing what the white experience is really like.
He should watch Gran Torino.
#90; manoftruf’ say Earth be center of univers and is maybe 5 or 6 thousan’ year old.
You some dun’ crackah!!!
Watchmanonthewall: If you remember Mario AKA Perez, he’s a bigot and proud of it. So that blows apart ProudOfThePoleUPHisASS’ argument. Why wasn’t Mario’s attack on Carrie Prejean not classified as a hate crime? It is my right to oppose gay marriage. Even Bwaney Fwank said so! Here is something from HA swineflu weasel’s favrit site TPM.
Oh lookie here Ferrante and Teicher showed up again @91.
Wow now he/she/it is using a movie to make their point.
PRICELESS!
ProudOfThePoleUPHisASS,
Allow Puddy to refresh your memory about the libtardos on your side stupid fool…
“It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.
Los Angeles resident and Rod 2.0 reader A. Ronald says he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse.
Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, “Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!” A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were “very disappointed with black people” and “how could we” after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn’t matter because “most black people hated gays” and he was “wrong” to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.”
Yep thems yo peeps ProudOfThePoleUPHisASS, thugs of the first degree just following their prime directive of demonizing anyone they think are in their way.
Ya see, Puddy reads a lot. How else can you understand libtardos?
The Prosecution Rests.
Sure, Puddy, whatever the voters apporve of must be legal.
Well, let’s just vote repeal the CRA & VRA. Because if a majority of people decide you shouldn’t vote because of the way you were born it must be moral.
Good call.
I notice you completely dodged the ethics principle question I posed earlier.
Let me paraphrase the question again:
Denying someone their rights because of how they were born is principly correct or incorrect?
Uh-huh.
Can you conservatives find an example from this decade?
Sheez, we’ve got what? 4 or 5 in the last year?
Good God.
Plowed in the ass @ 77:
Sorry you’re too stupid to follow the english language. I have to remember I’m on HA and the trolls are confused easily.
Are you implying that a gay person can’t visit their “loved” one? If so, you’re a bigger dumbass than I previously thought. Also, note the words Spouse and married in your question. A category that same-sex couples don’t fall into and can’t according to Washington state statute.
GBS said:
And the CA Supremes said it was legal and the gays attacked the CA Supremes as ignorant and not understanding of the issues and the people are too stupid in CA to understand this issue so remove the possibility of propositions in the future.
Yep typically progressive thought. The courts are ignorant and the populace are stupid.
Reporters have been investigating the extent to which Sanford’s staff knew about what was going on, and were covering up for them. Who’s idea was it to float the “Appalachian Trail” story?
But now we know, and it was an honest mistake. Sanford’s staff thought they heard him say he was “Going out on the Appalachian Trail”. What he actually said was he was “Going down on some Argentinian Tail”.
That was just funny RHP
I am thankful i am not a bigot, it is perfectly fine to me that a gay male and a gay female marry, thier genatalia then works perfectly in every natural way.
If you’re correct, why would a constitutional law professor be against the constitution?
And that same law professor is also against gay marriage because of his rel;igious beliefs.
And you voted for him.
Yet you never mention the obama.
Priceless.
I think your comment about not being able to be around blacks 24/7 gave him a glimpse into your white experience.
You don’ like Barney Frank. Well I don’ like Tawana Brawley.
That’s right
BlackGay Boy, you better know your place and you better NOT talk and act they way you want in your pursuit of your own Happiness.Otherwise, we’ll know you’re a
niggerfaggot and we’ll vote in laws to discriminate against you.HELL, BOY! We’ll make those laws anyways.
Does something not seem fair to you, Puddy?
re 104: As a gay conservative, you can’t comprehend the awesome experience of being a straight, white male in contemporary America.
As I said, It’s AWESOME!!! And black men and gay conservatives don’t know what it’s like.
They never will. The confidence with which I approach the world is something you and PuddWaxx will never know.
First of all, Puddy, you purposefully avoided the principle of the debate. AGAIN!
I know I’m beating the crap out of you every time you opt to avoid the stinging truth. No prob. It just proves to me, you, and everyone else you’re wrong.
Second, Bub, I don’t give a black rat’s-ass if any of ‘the “great” libtardo black leaders disagree with GBS, yet you march on to that “drummer”’
When black leaders are wrong, they are wrong. Period. It’s that simple. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin but the content of the character. Haven’t you learned the meaning of Dr. King’s words?
For example: President Obama is WRONG for not supporting equal rights for all Americans. Sorry, dude, I know in your conservative, authoritarian view of the world it’s lockstep or out of step, but for us progressive and intellectual thinkers we know the world is not black or white, but more like a “rainbow.”
That means, I can support President Obama in general and work hard to bend hit policy where we don’t agree.
When everyone agrees then only one person is thinking. And, that is how the Republican party looks right now.
Here’s an old saying that you just might be familiar with:
THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!
When are you going to face the truth?
@108 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. Conceived to help African Americans, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect women, and explicitly included white people for the first time. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Sorry dude no mention of a genitalia debate here.
@108 We all have the same civil liberties and rights color doesnt matter and genitalia isnt even mentioned.
Civil liberties n. rights or freedoms given to the people by the First Amendment to the Constitution, by common law, or legislation, allowing the individual to be free to speak, think, assemble, organize, worship, or petition without government (or even private) interference or restraints. These liberties are protective in nature, while civil rights form a broader concept and include positive elements such as the right to use facilities, the right to an equal education, or the right to participate in government.