The crimes continue.
Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias submitted his resignation Friday, one day after confirming to ABC News that he had been a customer of a Washington, D.C. escort service whose owner has been charged by federal prosecutors with running a prostitution operation. Tobias, 65, Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), had previously served as the Ambassador for the President’s Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief.
He’s your typical Republican hypocrite. Consider:
Coordinator Tobias Defends Emphasis on Abstinence for Prevention Programs
[Apr 22, 2004]
U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Randall Tobias on Thursday in Berlin defended the use of prevention programs that emphasize sexual abstinence in African and Caribbean countries that are set to receive assistance through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS…Tobias, who was in Berlin for the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS’ 2004 Awards for Business Excellence, said that promoting abstinence and monogamy are “far more effective” than distributing condoms for preventing the spread of HIV.
I guess when you’re a Republican you don’t need to practice what you preach. I just hope he was wearing a condom when receiving those “massages.”
Glad to see this story had a happy ending.
OK, now we have a story that will get the media’s attention! It’s got SEX!!
Whatever they are against is exactly what they are doing.
You know they all secretly want to gay marry each other.
Dr. Pee wants to marry Dick Cheney.
BUT THAT WOULD MAKE HIM TEH GHEY
Wait a minute! Prostitution is a crime!
But… But… But…
I love it. Some social conservatives oppose legalized prostitution, so ALL Republicanbs are hypocrites, because ONE Republican was caught with a prostitute.
BUT all Democrats, with a few rare exceptions, consider prostitution a “victimless crime” that should be legalized, and yet they are criticizing the Republican for doing what they they think ought to be legal.
I’d call that a draw.
No, it’s because ANOTHER republican was caught with a prostitute.
(See Haggart, Ted)
ANOTHER Republican doing one thing while saying the opposite
(See Foley)
I find it hard to sympathize with a group of people who claim to be the party of moral superiority and “family values” at the same time being a bunch of crooks, thieves, liars, man-whores, drug addicts and alcoholics while wagging their fingers at me.
Last legs, man. The Last Throes, as it were.
” Some social conservatives oppose legalized prostitution, so ALL Republicanbs are hypocrites, because ONE Republican was caught with a prostitute.”
One?
I’d make the point that your short memory is a sign of mental weakness, but I think we’re both tired of me pointing out the obvious when I call you dumb.
“BUT all Democrats, with a few rare exceptions, consider prostitution a “victimless crime” that should be legalized, and yet they are criticizing the Republican for doing what they they think ought to be legal.”
This is perfect proof that you are stupid. Democrats are not complaining that he paid for the services of prostitutes, they are complaining that he is a hypocrite.
There are inanimate objects smart enough to figure this out, why can’t you?
CSS: Well, in this story there was only one (correct me if I’m wrong).
(After all, I didn’t say “Only one Republican in the history of the United States”, or even “Only one” — but why quibble, eh? Wouldn’t want to rob you of a chance to call me dumb. I know how it moistens your thighs).
Of course, you’re free to tell me about the dozens of Republicans that were caught with prostitutes.
And, of course, I won’t even bother to point out the Democrats with “girls on the side”, Dems caught with prostitutes, male and female. Because we both know that the Dems would never do such a thing.
I for one am looking forward to the scathing screams of “hypocrite!” as the Learjet Liberals fly into their next global warming cavalcade…
(chirp,chirp,chirp….silence)
Simply because someone is opposed to quantifying something as a crime doesn’t mean it’s okay to break the law! I think marijuana should be legal, but our laws clearly indicate that it is and people who smoke it and are caught should be arrested.
BUT all Democrats, with a few rare exceptions, consider prostitution a “victimless crime” that should be legalized, and yet they are criticizing the Republican for doing what they they think ought to be legal.
I think we are in ageement here. Tobias should just call a press conference and say, “Sure I paid for sexual services. So what?”
And then it would all be over.
“Well, in this story there was only one (correct me if I’m wrong).”
Good god, you are fucking stupid. There’s a detailed history of hypocrisy coming from the right. I’m not allowed to bring up the past when each new story comes out?
“And, of course, I won’t even bother to point out the Democrats with “girls on the side”, Dems caught with prostitutes, male and female. Because we both know that the Dems would never do such a thing.”
It’s the fucking hypocrisy I’m complaining about. If you say gays are a threat to marriage and you are gay, there’s a problem. If you say gays have the right to marry and you are gay there’s no problem. If you are gay you are still allowed to point out the hypocrisy of people who say gays are a threat to marriage but who are secretly gay.
Seriously Frank, why is this so hard for you to understand? Why can’t you get this simple point? Are you truly this dumb, or are you just a right-wing troll?
CSS: You’re an ideologically blind a**hole. It may be hypocritical for social conservatives to be caught in compromising positions, but lots of Republicans are not social conservatives. So, if you’re going to bring up history, then you should have enough intellectual integrity to recall that lots and lots of Republicans don’t view prostitution as a crime.
By the same token, it’s just as hypocritical to say, “Oooooh, look what you did!”, when what was done was something you don’t normally disapprove of — like the Democrats’ attitude toward prostitution.
And, if you were to re-read my comment, you would see that that is what I said at 12:31 PM, about 8 hours ago.
Now, if you could read that comment, and this comment, one after the other, you would see that it is probably more important for you find an excuse to call me dumb, than it is argue a very weak point: namely, that this is not an example of Democrat(ic) hypocrisy (or more accurately, Oliverian hypocrisy), but only of Republican hypocrisy.
“Why is this so hard for you to understand?”
Some of you guys are real pieces of work, I swear.
I’ll say it again:
No, it’s because ANOTHER republican was caught with a prostitute.
(See Haggart, Ted)
ANOTHER Republican doing one thing while saying the opposite
(See Foley)
See, it’s like a pattern.
Who the hell said anything about social conservatives, Frank?
Oh, that’s right. You did.
.Tobias…said that promoting abstinence and monogamy are “far more effective” than distributing condoms for preventing the spread of HIV.
…while not actually believing (or practicing) it himself.
That is the point we are trying to make here, Frank. Not how cheap he is.
Probably didn’t even tip the woman.
Who says he paid? These women are not cheap and it seems that he got the “massages” frequently. How does one afford that, while maintaining oneself in Washington (and presumably somewhere else since the services were provided in his condo without his wife’s knowledge, suggesting a second home), without causing a problem in the family budget that would require an explanation? The problem here isn’t sex, it’s the money – again.
“You’re an ideologically blind a**hole. It may be hypocritical for social conservatives to be caught in compromising positions, but lots of Republicans are not social conservatives.”
This man was a social conservative and a hypocrite. I’ve read that he wouldn’t give money to AIDS groups that helped prostitutes, for some bullshit moral reasoning. Defending him by saying, ‘Not ever Republican thinks prostitution should be illegal.’ isn’t really a strong argument here.
And this is not an isolated incident.
CSS: I won’t argue that FOR HIM to pontificate on morals and then be caught with a prostitute is hypocritical. My point, of course, was that that doesn’t make all Republicans hypocritical. I myself think that prostitution should be a crime, with a few conditions:
1) Johns get equal punishment.
2)Punishment for prostitutes is suspended if they give up their pimps.
3)People in general are educated to the fact that prostitution is by no means a victimless crime
Here’s a former Senator charged with bribery. Interestingly, the [not liberally biased] press reports are reluctant to name his party affiliation.
How much you wanna bet that a) He’s a Democrat; and b) If he were a Republican, it would say “Former Republican State Senator”.
I won’t argue that FOR HIM to pontificate on morals and then be caught with a prostitute is hypocritical.
Then you agree. Thanks for that concession, Frank.
My point, of course, was that that doesn’t make all Republicans hypocritical.
No, that’s true. Just one more of several.
“No, that’s true. Just one more of several.”
Well said and I don’t think I need to say more.
Whatever tickles your ivories, fellas…
Frank, where there prostitutes involved in the Ford case? Wy bring it up?
Frank, try using the words: STATE Senator. This was not exactly national news, I don’t quite get why you are bitching.
Why do you guys get so exercized? On my News page it was all over the place. Now it’s gone. So?
The point was that the Democratic guy’s scandal didn’t mention his party affiliation, except deep in a few of the stories.
BTW, the Global USAID (the stories seem to confuse USAID and AIDS,but they got “Bush administration” right) coordinator is not exactly the Secretary of State, either. [The USAID Coordinator is on the same level as the Sec'y of State; the Global AIDS Coordinator is down -- way down -- and to the right.]
And I didn’t conceal the fact that he was a State senator. I just forgot it. The fact that I had to read about five stories to discover if he was a Democrat was far more interesting.
Google “Former Tennessee state Sen. Ford found guilty of bribery”, and there’s no mention of Democrats (on the first page of hits).
So relax, midderpidge, nobody was “bitching”. Why don’t you guys get off my back?
Hey, midderpidge, take another look at my comment of 10:00 PM — 7th line…
Guess what it says there?
You guys should hang your heads in shame.
“The point was that the Democratic guy’s scandal didn’t mention his party affiliation, except deep in a few of the stories …Google “Former Tennessee state Sen. Ford found guilty of bribery”, and there’s no mention of Democrats (on the first page of hits).”
Oh, frank, what an idiot you are. Did you happen to notice that when you google that phrase all the links on the first page of hits refer to the same AP story by Woody Bair? So what you take as evidence of rampant media “reluctance” to name the party affiliation of the guy is not evidence of that at all. IMagine that.
Imagine that your comment was anonymous.
Imagine that my comment referred to State Senator Ford.
Imagine that newspapers devise their own headlines.
Now imagine you’re a jerk.
That should be “links” and “prostitutes.”
This guy was yelling about abstinence and every time he took a deep breath to yell, his gut would stretch his jacket too tight and his celly would press against his ribs and dial out for “pizza.”
I mean … wasn’t just one.
“Imagine that newspapers devise their own headlines.”
Hilarious. So now you were only referring to the headlines? Is that because you don’t actually read the stories when concocting your theories of media bias?
I’ll take your completely nonsensical response as the lame dodge it is.
Randall is a kind and generous friend, you dumb-o-craps! Get off his back! You WISH you had a pal like him—who’d cut you in on his “Two-For-One” coupons at the escort service!
That’s loyalty. THAT’S FRIENDSHIP!
That’s some sweet “back” rubs!
So now you were only referring to the headlines?
No, I wasn’t “only referring to the headlines” you anonymous asshole!.
I meant that the newspaper could have printed any headline they wanted.
I meant that they could have, and would have, added the party affiliation, if he were a Republican.
Are you such a pussy you can’t even make up a fake name, like your douchebag pal, condipundit?
I really want to take a break from this pest hole, because I know this anger is doing me no good, but I swear, you guys are fucking creepy!
It’s called a hot water bottle, Frankie dahling. “Douchebag” is so…well, so low-rent meth-head.
You know better.
Speaking of which folks, you should have seen the amazing variety of “sports” offered at Madam Palfrey’s…land and water…
Yes, condipundit, I’m sure you’re a regular there…
“I meant that they could have, and would have, added the party affiliation, if he were a Republican.”
And your evidence for this … oh right, you haven’t any.
Oh and frank, being totally, like, out there on the internets yourself doesn’t make your arguments less stupid.
“Yes, condipundit, I’m sure you’re a regular there…”
Well…I sorta tagged along with a “friend”. A certain…helmet-haired “friend” with an account there who can whistle through her teeth.
Oh my stars and garters! Didi I say, “her”?