’)I blame gay marriage.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he’s been having an affair with a woman from Argentina and will resign as head of the Republican Governors’ Association.
The married father of four emotionally apologized to his wife, staff and others at a news conference after returning Wednesday from a trip to Argentina that followed a dayslong absence. His staff had said the Republican was hiking on the Appalachian Trail.
Sanford says he met the woman about eight years ago and it became romantic about a year ago. He says his wife and family have known about it for the past five months.
hA-Ha!
lets see if I can remember the liberal mantra:
It’s only sex. It doesn’t have anything to do with his job….what were the other excuses you used for Clenis?
This points out a big difference between the republicans and the leftists: The republicans just come right out and admit it, they don’t drag the government through the mud and lies of the democrats.
Yeah, not like he left his state high and dry for several days. Oh, wait.
As always, unless you’re watching Fox News.
The party of Family Values ™ strikes again.
We now have a new term “hiking the Appalachian Trail” which means fucking around on your spouse, humiliating and lying to your family and co-workers.
He must resign ASAP.
OMFG! Using your logic, conservo, let the impeachment hearings begin!
And on Father’s Day weekend, no less.
Oliver—FauxNews wants you to change your header…. For them, Sanford is a (D)….at least now that he’s a Republican embarrassment. Now you can be sure….not an accident in typing…
The republicans just come right out and admit it, they don’t drag the government through the mud and lies of the democrats.
Oh, stop it.
Sandford’s excuse = Appalachian FAIL!
Fox News just thinks it’s cute to put a large ‘D’ next to the name of someone they clearly know is an ‘R’, but as usual they are counting on the ignorance and stupidity of their audience.
And they wonder why they never get nominated for any Emmys? Because they are a joke, a cheap vanity tabloid no different than the NY Post.
“Yea, I heard that them thar guvner, he’s one of them thar Democrats, mmm hmmm, becuz that’s what them thar fellers on the Fox station say, guh, so it must be true or sumthin’…mmm hmm”
they don’t drag the government through the mud and lies of the democrats.
What the hell is the point of thinking there’s some grand conspiracy behind misidentifying a party label? It’s NEVER gonna last, it’s ALWAYS gonna get caught and a correction forced, so what the hell is the point?
That’s why I don’t buy it as some kind of deliberate conspiracy.
On the other hand, the “Name That Party” game is a classic. Read a story from the mainstream media on a political scandal. See how long it takes them to identify the party of the offender — if they bother at all.
If the party is identified quickly, it’s more likely a Republican.
If it’s buried in the story or omitted, it’s more likely a Democrat.
But once again… whatta maroon.
J.
This points out a big difference between the republicans and the leftists: The republicans just come right out and admit it, they don’t drag the government through the mud and lies of the democrats.
Yes Democrats and Republicans are different. A democratic prosecutor could investigate how many state resources Sanford abused in pursuit of international bootie on half the budget of Ken Starr’s Clinton witch hunt.
That’s why I don’t buy it as some kind of deliberate conspiracy.
Are you suggesting they’re just a bunch of dumbasses? why do they keep doing it?
Once or twice could be viewed as an honest mistake. FOx goes out of their way to do this all the time. They know damn well which party Sanford belongs to.
It has to be intentional. And yeah, they’ll get called on it every time, but for the typical FOX viewers (question NOTHING!), Sanford is now and always has been a Democrat.
What the hell is the point of thinking there’s some grand conspiracy behind misidentifying a party label?
Do other networks misidentify party on-screen anywhere near as often as Fox?
Does Fox misidentify democrats as republicans as often as they misidentify republicans as democrats?
I don’t know the answer to these questions but if the answer to either is yes then there’s probably something going on. Not necessarily a grand conspiracy, probably just a producer or two having a bit of partisan fun. Not the worst thing in the world, but more evidence, if evidence is needed, that Fox is not in the business of serious journalism.
It has to be intentional. And yeah, they’ll get called on it every time, but for the typical FOX viewers (question NOTHING!), Sanford is now and always has been a Democrat.
Also for typical FOX News viewers, chocolate rations have increased and we have always been at war with Eastasia. Oh, and Ignorance is Strength.
The main difference, as usual, is Republican’s put themselves on a pedestal with the holier than thou crowd and when they cheat, they are hypocrates dirt bags, while Dem’s don’t espouse that crowd so when they do it they are just dirt bags.
Each time liberals point out the “hypocrisy” of a Republican involved in adultery, they overlook two things 1) Most Republicans, especially Christians, understand that pointing out what is right and wrong is a good and necessary, precisely because all people are capable of sinning. Most Republicans (and / or Christians) have absolutely no problem whatever with the idea that a person can identify a sin , whilst he or she is a sinner; and more importantly,
2) It highlights the fact that most Democrats (especially liberals) are either immoral, amoral, or indifferent to the sinful nature of others, as if it doesn’t even matter.
AA saying: “Every time you point a finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you.”
It highlights the fact that most Democrats (especially liberals) are either immoral, amoral, or indifferent to the sinful nature of others, as if it doesn’t even matter.
Yeah, that’s why a liberal waged war on Iraq. Oh, wait.
It highlights the fact that most Democrats (especially liberals) are either immoral, amoral, or indifferent to the sinful nature of others, as if it doesn’t even matter.
That hurts, Frank.
It’s also a bald-faced lie.
Oh, good grief, Duros. If they do it so often, and it’s most likely some intern or someone just out of college as the chyron operator, why doesn’t anyone with all the resources of these lefty blogs making the charges ever find anyone willing to own up to it, or saying someone higher up told them to? Do you guys ever take your silly conspiracy theories through any kind of smell test before you throw them out there? Like this is some smoking gun or something. For what f’ing purpose, especially right now? So that Republican voters in S. Carolina think he’s Dem and don’t vote for him? Great strategy, Fox. So that Rep. voters in the rest of the country think this is just another Dem sleazeball and tune out on the story after they see that (D) on the Fox chyron, then not not vote (D) when they might possibly otherwise?
Besides, all you Fox Truthers should know they spend their money on the women announcers with beauty and brains and not the teleprompter and chyron dudes. I doubt they recruit those guys from the Columbia School of Journalism or Harvard or Stanford, like they do the announcers.
Sanford’s wedding vows went Galt
Your attempt at irony only works, Oliver, if one presumes that war is sinful, which, of course, it is not.
You’d think that an ideology which favors outcome over intent, and which believes that the ends justifies the means, would be happy that Iraq is decades closer to democracy than it was in 2002, and that the scent of democracy in Iraq awakened the spirit of freedom – loving Iranians.
In less than 50 years, Pres Bush will be seen as the President who accomplished more to bring peace – and freedom – to the Middle East, than any other President since 1948.
if one presumes that war is sinful, which, of course, it is not
Depends on the execution of said war. This one was based on lies and prolonged by lies and political expediency.
In less than 50 years, Pres Bush will be seen as the President who accomplished more to bring peace – and freedom – to the Middle East, than any other President since 1948
… by the same crackpots who believe that b.s. now. For the rest of us in reality, not so much. The buck stopped with Truman, all Bush did was pass it along.
Jay Tea: What the hell is the point of thinking there’s some grand conspiracy behind misidentifying a party label? It’s NEVER gonna last, it’s ALWAYS gonna get caught and a correction forced, so what the hell is the point?
That’s why I don’t buy it as some kind of deliberate conspiracy.
On the other hand, …
If the party is identified quickly, it’s more likely a Republican.
If it’s buried in the story or omitted, it’s more likely a Democrat.
Shorter JT: When right wing media repeatedly misrepresents party it isn’t intentional but when the “librul media” doesn’t mention pary fast enough it clearly is a conspiracy.
Shorter Shorter JT: I’m willfully blind to my double standards.
Duros, it boils down to one thing: what the hell do they hope to gain?
It’s an utterly pointless gesture. It ALWAYS gets caught, and it ALWAYS gets corrected.
The only explanation I can think of is that, buried deep in the bowels of Fox News, is some guy who’s secretly on Media Matters’ payroll and his job is to keep giving them material to kvetch over….
J.
Sanford, of course, has made his rep emphasizing fiscal issues rather than social conservatism, so charges of hypocrisy strike me as misplaced. As far as I’m concerned this adds to his libertarian cred.
I’m also all for politicians going on vacations — I wish Congress would take more time off myself. Spending $50 million for a 3 month, cocaine and liquor-fueled jaunt by Congress to Argentina would be a bargain if it means that we can avoid $1+ trillion health care legislation.
To me his big crime here was not telling anyone where he was going — although I suppose leaving a sticky note with “gone bangin’” on it wouldn’t really work.
Frank DiSalle: Most Republicans (and / or Christians) have absolutely no problem whatever with the idea that a person can identify a sin , whilst he or she is a sinner
Yes. Their ability to condemn in others that which they themselves practice is undeniable.
why do they keep doing it?
It’s the same dynamic as when someone repeatedly mispronounces your same, as when Bush refers to someone by a childish nickname, or when a Republican says “Democrat party.” It’s an attempt at teasing and provoking. There’s someone at Fox who sets up the graphics who thinks, “Heheh. This will piss off the Dems, and we’ll keep doing it to show that we can, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it!”
You know why it looks worse for the GOP everytime it’s one of theirs that gets caught doing this? Because they are the sexually repressed prudes that run around telling everyone else how to live their lives, being against sex-ed and abortion and birth control, yet here is Sanford, fucking around in the most irresponsible, reckless manner imaginable.
He didn’t just screw around, he disappeared and flew out of the country! Just for sex? She must have been real good. He is a sitting governor of a US state, and he just abandoned his sworn duty, all for some play. What a fucking moron.
And had this been a Democratic governor? Whoa, I could imagine Hannity and Limpballs and Fox and all the usual outraged wingnuts would be SCREAMING for him to resign, and how it shows that the Democrats are all depraved perverts, etc etc etc.
But it’s OK if you are a Republican. Fox will be the first line of defense to cover for you.
Now, will his constituents demand his resignation? Of course not. He can pull the Jesus card, and the yokels in SC will buy it.
This is the reason people need to have sex before they get married.
Frank, normally you don’t say really stupid things, but your last comment was epic stupidity:
“It highlights the fact that most Democrats (especially liberals) are either immoral, amoral, or indifferent to the sinful nature of others, as if it doesn’t even matter.”
Republicans in power sin no more or less than Democrats but have a convenient framework for excusing their sinful ways. They are no more or less Christian than their liberal counterparts but tend to utilize Christian myth to justify their political decisions. It would serve you quite well to be a bit more cynical to the manipulation of your own side once in a while. Otherwise, you end up sounding brainwashed and brain-dead, and I suspect given your finer moments that you aren’t either.
You’d think that with all the libs and Democrats who were unequivocally FOR waging that war that you might’ve worded that sentence a little more artfully.
A few Democrats and liberals in congress supported the war. Almost none outside of congress did. And none of ‘em supported the Bush-Rumsfeld strategy of obfuscating and belittling the loss of American lives so Bush could be re-elected.
Jay Tea: Duros, it boils down to one thing: what the hell do they hope to gain?
It’s an utterly pointless gesture. It ALWAYS gets caught, and it ALWAYS gets corrected.
The only explanation I can think of is that, buried deep in the bowels of Fox News, is some guy who’s secretly on Media Matters’ payroll and his job is to keep giving them material to kvetch over….
It always gets caught, it always gets corrected. And yet it happens repeatedly.
A reality-based person might look at that and might think there is really something self-destructive in the heads of the folks at Fox. Of course, JT can’t conceive that something could be wrong on the right,so the “only explanation” is a conspiracy by the left.
Adultery is a CRIME in South Carolina! Fornicator!!
SECTION 16-15-60. Adultery or fornication.
Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment and, on conviction, shall be severally punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.
SECTION 16-15-70. “Adultery” defined.
“Adultery” is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman when either is lawfully married to some other person.
Frank. Stop.
“It highlights the fact that most Democrats (especially liberals) are either immoral, amoral, or indifferent to the sinful nature of others, as if it doesn’t even matter.”
Are you serious right now? You actually buy into the idea that the Republican party is somehow a bastion of morality and good, while the Democrats are a collective of immoral (or amoral) jackanapes? And this, in a thread about a Republican cheating on his wife and the mother of his children?
Wow. The mind boggles. That is really, really wrong and stupid, Frank. Just awful.
“Your attempt at irony only works, Oliver, if one presumes that war is sinful, which, of course, it is not.”
How about wrongful war? Murdering people in a wrongful war seems sinful, doesn’t it? And this is coming from ME – I don’t even believe in “sin.”
“You’d think that an ideology which favors outcome over intent, and which believes that the ends justifies the means, would be happy that Iraq is decades closer to democracy than it was in 2002, and that the scent of democracy in Iraq awakened the spirit of freedom – loving Iranians.”
So without our invading Iraq, the Iranians would have just rolled over and accepted the “results” of their election, with Ahmedinejad (sp?) winning handily. Because of Pres. Bush and his wonderful war in Iraq, Iranians have decided to stand up for themselves!
Wow, man. Just wow. That’s prima facie ridiculous. Gimme some evidence to suggest that the war in Iraq has anything to do with Iran. I doubt you can.
“In less than 50 years, Pres Bush will be seen as the President who accomplished more to bring peace – and freedom – to the Middle East, than any other President since 1948.”
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, Frank. Oh, by the way, why did we go into Iraq in the first place? I vaguely remember… something about weapons of mass distraction?… women of mass consumption?… weevils of moss collection?… fuck, I can’t remember.
zadura: “Frank, normally you don’t say really stupid things…”
Are you kidding, zadura? Was this subtle humor?
Adultery is a CRIME in South Carolina! Fornicator!!
Seems the Gov thought ahead here by committing the crime outside the country.
Seriously, Sean. Why has no one at Fox in that area ever come forth? They could be lefty heroes. Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, HuffPo darlings. Maybe even a book deal. What would Roger Ailes have to pay the chyron operators to keep from talking that would match what the liberal blog/MSNBC lib lineup apparatus would offer him to come clean, ala Scottie McClellan?
Somebody refresh my memory: what percentage of the Democratic presidential candidates were still married to their first spouses, and what percentage of Republicans?
And here’s a clue – the “sinful” nature of others DOESN’T MATTER. I want to elect representatives to achieve policy outcomes that guarantee a healthy environment for my descendants, make sure opportunity is available to all, and enforce the law without regard to wealth, class, race, religion, or status. If said representative likes to get high in the privacy of his own home on his own time, fine. If he (or she) likes to have sex with members of the same sex, fine.
It seems to me conservabots are more often than not indifferent to policy outcomes or fairness as long as the people they elect pretend to be “morally superior”. Which is about as morally inferior as you can get.
“Republican adulterer of the week?” I think you forget too easily how many Dems have had scandals of this sort recently. Cough, Spitzer, cough cough.
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm
Well at least he wasn’t wearing a wetsuit with strategically placed dildos, or smoking meth while getting pounded in the arse by some male hooker in a cheap motel near the freeway, or asking to be dressed up in diapers by hookers, or cruising for casual cock in a mens room in an airport…gosh, what kind of immoral people would do those things????
if one presumes that war is sinful, which, of course, it is not.
Wow. I have no words for that.
Do you guys ever take your silly conspiracy theories through any kind of smell test before you throw them out there?
Don’t get me wrong, Denny. I don’t care in the slightest. I don’t think it is a conspiracy. I think it is childish behavior on the part of Fox’s producers and staff, further strengthening my belief that they are not a serious news organization.
Duros, it boils down to one thing: what the hell do they hope to gain?
It’s an utterly pointless gesture. It ALWAYS gets caught, and it ALWAYS gets corrected.
I completely agree.
The only explanation I can think of is that, buried deep in the bowels of Fox News, is some guy who’s secretly on Media Matters’ payroll and his job is to keep giving them material to kvetch over….
Oh, who’s the conspiracy nut now?
I miss Edwin Edwards.
“Is it true you used the Governor’s plane for a weekend trip to Las Vegas?”
“Yes, I’m the Governot?”
“Is it true you lost $25,000 over the weekend?”
“Yes, it’s my money.”
although I suppose leaving a sticky note with “gone bangin’” on it wouldn’t really work.
HA!
“Using your logic, conservo, let the impeachment hearings begin!”
If you were using yours, you would realize why that is such a ridiculous statement.
Clenis was impeached because he lied to a federal judge.
Republicans stand up when they make a mistake, they don’t hunker down and deny it, dragging the rest of the country through the mud.
A little lesion in dignity for you leftists.
‘This points out a big difference between the republicans and the leftists: The republicans just come right out and admit it, they don’t drag the government through the mud and lies of the democrats.’
Riggghhtttt………after spending months ‘working it out’ with his wife, he takes off for a week in Argentina, and comes back surprised to find that the whole sordid issue newsworthy; hence his press conference, in which he apologizes to his mistress first, his constiuents and friends second, his in-laws and finally his wife and kids.
He’s father of the year material in GOP circles for sure.
what percentage of the Democratic presidential candidates were still married to their first spouses, and what percentage of Republicans?
Indeed, what percentage of Democratic Presidents?
Duros, that was a JOKE. I don’t know why it keeps happening at Fox, but “it’s a grand conspiracy!!!!” just doesn’t fly with me.
Your bit about juvenile scorn — that holds a bit of merit. I can almost buy that. But jeez, you’d think SOMEONE would get in touch with their inner grownup and crack skulls until it gets knocked off.
It’s kind of like Olbertwit’s sneering “sir” schtick — Jim Treacher once speculated (brilliantly) that one of the main reasons Olbermann gets so bent out of shape over Sarah Palin is because he can’t sneer “sir” at her.
J.
Yeah….well….his fish sticks suck anyway.
‘Your attempt at irony only works, Oliver, if one presumes that war is sinful, which, of course, it is not.’
If you believe that, you’re in worse shape than any of us “Libs;” we generally feel war is a fucking abomination, not something to get a woody over like you obviously do.
‘You’d think that an ideology which favors outcome over intent, and which believes that the ends justifies the means, would be happy that Iraq is decades closer to democracy than it was in 2002, and that the scent of democracy in Iraq awakened the spirit of freedom – loving Iranians.’
Wow, all those righteous words and not a hint of truth in any of them; congratulations on winning the obfuscation of the day award.
‘In less than 50 years, Pres Bush will be seen as the President who accomplished more to bring peace – and freedom – to the Middle East, than any other President since 1948.’
Wow.
O’Brien from 1984 called; he wants his anti-logic back. Just SUGGESTING that invading Iraq on false pretenses, destroying the country and causing the unnecessary death and maiming of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, all to depose a dictator installed and supported for decades by the US, is somehow a blessing for them, is just plain ignorant on a scale of evil even YOU haven’t sunk to previously.
You must really be insane.
I’m yet to see anyone answer the most important question of all. Is she hot?
Violent right wing extremist, “Frank DiSalle”, who supports domestic terrorism*, explains “Your attempt at irony only works, Oliver, if one presumes that war is sinful, which, of course, it is not.”.
War is inherently sinful.
War is sanctioned murder on a large scale.
That doesn’t mean that defending yourself or defending others isn’t sometimes necessary.
War may be a necessary evil from time to time, but let’s not idealize war. That’s for children. Not men.
As for Republican President Bush…
Republican President Bush is a war criminal, a sadist who will be known in 50 years for having lied US into war, sanctioned atrocities, pointlessly murdered 100’s of thousands, even while Republican Bush more than doubled America’s debt to give his cronies tax cuts while American troops went without body armor, without armored vehicles, and had inadequate medical facilities.
* When you are ready to stop supporting terrorists and come out against terrorism I am ready to stop pointing out the fact that you support terrorism, “Frank DiSalle”.
Jay Tea
June 24, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Duros, it boils down to one thing: what the hell do they hope to gain?
It’s an utterly pointless gesture. It ALWAYS gets caught, and it ALWAYS gets corrected.
Wow, this is ridiculous. If you were right, then why would anyone care about any misprint in the media? They’re all sure to be caught. And yet people do care, because the mistake was on page one and the correction was on the bottom of page three, the mistake was in the middle of an interesting article and the correction came three days later printed below a bake sale notice.
There will be people out there who, when asked, will say that Sanford is a Democrat. Not many people, but probably Fox viewers.
Do you genuinely believe something so obviously stupid, or are you just acting that way out of some strange sense of obligation to Conservativism?
Republican Mark Sanford’s hypocrisy:
“The bottom line, though, is I am sure there will be a lot of legalistic explanations pointing out that the president lied under oath. His situation was not under oath. The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife. So it’s got to be taken very, very seriously.” [Republican Mark Sanford on Livingston, CNN, 12/18/98]
“We ought to ask questions…rather than circle the wagons for one of our tribe.” [Republican Mark Sanford on how the GOP reacts to affairs, New York Post, 12/20/98]
“I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign). I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.” [Republican Mark Sanford on Clinton, The Post and Courier, 9/12/98]
“The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.” [Republican Mark Sanford on Clinton, CNN, 2/16/99]
Republican Party = Hypocrisy Party
The politician happiest to have this story just explode has to be President Obama. Because now all those news agencies are going to be devoting time to tracking down every sorrid detail in a
DemocraticRepublican governor’s pursuit of some strange, instead of paying attention to that little shindig going on in Iran or the President’s efforts to write a giant novelty check for $17,000,000,000,000,000,000.05 to pay for health care for everyone everywhere, or that friendly, happy family of 1,704 people who were blown up by a drone in Pakistan.Cause Lord knows that there is going to be nothing more important than finding out if Stanford was cybering some woman in Argentina from his state laptop.
Jay, we don’t have to believe it’s a conspiracy. We just have to use our experience with right-wingers, such as yourself, Frank, Dannis, et al. to come to the logical conclusion that Republicans are very childish and do stupid things because they are convinced it makes them look clever. When a political movement believes neologisms like “porkulus” are the height of wit, it’s no surprise they think that repeatedly putting a “D” after the name of scandal-plagued republican is cute. Most “movement conservatives” are childish brats, as one saw from Bush’s behavior or your average Rush-quoting Republican uncle. It’s just that when Fox, like Bush and those Republican friends and relatives you know, demand that they be taken seriously that we start to think they’re pretty much just a joke who do stupid things on purpose because they think it’s cute.
Cause Lord knows that there is going to be nothing more important than finding out if Stanford was cybering some woman in Argentina from his state laptop.
Well, that is our liberal media for you.
A little lesion in dignity for you leftists.
Conservo, a thread about a sitting Republican governor (and rumored presidential contender) having to explain his sudden disappearance and confess to cheating on his wife for the last year isn’t really where you want to wag your finger about “dignity,” is it?
conservo: Republicans stand up when they make a mistake, they don’t hunker down and deny it, dragging the rest of the country through the mud.
Such obvious bullshit doesn’t deserve even the small amount of effort that would be needed to show what obvious bullshit it is.
Jay Tea: …but “it’s a grand conspiracy!!!!” just doesn’t fly with me.
…
It’s kind of like Olbertwit’s sneering “sir” schtick — Jim Treacher once speculated (brilliantly) that one of the main reasons Olbermann gets so bent out of shape over Sarah Palin is because he can’t sneer “sir” at her.
Not that you feel any need to find a grand conspiracy ulterior motive for everything.
Most Republicans, especially Christians, understand that pointing out what is right and wrong is a good and necessary, precisely because all people are capable of sinning.
This is why Republicans want to legislate morality: they have no inner morality, no character, no integrity, so they look to some external force to supply the moral backbone that they’re missing… and they project their own weaknesses onto everybody else.
Republicans stand up when they make a mistake…
Republicans stand up when they get caught… or realize that they’re about to get caught.
Republican Mark Sanford’s hypocrisy:
It’s also nearly impossible to imagine anyone rising through the ranks of the South Carolina Republican Party who isn’t a total fucking asshole. They think Lee Atwater was too timid.
Stay classy, Republicans.
Republican Mark Sanford was boning up on international affairs for the 2012 election so he wouldn’t be caught with his pants down like Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin.
“In what respect, Charlie?”
Palin / Steele 2012 !
Republicans stand up when they make a mistake…
“I am not gay, I never have been gay…”
“I did not have sex with that woman.”
“Impeach!”
The republicans just come right out and admit it, they don’t drag the government through the mud and lies of the democrats.
Five bucks says even conservo doesn’t believe this bu!!$#!t, but he gets paid to say SOMETHING here, and that was the best he could do on short notice.
Conservo, I have to say that was the lamest and most obviously untrue rationale for GOP stupidity yet, and there has been a lot of competition in this very thread for that dubious honor.
News Reference, (Mr. Burns voice): “Excellent!”
Colin:
Sanford, of course, has made his rep emphasizing fiscal issues rather than social conservatism, so charges of hypocrisy strike me as misplaced.
Colin, Ken “The Hawk” Harrelson called. He wanted me to tell you, “Grrrraaaaabb some bench!”
SFC B, June 24, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Cause Lord knows that there is going to be nothing more important than finding out if Stanford was cybering some woman in Argentina from his state laptop.
Funny, you domestic terrorism supporters stopped the mechanism of the federal government for two years while engaging in the Great Clenis Hunt. Now, any focus one one of your serial adultering hypocrites is off limits.
Thanks for another wonderful example of typical Republican’t hypocrisy. Have you gotten your weekly wingnut welfare check from Scaife yet? Or is his adulterous affair and subsequent divorce eating into your welfare stream?
Smarter Republican’t domsetic terrorist supporters, please…
Republicans in power sin no more or less than Democrats but have a convenient framework for excusing their sinful ways… It would serve you quite well to be a bit more cynical to the manipulation of your own side once in a while.
I never said Republicans sin less than Democrats. What I said was that Democrats are either (meaning one or more of the following) “immoral, amoral, or indifferent to immorality”. When a Democrat is caught in flagrante what is the typical response? “What a person does with their private lives is none of my business”. What other meaning can one draw from that?
On a personal note, having spent many years being cynical did not work out well. So, I do not expect that being more cynical would be helpful.
When you are ready to stop supporting terrorists and come out against terrorism I am ready to stop pointing out the fact that you support terrorism, “Frank DiSalle”.
I have never supported terrorism, so we can put that myth to bed. However, to please the groundlings, I will make a formal statement that “I do not now, nor have I ever, supported terrorism.” Now, since you perceive it as a “fact” that I “support terrorism”, I can only conclude that you are deluded. I am neither inclined nor empowered to dispel that delusion for you – that you must do yourself. I suggest professional help in that regard, or, perhaps, a re-reading of my comments in toto, after having read a definition of terrorism, such as
“…confess to cheating on his wife for the last year isn’t really where you want to wag your finger about “dignity,” is it?”
Yea, its embarrassing, no question Quaker.
The really embarrassing part is that his behavior looks dignified compared to the Clenis. And you and your lefty ilk spent years trying to justify his actions.
Funny. I never did any such thing.
I’d think you’d be thrilled that in the decade since the Clinton fiasco people have matured to the point where they’d rather focus on important issues like Iran, the budget, health care, etc instead of the private actions of consenting adults.
Of course, I’ve been wrong before.
If FOX NEWS transcribed usualsuspect’s comment:
“Yea, its embaDDassing, no question QuakeD.
The Deally embaDDassing paDt is that his behavioD looks dignified compaDed to the Clenis. And you and youD lefty ilk spent yeaDs tDying to justify his actions”.
Yes, let’s blame Bill Clinton for yet another GOP presidential hopeful turning out to be a hypocritical cheater who couldn’t keep it in his pants. And no, I’m not talking about Gingrich.
Good luck in 2012, GOP.
“SFC B’s” my favorite right winger here.
He’s never exhibited the same proclivities as any of the other right wing extremists.
(There, my sticking up for him will absolutely discredit him!-)
And thank you, “Frank DiSalle”, I’ll accept that at face value.
And thank you, “Frank DiSalle”, I’ll accept that at face value.
[was not meant to be italicized]
Preview is your friend.
The left was in an awful place feeling obliged to defend the conservative centrist President Clinton from the right wing’s attempted coup over his inappropriate affair.
But early on it stopped being about the affair and it became about the right wing extremist’s attempt at a coup (and their mockery of America’s democratic election) that became the larger issue.
But I don’t recall Clinton being a moralizing hypocrite the way the adulterous Republicans who were trying to get him impeached were (then and have been since).
Republican Gingrich was having an affair while moralizing about Clinton’s affair.
And at some point there was a list hypocritically moralizing Republicans (Dan Burton, Helen Chenoweth and Henry Hyde) who had had affairs who were trying to use the same sin they had committed to get an ELECTED PRESIDENT impeached over his affair.
It was frivolous and insulting.
Even more so now that many of those same Republican hypocrites sat idly by while a Republican lied US into war, authorized war crimes, illegally surveilled the American citizenry, and looted the treasury.
And Republican Mark Sanford said this about Clinton back then: “I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign). I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.”
[Republican Mark Sanford on Clinton, The Post and Courier, 9/12/98]
If Republican Sanford walked it like he talked it he would have resigned months ago when the affair started. (How long ago did his wife know about this?)
But for Republican’s, rules are always for other people
So the same right wingers that used Democratic affairs as a way to bludgeon the left are suddenly supporting another moralizing hypocritical Republican, this time AWOL Republican Governor Mark Sanford’s ongoing affair…
It’s obscene.
Hey, Conservo, democrats don’t preach to the rest of us the way conservative republicans do. They don’t go around talking crap about how civil unions or gay marriage threaten the ’sanctity of marriage’. And the only reason Sanford admitted to the affair was because he knew the truth would come out eventually, it wasn’t for some high-minded purpose like ‘not dragging the government through it’. There are no bigger hypocrites than conservatives.
Newsy, it was never about the affair, it was about lying under oath to a federal judge.
It probably should have been about Clenis’s taking advantage of a young girl working in his office too, but of course if you are a liberal you can get away with that….NOW will give you a pass.
Same rules here, if Sanford has been demonstrated to have lied under oath to a federal judge, he ought to go.
usualsuspect, June 25, 2009 at 12:54 am
It probably should have been about Clenis’s taking advantage of a young girl working in his office too, but of course if you are a liberal you can get away with that….NOW will give you a pass.
Apparently, if you’re a Republican’t, blowing guys in airports is okey-dokey. But it’s all about all those Democratic politicians that get off with a free pass. Same old same old Republican’t smear and deflect. Sorry, it never did fly very well. And no one believes your bullshit here…
Same rules here, if Sanford has been demonstrated to have lied under oath to a federal judge, he ought to go.
Except – he’s guilty of adultery, which is in fact against the law in South Carolina.
Lying under oath gets you impeached, but breaking the law in the State you’re governor of is completely different. Gotcha. Can you say hypocritical Republican’t bullshit? I knew you could…
I’m assuming that you’re talking about Larry Craig, and in that case he never actually blew anyone in the airport. He asked another adult for sex and was charged with, and paid a fine for, disorderly conduct. But hey, I wouldn’t let facts get in the way of a good line like “Apparently, if you’re a Republican’t, blowing guys in airports is okey-dokey”
That is true, but then you get into a discussion of whether Sanford actually broke the law. This is two part issue. One part is that breaking SC’s adultery law requires one of two things, either the people must be living together, and having sex, while one is married to another person. Or they must habitually have sex while not living together. How many times constitutes “habitually” is left up to a jury to decide. So, basically, a one-time thing wouldn’t be the crime of adultery, and if you could show you’re not habitually having sex with this person (whatever that means) it wouldn’t be the crime of adultery either. The other issue is, would SC have standing to charge him with adultery if he didn’t commit the crime in SC?
I’d probably wait until more than a day has passed to go assuming that no crimes will be charged in this event. You have the inevitable investigation into whether he used state resources to get his piece on the side. If he’s going to be charged with anything it will likely be the result of that investigation. I’ll bet he’s charged with obstruction for deleting emails he accessed while using a state electronic device.
“usual ‘Republican’ Suspect”: “Newsy, it was never about the affair, it was about lying under oath to a federal judge. “
Over a blowjob and a blue dress?
One dry cleaning bill would have cleaned up that mess.
But Republican Bush lying US into a war that has killed 4,314 American troops, maimed 10’s of thousands more American troops, and killed countless thousands of Iraqis, Republicans think that’s okay.
Republicans also thought Republican Bush’s illegal war crimes were okay (hell, Republicans cheered on torture.
Republicans also thought Republican Bush’s illegal surveillance was okay.
And what about Republican Bush’s looting of the treasury?
But a dubious accusation of sexual harassment is grounds for ? well, if you are right winger Bill O’Reilly he pays off his sexual harassment lawsuit, Rupert Murdoch gives him a raise, and Republicans reward him with higher ratings.
It’s the Republican Devalued Party.
Before the blue dress appeared as evidence that Clinton’s finger-wagging public denial of the affair was a lie, his henchmen were well into the process of going the Paula Jones-trailer park trash- stalker defense with regards to those allegations. So yeah, without the blue dress she’d just be another Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, or Kathleen Willey…another victim of the most famous and powerful serial molester in the country and just another ‘bimbo eruption’ to be swiftly dealt with. The bleu dress ruined that, you’re right.
“News”, you are aware that Mr. Clinton did also pay off his sexual harassment suit to Paula Jones? $850,000? Go back to your stack of newspapers to late 1998 and read about it. Read the follow-up summary by the judge in that case who held him in civil contempt of court for his dishonest and misleading testimony, the $91,000 fine and his subsequent plea arrangement where he agreed to be stripped of his license to practice law for five years, all handed down the day before he left the White House.
Read how it only raised his ‘ratings’ among Democrats, too. Then come back and tell us all how silly your parallels to Bill O’Reilly are, if you even have the decency to do that. Tell us how silly the parallels are to Mark Sanford’s public admission too while you’re at it.
Maroon.
‘It probably should have been about Clenis’s taking advantage of a young girl working in his office too, but of course if you are a liberal you can get away with that….NOW will give you a pass.’
Taking advantage of a young woman who bragged about wanting to engage in a sexual tryst with the President? A consensual tryst?
How did Clinton get a pass? Aren’t people like YOU still claiming he was evil incarnate?
But of course Sanford, who was never shy to pass judgement on Clinton’s infidelity, is now getting all the empathy in the world from you and everyone else on the Right, even after abandoning his job for a week in order to spend days and days ‘crying’ with his lover in Argentina, supposedly breaking off the affair.
WTF? If that’s not hypocrisy, then what is?
‘Tell us how silly the parallels are to Mark Sanford’s public admission too while you’re at it.’
Are you really suggesting Sanford’s performance yesterday was motivated by some deep rooted sense of altruism, and not the fact that his juvenile, bs laced lies about his whereabouts for the past week exploded into international headlines as a result of the illicit affair he’s kept secret for over a year?
You’ve got to be kidding.
Who’s giving him a pass, jrfunk? Everyone on the right is pretty much disgusted with this guy, far as I can tell.
Where did you read that? What sentence or phrase gave you that indication and then the license to put words in my mouth? Go up and read News Reference’s typically silly retort to ‘usualsuspect’ and tell me his response isn’t total bullcrap- that’s what I was addressing in regards to Sanford, News’ moronic retort that the whole Clinton mess boiled down to a BJ and a blue dress.
Did Sanford’s press conference remind you in any way of Bill Clinton’s finger-wagging press conference in which he proclaimed to the whole world “I did not have sex with that woman…Ms. Lewinsky”? Clinton would have served himself well to have just done what Sanford did and moved on. I can’t imagine a scenario how that would have made it worse for him at that point.
Dennis, I will admit a casual indifference to Clinton’s sexual dalliances and will rely on Church mothers like you to remind me of all the sordid details and aftermath.
The reality is that Democrats got their backs up because they saw through the hypocrisy of people like you and people like Mark Sanford. They also didn’t appreciate an attempted coup at a time of relative peace and prosperity.
I’m hardly a Church mother, zadura. If you want to back News Reference on his idiotic parallels of Clinton to O’Reilly, fine. I just take exception to his shameless whitewashing of what this man did and what HE ultimately chose to put this nation through.
It’s incredible… more than 10 years out of office, and you guys are STILL using the “But… but… but Clinton!” defense.
I suppose I should commend you that you’ve moved, at least partly, past the golden age of Reagan. Let us know when you’re caught up to speed and in the present.
But I don’t recall Clinton being a moralizing hypocrite…
But of course Sanford, who was never shy to pass judgement on Clinton’s infidelity [aside: Do you have any evidence that Sanford was not “shy” about passing judgment on Clinton? Never mind)
The reality is that Democrats got their backs up because they saw through the hypocrisy of people like you and people like Mark Sanford
There you have it …
Rate the following peccadilloes in order of severity:
Having illicit sex with an female subordinate intern while you and she are in a government work place
Lying about it under oath
Having sex with a woman other than your wife
Making affirmative statements about the sanctity of marriage, and then being discovered to have done one of the above
A true feminist should rate the first offense as the worst.
A legalistic thinking person would say the second is the worst.
A moralistic thinker would give first place to the third offense.
Now, how would a Democrat or a Liberal or a NOW – type feminist rate number 4?
Mambo, I’m pretty sure what points everyone here are making about Clinton are as a result of people bringing up what Sanford did just now and what he said about Clinton ten years ago, and not a “but…but…but Clinton!” defense at all.
Seems every time on a political blog board that Republicans are gleefully reminded of their foibles and the hypocrisy that Democrats feel summed up the whole Clinton affair, the conversation goes pretty much like it just has.
Libs: “Ha! Another Republican caught in an affair. You cons are nothing but hypocrites and creeps. All Clinton did was consensually agree to let a young and naive girl glob on his nob and it was nobody’s business but his. He alone gave us peace, prosperity, a multi-trillion dollar surplus and kept us safe from bin Ladin and terrorism and you guys hated him for it. Admit it!”
non-Libs: “No, that’s not what it was all about at all, nor is whatever else you said true, either. Please allow me to set the record somewhat more ‘accurately’, shall we say.”
Libs: “Ten years later and you’re still talking about Clinton!!! Un-f’ing-believable!!!
Colin, Ken “The Hawk” Harrelson called. He wanted me to tell you, “Grrrraaaaabb some bench!”
Still not sure what this changes. I could be wrong but I don’t recall Sanford ever making a big deal out of gay marriage or other social issues. Even with Clinton I think he criticized him more for the lying than the infidelity.
As for speaking at the family values deal, seems to me like the actions of a guy that was gearing up for a presidential run and making the circuit.
Your attempt at irony only works, Oliver, if one presumes that war is sinful, which, of course, it is not.
I don’t know, I’m pretty sure there’s something in the bible against bearing false witness. But hey, what would I know, I’m just an amoral
heathenliberal.In less than 50 years, Pres Bush will be seen as the President who accomplished more to bring peace – and freedom – to the Middle East, than any other President since 1948.
Convenient cover, since you’ll be long dead by then. Unfortunately for you, I won’t.
A true feminist should rate the first offense as the worst.
Why the hell should we trust YOU of all people to define feminism correctly?
Now, how would a Democrat or a Liberal or a NOW – type feminist rate number 4?
Considering that #4 contains #1 in ADDITION to the hypocrisy, I’d say 4 would be pretty high up.
SFC B, June 25, 2009 at 2:29 am
I’m assuming that you’re talking about Larry Craig, and in that case he never actually got caught blowing anyone in the airport.
Fixed that for you.
And, as usual, the unfounded, unsourced Republican’t bullshit from the hypocritical Republican’t moral scolds is not even worthy of comment.
Zython…..Always late to the meeting. Always clueless. Always nonsensical.
You don’t know if you’ll be alive in 50 years any more than the man in the moon does, and it only confirms your statement that you’re just an amoral heathen liberal for saying that. How is it unfortunate for anyone that you would be alive? Especially for someone long gone?
As if you ever said anything that made sense, that one just about takes the cake, as we say here on planet earth, Zython.
Everybody’s missing the point here b/c they’re too busy calling each other booger-heads. Sanford blew the country b/c the legislature overruled him to take stimulus money. Sex scandals sure are fun but this is the important story.
Dennis, please forgive Zython his juvenile foolishness.
I said that “in less than 50 years” Pres Bush would be recognized for what he has accomplished in the Middle East. From his teen aged perspective, I, being a little over 60, am being at this moment pursued by the Grim Reaper. I kinda had my heart set on living until at least 90, and, thus , might conceivably be alive when Pres Bush gets his due recognition for “uninstalling” a dictator, successfully placing thousands of troops in the Middle East with air landing and monitoring privileges for the foreseeable future, and planting the seedlings of democracy in two of the Middle East’s great, and, formerly, most bellicose powers.
Zython: Why the hell should we trust YOU of all people to define feminism correctly?
Because I, unlike you, have actually read things written by real feminists like Wendy McElroy, Camille Paglia and Tammy Bruce.
For the record, Zython, you have misread #4.
Finally, I predict that you are scheduled to die very soon, if you keep watching that animé. I’m thinking epileptic seizure from the flashing lights, and a collision with a radiator.
You’re right on that, Frank. I think the anime’ and the gaming stuff have made it hard for Zython to tell what’s real and what he makes happen with his joystick.
I hope you make it to 110, and you enjoy every minute of the ride. I hope everyone does, even the ones like Zython who aren’t quite sure just which way is up and which is down.
Same rules here, if Sanford has been demonstrated to have lied under oath to a federal judge, he ought to go.
Oh, I see. That now is the only metric to be used? Paging Sen. Edwards! Pedro would like to apologize.
That is true, but then you get into a discussion of whether Sanford actually broke the law.
My god, there is no behavior you folks won’t defend, is there?
Before the blue dress appeared as evidence that Clinton’s finger-wagging public denial of the affair was a lie, his henchmen were well into the process of going the Paula Jones-trailer park trash- stalker defense with regards to those allegations.
All of which had fuck-all to do with Whitewater, which was the original purpose of the special prosecutor, yes?
Sen Edwards was not in a position to be told to go anywhere, Duros.
Other than ‘away’, but that was all from the liberals side.
DNA. Does not apply.
and what HE ultimately chose to put this nation through.
Right. What HE chose to put the nation through.
Sen Edwards was not in a position to be told to go anywhere, Duros.
I believe he was still a sitting Senator in the state of North Carolina.
I said that “in less than 50 years” Pres Bush would be recognized for what he has accomplished in the Middle East.
That part is certainly true. I’m ready to recognize right now what he accomplished.
I kinda had my heart set on living until at least 90, and, thus , might conceivably be alive when Pres Bush gets his due recognition for “uninstalling” a dictator, successfully placing thousands of troops in the Middle East with air landing and monitoring privileges for the foreseeable future, and planting the seedlings of democracy in two of the Middle East’s great, and, formerly, most bellicose powers.
That’s only 30 years, Frank. 20 more to go. Provided you don’t get Raptured first.
Do you really want to do this, D62? Before Monica, it was Paula, before her, it was the special prosecutor, before that the special prosecutor was appointed to investigate Whitewater at several Democrat’s insistence, before that, Clinton signed the law to renew the need for special prosecutors after it had been allowed to lapse, before that, Iran Contra, before that, Bert Lance, before that Watergate. Isn’t it whole lot easier and less messy to just say it was all just about a blowjob that Republicans try to attempt a coup on the government and let it go at that? Younger liberals find that much more palatable and easier to relate to, doesn’t it?
and a collision with a radiator.
Wha…?
That’s abso-fucking-tively and unequivocally true, Duros.
My point, Dennis, which I can’t tell if you deliberately sidestepped or not, was that the investigation was originally about Clinton’s role in Whitewater. After finding absolutely nothing culpable, Starr found Paula and Monica. And Jonah Goldberg’s mom.
Starr didn’t find Paula or Monica. Those cases unfortunately fell flat on his desk. And it was Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton alone who you should direct your blame toward for that.
For starters, anyway.
That’s abso-fucking-tively and unequivocally true, Duros.
Bullshit. If he didn’t have Ken Starr behind every bush trying to catch him jaywalking or throwing a gum wrapper on the ground, the nation, as well as the Clinton family, would have been spared a great deal of embarrassment.
Those cases unfortunately fell flat on his desk.
Thanks, Lucienne!
And it was Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton alone who you should direct your blame toward for that.
Oh, I do. but I think we all knew he was a horndog from the start, didn’t we? Who else puts Astroturf in the back of a truck?
Um, no. Actually you can find the whole case online, at least I think Minnesota puts their court records online. So it’s not “unfounded” or “unsourced”. You can see what he was charged with, and what he was guilty of. And the only reason what he did was considered a crime was because of prudes like you Tom who think that two people of the same sex can’t be with each other. Stop hating on Teh Gayness! Tom.
When did I defend what Sanford did Duros? Please, show me where I defended his actions. What I did was suggest that he might not have broken SC’s adultery laws because that law has a specific definion, and it’s possible that he didn’t have sex with his mistress in South Carolina’s jurisdiction. If he didn’t have sex with her in South Carolina, then they have no standing to bring adultery charges against him. And if he did have sex with her in South Carolina, then the state would still need to prove that he was “habitually” having sex with her within SC’s jurisdiction. Pointing out that someone might not have actually broken a law when engaging in immoral behavior doesn’t mean that I’m saying what he did was alright.
But hey, it’s not like you’re the first commenter on OW.com to go putting words into my mouth. At this point I’m almost expecting it.
Pointing out that someone might not have actually broken a law when engaging in immoral behavior doesn’t mean that I’m saying what he did was alright.
Well, that’s true. I’ll give you that one.
Right winger “Dennis” complaining about the Democratic led peace and prosperity during the Clintong Presidency:
“I just take exception to his shameless whitewashing of what this man did and what HE ultimately chose to put this nation through.”
Which is exactly how I feel about Republican war criminal Bush who lied US into a war that led to the deaths of countless thousands, authorized sadistic torture, authorized illegal surveillance, and looted the US treasury of trillions leaving US trillions ind debt.
In right winger’s world, a consensual blowjob is grounds for an attempted coup, but right wingers and their Republican puppets are just fine with lying US into war, war crimes, illegal surveillance, and the looting of the treasury.
Sick scum.
SFC B, June 25, 2009 at 12:30 pm
And the only reason what he did was considered a crime was because of prudes like you Tom who think that two people of the same sex can’t be with each other. Stop hating on Teh Gayness! Tom.
…..
But hey, it’s not like you’re the first commenter on OW.com to go putting words into my mouth. At this point I’m almost expecting it.
Hey – maybe this is a record for Republican’t hypocrisy – this commenter puts words in my mouth, then whinges on about others putting words in his mouth.
One half of one comment before the hypocrisy shows. Keep on showing us prime examples of those good ole Republican’t standards…
I apologize Tom. I assumed that, since you keep obsessing about Larry Craig being fined for asking another adult for sex, you had some sort of issue with homosexual conduct. It was wrong of me to make that assumption. Obviously you had some other reason for bringing up Craig’s citation for disorderly conduct and wrongfully claiming it was because he was performing oral sex on another man.
OK, going out on a limb here, and my fellow progs may not agree with me, but here I go.
I’m choosing to ignore this whole thing. Know why? Because even though I do not like Mark Sanford nor do I agree with his policies, I’m not going to get caught up in this man’s public humiliation. Watching Keith Olbermann read Sanford’s PRIVATE emails to his mistress, and snickering the whole time, made me really mad. I thought Keith was better than that, and I thought the progressive movement was better than this as a whole.
Those emails weren’t written for just a piece of ass on the side. It’s pretty apparent that this guy really loves this woman. His emails weren’t dirty, they were romantic and sweet. He even stopped himself from getting too “sexual” in them. It’s pretty clear this was something more than just sex.
Did he fuck up? YES. Did he cheat? YES. And guess what? Just as Monica-gate was none of my fucking business, this isn’t either. OK, yup, cut another notch in the GOP Hypocrisy Bedpost. But I like to think that we progressives have more CLASS than this. I really hope I’m not wrong.
If you truly believed even one word of that to be true, then something is clearly wrong with you that you fully accept and approve of what would make this Democratic Congress the most cowardly and timid of all time. Corrupt even, if they allowed this to go unprosecuted.
You don’t really believe what you write, do you? That would make you cowardly, timid and corrupt too- whining here instead of actually trying to do something about it.
Nice non-apology there, SFC B. Your Republican’t masters have schooled you well…
Obviously you had some other reason for bringing up Craig’s citation for disorderly conduct and wrongfully claiming it was because he was performing oral sex on another man.
Why, yes – it was because Republican’ts were insisting that all of their immoral scolds have resigned once they got caught in their immorality. Craig didn’t resign, he served out his term illustrating that, once again, Republican’ts are such mendacious liars that they can’t even help but lie when they try and tar Democratic politicians with behaving like immoral Republican’ts do every day.
Oh – and I’m sorry, too, that you are willfully ignorant and continue to push Republican’t propaganda here at OW’s site (it appears to me) every chance you get.
At least I’ll be honest and admit that my non-apology isn’t really expressing any sort of sorrow, unlike supposedly morally superior Republican’ts like you. More integrity in one sentence than Mark Sanford has had in all of his miserable existence.
Larry Craig was an immoral scold because he thought Barney Frank should have been punished for allowing a prostitution ring to run out of his residence and that Bill Clinton was a bad man for abusing his power to have a relationship with a subordinate? Gotcha.
Always late to the meeting.
Because comments sections of a political blog are serious business, right?
Finally, I predict that you are scheduled to die very soon, if you keep watching that animé. I’m thinking epileptic seizure from the flashing lights, and a collision with a radiator.
There are so many reasons why that this “prediction” is impossible, I’m not going to even bother. Ultra-con future reading fails miserably once again.
You’re right on that, Frank. I think the anime’ and the gaming stuff have made it hard for Zython to tell what’s real and what he makes happen with his joystick.
So what you’re saying is that people with hobbies you don’t “approve” of can’t be taken seriously? Got it.
No, what I’m saying is exactly what I said, Zython. You are hopelessly clueless and impossible to comprehend. It doesn’t need any further translation. I don’t think you even know you’re on a political blog.
The really embarrassing part is that his behavior looks dignified compared to the Clenis.
You’re mistaken there, Peedro.
And you and your lefty ilk spent years trying to justify his actions.
And there, also.
impossible to comprehend
That sounds like a personal problem to me.
I don’t think you even know you’re on a political blog.
What would make you say this, considering I said that I was on a political blog 1 post ago.
You are hopelessly clueless
So clueless that the ultra-con trolls run away from my questions and retorts 90% of the time?
It’s much closer to 100% and I think you confuse people ignoring you with running away from your questions.
SFC B, June 25, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Larry Craig was an immoral scold because he thought Barney Frank should have been punished for allowing a prostitution ring to run out of his residence
Barney Frank ran a prostitution ring out of his residence? Maybe your tinfoil hat is just a little too tight. I’m trying to remember when Barney Frank was convicted (not just accused by some Republican’t gasbags) of this offense.
Go on, pull the other one…
and that Bill Clinton was a bad man for abusing his power to have a relationship with a subordinate?
Once again, a Republican’t smear and deflect propagandist seems to be willfully muddying the waters. Then again, we’ve all seen that many, many, times before. Like every time these Republican’t idiots comment here at OW…
Larry Craig was an immoral scold because he thought it was okay to question others’ morality while engaging in immoral (according to his own morality!) activities.
If in fact Larry Craig actually thought that Barney Frank allowed a prostitution ring to run out of his residence I wonder about his sanity. If Larry Craig thought that Bill Clinton was a bad man for abusing his power, then he’s doubly immoral because he gave himself a free pass for abusing his power to try and get his airport solicitation buried.
And you’re defending this? Surprisingly (cough), based upon the spittle flecked ravings you post here, I have very little doubt about your sanity (or lack thereof).
Keep digging up, stupids!
‘Are you really suggesting Sanford’s performance yesterday was motivated by some deep rooted sense of altruism…
Where did you read that? What sentence or phrase gave you that indication and then the license to put words in my mouth?’
It might have been this:
‘“News”, you are aware that Mr. Clinton did also pay off his sexual harassment suit to Paula Jones? $850,000? Go back to your stack of newspapers to late 1998 and read about it. Read the follow-up summary by the judge in that case who held him in civil contempt of court for his dishonest and misleading testimony, the $91,000 fine and his subsequent plea arrangement where he agreed to be stripped of his license to practice law for five years, all handed down the day before he left the White House.
Read how it only raised his ‘ratings’ among Democrats, too. Then come back and tell us all how silly your parallels to Bill O’Reilly are, if you even have the decency to do that. Tell us how silly the parallels are to Mark Sanford’s public admission too while you’re at it.’
You didn’t need to reprint the whole exchange, jr. Tell me how that is suggesting I said what Sanford did was altruistic? He got caught, he came clean. Clinton got caught, he lied. Then he lied some more. Then he obstructed justice. Then he lied under oath. I’ll ask you what the parallels are, but I in no way suggested Sanford’s performance was motivated by some deep rooted sense of altruism.
Right winger “SFC B” complains of “the Clinton fiasco”, because everyone remembers those eight years of peace and prosperity were some of the most peaceful and prosperous in America’s history?
I do not think the word “fiasco” means what you think it means.
Republicans are so weak that Republican infidelities are all Obama’s fault!
Republican leader Limbaugh said so!
And Limbaugh should know, Clinton made Limbaugh use drugs and betray all three of his wives!
Apparently it’s the Jedi “Commit Adultery” Mind Trick that only works on right wingers with weak minds and weak wills.
Obama is probably also the culprit behind Republican cult leader Ronald Reagan’s betrayal of his first wife and abandonment of his children.
Jedi scoundrels!
“… because everyone remembers those eight years of peace and prosperity were some of the most peaceful and prosperous in America’s history?… ”
It’s a shame that so few people know or appreciate American History…
America’s peaceful years : 1815 – 1846 ; 1849 – 1865
America’s most prosperous years : 1865 – 1913 with NO — I repeat, NO — inflation.
But eight years of the Internet Bubble, and a bunch of “toe in the water” skirmishes that made a mess of Eastern Europe, left troops in Macedonia to this day, and empowered Islamofascists around the globe , are viewed as the Age of Pericles.
“News” “Reference” – perhaps you should lay off the news a while and get your hands on some Reference works .
Right wing extremist “Frank DiSalle”:
“America’s peaceful years : 1815 – 1846 ; 1849 – 1865″
See: American Civil War (1861-65)
The modern day right wing: Mind-numbingly stupid.
In less than 50 years, Pres Bush will be seen as the President who accomplished more to bring peace – and freedom – to the Middle East, than any other President since 1948.
Frank, let me ask you something. What president, or national leader for that matter, has been reviled by so many, only to be beloved decades later? In other words, has what you stated will happen ever happened before, and if so, to whom?
It’s much closer to 100% and I think you confuse people ignoring you with running away from your questions.
Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.
Innumerate right wing extremist “Frank DiSalle”:
“America’s most prosperous years : 1865 – 1913″
See:
Panic of 1873
http://google.com/search?q=Panic+of+1873
(The right wing dismisses the “Long Depression of 1873–1896″ because the huge unemployment rates and massive poverty happened at the same time a handful were becoming incredibly wealthy, which is the essence of right wing economic objectives: Poverty for the many while a handful loot everything they can.)
Panic of 1893
http://google.com/search?q=Panic+of+1893
Panic of 1907
http://google.com/search?q=Panic+of+1907
The modern day right wing: Mind-numbingly stupid liars.
Do you honestly think people ignore you out of fear, Zython? Or 90% of the people, if you think that’s what it is?
In other words, has what you stated will happen ever happened before, and if so, to whom?
Truman. Highly unlikely in Bush’s case, and on balance it’s probably not deserved in Truman’s case, but it has occurred.
America’s peaceful years : 1815 – 1846 ; 1849 – 1865
Um, Frank, somewhat off topic, but what happened in 1861 in S. Carolina? What happened in Florida from about 1820-1845 or so?
Here’s a hint on the second question: ‘Seminole.’
Here’s a hint on the first: A fucking huge civil war.
Seriously, Frank, don’t go lecturing anyone about history.
Is, too.
Truman’s reputation is too deserved, that is (IMHO).
Shorter right wing hypocrisy: “Look over there!”
“Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, an acknowledged homosexual, today confirmed that his Washington apartment had been used as a callboy headquarters by a male prostitute for a year and a half until late 1987.”
http://newsbusters.org/node/8119
And, also, speaking of putting words in people’s mouths Tom. I never said that Frank ran the ring. I said he allowed it to operate from his house. I suppose you could believe that he didn’t notice the prostitute he paid to live with him was seeing other clients. But then some people believe tin foil hats work too so some people will believe anything.
I just wanted to pull this quote out because it goes so well with that bit about Barney Frank confirming a prostitute he hired was operating out of Frank’s residence.
I think you’re failing on reading comprehension here NR. I didn’t refer to Clinton’s Administration as a “fiasco”, but the depressing public spectacle that was the investigation and his impeachment.
Hey, look , I didn’t forget about the Civil War , OK ? It was in the nature of a typo. I typed the ending year of the Civil War, instead of the beginning year.
So go find a Clintonian Golden Era, will you ?
As for the Seminole War, there was no left wing CNN counting daily fatalities, and interviewing the families of dead Seminoles on a daily basis. No Nightline stories about abused veterans.
Here ’s a hint for for you, Parthenon, and you, “news” “reference” stop trying to pull gotchas , and pretend you’re way smarter, when you don’t know anything I don’t know , and, most likely, a hell of a lot less.
The fact is, before you correct me, why don’t you disabuse yourselves of the notion that the Clinton Administration evaded prosecution like a Mafia family “you ain’t got nothin’ on me!”) and was scandal ridden to the point where they could barely even function for four years.
Then I’ll change 1865 to 1860 and all will be right with the world. BTW, I said there was no inflation. No matter what you learned in your post 60’s high school, redistribution of income was accomplished by individual spending, not government edict. And, for the most part, these “panics” affected the wealthy more than the poor. And, however having no inflation for 40 years might seem unimpressive to you (and why that might be , I can’t imagine, given that most prices have multiplied by 10 since I was born), being able to by a bag of flour for 10 cents , or whatever, for 40 years must have meant a lot to Joe Lunch pail in 1870.
I am sorry you youngsters think that history began with the Kennedy Administration, and that everything before that was archaeology.
And, oh yes, try commenting from memory instead of
The World Book Encyclopedia of the InternetWikiPedia, and then see how well you do.It’s a shame that so few people know or appreciate American History…
Gotta agree with you there, Frank.
Commenting from memory, I recall there was a book entitled How the Other Half Lives.
Right winger “SFC B”: “I never said that Frank ran the ring. I said he allowed it to operate from his house.”
heh.
By that logic Republican Senator John Ensign’s wife “allowed” Republican Senator Ensign to pay the woman he was having an illicit affair with.
Republican Senator David Vitter’s wife “allowed” Republican Senator Vitter to pay the prostitute he was having an illicit affair with.
Republican Governor Mark Sanford’s wife “allowed” Republican Governor Sanford to use taxpayer money to pay for the illicit affair he had.
Republican Senator Larry Craig’s wife “allowed” Republican Craig to solicit men for sex in bathrooms.
Shall we extend right wing logic to what Republican Representative’s wives allowed as well?-)
for those of you unfamiliar or new to the area, Frank thinks Wikipedia is a commie plot.
Right wing fiction writer “Frank DiSalle”, after just describing the bloody Civil War as a time of ‘peace’ in America, just can’t stop telling falsehoods, this time he omits the massive transfer of public property into private hands during the period which he falsely describes as achieving “redistribution of income was accomplished by individual spending, not government edict”.
No, “Frank”, government edict transferred massive public property to a wealthy connected handful.
It was classic right wing corporatism.
Corporations bought politicians and then politicians handed public land to timber corporations and railroad corporations.
“Frank”, do you make this stuff up as you go, or is there a right wing script book that you are getting your falsehoods from?
Go ahead, Newsie, nothing has ever stopped you from making stuff up before. Just in the case of Frank, the lover in question happened to be a 28 year old male prostitute that he met by answering an ad that read “Exceptionally good-looking, personable, muscular athlete is available. Hot bottom plus large endowment equals a good time.”, and paid him $80 for their first encounter. Frank knew he had felony convictions for possession of cocaine, oral sodomy and production of obscene items involving a juvenile, yet still took him in and let him live in his apartment, even taking him to a White House bill signing on one occasion.
To deny knowing this young man, who he took in as a sort of act of benevolence to help find his way, was operating a prostitution ring in an apartment for a year and a half may be believable to you, but it leaves most people a little more dubious about it being true.
So if there are similar circumstances to Mesdames Ensign, Craig, Vitter or Sanford, perhaps something along the lines of their husbands’ lovers being prostitutes who lived in their house and operated a prostitution ring in their houses for a year and a half and then denied knowing it, and the Senator’s girlfriends n claimed those wives knew it, then yes, I suppose you could apply the same logic SFC B did to say the word ‘allowed’ for Barney Frank’s role in his young lover’s ring of ill repute.
Dolt.
So right winger “Dennis” thinks that a Republican hypocrite who cheated on his wife needs to be answered with, ‘but, but, but the other side…’.
Okay. Let’s play.
Since we’ve covered a Republican Governor and recent Republican Senator’s sex escapades (Republican Mark “Taxpayers Paid for his International Affair” Sanford, Republican David “Prostitute Chasing Diaper Wearer” Vitter, Republican Larry “Solicits Gay Sex in Bathrooms” Craig, and Republican John “Paid the Married Woman He Was Cheating On AND Paid Her Husband” Ensign), now lets cover some of the Recent Republican Representative’s sex-capades.
Corrupt Republican felon Duke Cunningham was reportedly partially paid in prostitutes for his selling out of America by funneling government intelligence money to his crony friends during a time of war.
And Republican Representatives allowed Republican Mark Foley to continue chasing underage boys even after they were repeatedly warned about it.
Would you like to continue playing the:
Name That Hypocritical Republican’s Sex-capades Game?
Don’t make me pull out the bullet points “Dennis”!-)
LOL
You can type and type and type till the cows come home, News Idiot, I don’t much care what you come up with. But what you can’t come up with is addressing the logic you came up with to counter SFC B’s statement about Barney Frank and the prostitution going on in his very apartment for a period of a year and a half.
It wasn’t tit for tat. It was pointing out, no, proving, that your logic was completely irrelevant for saying anything remotely close to what those four Senators’ wives allowed to happen.
Go ahead if you dare. You can’t. You can never stay on the subject at hand or address a point once you’ve been proven wrong.
Christ, News Imbecile, can you not see you just used the word ‘reportedly’ and passed it off here, yet you make an issue of someone saying Barney Frank ‘allowed’ something illicit to happen and what a hypocrite you are for doing it? You don’t, do you? You can only see hypocrisy in others, and you revel in the accusations.
When it’s pointed out to you in obvious terms, you say “What, me? I’m not a hypocrite, you are! Republicans are. Not me, nuh- uhh.”
Again, reading comprehension is not your strong suit today NR. Of course, this thread is effin’ huge so I guess it’s a lot to expect someone to bother trying to follow conversation across multiple comments and multiple people.
I suppose we could do that. Or we could hope that maybe, just maybe, one of these days we’ll stop obsessing about the moral failings of people and use their failings to tar their message. Of course, I don’t think that will happen until the next time a Democratic congressmen gets caught sticking it in a minor.
“Dennis” you don’t know what any of those Republican wive’s ‘allowed’ or didn’t ‘allow’.
You and your fellow right winger “SFC B” decided to push speculation about a Democratic leader in an attempt to distract from the discovery of a Republican leader’s infidelity.
Well, there’s stronger documentation that Republican Governor Mark Sanford’s wife allowed Republican Sanford’s affair to go on for at least six months.
It took her that long to find her dignity and throw the bum out.
But lets be clear, bringing her into this isn’t any different than bringing in Barney Frank. Frank ended up being with a scoundrel that he genuinely liked and who did him wrong. So did Republican Mark Sanford’s wife.
Actually, what Republican Mark Sanford did to his WIFE is worse, both because Republican Sanford betrayed his WIFE but he also betrayed his KIDS.
Which, again, wouldn’t be as big an issue except that:
1) Republican Sanford was a moralizing hypocrite.
2) Republican Sanford was frequently mentioned as a 2012 Republican Presidential Contender.
3) Republicans and their right wing allies would apply the same standards to members of their own Party that they apply to others.
By Republican Governor Mark Sanford’s own standards he should have resigned a year ago when he started cheating on his wife.
But it’s always Republican’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People
Contemptible.
http://google.com/search?q=Republican+Duke+Cunningham+prostitutes
I was giving traitorous Republican Randy “Duke” Cunningham the benefit of the doubt.
But he really doesn’t deserve it.
Let me be more definitive: Republican Randy Cunningham was allegedly paid in prostitutes as part of his payoff for selling out America.
“Prostitution Alleged In Cunningham Case.”
“Federal authorities are investigating allegations that a California defense contractor arranged for a Washington area limousine company to provide prostitutes to convicted former congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) and possibly other lawmakers, sources familiar with the probe said yesterday.”
By the way, is treasonous Republican Randy “Duke” Cunningham out of prison yet?
“Dennis” you don’t know what any of those Republican wive’s ‘allowed’ or didn’t ‘allow’. Left-wing Loon “News Idiot”
Newsie, your crap here is akin to the end product of the laxative preparation procedure one does before a colonoscopy- no real substance, not clear, and it just runs on seemingly forever without end.
You don’t know what they allowed either. We do know the likelihood of what Barney Frank allowed, and what the person involved claimed he allowed. We know little if anything about what any of the wives in question allowed. But that doesn’t stop you from continuing with your literal defecation you drop here with every post you type.
“SFC B”, the Republican Party has some strange bedfellows.
The Libertarian wing of the Republican Party could (mostly) care less about private personal decisions.
But it’s the Social Conservative wing of the Republican Party that controls most of the votes during Election time and the Social Conservatives have been adamant about legislating private morality for as long as I can remember.
So when a moralizing hypocrite like Republican Governor Mark Sanford publicly says that then President Clinton should resign over his sleazy private life but then Republican Sanford ends up using taxpayer money to pay for his international booty call, has his entire staff telling lies about some “Appalachian Trail” hike, and then decides he, Republican Mark Sanford, is King David and so doesn’t need to live up to his own standards….
aaargh…
“Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, an acknowledged homosexual, today confirmed that his Washington apartment had been used as a callboy headquarters by a male prostitute for a year and a half until late 1987.”
http://newsbusters.org/node/8119
What a freaking laugh! A Newsbusters article? That noted bastion of impartiality?
From the reports of the time, Frank didn’t know about any sort of prostitution going on in the house, and once he found out, he immediately got rid of the guy. Sounds like he didn’t allow it at all – once he knew what was going on, he immediately put a stop to it. Does he need one of those Minority Report psychics to tell him that a crime was going to be committed so he could pro-actively prevent it from happening?
Only in the fevered ravings of a Republican’t idiot would this be considered allowing a prostitution ring to be run out his house. If somebody’s kid is doing drugs, then they get caught and the drugs and/or the kid are tossed out of the house, in what way would that be allowing drugs into the house by them?
By that logic, Bush allowed Halliburton to install showers that electrocuted troops, allowed troops to rape their fellow soldiers, and allowed Republican’ts to illegally detain protesters. Is that what you really believe?
BTW, this should be a stellar lesson on trying to argue with Republican’ts. The dissembling, the hypocrisy, the smear and deflect – it’s all here, spelled out in black and white. There can be no debate with raving lunatics like these.
Tom, could you honestly tell me that if you lived in an apartment at age 45, and took on a 28 year old lover, one with the problems this man had, and you were going to try to somehow rehab him, do you think you would ever in your wildest dreams think he could run a prostitution ring right under your nose, you a US Congressman with a Harvard education, without you’re being the slightest bit suspicious?
Could you let that happen. An apartment. It’s not like a 28,000 s.f. John “Two Americas” Edwards house. It’s a freakin’ apartment.
“Oh, did you have a friend over today? I think he must’ve left some of his money on the coffee table here by mistake.”
I genuinely wish that, as “SFC B” says, “one of these days we’ll stop obsessing about the moral failings of people”, but that won’t happen until the Republican Party is taken over completely by real libertarians instead of being run by moralizing hypocrites like Republican Governor Sanford.
Even then, any libertarians leading the Republican Party would likely have to pander to the social conservatives who want to legislate morality and use private failings as public floggings of their opponents.
In the meantime, I’ll accept the right wing’s duplicity and hypocrisy as something that may never change and so slowly add to my list of Republican hypocrites.
Since right winger “Dennis” feels compelled to trot out distractions to deflect from Republican Governor Mark Sanford’s obscene hypocrisy, here are some good old bullet points:
Republican Leaders = Bad For Women, Girls, and Children.
Republican leader Rush Limbaugh:
-> Attacked a 13 year old girl
-> Called any woman that spoke her mind a “Feminazi”
-> Alienated three ex-wives
-> Caught bringing illegal viagra back from a noted sex-tourist destination.
Republicans Presidential Candidate John McCain:
-> Attacked an underage girl
-> Betrayed his first wife
-> Abandoned her children
-> Bragged about his philandering
-> Insulted his second wife with the C*** word in public
-> Laughed when his female opponent was called the B**** word in public
Right wingers like “Dennis” don’t understand that it would be better for him to be quiet and not be known as a fool.
Personally I’m delighted to have right winger’s like “Dennis” illustrate the right wing’s coarse, hypocritical deceitfulness.
Keep talking, “Dennis”. Seriously. Keep talking.
If you paid attention you’d see that it’s a direct quote from Sam Donaldson’s report in World News Tonight from 25 August 1989. You could probably check the transcripts yourself if you like. Newsbusters might have their biases, but that doesn’t mean what they’re reporting isn’t correct.
FIFY.
Quite honestly, I don’t give a rat’s ass what Frank said at the time. He could still deny it to this day for all I know. It’s not like anyone asks him. He was a mid 40 year old guy who invited a fucking prostitute to live with him. As Dennis points out, he was living in an apartment. I lived in that area of Massachusetts. Those are not large apartments. If Frank didn’t know what was going on, he was willfully ignorant or fucking retarded. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just ignorant.
So you would hold Republican Senator Coburn complicit in concealing Republican Senator Ensign’s affair?
Would you also hold Republican Senator Coburn complicit in paying the married women that Republican Senator Ensign was having the affair with?
Weren’t Republican Senator Ensign and Republican Senator Coburn roommates at the time?
There’s been a clear accusation that Republican Senator Coburn was clearly knowledgeable about Republican Senator’s affair.
There is also speculation that Republican Ensign used Republican Party (NRSC?) money to pay the women he was having his illicit affair.
How many other Republicans were complicit of concealing the affair and how many Republicans were complicit helping Republican Ensign pay the woman he was having the illicit affair?
Also, did the notorious “Family” organization know about the affair? There has been speculation that the townhouse that Republican Ensign and Republican Coburn were sharing was actually a “Family” property.
Were all of those people willfully ignorant of Republican Ensign’s affair?
Seriously? For the money that Republican Ensign was paying the woman it looks like it was a significant conspiracy that included Republican Senator Coburn, possibly the Republican Party’s National Republican Senatorial Committee, possibly the “Family”, with an assist by FOX to cover the whole thing up and warn Republican Ensign a storm was coming his way.
Can you verify either of these allegations, News Reference?
You repeat them often enough, I’m guessing you must have something really solid.
What the fuck is the “family” organization?
He’s referring to when Limbaugh would insult Chelsea Clinton during the Clinton Administration.
Remember, since a Republican insulted a child nearly two decades ago, that means it’s perfectly alright for Democrats to attack children today.
And when a Democrat has an affair nearly two decades ago, and Republicans condemn him for it, it is perfectly alright for Democrats to condemn a Republican for it.
Take the lumps, move on, and keep it in your fucking pants GOP.
Are we still playing the “Change the Subject From Republican Governor Mark Sanford’s Betrayals?” Okay. Let’s play.
RIGHT WING SEX SCANDALS:
=> Republican Governor Mark “Taxpayers Paid for his International Affair” Sanford.
=> Republican Senator David “Prostitute Paying Diaper Wearing” Vitter.
=> Republican Senator Larry “Solicits Gay Sex in Bathrooms” Craig.
=> Republican Senator John “Paid the Married Woman He Was Cheating On AND Paid Her Husband” Ensign.
=> Extra Corrupt Republican felon Randy “Duke ‘Paid With Prostitutes To Betray US During a Time of War’” Cunningham.
=> Republican Representative Mark “Chased Underage Boys With Republican Representative’s Knowledge” Foley.
=> Republican Presidential Candidate and Senator John “Betrayed His First Wife, Abandoned Her Children, and BRAGGED About His Cheating” McCain.
=> Republican President Ronald “Betrayed His First Wife and Abandoned His Children” Reagan.
=> Republican Leader Rush “Thrice Divorced Drug Addict and Sex Tourist” Limbaugh.
=> Republican Leader Newt “Pushed Divorce on Wife While She Was Recovering From Illness in the Hospital, Assailed Cheating While Secretly Cheating, Third Wife is the Charm” Gingrich.
=> Republican Presidential Candidate Rudy “Serially Divorced Cross Dresser” Giuliani.
Would you like to continue playing the:
Name That Hypocritical Republican’s Sex-capades Game?
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just ignorant.
And I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you’re just a Republican’t hypocrite who is criminally insane.
Prove it, or stop your hypocritical lying and assuming facts not in evidence.
How can you tell when Republican’ts are lying? Their vacuous pie-holes are open…
Again, Tom, when you maintain, ‘From the reports at the time, Frank didn’t know about any sort of prostitution going on in the house’,
a) The reports at the time were from Barney Frank. His word against his young paramour’s.
b) It wasn’t a house. It was an apartment.
c) It was over a year and a half. Frank answered an ad and paid him for his first tryst. He knew he was a prostitute. What you are calling SFC B and me both hypocrites for is doubting that he knew anything about his young prostitute lover operating a prostitution ring in his very own apartment over a period of a year and a half. This is the same man liberals swoon over when he gets into a yelling match with Bill O’Reilly. This 45 year old Harvard educated man supposedly had no idea this sort of thing was going on in his apartment, and for some reason you think it is hypocritical and malevolent to doubt him when he maintains ignorance. Your analogy of parents and their kids’ drug problems pales in comparison, unless their kid was operating a crack house in the parents home (their apartment, actually) and they said they didn’t know about anything like that going on… a crack house where money eschanged hands and they all sat around sampling the product for an hour or so before the transactions occurred.
d) You are also going to naively assume and at the same deride us for the notion that no one who was in on the prostitution ring never picked up a phone and tipped off Mr. Frank, a noted Congressman, that this was happening, not even once over a span of a full year and a half. This man Barney was pleading his case for his felonies and pulling strings for his parking tickets, and who he took to the White House for a bill signing. You are assuming no one called up Barney and warned him he was being duped.
So yo have come full circle. You first say Larry Craig gave out blow jobs in a bathroom that you have no evidence or even a charge that these things happened, you are called on that assumption, then you express disgust that anyone could have doubts about the bizarre circumstances surrounding Barney Frank’s willful ignorance and tell them to shut up unless THEY have proof that he didn’t know what was going on.
Just another liberal poster who screams about Republican hypocrisy who can’t imagine in his wildest dreams that he could ever be a hypocrite.
Yes. I’m just asking News Reference, the OW Wikipedia king here, to give me any kind of a news reference to the event in question that would be proof that this “attack” actually occurred, and what the circumstances were. I’ve asked him several times since he prints is as fact, and he always balks. Same with the McCain “C” word allegation. For some reason he has this fear of documentation and verification on certain beliefs he presents as fact.
Dennis, June 27, 2009 at 8:51 am
Again, Tom, when you maintain, ‘From the reports at the time, Frank didn’t know about any sort of prostitution going on in the house’,
a) The reports at the time were from Barney Frank. His word against his young paramour’s.
So you’re calling Frank a liar. Prove it.
Also, where did you find out that his paramour said anything different? Prove that, too.
b) It wasn’t a house. It was an apartment.
…and this means what, exactly?
c) It was over a year and a half. Frank answered an ad and paid him for his first tryst. He knew he was a prostitute. What you are calling SFC B and me both hypocrites for is doubting that he knew anything about his young prostitute lover operating a prostitution ring in his very own apartment over a period of a year and a half.
Again, some sort of proof of your wild-assed, unfounded allegations would be helpful if you don’t want to be considered a hypocritical, lying Republican’t propagandist.
d) You are also going to naively assume and at the same deride us for the notion that no one who was in on the prostitution ring never picked up a phone and tipped off Mr. Frank, a noted Congressman, that this was happening, not even once over a span of a full year and a half.
No – I’m deriding you for the notion that you can pull this sort of thing out of your a$$ and expect it to be considered remotely reality-based. Did anyone find such calls? Or do you expect us to believe that you’re telling the truth here, after you’ve been lying so consistently around here for so long?
So yo have come full circle. You first say Larry Craig gave out blow jobs in a bathroom that you have no evidence or even a charge that these things happened,
Well – other than the fact that he pled guilty to the charge, according to the Conservative New Network (and others at the time.
Care to put your foot even further up your a$$ on this?
Just another liberal poster who screams about Republican hypocrisy who can’t imagine in his wildest dreams that he could ever be a hypocrite.
Your mind reading skills need some work, young Padwan. Just another Republican’t hypocrite who whinges about others putting words in their mouths while simultaneously doing it themselves. By all means, keep on digging up, stupid…
You are not very good at this, Tom.
Yeah – lying and hypocritical bulshit isn’t exactly my modus operandi, unlike Limbaugh lickers like you. Research skills = mindlessly spewing Rewpublican’t propaganda? Bite me, fucktard.
Just bringing the debate down to your level, moron. Maybe one of these days you can try that whole objectivity thing you claim to have some sort of familiarity with.
Those are not large apartments. If Frank didn’t know what was going on, he was willfully ignorant or fucking retarded. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just ignorant.
How about giving him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was not home? Many Congresspeople have 2 apartments. One in their home state and one in DC where their job is.
being able to by a bag of flour for 10 cents , or whatever, for 40 years must have meant a lot to Joe Lunch pail in 1870.
Except that in 1870, Joe Lunch pail was working 20 hours a day, 7 days a week, with heavy machinery that could maim or kill him at a moment’s notice, and living in a tenement building that could barely contain him, much less his family. Yeah, I’d rather pay a little extra for that flower than go through what he did.
‘He got caught, he came clean.’
He came clean BECAUSE he got caught, not because he felt it his moral imperative to do so.
There’s a huge difference.
I don’t condone Clinton’s lying about his encounters with Monica Lewinsky, but at least he didn’t abandon his post and leave his staff to supply the nation with a host of bs about his whereabouts.
He lied and he paid for it, which is why the Right keeps bringing it up as the crime of the century, but Bush continues get 2 thumbs up for lying the country into the hellhole that is Iraq.
‘I’ll ask you what the parallels are,’
The parallels are that both men betrayed their marriages and were dishonest.
But I don’t recall Clinton jetting around the world multiple times to entertain his nookie.
I’d like to thank right wing propagandist “Dennis” for wanting to continue playing the Republican Sex Scandal Game.
So far the Republican Sex Scandals has included only a partial list of Republican leaders who have betrayed their wives, betrayed their children, and committed illegal sex acts: Sanford, Vitter, Craig, Ensign, Cunningham, Foley, McCain, Reagan, Limbaugh, Gingrich, and Giuliani.
But the list of Republicans who betrayed their wives is much longer and includes:
Republican Representative Bob Livingston betrayed his wife.
Republican Representative Dan Burton betrayed his wife (and had a child by the women he was having the affair with).
Republican Representative Tim Hutchinson betrayed his wife.
Republican Representative Henry Hyde betrayed his wife.
Republican Senator Bob Packwood betrayed his wife.
Keep in mind that these are all NATIONAL Republican Leaders that betrayed their wives.
The national list of Republicans adulterers isn’t complete, but there is a bonus round of state Republican leaders that we can list as well.
Would you like to continue playing the: Name That Hypocritical Republican’s Sex-capades Game?