Galen Posted August 29, 2007 Report Share Posted August 29, 2007 Is it us, the media, or both? Why are the seedy activities of a senator from Idaho more notable then the resignation of the most powerful lawyer in the nation? So, another staunchly anti-gay politician is probably gay himself. What's next, will we find out that the Pope is Catholic? The suspected actions of the AG are so much more far reaching and harmful then this bozo from Idaho, yet the "media" is drowning us in his story. Meanwhile, the US department of justice is adrift without anyone at the helm. Pssst...look, over here. Shiny objects...ooohhh pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 politically there is more hay to make going after a long term senator than after an appointee. It is doubtful that gonzo will have any greater effect on the next election than he already has. sort of beating a dead horse. A conservative wanking in the mens room though, no thats sure to stir up some ****. Of course your average american has no opinion really, politically, they just want to be entertained. SEX SELLS it always has:cool: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartron Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 Last I saw, he had embarked on a music career (contains "foul language"): 'later... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 I just noticed this was almost three month old news!!!!! might have something to do with the big campaign finance scandal that is blowing up on the dem side. It appears lady hillary has been dipping into the chinese money again. some people never learn:freak3: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjl Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 I think all the attention is there because people love this mixture of hypocrisy, irony, tragedy, and "you're not so holier than me now, are you?". It's like a hypocritical version of hubris in Greek tragedy. Plus, it's a political issue, which makes it especially tasty for people who care about it. At first, I thought it was hilarious (add him to the list of anti-gay gay politicians), but the more I think about it the sadder it gets. I thought most gay guys in denial just got themselves wives and kids and left it at that, but imagine the amount of denial and repression you'd need to have to go to the extreme of getting yourself into a position of power where you denounce the behavior, and then try to get your fix in airport or park restrooms (gross!). It's like the Super XTreme Red Bull version of "He who smelt it dealt it" or something. Dr. D - I doubt it is a deflection from Clinton's thing; if you believe that the msm biases that way on purpose (I don't) you'd expect them to simply talk about AG Gonzales instead. Also, the alleged crime was 3 months ago, but it is not 3 month old news; the story was broken by the Idaho Statesman (a local newspaper that endorsed him in 2002) just a few days ago. I think that's also why the Republicans are so pissed at him right now; that he didn't disclose anything to anybody the way David Vitter did. Vitter was given rounds of applause in the senate after admitting his sin and apologizing, whereas Craig tried to hide it and is now getting shot down by everybody. Then again, that could also be because getting caught paying prostitutes to dress you up in diapers is not as bad as soliciting gay sex in airport restrooms? I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 whole thing playing footsie with someone is hardly wrong or lewd and there I think the laws used to bust this guy were either abused or absurd in the first place. If the guy stuck his dick out to the cop or something I'd get it but this was just wrong. That said, I love seeing republicans get outed to a point but when it comes to peoples sex lives I really think that if it does not hurt anyone else the state should have absolutely no interest in persecuting people and if it does they better have done something that is actually offensive not just playing footsie. how ****ed is the country we live in that many appointees in the current administration are resigning due to scandals involving corruption and all sorts of other nasty things and we're more worried about queers. And as far as Hillary goes with the soft money and straight up illegal contributions, big deal, no worse than any of the republicans running. Ol' Freddy there is still "testing the waters" which at this point is very illegal. Lobbing sleazy money claims at either Clinton is well founded but I hope to god you've never voted any of the last four presidents if you're gonna get hopped up about it and sure as hell plan to boycott this election OR vote for a third party, I assume you'd vote libertarian and there are a few libertarians that are alright when it comes to these things. For you to make claims of the media covering for the dems is hardly founded as they would hurt most of the major news outlets if they came to power for various reasons (think networks either owned or financed by corporations that depend on sales generated by the Iraq war and huge defense contracts) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjl Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 People get all up in arms not because these guys are having gay sex, but because they are being hypocrites in the worst way. The gay sex is a 4x multiplier bonus score because it makes it titillating, but the 1000 pt target shot was the hypocrisy. It's like when that senator (I think California state senator) who voted for banning cell phone while driving rear ended somebody while on her(?) cellphone. The extra 2x multiplier on the gay legislator thing (for a total of 8x! Big bonus multiball!) is that one of the basic premises behind their position is that homosexuality is a choice, and not innate, and, whether or not you believe it, those guys, of all people (Haggard, Allen, Craig, etc.) must have come to the conclusion that it is innate, because they sure as heck didn't choose to have the urges they have. Lobbing sleazy money claims at either Clinton is well founded but I hope to god you've never voted any of the last four presidents if you're gonna get hopped up about it and sure as hell plan to boycott this election OR vote for a third party, I assume you'd vote libertarian and there are a few libertarians that are alright when it comes to these things. Ron Paul is still clean, isn't he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 not according to fox news http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html Fox news has it out for the guy because he's closer to the mark of a true conservative. on both sides I'd have to say Ron Paul and Dennis Cusinnich(SP?) are both the cleanest and furthest away from their respective parties even though they go in the opposing directions from each other. the rest of them are fairly centrist and pretty dirty. there's allot to be said for integrity but it does not usually get you elected otherwise the majority of our recent presidents would not have been elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177 at 10 minutes what it says is how I feel allot of these gay republicans feel about many issues. Also, much of what they do is to keep their bible thumping base voters happy and really disagree with much of what they do to keep their jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.