Here is another thing that bothers me. A republican congressman is considered to have high moral standards. Turns out he is in fact gay. Bill Maher plans to out more gays in the republican party. In the media they are such hypocrites, yet they have not broken any law by being homosexual.
Where is the outcry when a Democrat does something like this??
To name a few: Ted Kennedy. Senator, yet has murdered a woman. He is a liberal so lets give him a free pass.
Robert Byrd. Also a in the Senate, was also a leader of the KKK. He is a liberal so lets not mention it.
Id rather have a couple of gays in congress than a murderer and a klansmen. Why arent they called out for this?!?!
If a Republican has ran or is running for office by courting the vote of conservatives on the premise of blocking gay marriage, etc., and he or she is gay, then they should be outed. I don't want a hypocrite as my representative, and if someone has that information, by all means, let's have it. If Republicans want to act the moral authority in Washington, they need to BE the moral authority. Otherwise, they may find themselves playing second fiddle to the Democrats for a long time to come. Look at Foley, standing up and holding news conferences calling for tougher penalties for child molesters, when he himself has fantasies about an underage page that he's apparently attempting to act upon. Those of Foley's ilk are despicable.
As for Kennedy and Byrd, quite frankly the Republicans need to get past those two. Kennedy killed a woman in the PAST. Byrd is a FORMER klansman. Are we really prepared to condemn for life for past mistakes? If we're going to start dragging skeletons out of closets, let's line 'em up and do it, but we'll have to line up the Republicans and the Democrats side-by-side.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
If a Republican has ran or is running for office by courting the vote of conservatives on the premise of blocking gay marriage, etc., and he or she is gay, then they should be outed. I don't want a hypocrite as my representative, and if someone has that information, by all means, let's have it.
Just curious, are being gay and being against gay marriage mutually exclusive? If he's gay and against gay marriage, how does that make him a hypocrite?
No, they aren't mutually exclusive and that's a good point. To be honest, I was grasping for something that Congress can do to stop this whole "gay rights" catastrophe and threw that in there. I guess I could have said "If a Republican has ran or is running for office by courting the vote of conservatives on the premise of an anti-gay agenda . . ." but our liberal friends on this forum would have been all over that, calling me a homophobe.
How about this: If a Republican is getting votes from conservative Christians who are voting for him in large part because of the gay ISSUE, and he is gay, then he should be outed.
Does that make more sense?
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Or like saluting the crowd at your convention and saying "Reporting for duty," all the while defaming the troops at every turn. All politicians are scum.
If a Republican has ran or is running for office by courting the vote of conservatives on the premise of blocking gay marriage, etc., and he or she is gay, then they should be outed. I don't want a hypocrite as my representative, and if someone has that information, by all means, let's have it. If Republicans want to act the moral authority in Washington, they need to BE the moral authority. Otherwise, they may find themselves playing second fiddle to the Democrats for a long time to come. Look at Foley, standing up and holding news conferences calling for tougher penalties for child molesters, when he himself has fantasies about an underage page that he's apparently attempting to act upon. Those of Foley's ilk are despicable.
As for Kennedy and Byrd, quite frankly the Republicans need to get past those two. Kennedy killed a woman in the PAST. Byrd is a FORMER klansman. Are we really prepared to condemn for life for past mistakes? If we're going to start dragging skeletons out of closets, let's line 'em up and do it, but we'll have to line up the Republicans and the Democrats side-by-side.
Im not sure I understand your logic. So since Foley's problem actually happened in the past, democrats should forget about it??
By that same logic:
Stop going after Osama
No more prison sentences for those who have murdered, raped, abused or commited any other crime.
Set Saddam free.
Im not saying that they need to be condemed for life because of a past mistake. Im saying that they need to be held accountable for their actions. Face it, if you or I killed a woman (like Kennedy), then tried to cover it up (like Kennedy), we would be sitting in a jail cell right now.
Dick Chenney said "I had priorities other than war in the 60's" and got 5 deferments to keep from serving. Now he gets a pass for that and no one calls him the draft dodger that he is.
Taking a legal deferment, at least as I recall it having been close to draftable age in the early 70's, is not being a "draft dodger." "Draft dodgers" were the guys who didn't have a legal deferment, got drafted, but then headed to Canada or elsewhere to avoid serving.
Free Pass to Liberals.
