PDA

View Full Version : Gay Republican Funhouse!



DEMON CUNT
09-06-2007, 12:43 AM
First up, "Special" Assistant to President Bush, Ron Christie!

Homometer: 8

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lgPOh3ZjAoY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lgPOh3ZjAoY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Next, former Republican National Committee Chairperson, Ken Mehlman.

Homometer: 5

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7Kp6pJ3PVW4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7Kp6pJ3PVW4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Note the way Benedict Stephanopoulos looks at Ken while they are talking. It's love!

sadaist
09-06-2007, 01:15 AM
Why so obsessed with what other people are doing with their diddlers? Homoerotic fantasies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoeroticism

Nickdfresh
09-06-2007, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by sadaist
Why so obsessed with what other people are doing with their diddlers? Homoerotic fantasies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoeroticism

Gee, maybe it's because their WHOLE party is concerned about what people do in their bedrooms...

Yet, they seem to be a bunch of poofters, and whats worse, everyone KNOWS who's queer or a pedophile and yet covers up for it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700830.html

DEMON CUNT
09-06-2007, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by sadaist
Why so obsessed with what other people are doing with their diddlers? Homoerotic fantasies?

No, stupid. It is the hypocrisy that makes this so incredibly entertaining.

If you have been paying attention sadest, you may have noticed that the right wing noise machine uses homosexuality (and a few other key issues) to strike fear into sexually insecure anti-intellectuals like you. Therefore manipulating you into voting for their agenda for fear of gays, immigrants, and a crumbling Social Security program.

This mentality leaves people like Craig hiding in the bathroom seeking what he is actively working against. It also causes idiots like you to post homoerotic phrases packaged as insults here, see my sig for example of your gay writings.

EAT MY ASSHOLE
09-06-2007, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Gee, maybe it's because their WHOLE party is concerned about what people do in their bedrooms...



Nice stereotyping. Is Arnold? Giulliani? The Loghouse crew? Andrew Sullivan?

I'm with Sadist here. This is gratuituos, and shouting at and punishing the crowd for the (hypocritical) actions and behavior of a handful of individuals.

Nickdfresh
09-06-2007, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Nice stereotyping. Is Arnold? Giulliani? The Loghouse crew? Andrew Sullivan?

I'm with Sadist here. This is gratuituos, and shouting at and punishing the crowd for the (hypocritical) actions and behavior of a handful of individuals.

Oh, I guess during the Presidential elections of 2004, the Iraq War issue wasn't completely glossed over and somewhat invalidated by issues such as a constitutional ban on gay marriage, by the party that is supposedly for states rights no less, for semi-educated, middle class redneck dolts?

And Giuliani IS A FUCKING HYPOCRITE. He's for gay rights? Congratulations! I guess he gets a pass at being a shitty, but heterosexual, human being seeing he's running for the banner of the party of "family values."

EAT MY ASSHOLE
09-06-2007, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh, I guess during the Presidential elections of 2004, the Iraq War issue wasn't completely glossed over and somewhat invalidated by issues such as a constitutional ban on gay marriage, by the party that is supposedly for states rights no less, for semi-educated, middle class redneck dolts?

And Giuliani IS A FUCKING HYPOCRITE. He's for gay rights? Congratulations! I guess he gets a pass at being a shitty, but heterosexual, human being seeing he's running for the banner of the party of "family values."

EVERY candidate runs under the banner of "FAMILY VALUES". If you think otherwise, you;re just kidding yourself. Can you name three of your coworkers spouses names? Can you name Hillary, Barrack, and John Edwards spouses by name? Exactly. So that's that argument shot. Name me one candidate who doesn't kiss babies.

And the GOP absolutely used "gay marriage" as a platfrom in 2004, but was the war totally glossed over? Absolutely not. The war was still the focal point, and it should have been much more so than it was, but the dems folded on the issue. If, say, Dean had been the candidate, the elections would absolutely have been about the war and wmd and whatnot. But what did Kerry run on? No, really, what did kerry run on??? he was Bush-Lite: "I won't raise taxes, like a Republican. I won't leave Iraq, like a Republican." What the fuck is thart?? Bush ran on being resolute, decisive, and tough in the face of tough decisions. Is the image true? More than you think, less than Warham does.

Either way, the fact that the GOP leading candidate right now IS a cross-dresser who believes in gay rights should prove what a load of horseshit this whole thing is and MAYBE, just MAYBE, the dems made more of this platform then the GOP ever did (Thus, making it EASY for Rove and Co. to avoid the real issues).

Here's dust in your eye, donkey.

Nitro Express
09-06-2007, 02:16 PM
Sometimes you have to fuck another man up the ass to live the American Dream.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ohVpYt_S8lY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ohVpYt_S8lY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Steve Savicki
09-06-2007, 02:54 PM
Err, happy birthday sadiast. :)

LoungeMachine
09-06-2007, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by sadaist
Why so obsessed with what other people are doing with their diddlers?

www.closetedgayrepublicans.org




LMMFAO

If you can't see the laughable IRONY in that question, you're just not trying.

MAYBE BECAUSE WHILE THEY SHILL FOR THE FAR-RIGHT REPUKES, THEY'RE IN FACT A BUNCH OF COCK-SMOKING HYPOCRITES?????




One can only wonder if you've ever put forth that SAME question to the leaders of the Party you vote for every 2 years. :rolleyes:


:gulp:

Nickdfresh
09-06-2007, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
EVERY candidate runs under the banner of "FAMILY VALUES". If you think otherwise, you;re just kidding yourself. Can you name three of your coworkers spouses names? Can you name Hillary, Barrack, and John Edwards spouses by name? Exactly. So that's that argument shot. Name me one candidate who doesn't kiss babies.

Yes well, can you name one of Giuliani's kid's that still talks to him? :)

In any case, they can kiss all of the babies' they want, but when they advocate social policies and morality legislation - that's a whole different ballgame.


And the GOP absolutely used "gay marriage" as a platfrom in 2004, but was the war totally glossed over? Absolutely not. The war was still the focal point, and it should have been much more so than it was, but the dems folded on the issue. If, say, Dean had been the candidate, the elections would absolutely have been about the war and wmd and whatnot. But what did Kerry run on? No, really, what did kerry run on??? he was Bush-Lite: "I won't raise taxes, like a Republican. I won't leave Iraq, like a Republican." What the fuck is thart?? Bush ran on being resolute, decisive, and tough in the face of tough decisions. Is the image true? More than you think, less than Warham does.

No, the war was discussed and I agree that Kerry failed to articulate a solid and cohesive message that would have helped him overcome the Republican attack machine that had nothing to do with issues or policies. The whole "flip[flop" and "French-Jew" shit was beyond repulsive, but spectacularly effective...

The gay marriage issue WAS debated and covered to an extent that far outweighed its social relevance. Especially with the War on Terr'a going on and being refocused into a post-colonial occupation and resulting insurgency.

I cannot for the life of me see how any American that watched those debates voting for George W. Bush. I can see if they didn't like John Kerry to an extent, and say what you want about Kerry's waffling, wishy-washy take it in the nutsack demeanor. But he fucking handed Bush his ass in each one of those debates and made el presidente-befuddled-marble-mouthed-fuckwit look like a child that barely passed student UN in junior high severally own3d each time...:rolleyes:


Either way, the fact that the GOP leading candidate right now IS a cross-dresser who believes in gay rights should prove what a load of horseshit this whole thing is and MAYBE, just MAYBE, the dems made more of this platform then the GOP ever did (Thus, making it EASY for Rove and Co. to avoid the real issues).

Here's dust in your eye, donkey.

Not to mention abortion. Giuliani wants to insure that his bitches can flush his fetus when necessary.:)

LoungeMachine
09-06-2007, 07:39 PM
Rudy has about as much chance of being the Repuke Nominee as does a turtle-fucking DLR fan with halitosis.

fagghetaboutit

aint neeeevver gonna happen

:gulp:

LoungeMachine
09-06-2007, 07:39 PM
Rudy has about as much chance of being the Repuke Nominee as does a turtle-fucking DLR fan with halitosis.

fagghetaboutit

aint neeeevver gonna happen

:gulp:

sadaist
09-06-2007, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
It is the hypocrisy that makes this so incredibly entertaining.



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And Giuliani IS A FUCKING HYPOCRITE. He's for gay rights?


Originally posted by LoungeMachine
THEY'RE IN FACT A BUNCH OF COCK-SMOKING HYPOCRITES???


You guys sure like the word hypocrite. So Democrats are void of hypocrisy?

James McGreevey - Democrat - New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments.

Gerry Eastman Studds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

Allan Turner Howe - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Utah . Arrested for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute.

Joseph Waggonner Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Louisiana. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute

http://politicalgraveyard.com/index.html

Unless a politician, regardless of party affiliation, is taking bribes or abusing their power, I don't really give a shit what they do. If they are closet gays, smoke dope at home, cheat on their wife, etc... it doesn't affect us. As long as it doesn't keep them from doing the job they were elected to do. The only reason these stories come out and are so highly publicized is for one party to smear the other.

LoungeMachine
09-06-2007, 08:08 PM
Jesus Tittie Fucking CHRIST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You STILL don't get it.

OF COURSE there are gays on both sides of the aisles....

OF COURSE there are CROOKS on pboth sides of the aisles....

OF COURSE there are PERVS on both sides of the aisles.

BUT [pay attention please]

Did ANY of those DEMS you pointed out OPENLY CAMPAIGN ON, OR VOTE FOR, anti-gay legistlation?????????????????????????????\

sheesh.

Do you need me to wiki the term hypocrisy for you, too?

:gulp:

EAT MY ASSHOLE
09-06-2007, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Rudy has about as much chance of being the Repuke Nominee as does a turtle-fucking DLR fan with halitosis.

Fuck that noise. I floss every day and have breath sweet like a 14 year old's virgin cunt!

EAT MY ASSHOLE
09-06-2007, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I cannot for the life of me see how any American that watched those debates voting for George W. Bush.

Maybe b/c the debates are a collossal waste of time. They're total bullshit. Tell me: when you sat down to wacth the first one in 2004, were you already closing your mind to ANYTHING Bush might have to say? of course you were. Just like Warham or BitchBoyBrian had no capacity to hear anything Kerry had to say. If I asked you right now if it comes down to Clinton vs. Giulliani with, I dunno, let's say Bloomberg as a third party, I bet you could tell me RIGHT NOW exactly who you'd vote for. And we're STILL a year away from the first presidential debates.

Debates are window-dressing. Cheney told some flat-out lies during his debate with Edwards, and it didn't mean a fucking thing AT ALL.

LoungeMachine
09-06-2007, 08:35 PM
Speaking of Rudy.....


NEW YORK (AP) — A filmmaker who was behind documentaries that bashed Rupert Murdoch and Wal-Mart is now focusing on Rudy Giuliani, creating an "online viral video campaign" about the presidential candidate timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attack.

Robert Greenwald on Thursday launched the first of four short videos about Sept. 11 and the Republican former mayor. The others are planned to launch throughout the month.

The videos attack Giuliani by saying he failed to prepare New York City for a major disaster, he ignored sick ground zero workers after the terrorist attack and he profited financially from his association with the tragedy after leaving office in 2001.

"We want to use this forum to reach people and show and tell and say, 'Look here are some truths that we want you to know,"' Greenwald told The Associated Press. The video blitz has an accompanying website, therealrudy.org.

The Giuliani campaign questioned Greenwald's motivation and timing.

"It's unfortunate that a conspiracy theorist so disconnected from reality would launch a politically motivated hit video to coincide with the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks," said Mike McKeon, a Giuliani spokesman.

Greenwald, a Brooklyn native and registered independent, has made a number of documentaries, including "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" and "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price."

He said he was inspired to create the Giuliani videos earlier this year after learning about Giuliani's critics, who have begun to turn up the heat on the former mayor as his presidential campaign has taken off.

The spots feature interviews with many of those known critics, including relatives of those who died in the World Trade Center attack, fire safety experts and Jerome Hauer, Giuliani's emergency management commissioner from 1996 to 2000, who had a falling out with his boss in 2001.

Greenwald said each video cost about US$40,000 to make and that fundraising helped pay for the series, which will be posted on YouTube and e-mailed to bloggers, supporters and other venues. He is also exploring the idea of buying television time for the spots in some of the early primary states.

Other work by Greenwald and his company, Brave New Films, during this presidential campaign includes a short film for MoveOn.org's campaign to get the Nevada Democratic Party to drop Fox News Channel as a co-host for an August debate. It was eventually cancelled.

Greenwald said he is not supporting any candidate yet.

Meanwhile, Giuliani, who was campaigning in Minnesota Thursday, downplayed the entrance of former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson into the presidential race. Giuliani said he didn't think the campaign had changed for him with the addition of the new GOP candidate.

"I don't run against any other Republican, I run against Democrats," he said.


Brian Bakst in St. Paul, Minn., contributed to this report.


Copyright © 2007 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

LoungeMachine
09-06-2007, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Fuck that noise. I floss every day and have breath sweet like a 14 year old's virgin cunt!

14 year old virgin?

Not in your neighborhood, pal.

:gulp:

BITEYOASS
09-06-2007, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Nitro Express
Sometimes you have to fuck another man up the ass to live the American Dream.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ohVpYt_S8lY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ohVpYt_S8lY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

That is just so wrong to use that Frank Zappa video as a description of Ron Christie...





















Cause you should have added this one also! :D

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y0ay5S6hWJI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y0ay5S6hWJI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Nickdfresh
09-06-2007, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Maybe b/c the debates are a collossal waste of time. They're total bullshit. Tell me: when you sat down to wacth the first one in 2004, were you already closing your mind to ANYTHING Bush might have to say? of course you were. Just like Warham or BitchBoyBrian had no capacity to hear anything Kerry had to say.


Yes, well...Bush's stupefied look of a fawn about to be crushed by a tractor trailer as it gently, inquisitively gazes upon the onrushing headlights, and his overall babbling incoherent recitation of dumb, right wing aphoristic talking points pretty much cemented the case that he was an ineffectual retard for me. I can't argue from the perspective of people like gWar, Mrs.GladdVibrator, and BigSpazBrian that argued against the guy that actually sorta' knew what the fuck he was talking about - because no matter how much smarter than "our candidate" he appeared, he must have been a "bad man!"


If I asked you right now if it comes down to Clinton vs. Giulliani with, I dunno, let's say Bloomberg as a third party, I bet you could tell me RIGHT NOW exactly who you'd vote for. And we're STILL a year away from the first presidential debates.

Not so fast, Tonto!


Debates are window-dressing. Cheney told some flat-out lies during his debate with Edwards, and it didn't mean a fucking thing AT ALL.

Debates are a gauge of effectiveness as a leader...

Look at Kennedy vs. Kruschov! Granted, it was a very indirect contest, but JFK own3d Nikita in poise, substance, and style. This gave confidence to the West, and in many ways was the last nail in the coffin of the USSR...

Is it any secret that Dumbya can't debate his way out of a phone booth, and sucks horridly as a leader?

And the debates between JFK vs. Nixon and Carter vs. Ford meant everything in those contests...

sadaist
09-06-2007, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Jesus Tittie Fucking CHRIST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You STILL don't get it.

OF COURSE there are gays on both sides of the aisles....

OF COURSE there are CROOKS on pboth sides of the aisles....

OF COURSE there are PERVS on both sides of the aisles.

BUT [pay attention please]

Did ANY of those DEMS you pointed out OPENLY CAMPAIGN ON, OR VOTE FOR, anti-gay legistlation?????????????????????????????\

sheesh.

Do you need me to wiki the term hypocrisy for you, too?

:gulp:

LOL. So Dems aren't ever hypocritical. I get it now.:)

And as for voting for anti-gay legislation, aren't these representatives of constituents? Aren't they supposed to vote for what the people who elected them want even if it means setting certain personal beliefs aside?

Nickdfresh
09-06-2007, 10:03 PM
So, it's okay to be a Jew and a Nazi at the same time?

A priest and a child molester?

A traitor-spy, and an a "patriotic" CIA agent?

Was he elected because he represented their views?

Or was he elected by them because he fraudulently stated his view were the same as theirs?

Nickdfresh
09-06-2007, 10:09 PM
And BTW, you need a special class on what the word "hypocrite" means...

EAT MY ASSHOLE
09-06-2007, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Debates are a gauge of effectiveness as a leader...


And the debates between JFK vs. Nixon and Carter vs. Ford meant everything in those contests...

Oh, bullshit bullshit bullshit! The TV stations will tell you that, b/c, duh, they want (and need) you to tune in. And the parties only have them if they want to. Wanna know why Team Bush agreed to three debates with Kerry? B/c originally they weren't going to do any (public be damned), but then their research showed that the more public got to know Kerry, the more they disliked him. So, with that in mind, let's get him REAAALLY in the public eye.

And Kerry LOST those debates. Wanna know why? 'Cause he had EVERY opportunity to tear Bush a new one, and he never, ever did. He scraped Bush's elbow when he could have gone for the jugular. Way to go DLC!!!

LoungeMachine
09-07-2007, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by sadaist
LOL. So Dems aren't ever hypocritical. I get it now.:)




:rolleyes:

Jesus Christ, do you actually bother to READ and/or comprehend a post prior to hitting the reply button??????

:rolleyes:

fuck.

It's like debating the dead.

:gulp:

ODShowtime
09-07-2007, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by sadaist
You guys sure like the word hypocrite. So Democrats are void of hypocrisy?

James McGreevey - Democrat - New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fundraising investigations and indictments.

Gerry Eastman Studds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

Allan Turner Howe - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Utah . Arrested for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute.

Joseph Waggonner Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Louisiana. Arrested in Washington, D.C. for soliciting a policewoman posing as a prostitute

http://politicalgraveyard.com/index.html

Unless a politician, regardless of party affiliation, is taking bribes or abusing their power, I don't really give a shit what they do. If they are closet gays, smoke dope at home, cheat on their wife, etc... it doesn't affect us. As long as it doesn't keep them from doing the job they were elected to do. The only reason these stories come out and are so highly publicized is for one party to smear the other.


You are a god-damned moron sadaist.


hypocrite
One entry found for hypocrite.
Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
- hypocrite adjective
http://m-w.com/dictionary/hypocrite

ODShowtime
09-07-2007, 12:25 AM
Who has less brain cells? Sadaist or coulter?



CRUISING WHILE REPUBLICAN

By Ann CoulterWed Sep 5, 7:56 PM ET

If you've just returned from your Labor Day vacation and are scanning the headlines from last week's newspapers -- don't panic! America is not threatened by a category 5 hurricane named "Larry Craig."

Despite the 9/11-level coverage, Larry Craig is merely accused of "cruising while Republican." There is nothing liberals love more than gay-baiting, which they disguise as an attack on "hypocrisy."

Chris Matthews opened his "Hardball" program on Aug. 28 by saying Larry Craig had been "exposed as both a sexual deviant and a world-class hypocrite."

Normally, using the word "deviant" in reference to any form of sodomy would be a linguistic crime worse than calling someone a "nappy headed ho." Luckily, Craig is a Republican.

As a backup precaution, Matthews has worked to ensure that there is virtually no audience for "Hardball." I shudder to think of the damage such a remark might have done if uttered about a non-Republican on a TV show with actual viewers.

The New York Times ran 15 articles on Craig's guilty plea to "disorderly conduct" in a bathroom. The Washington Post ran 20 articles on Craig. MSNBC covered it like it was the first moon landing -- Three small taps for a man, one giant leap for public gay sex!

In other news last week, two Egyptian engineering students, Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed and Youssef Samir Megahed, were indicted in Tampa on charges of carrying pipe bombs across states lines. They were caught with the bombs in their car near a Navy base.

But back to the real news of the week: CNN's Dana Bash reported that the Larry Craig story was "everywhere and it is not going to let up."

If liberals were any happier, they'd be gay.

Just as liberals were reaching a fever-pitch of pretend shock and dismay at Larry Craig, it was announced that Craig was resigning. And there went MSNBC's fall program schedule.

Indignant that Craig had short-circuited their gleeful gay-baiting, liberals quickly switched to a new set of talking points. In the blink of an eye, they went from calling Craig a "deviant" to attacking Republicans for not insisting that Craig stay.

Liberals said the only reason Republicans were not blanketing the airwaves defending Craig -- maybe running him for president -- was because of Republican "homophobia." After howling with rage all week about gay Republicans, to turn around and call Republicans homophobes on Friday was nothing if not audacious.

But last Friday -- or, for short, "the day the two bomb-carrying Egyptian students were indicted and the mainstream media was too busy jeering at Larry Craig to notice" -- The New York Times editorialized:

"Underlying the (Republicans') hurry to disown the senator, of course, is the party's brutal agenda of trumpeting the gay-marriage issue. To the extent Sen. Craig, a stalwart in the family values caucus, might morph into a blatant hypocrite before the voters' eyes, he reflects on the party's record in demonizing homosexuality. The rush to cast him out betrays the party's intolerance, which is on display for the public in all of its ugliness."

Liberals don't even know what they mean by "hypocrite" anymore. It's just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like "extremist" -- or, come to think of it, "gay." How is Craig a "hypocrite," much less a "blatant hypocrite"?

Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk! Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."

And why is it "homophobic" for Senate Republicans to look askance at sex in public bathrooms? Is the Times claiming that sodomy in public bathrooms is the essence of being gay? I thought gays just wanted to get married to one another and settle down in the suburbs so they could visit each other in the hospital.

Liberals have no idea what they think about homosexuality, which is why their arguments are completely contradictory. They gay-bait Republicans with abandon -- and then turn around and complain about homophobia.

They call Larry Craig a "deviant" based on accusations that he attempted to solicit sex in a public bathroom -- and then ferociously attack efforts to prevent people from having sex in public bathrooms.

They say people are born gay -- and then they say it's the celibacy requirement that turns Catholic priests gay.

They tell us gays want nothing more than to get married -- and then say it's homophobic to oppose homosexual sex in public bathrooms.

Unlike liberals, the "family values caucus" that the Times loathes has only one position on homosexuality: Whatever your impulses are, don't engage in homosexual sex. In fact, don't have any sex at all unless it is between a husband and wife.

The Idaho Statesman spent eight months investigating a rumor that Craig was gay. They interviewed 300 people, going back to his college days. They walked around Union Station in Washington, D.C., with a picture of Craig, asking people if they had seen him loitering around the men's bathrooms.

And they produced nothing.

All they had was the original anonymous charge of sodomy in a bathroom at Union Station that started the eight-month investigation in the first place -- and his plea to "disorderly conduct" after an ambiguous encounter in a bathroom in Minneapolis. Even his enemies said they had never seen any inappropriate conduct by Craig.

If the charges against Craig are true -- and that is certainly in doubt -- he's a sinner (and barely that, according to The Idaho Statesman), but he is among the least hypocritical people in America.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20070905/cm_ucac/cruisingwhilerepublican;_ylt=AkmM4H8d31ZJxoqtS81k9 ST9wxIF


This is a serious question. Who's dumber?

ODShowtime
09-07-2007, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine


Do you need me to wiki the term hypocrisy for you, too?

:gulp:

sorry I guess I showed up late to the party. oh well

DEMON CUNT
09-07-2007, 01:05 AM
Like many right-wingers, saddest can only speak in circles. Leaping from talking point to talking point. And inevitability they resort to pointing to the other side to say "...but...but...but they do it too!"

At least you guys have her doing some research. Always a good thing.

With Republicans like Craig the message don't match the messenger. That means he is probably a liar. Here's where saddest squeals out his '"...but...but...but Clinton!" talking point battle cry.

Yawn.

DEMON CUNT
09-07-2007, 01:09 AM
Happy Brithday, saddest!

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g161/michelleghoff/Designz/Bday/bday23.jpg

sadaist
09-07-2007, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Happy Brithday, saddest!

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g161/michelleghoff/Designz/Bday/bday23.jpg

LOL! Let me guess, the wallpaper from your pc.

Nitro Express
09-07-2007, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by BITEYOASS
That is just so wrong to use that Frank Zappa video as a description of Ron Christie...





















Cause you should have added this one also! :D

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y0ay5S6hWJI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y0ay5S6hWJI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Who is who and what is what? The Republicans are an ass fucking costume party.

Nitro Express
09-07-2007, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Happy Brithday, saddest!

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g161/michelleghoff/Designz/Bday/bday23.jpg

Them boys are invited to the Hill Billy camp at Bohemian Grove.

Nickdfresh
09-07-2007, 06:13 AM
In the hotel...next to the Republican Nat'l Convention this year:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PyB_1wjbc_s"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PyB_1wjbc_s" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

scamper
09-07-2007, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by sadaist
Aren't they supposed to vote for what the people who elected them want even if it means setting certain personal beliefs aside?

Yes, this is where the whole system gets screwed up, after they get their spot in the house or senate they forget why they're there.

FORD
09-07-2007, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
In the hotel...next to the Republican Nat'l Convention this year:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PyB_1wjbc_s"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PyB_1wjbc_s" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Next door??

I heard Rudy was already rehearsing that number himself :D

Nickdfresh
09-07-2007, 10:57 AM
Those were young Republican's dancing in the background...

Nitro Express
09-07-2007, 01:01 PM
My name is Larry Craig. Stick it up my butt and don't make me beg!

DEMON CUNT
09-07-2007, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by scamper
Yes, this is where the whole system gets screwed up, after they get their spot in the house or senate they forget why they're there.

Do you bother to contact them on a regular basis? You can call, email, or send a fax to them. They have offices at home and in Washington.

I just got an email response from one of my Reps thanking me for contacting him about Alberto Gonzales lying to Congress. Did notice that Alberto resigned a few days ago? Karl resigned too.

Some things move in Washington, just very slowly.

Nickdfresh
09-07-2007, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Oh, bullshit bullshit bullshit! The TV stations will tell you that, b/c, duh, they want (and need) you to tune in. And the parties only have them if they want to. Wanna know why Team Bush agreed to three debates with Kerry? B/c originally they weren't going to do any (public be damned), but then their research showed that the more public got to know Kerry, the more they disliked him. So, with that in mind, let's get him REAAALLY in the public eye.

Uh, NO DUDE!! Ford totally fucked up in one of the most befuddled responses in history when he said something to the affect that Poland was not part of the Eastern Block of Soviet satellites. Ford probably would have won in 78' had he not had a brain fart from not wearing his leather helmet in college. And Kennedy just looked youthful and vibrant while Tricky Dick looked uncomfortable, unshaven and tired. Usually I'm not a big fan of perception over substance, but in that case - it was the truth! Debates CAN change everything. But only if the format is conversational and not restrictive, like the 2004 debates were, which clearly favors a blabbering clown like Bush 43...

And need I remind you of "I knew Jack Kennedy...and Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!" :D


And Kerry LOST those debates. Wanna know why? 'Cause he had EVERY opportunity to tear Bush a new one, and he never, ever did. He scraped Bush's elbow when he could have gone for the jugular. Way to go DLC!!!

You're right, but he didn't lose (he own3d dumbya every time) but he failed to win big enough to remove all doubt. But that was also the reason why the questions and debate was so restrictive and structured. Hmmmm, who was behind that?

Guitar Shark
09-07-2007, 10:38 PM
Pretty scary that the person making the strongest arguments in this thread has chosen "EAT MY ASSHOLE" as his moniker.

EAT MY ASSHOLE
09-08-2007, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Ford probably would have won in 78' had he not had a brain fart from not wearing his leather helmet in college.

You mean '76. If you're going to tease and make fun of W. for his supposed lack of intelligence re: the facts, you should know them yourself.... :)

And FORD lost that elction b/c of Watergate and the pardon of Nixon. Even though years later Clinton himself actually stated that the pardon was the right thing to do.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And need I remind you of "I knew Jack Kennedy...and Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!"

Need I remind you that your man Lloyd who made that statement LOST the election?




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
[B
You're right, but he didn't lose (he own3d dumbya every time) but he failed to win big enough to remove all doubt. But that was also the reason why the questions and debate was so restrictive and structured. Hmmmm, who was behind that? [/B]

The DLC agreed to the temrs. Kerry could have said anything to the press or during the debates. He didn't. Mainly b/c he didn't know what to say. To the victor go the spoils...

rustoffa
09-08-2007, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
And FORD lost that elction b/c of Watergate and the pardon of Nixon.


Interesting. I figured it was b/c he kept busting his ass everywhere. You know, falling down stairs, trying to shore up foreign policy. It's all so confusing!
;)

Nickdfresh
09-08-2007, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
You mean '76. If you're going to tease and make fun of W. for his supposed lack of intelligence re: the facts, you should know them yourself.... :)

Well you've got a point there...just like if you're a feelance writer, you shouldn't have shit grammar and spelling skills, eh?


And FORD lost that elction b/c of Watergate and the pardon of Nixon. Even though years later Clinton himself actually stated that the pardon was the right thing to do.


No. Ford was actually a popular moderate in his own right that had broken free of the Nixon-cunt of stinkineness...

His ultimate downfall was in that debate...

Sorry if the facts got in the way.:)


Need I remind you that your man Lloyd who made that statement LOST the election?[/quiote]

No. Actually Dukakis lost. Just like he lost the debates with his overly cerebral shit...

[quote]The DLC agreed to the temrs. Kerry could have said anything to the press or during the debates. He didn't. Mainly b/c he didn't know what to say. To the victor go the spoils...

I think the offer was this or no debates...

Granted, the Kerry crew should've taken NO debates and shown the Bush people to be one of the most cowardly, dumbest shills for an asshole ever, and used it as an issue. But, oh well...

EAT MY ASSHOLE
09-08-2007, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well you've got a point there...just like if you're a feelance writer, you shouldn't have shit grammar and spelling skills, eh?

That's what the proofreaders and editors are for, m'boy. ;)

Nickdfresh
09-08-2007, 12:37 PM
Well, where the hell was my fact checker?:D

And fuck, do I need a good editor...

DEMON CUNT
09-08-2007, 01:49 PM
This guy hates gays so much he claims that they made him flunk the Bar exam!

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1030076

His love for "god" is so great that he couldn't bring himself to answer a '"patently offensive and morally repugnant" gay marriage question.'

Do we really want superstitious bigots like this practicing law in our country? This douche sounds like he should be practicing law for the Taliban.

EAT MY ASSHOLE
09-08-2007, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT


Do we really want superstitious bigots like this practicing law in our country?

I dunno. John Ashcroft was the bane of the left's existence for his devout fundamentalism, but it turns out that he did some pretty great stuff as attorney general; such as recognizing the unconstitutionality of Bush's approach to wiretapping, putting his foot down on the matter, and not kow-towing to EXTREME pressure from Alberto Gonzales to sign off on the program.

EAT MY ASSHOLE
09-08-2007, 05:24 PM
Does anyone have access to the footage from Craig's appearance back in '99 on "Hardball with Chris Matthews"?

it was at the height of the Clinton impeachment bonanza, and Craig repeatedly called Clinton "a bad boy, a nasty boy, a NAUGHTY boy, and we are going to punish him for being such a nasty, naughy, BAD boy". The look on Chris Matthews face is priceless: Matthews actually is MORE baffled and disturbed than when Zell Miller challenged him to a duel at the 04 RNC.

DEMON CUNT
09-08-2007, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
I dunno. John Ashcroft was the bane of the left's existence for his devout fundamentalism, but it turns out that he did some pretty great stuff as attorney general; such as recognizing the unconstitutionality of Bush's approach to wiretapping, putting his foot down on the matter, and not kow-towing to EXTREME pressure from Alberto Gonzales to sign off on the program.

The wire tapping went on and is still going on as planned in spite of Ashcroft's hospital bed heroics. Ashcroft was simply covering his own ass. Remember these people are politicians first and public servants second.

DEMON CUNT
09-08-2007, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Does anyone have access to the footage from Craig's appearance back in '99 on "Hardball with Chris Matthews"?

it was at the height of the Clinton impeachment bonanza, and Craig repeatedly called Clinton "a bad boy, a nasty boy, a NAUGHTY boy, and we are going to punish him for being such a nasty, naughy, BAD boy". The look on Chris Matthews face is priceless: Matthews actually is MORE baffled and disturbed than when Zell Miller challenged him to a duel at the 04 RNC.

Yep.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y35lUuup8f8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y35lUuup8f8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Nickdfresh
09-09-2007, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by sadaist
LOL! Let me guess, the wallpaper from your pc.

Hey Sadest, do you have some point with your sig?

Because - you never asked to quote me (out of context, dickhead).

sadaist
09-09-2007, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Hey Sadest, do you have some point with your sig?

Because - you never asked to quote me (out of context, dickhead).

It's funny how many people post at this site while on the drink. You were drunk and admitted it in a post. How is that out of context?

Nickdfresh
09-09-2007, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by sadaist
It's funny how many people post at this site while on the drink.

It is? Why exactly? I can't tell if some people are drunk or high when they post illiterate ramblings. But more often than not, I guess they're probably sober.

I don't quite get why this would be an issue for you, though. What's your point?


You were drunk and admitted it in a post. How is that out of context?

I "admitted it" because I was fucking around late on a weekend night. Some how you're trying to spin this into some sort of "norm," which is kind of retarded since I often post far longer, more complex treatise than most...

In any case, get my words out of your sig. I have the right to approve which of you squirts quotes me and who doesn't...

FORD
09-09-2007, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by sadaist
It's funny how many people post at this site while on the drink.

How would there be a FORD Beercyclopedia if I didn't? :confused:

EAT MY ASSHOLE
09-10-2007, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh


In any case, get my words out of your sig. I have the right to approve which of you squirts quotes me and who doesn't...

Tell it to the Ny Times, alkie... :D

Guitar Shark
09-10-2007, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
In any case, get my words out of your sig. I have the right to approve which of you squirts quotes me and who doesn't...

Usually I ask people before I quote them in my sig... but not always. Whenever someone asks me to remove it, I do. It's just good netiquette.

Even if he doesn't remove it (and I don't think he's obligated to), you should wear it like a badge of honor my friend.

:gulp:

LoungeMachine
09-10-2007, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Usually I ask people before I quote them in my sig... but not always. Whenever someone asks me to remove it, I do. It's just good netiquette.

Even if he doesn't remove it (and I don't think he's obligated to), you should wear it like a badge of honor my friend.

:gulp:

I've never been asked to be quoted

LMAO @ "netiquette" :D

You're so Netopolitain, counselor. ;)

I have a feeling if I asked MsAssPipe to remove my quotes, he'd die laughing.

But I do wear it as a badge of [dis]honor.

It's just good nethumor.

But if someone sincerely asked me to remove something of their's in my sig, I'd oblige.

Unless he's a netool about it.

Then it's unetessary.

:gulp:

sadaist
09-10-2007, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine

But if someone sincerely asked me to remove something of their's in my sig, I'd oblige.

I would have removed it happily. However, in his oh so sincere request, he called me a dick, dickhead & fucking queer.

Fuck him.

Guitar Shark
09-10-2007, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by sadaist
I would have removed it happily. However, in his oh so sincere request, he called me a dick, dickhead & fucking queer.

Fuck him.

LOL!

*Meanwhile, Nickyd furiously searches through sadaist's posts to find a new sig gem* :D

Nickdfresh
09-14-2007, 10:27 AM
LMFAO!!

Actually, I think it's grate that this ended up in my sig. This was just some lame attempt at a "NickD" rant troll. But I should leave those to Hitch1969™, since I run out of steam and time for that nonsense...

I gots no problems with the Sadist, I regularly masturbate to his sig! :)

(Although, people generally do ask to quote unless they're in some gay flameathon with me).

Nickdfresh
09-14-2007, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
LOL!

*Meanwhile, Nickyd furiously searches through sadaist's posts to find a new sig gem* :D

You betch'ya litigating a$$! I'm highly quotable!

matt19
09-20-2007, 04:04 AM
Does anyone else find it odd that in a thread called "Gay Repblican Funhouse", BBB hasn't been here? I would have figured the words "gay" and "republican" would had him very "excited".


:D