View Full Version : Another Toe-Tappin' Republican
This is getting quite sad. A Republican candidate for State Senate, who is apparently friends with the Senator who pays whores to dress him in diapers (http://wonkette.com/politics/dept'-of-feces-fetishists/diaperman-david-vitter-likes-his-diapers-277270.php), has been caught playing footsie in a public men's room (http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/10/difatta_twice_detained_in_lewd.html). (I will refrain from mentioning the State Senator caught trying to buy oral pleasure in a public park's restroom last month (http://www.local6.com/problemsolvers/13664897/detail.html). Except I just did. D'oh!)
Two thoughts: (1) Why can't these guys cruise a gay bar, or find mates online, like normal homosexuals, and (2) how much police manpower is being consumed by staking out toilets? Is this really the most pressing thing the police can find to deal with?
Extra thought: Why are all of these gay Republicans so bad looking? I'm no expert on judging male beauty, but even my fashion-impaired straight-boy eyes can tell that these guys are trolls. They make Ted Haggard look like a supermodel.
DiFatta twice detained for lewd conduct in mall restrooms
Posted by The Times Picayune October 04, 2007 9:57PM
By Christine Harvey St. Tammany bureau
St. Bernard Parish Councilman Joey DiFatta, who on Thursday withdrew from the 1st Senate District campaign, has been stopped twice since 1996 for suspicion of engaging in lewd behavior in public restrooms in Jefferson Parish, records obtained by The Times-Picayune show.
DiFatta, 53, acknowledged that reports he had been stopped are true, but he denied any wrongdoing in both cases. He said he was not prosecuted in either case and has no arrest record.
"If I had done something wrong, I would have been arrested," DiFatta said Thursday afternoon. "I was not. I will deny that I was involved in any activity of that nature."
Earlier Thursday, DiFatta called reporters to announce that he planned to withdraw from the Senate race. He said he has been having chest pains for a few weeks, and elevated enzyme levels indicate he might have had a minor heart attack in the past few days. As a result, his doctor advised him to slow down and make some changes in his life.
DiFatta, who has served on the St. Bernard Parish Council since January 1996 and is currently its chairman, denied he is stepping down from the Senate race for fear that the reports would become public. In fact, he said he did not know the reports had surfaced when he made his decision.
Kenner police issued a misdemeanor summons to DiFatta in September 1996 in connection with a peeping Tom incident in a men's bathroom at the former Mervyn's department store at The Esplanade mall, according to a Kenner Police Department incident report obtained by The Times-Picayune.
The report states that DiFatta watched a man use the bathroom while peering through a hole in a bathroom stall. The man held DiFatta until police arrived, at which time he was issued the misdemeanor summons and ordered to appear in court.
DiFatta said the man eventually withdrew his complaint, and the case was dismissed. A spokeswoman for the Kenner Police Department said the record was expunged.
Tapping foot in stall
In the second incident, Jefferson Parish deputies working an undercover detail in a men's bathroom at Dillard's at Lakeside Shopping Center in March 2000 stopped DiFatta after he indicated a desire to engage in sex with an undercover deputy in an adjoining bathroom stall, according to an interoffice memorandum written by Sgt. Keith Conley, one of the deputies involved in the investigation.
The report said DiFatta slid his foot into the deputy's stall and tapped the deputy's foot. In the report, Conley noted that such activity is common among men to indicate a willingness to participate in sex.
The deputy inside the stall, Detective Wayne Couvillion, responded by tapping his foot, and DiFatta reached under the partition and began to rub the deputy's leg, the report states.
The detective asked DiFatta, "What do you want?" according to the report, and he replied, "I want to play with you."
DiFatta also used a hand signal to indicate that he wanted to engage in sex and used language that indicated the same, according to the report. Conley, who is now the Kenner city attorney, confirmed the report's authenticity Thursday.
The incident did not culminate in an arrest because the deputy in the bathroom with DiFatta terminated the investigation after several children entered the bathroom, the report states. Conley noted in the report that DiFatta appeared well-versed and comfortable with the routine.
Conley wrote that had the investigation been allowed to continue, it likely would have concluded in DiFatta's arrest on obscenity charges, including a possible attempted crime against nature.
Conley confronted DiFatta outside the bathroom, and DiFatta apologized and said he would not return, according to the report. DiFatta also said he has a problem with such behavior and had sought counseling for the addiction in the past, the report states.
In both instances, DiFatta produced his commission from the St. Bernard Sheriff's Office identifying him as a captain. DiFatta said Thursday he did not show his commission either time until officers asked him for identification, all of which he keeps in his wallet.
Struggling after Katrina
When he chose to run for state Senate, DiFatta relinquished the opportunity to run for re-election to the St. Bernard Parish Council. His term ends in January.
DiFatta said he has enjoyed serving the parish and its people and thanked his supporters.
A jeweler who had received several political endorsements in the Senate race, DiFatta also noted that the stress from enduring Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath might have gotten the best of him. He lost his Chalmette home to Katrina, and it took him almost 14 months to rebuild.
In the interim, he has been a strong voice for his constituents, traveling often to Washington, D.C., to fight for recovery help.
DiFatta has notified the Louisiana secretary of state's office that he intends to withdraw from the race, but his withdrawal won't be official until he files the paperwork, said Jacques Berry, the office's spokesman. Regardless, DiFatta's name will remain on the ballot for the Oct. 20 primary, as the state already has printed the ballots, he said.
Any votes to be invalid
Poll workers will place signs in the precincts where DiFatta's name is on the ballot letting the voters know he is no longer in the race and that a vote for him will not be valid, Berry said.
DiFatta's latest campaign finance report shows that he has almost $69,000 in the bank. DiFatta said he will use the money to pay some outstanding bills, though he noted he can hold onto the money to use later.
DiFatta's abrupt departure from the race leaves two candidates -- Reps. A.G. Crowe and Ken Odinet -- fighting for the 1st District seat, which includes St. Bernard Parish and parts of St. Tammany, Plaquemines and Orleans parishes.
Odinet, who lives in Arabi, said Thursday that he was saddened to hear DiFatta has been ill. Crowe, a Pearl River resident, said he wishes DiFatta a speedy recovery.
PanzerJaeger
10-09-2007, 05:37
Two thoughts: (1) Why can't these guys cruise a gay bar, or find mates online, like normal homosexuals,
You answered your own question.
Extra thought: Why are all of these gay Republicans so bad looking? I'm no expert on judging male beauty, but even my fashion-impaired straight-boy eyes can tell that these guys are trolls. They make Ted Haggard look like a supermodel.
Whats the most superficial subculture you can think of? :beam:
AntiochusIII
10-09-2007, 05:43
You answered your own question.lol. To be honest, If I were gay [think: If I were President] I wouldn't want to play daddy and daddy with them either really. Gimme hot traps instead of these closet players anytime. :laugh4:
Whats the most superficial subculture you can think of? :beam:Anime!
Crazed Rabbit
10-09-2007, 06:04
So we don't even require people to be prosecuted before we assume guilt, do we?
Really, Lemur, what's the point of these threads? We have 50 states and thousands of state legislators. So a few turn up odd - what's the big deal?
Why always the Republicans? It's not like dems haven't had a few scandals of their own, by people who have said they weren't gay.
Just wondering.
CR
Hey, CR, I've got nothing against Republicans. Some guys are into that, you know? And I say more power to 'em. Live and let live. I guess I'd feel kinda weird if my son came up to me one day and said he was a Republican, though. We'd need to have a serious father/son talk about public restrooms and proper behavior.
Crazed Rabbit
10-09-2007, 06:38
Okay....:inquisitive:
For a 'live and let live' guy you do seem to bring it up a lot...
CR
HoreTore
10-09-2007, 07:11
Why always the Republicans? It's not like dems haven't had a few scandals of their own, by people who have said they weren't gay.
Clinton had a chick play with his cigar...
Mikeus Caesar
10-09-2007, 12:03
Okay....:inquisitive:
For a 'live and let live' guy you do seem to bring it up a lot...
CR
Maybe he's hiding something?
Clinton had a chick play with his cigar...
Funny that now most republicans would think...
"at least it was with a girl....damn that wasn´t that bad!" :laugh4:
Maybe he's hiding something?
Maybe you're right. It could be that I'm hiding a sixteen-year-old runaway boy in my closet (http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071013/GPG0101/710130528/1207/GPGnews). Anything's possible (http://blogs.wispolitics.com/legal/2007/10/brown-county-gop-chair-charged-with.html).
Brown County Republican Party chairman faces sex charges
Fleischman's attorney denies allegations
By Andy Nelesen
The chairman of the Republican Party in Brown County faces criminal charges for allegedly fondling a 16-year-old Ethan House runaway and providing the boy with beer and marijuana late last year.
Donald Fleischman, 37, of Allouez, was charged last month with two counts of child enticement, two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a child and a single charge of exposing himself to a child.
He was summoned to Brown County court for his initial appearance on Sept. 28. He is free having posted a signature bond as his promise to return to court.
Fleischman's lawyer, Jeff Jazgar, said he plans to confront the charges at the preliminary hearing set for Oct. 29. He declined to discuss specifics of the allegations.
"My client is innocent of the charges," Jazgar said Friday. "Our plan is to get some witnesses to testify and present enough information to dismiss the case.
Efforts to reach Fleischman were unsuccessful Friday.
Green Bay police went to Fleischman's Goodell Street home Nov. 19, 2006, looking for two runaways from Ethan House, a juvenile facility on nearby Emilie Street, according to the criminal complaint filed Sept. 7.
Fleischman opened the door and allowed officers inside where they found a 16-year-old boy hiding on the floor of a walk-in closet wearing only underwear and a T-shirt, the complaint said.
Officers found a black, purple and blue-swirled glass pipe in the living room, which tested positive for marijuana residue, the complaint said.
Police returned to Fleischman's home on Dec. 8, 2006, and found the boy there again. He had been a runaway from Ethan House for eight days.
The teen, now 17, told authorities Fleischman took him to a hotel in Appleton during that time and then to a cabin near Florence for several days before returning to Fleischman's Allouez home. The boy said Fleischman provided him with beer and marijuana, the complaint said.
The boy told police that when he would go to bed, Fleischman would fondle him and that on one occasion he awoke to find Fleischman at the foot of his bed masturbating.
Detectives obtained the boy's drug tests from the days around the time he spent with Fleischman, and three samples from late November and early December tested positive for marijuana.
Fleischman has resigned his post with the Brown County Republicans, said Kirsten Kukowski, communications director for the Republican Party of Wisconsin.
Efforts to confirm Fleischman's resignation with local leadership were unsuccessful Friday.
If convicted on both felonies and all three misdemeanors, Fleischman faces 52 years in prison.
Devastatin Dave
10-16-2007, 03:38
Hey, CR, I've got nothing against Republicans.
LOL, I could fertilize the entire Midwest with that statement alone....:laugh4:
DevDave, I'm just saying that if two guys want to be Republican together, I'm not going to deny them that right. I mean, what adults do behind closed doors is their business. And if some guys want to be Republicans, well, that's not really my problem. Some of them may be confused, some may be Republican-curious, and some may be lifestyle Republicans. Whatever. They have their parades, and their "Republican Pride" day, that's all fine with me.
CrossLOPER
10-16-2007, 04:09
Gimme hot traps instead of these closet players anytime.
I know some people...
Louis VI the Fat
10-16-2007, 11:29
(1) Why can't these guys cruise a gay bar, or find mates online, like normal homosexualsBecause normal, law abiding homosexuals don't join parties who create and pander to hysterical anti-homosexual sentiments.
And they therefore have to be less careful about exploring their gay tendencies through tracable, but normal, safe means that don't confront others with it in public places.
(2) how much police manpower is being consumed by staking out toilets? Is this really the most pressing thing the police can find to deal with?Tsk. Teh homos are at war with the American family. They are massively recruiting America's youth to their godless cause. These laws and this precious police time is absolutely necessary for the safeguarding of family values, and bless the Republican party for staunchly standing up for that.
Tsk. Teh homos are at war with the American family. They are massively recruiting America's youth to their godless cause. These laws and this precious police time is absolutely necessary for the safeguarding of family values, and bless the Republican party for staunchly standing up for that.
Well said Louis!
We need to protect family values with all means necessary.
Gregoshi
10-16-2007, 13:54
This could explain why Senators and Representatives all have Aids. ~D
CrossLOPER
10-16-2007, 16:20
This could explain why Senators and Representatives all have Aids. ~D
Dude, come on! That was low.
Gregoshi
10-16-2007, 16:43
Yes, I know. :shame:
Crazed Rabbit
10-16-2007, 17:50
LoL, Gregoshi.
CR
DemonArchangel
10-17-2007, 06:39
DevDave, I'm just saying that if two guys want to be Republican together, I'm not going to deny them that right. I mean, what adults do behind closed doors is their business. And if some guys want to be Republicans, well, that's not really my problem. Some of them may be confused, some may be Republican-curious, and some may be lifestyle Republicans. Whatever. They have their parades, and their "Republican Pride" day, that's all fine with me.
Dude. You just made my day.
Look out: bear attack (http://www.ktvb.com/news/regional/stories/ktvbn-oct3107-curtis_resignation.1c6315c5f.html)! And it's dangerously close to Crazed Rabbit's home!
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Curtis.jpg
Wash. legislator resigns over gay sex scandal
OLYMPIA, Wash. - A state legislator from southwest Washington resigned his seat Wednesday amid revelations that he had sex with a man he met at an erotic video store while in Spokane on a Republican retreat.
The move comes days after state Rep. Richard Curtis, R-La Center, insisted to his local newspaper that he was not gay and that sex was not involved in what he said was an extortion attempt by a man last week.
But in police reports Curtis alleges he was being extorted by a man he had sex with in a Spokane hotel room. The other man contends Curtis reneged on a promise to pay $1,000 for sex.
Curtis released the following written statement:
"Today I submitted my letter of resignation to Governor Gregoire effective immediately. While I believe we've done some good and helped a lot of people during the time I served in the Legislature, events that have recently come to light have hurt a lot of people. I sincerely apologize for any pain my actions may have caused.
"This has been damaging to my family, and I don't want to subject them to any additional pain that might result from carrying out this matter under the scrutiny that comes with holding public office."
GOP House Leader Richard DeBolt also released a written statement.
"I am very disappointed by the news reports of the conduct by Rep. Curtis last week in Spokane. After discussing this matter with House Republican leaders, he has submitted his resignation, which we feel is best for everyone involved. The troubling details continue to emerge, however, it has become clear that he can no longer effectively represent the constituents who elected him. We pray that Richard and his family have the strength and support they need to meet the personal challenges they face."
Curtis is married and has children, according to his legislative Web site. Elected to the state House of Representatives in 2004, he has voted against gay rights legislation.
A Republican successor will be chosen by county Republican leaders, and will serve until the 2008 election.
Police report: Sex, photos, cross-dressing
Rep. Richard Curtis
Curtis was among state GOP lawmakers who were in Spokane last Wednesday through Friday for a retreat to discuss the upcoming legislative session.
He went to the Hollywood Erotic Boutique in Spokane early on Oct. 26 and met Castagna, who accompanied him to the hotel, police documents released Tuesday said. The two arrived at the hotel around 3:34 a.m. and had sex, after which Curtis fell asleep, according to the documents.
Curtis alleged that Castagna took his wallet and later offered to return it for $1,000. Curtis said he only had $200 and left an envelope with the money at the hotel desk, the documents said.
Castagna called Curtis and demanded an additional $800, and threatened to expose Curtis, according to police reports. But Curtis had already contacted Spokane police, who listened to the call and then met with Castagna.
In his initial statement to police, Curtis denied offering money for sex, and denied having sex at all. He told officers he believed he had been slipped "some type of drug" because he did not have a clear recollection of events.
The police report added that Curtis told officers he only wanted his wallet back "and wanted to keep the incident as low key as possible." He did not want to pursue charges against Castagna, the report said.
In his only public comments previous to his resignation, Curtis told The Columbian newspaper of Vancouver, Wash., that he did not solicit anyone for sex.
"I committed no crime," Curtis told the newspaper Monday. "I did not solicit sex. I was trying to help somebody out."
Curtis, a former firefighter, declared, "I am not gay."
But as the investigation continued, police said Curtis admitted to having sex with Castagna in Curtis' hotel room.
According to the report, Curtis said he initially gave Castagna $100 as gas money, and said he did not consider that paying for sex.
Police interviewed several witnesses at the Hollywood Erotic Boutique, and according to the report, Curtis walked into a bathroom at the store early on the morning of Oct. 26 and a few minutes later left the bathroom wearing long red women's stockings and a black sequined lingerie top. A witness told police that shortly after that he saw a man with a cane performing a sexual act on Curtis in an upstairs room.
Police also interviewed Jalene Henneman, a Hollywood Exotic Boutique employee, who told them Curtis had been in the store three separate times in the past month, and called him "the cross dresser." Henneman said Curtis told her his wife knew he was gay, but that he only pursued sex with men when he was out of town, according to the report.
The police report said Curtis told the investigating detective by phone on the morning of Oct. 27 that he was in Cle Elum because he had wrecked his car on the drive home. Curtis also told the detective he "would have to tell his wife the truth and he would have to get a divorce attorney."
In 2005 and 2006, Curtis voted against a bill that granted civil rights protections to gays and lesbians.
In 2007, Curtis voted against a bill that created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.
Both measures eventually passed the Democratic-controlled state Legislature and are now part of state law.
Crazed Rabbit
11-03-2007, 08:01
Where do you get these stories, Lemur? :inquisitive:
The guy's nobody important even in the small world of state politics. I do keep up a bit on Washington state politics, and he's just an unimportant rank and file member.
It is funny he insists he's not gay.
CR
Reverend Joe
11-03-2007, 22:14
Where do you get these stories, Lemur? :inquisitive:
He stakes out log cabins. :hide: :knuddel:
Frankly, I couldn't care less about these guys... I think this stuff is funny as hell.
From the log cabin front lines: a bear who had sex with Larry Craig speaks out.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/2006-12-14_feature_story_2456_3276.jpg
Here's the safe version (http://davidcaspian.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-had-sex-with-larry-craig.html).
The Not Safe For Work Or For People With Sensitive Dispositions is below the tag.
Don't say you weren't warned. (http://wonkette.com/politics/larry-craig-sex-exclusive%21/exclusive-i-had-sex-with-larry-craig-314897.php)
It's been a busy weekend on the gay Republican watch. The latest (http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01110207.htm) comes from Florida, Daytona Beach to be exact.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Shallow110207.jpg
A former Daytona Beach city commissioner and a local high school teacher arrested Thursday during a sex sting at a Volusia mall bathroom were released from the Volusia County Brach Jail today, authorities said.
Former commissioner and mayoral candidate Mike Shallow and David Behringer, an athletic trainer and teacher at Seabreeze High School, posted $1,000 bail today after midnight, a jail spokesman said. [...]
Shallow, 57, served two terms as a city commissioner from 1999-2003 and ran for mayor unsuccessfully in 2003, 2005 and 2007, finishing a distant fourth in the last race Oct. 9.
The Realtor and real estate broker also served as chairman of the Main Street Redevelopment Board in 2004-2005, and was on the Downtown-Ballough Road Redevelopment Board while he was a commissioner.
Crazed Rabbit
11-05-2007, 01:02
Seriously, Lemur, what's the point of this?
CR
CrossLOPER
11-05-2007, 01:26
Seriously, Lemur, what's the point of this?
CR
lol
Seriously, Lemur, what's the point of this?
It makes me laugh. Surely that's reason enough?
Crazed Rabbit
11-05-2007, 03:08
Tis a valid reason.
But why not just plunk the stories in "News o the weird" thread? Why a whole thread to laugh at the republican party? Surely it seems to be most suited for news o the weird.
CR
LittleGrizzly
11-05-2007, 03:40
Why a whole thread to laugh at the republican party?
:laugh4: seems quite logical ;)
well i mean im happy for him to get his ... thrills but maybe be a bit more private about it might be an idea....
Devastatin Dave
11-05-2007, 03:41
Tis a valid reason.
But why not just plunk the stories in "News o the weird" thread? Why a whole thread to laugh at the republican party? Surely it seems to be most suited for news o the weird.
CR
Its because Lemur has secret homosexual fantasies about getting tag teamed by Dick Cheney and George Bush.
Nah, its just Lemur being his "independent" self, as he always says....:juggle2:
Nah, its just Lemur being his "independent" self, as he always says....:juggle2:
Riiight, Dave, 'cause we all know that anyone who finds the Republican take on homosexuality absurd and hypocritical must, by definition, be a Democrat.
Someday we should work on getting you out of binaries. Chicks dig it when you can count past two.
-edit-
CR, the reason I don't put these in our beloved News of the Weird thread is that I don't like to post political stuff in there. Doing my bit to keep the Weird News pure.
Papewaio
11-05-2007, 05:29
What is surprising that a politician is a hypocrite and will present whatever public image will garner him votes?
More seriously. Can you be a rep, rebulican and openly gay? Or is there a code of conduct that they sign on with?
Riiight, Dave, 'cause we all know that anyone who finds the Republican take on homosexuality absurd and hypocritical must, by definition, be a Democrat.
Of course. Just like anyone who doesn't support the war, isn't a white Christian, and doesn't like Nascar.
:smash:
Kralizec
11-05-2007, 10:16
What is surprising that a politician is a hypocrite and will present whatever public image will garner him votes?
More seriously. Can you be a rep, rebulican and openly gay? Or is there a code of conduct that they sign on with?
http://logcabin.org/
Crazed Rabbit
11-05-2007, 15:56
Riiight, Dave, 'cause we all know that anyone who finds the Republican take on homosexuality absurd and hypocritical must, by definition, be a Democrat.
Now see, that's the strange bit. How is the party's stance on homosexuality - being against gay marriage - hypocritical? Or do you take these few isolated incidents as somehow representing all republicans?
The party is not hypocritical, nor the GOP leadership. It really seems to me like somehow you see these incidents as representative of the whole GOP and therefore an indictment against the whole Republican party, which makes no sense.
The real story is that a few politicians are hypocrites. That's it.
CR
Or do you take these few isolated incidents as somehow representing all republicans?
I think I´ll quote Bill Hicks on this one.... 'When you are that right wing, you must be hiding some very deep, dark secret.'
these isolated incidents are just the tip of the iceberg! :laugh4:
Now see, that's the strange bit. How is the party's stance on homosexuality - being against gay marriage - hypocritical?
I think one could make the case that the Democrat party's positions are hypocritical. Their statements are all tailored to whatever group they're standing in front of. If addressing a gay group, they're all in favor of increased privileges. But, put them in front of a minority group and they'll run from those statements or try to pretend they didn't say what they did. Seems pretty two-faced to me.
At least Republicans have a more consistent stance.
CrossLOPER
11-05-2007, 19:24
At least Republicans have a more consistent stance.
Too easy.
Now see, that's the strange bit. How is the party's stance on homosexuality - being against gay marriage - hypocritical? Or do you take these few isolated incidents as somehow representing all republicans?
I think the moment Republicans started pushing for Federal Amendments prohibiting gay marriage, they were putting themselves on the wrong side of human nature and the wrong side of history. Let face facts -- a certain percentage of people attracted to a conservative or reactionary party will also be attracted to hot studs. Or bears, as the case may be.
The real story is that a few politicians are hypocrites. That's it.
Disagree. The Republicans have traded on moral panic for years. They pretty much kept the Congress by fanning up gay hatred in '04. Gotta keep the base turning out, right?
So you'll excuse me if I'm tickled pink when various elected representatives of the party from all over the nation get busted for indiscreet gay sex. It's funny.
At least Republicans have a more consistent stance.
Must ... resist ... temptation ...
Don Corleone
11-06-2007, 01:44
Oh come on. Arguing over whether elected Republicans are more true to their stated principals vesus elected Democrats is like arguing which leper in the colony has the most surface area of skin left. At the end of the day, nobody's really got what it takes.
First, Lemur, I hate to say it bro, but you are losing the independent status. You do seem like you've been on a witch-hunt, and it started in the summer of 2006. In all that time, you couldn't post one thread of a Democrat being hypocritical and slimy?
Second, come on guys. Larry Craig asked for sex in a bathroom stall at the airport. The reason gay rights groups were following Larry Craig around wasn't because he was a Republican, but because he was a Republican that actively played the Christian conservative card one time too many and had ran on his willingness to put gays in their place (my words, not his).
Gay marriage is one issue. Equal treatment for gays is a separate issue, and I can see where one would stand for the second and not the first. I do, and I don't think that makes me hypocritical. Gay 'marriage' is about forcing organized religions to recognize homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice. BUT and this is important, they're still entitled to any legal priveleges and responsiblities anybody else is. We cannot deny them a potenially advantageous legal arrangement because we disagree with their lifestyle choices.
So either we stop treating the institution of marriage as a legal arrangement (and, for the record, the pilgrims at Thanksgiving aside, this country was really founded by Anglicans... who got a tax break when they were confirmed, Anglican, Catholic or Greek Orthodox?) or, we grant civil unions to everyone. But, that's my answer.
I don't think even all openly avowed homosexuals agree with the whole gay-marriage thing.
Crazed Rabbit
11-06-2007, 02:59
I think the moment Republicans started pushing for Federal Amendments prohibiting gay marriage, they were putting themselves on the wrong side of human nature and the wrong side of history. Let face facts -- a certain percentage of people attracted to a conservative or reactionary party will also be attracted to hot studs. Or bears, as the case may be.
So? You disagree with their stance on that. That doesn't make the party hypocritical.
Disagree. The Republicans have traded on moral panic for years. They pretty much kept the Congress by fanning up gay hatred in '04. Gotta keep the base turning out, right?
Yeah. Just that one issue, nothing else big was going on was it? :rolleyes:
Even then, it doesn't make the party hypocritical, it makes a couple people hypocrites.
So you'll excuse me if I'm tickled pink when various elected representatives of the party from all over the nation get busted for indiscreet gay sex. It's funny.
And you'll have to excuse me as I see nothing about how the party is hypocritical, or all republicans. All you've shown is that there's a couple hypocrites.
Crazed Rabbit
PS You and Don are giving me a serious case of deja vue.
I think the moment Republicans started pushing for Federal Amendments prohibiting gay marriage, they were putting themselves on the wrong side of human nature and the wrong side of history.So the Defense of Marriage Act was well and good, but the amendment went too far? Or were both equally bad?
Arguing over whether elected Republicans are more true to their stated principals vesus elected Democrats is like arguing which leper in the colony has the most surface area of skin left.
Gorgeous. Quotable. Well-done, sir!
Lemur, I hate to say it bro, but you are losing the independent status. You do seem like you've been on a witch-hunt, and it started in the summer of 2006. In all that time, you couldn't post one thread of a Democrat being hypocritical and slimy?
Oh, I've posted at least one that I can remember off the top of my head, about William Jefferson, he of cash-in-freezer fame. But I won't deny that Republicans have been in my sights far more than anyone else. Democrats fill me with passive distaste, but Republicans make me positively bloodthirsty. My right-wing fellow Americans can howl all they like, but I'm a registered indy. I'm just not a joiner, kids. And if you think I'm some kind of freak, a secret Democrat who dare not speak love's true name, allow me to point out that the current administration polls lower with indies than with Democrats. Make of that what you will.
I don't think even all openly avowed homosexuals agree with the whole gay-marriage thing.
A well-established fact. I still think the Republican Party's hostility toward gay people will haunt them for decades. As I said, they're on the wrong side of history.
Xiahou, Rabbit, what can I say? I'm sorry it chaps your buttocks so badly that I keep posting stories about Republicans who hanker for hot man-meat, but post them I shall. My amusement is more important than life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
Xiahou, Rabbit, what can I say?
You could answer my question.
Oh Xiahou, you Republican lad you, of course I dislike the Defense of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_marriage_act). If you want to have a full discussion about gay marriage, however, that ought to be a separate thread. This is for man-craving Republicans.
Crazed Rabbit
11-06-2007, 05:39
Democrats fill me with passive distaste, but Republicans make me positively bloodthirsty.
And you're a independent moderate. A fiscal conservative, at that. Righhhhhhht.
Lemur, my point is that you seem to use these stories to accuse the Republican Party of hypocrisy, when the stories support nothing of the sort. I don't see how you can use these stories to say the "republican take" on homosexuality is hypocritical.
You want to know what to say? Stop saying that these incidents have anything to do with the GOP leadership or the hypocrisy of the republican party or that they are anything more than hypocritical politicians, like you have been since Larry Craig.
CR
You want to know what to say? Stop saying that these incidents have anything to do with the GOP leadership or the hypocrisy of the republican party or that they are anything more than hypocritical politicians, like you have been since Larry Craig.
As I recall, I was simply posting stories about elected Republican men who crave hot, sweaty sex with other men. I was only drawn into discussing the larger ramifications by your badgering about "Why do you post this stuff? Why? WHY?"
As I said, I shall continue to do so. This is mostly about my amusement. Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!
Oh Xiahou, you Republican lad you, of course I dislike the Defense of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_marriage_act). Seeing as it chips away at States' Rights, I guess you love it?
It chips away at state's rights? By not forcing them to recognize another state's marriages if they don't want to? You'll have to explain that one to me. :laugh4:
Now, on to my hypocrisy point, does it bother you that the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the DOMA? It's so refreshing to see you rail against the "hypocrisy" of Republicans when their votes match their speeches and continue to give a pass to Democrats who talk one way (depending on their audience) and then vote in a different matter when it comes to being officially on record. Democrats know full well that gay marriage is still unpopular among a majority of Americans, but still they talk it up when it comes to their fund-raising base and they vote against it when given the chance. Who are the hypocrites again?
But as long as you're having a good time making fun of some closeted gays, it's all good right?
As I said, the Democrats do not exactly get my support. They're wishy-washy as all get-out, and they rarely stand up for anything. Go start your own thread about that, why don't'cha.
For the third time: This thread is about Republican men who love hot man-on-man action.
-edit-
You do realize that now you two have voiced your considerable scorn on this thread, I'm going to have to keep it alive for much, much longer than I would have otherwise, right?
-edit of the edit-
I realized my error and edited my initial post about DOMA. However, you were too quick on the quote for that retraction. Apologies, my first take was wrong.
As I said, the Democrats do not exactly get my support. They're wishy-washy as all get-out, and they rarely stand up for anything. Go start your own thread about that, why don't'cha.Not interested. As long as everyone realizes you're being completely one-sided and partisan with this one my job is done.
You do realize that now you two have voiced your considerable scorn on this thread, I'm going to have to keep it alive for much, much longer than I would have otherwise, right?Whatever gets you your jollies is none of my concern. Just don't start asking for special legal recognition of your proclivities, ok? :wink:
I realized my error and edited my initial post about DOMA. However, you were too quick on the quote for that retraction. Apologies, my first take was wrong.Carry on then. :bow:
Not interested. As long as everyone realizes you're being completely one-sided and partisan with this one my job is done.
Would you say I have a bias? Please, please say it ...
-edit-
PS: This was worthy of Rush himself:
But as long as you're having a good time making fun of some closeted gays, it's all good right?
Gorgeous! Beautiful! Xiahou, defender of the dignity of closeted men everywhere! That really did give me a good laugh. Thanks.
Gorgeous! Beautiful! Xiahou, defender of the dignity of closeted men everywhere! That really did give me a good laugh. Thanks.No... I don't think I've ever made that claim. I would think it'd be you, who's so concerned with the welfare of homosexuals everywhere that would be sensitive to that issue. But, I guess that doesn't extend to Republican homosexuals. :shrug:
But, I guess that doesn't extend to Republican homosexuals.
Normally, I would say that a politician's private life is just that. However, when a political party is inordinately concerned with what happens in the bedroom, I think it's legitimate to have a laugh at members who are indiscreet and hypocritical. Were this problem happening on the Democratic side, I'm sure you would agree.
It's kind of like my personal "don't make fun of fat people" rule. I break it when the fat boy in question likes to make fun of other people's infirmities or disabilities. Do unto others and all that.
Republican homosexuals are caught in a permanent state of cognitive dissonance. Don't tell me that isn't amusing.
LEMUR YOU HAVE BEEN INVITED TO JOIN THE ORG CHAT.
Crazed Rabbit
11-06-2007, 06:50
Normally, I would say that a politician's private life is just that. However, when a political party is inordinately concerned with what happens in the bedroom, I think it's legitimate to have a laugh at members who are indiscreet and hypocritical.
You'll have to point out where they wanted to prosecute homosexuals or ban homosexual sex.
CR
Devastatin Dave
11-09-2007, 04:12
Looks as though Lemur has joined the Tribesy Party...
Looks as though Lemur has joined the Tribesy Party...
True dat. Just look at how many smileys I use ...
So another Republican politician is showing his hypocritical rear-end, this is news of what measure I wonder?
(Actually I don't)
Politicians of all makes are hypocritical - some are just better at not getting thrown out of the closet about their hypocrisy.
There are certain kinds of people who are irresistibly drawn to show tunes and a capella groups. We call those people Senators (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NnhWdV-MjQ).
You'll have to point out where they wanted to prosecute homosexuals or ban homosexual sex.
Sorry I missed this earlier. So your threshold for tolerance is active prosecution of people or laws banning their sexual activities? Bit of a strawman, frankly. Also note that on the state level, several laws have been in existence until recently that banned "sodomy," under various definitions. The most vigorous supporters are always Republicans. Examples galore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_States).
I think it's a bit of a stretch to paint the Republicans as pro-homosexual, or even neutral-homosexual. Anyone who has been following American politics for the last ten years will boggle at the assertion. I hesitate to post any articles on the subject, since they will be subjected to either a Bias! fatwa courtesy of Xiahou or an angry dissection from other right-wing Orgahs, but I guess I have no option, since you and others are seriously asserting that the Republcian party has not traded in homophobia. Here's a summation (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031020/ireland) from '03:
The decision to scapegoat gay and lesbian Americans was poll-driven by an antigay backlash that gathered steam in the wake of the Supreme Court's June 26 decision, in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down laws making gay sex between consenting adults illegal--the so-called sodomy laws. The backlash first surfaced in a July 25-27 Gallup poll. It showed that support for legalizing gay sex had plummeted a dramatic twelve points, to only 48 percent, down from a comfortable 60 percent in favor of legalization in Gallup's May survey. Those saying "homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle" also slalomed down from 54 to 46 percent; and support for same-sex civil unions dropped from 49 to 40 percent. Two weeks later, a Washington Post poll showed that support for gay civil unions had dropped three points lower than in Gallup's. Since then, five other national polls have confirmed the antigay trend.
Just two days after Gallup released its poll showing the backlash, Bush unexpectedly used a Rose Garden press conference to announce that he'd assigned lawyers to come up with a plan to stop gay marriage. Bush and the Republicans had been under enormous pressure from the Christian right and social conservatives--including National Review and The Weekly Standard--to support a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, which would ban recognition of any form of marriage between two persons of the same gender. (The FMA would also forbid giving same-sex couples the "legal incidents" of marriage, thus vitiating the civil-union law in Vermont and any other state that followed suit.)
A woman by the name of Sheri Drew gave DevDave a run for his money on the hyperbole front at the 2004 Republican National Convention by declaring: "Those who support gay and lesbian families are no different from those who supported Adolph Hitler."
But let's assume that no number of examples will suffice to demonstrate the crass use of anti-gay hysteria by the right wing. Allow me to put the burden back on you: Do you believe that the Republican party supports gay people in any meaningful way? Can you demonstrate that with sources?
Finally, the Houston Chronicle sums up the Republicans v. Gays conundrum rather well:
By preoccupying the party with homosexuality…Republican strategists have helped force out or into hiding numerous lawmakers who served the party well. Instead of disclosing their orientation and getting on with their work, gay or bisexual Republicans typically have felt compelled to choose between personal integrity and political survival.
Yet heterosexuality is hardly a bedrock Lincolnesque value. [Sen. Larry] Craig’s own constituents happily re-elected him for years — despite rumors about his orientation — before he began opining on others’ sexuality.
An even better example of this dynamic is the successful career of former U.S. Rep. Steve Gunderson, a Wisconsin Republican who told voters he was gay while still in office. Then he continued working diligently for the causes they cared about most.
…Gunderson backed the balanced budget amendment. He supported President Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts, approved the first Gulf War and promoted the dairy industry. Rural, conservative voters re-elected him eight times in a row for his conservative values before he chose not to run again in 1996…Gunderson never betrayed voters or himself.
In contrast, since 1980 the Republican Party has lost at least three once-closeted House members to scandals…But the scandals were at least partly fueled by each congressman’s need to deny his sexuality. Craig, now frantically trying to deny his guilty plea, may be the latest on the list.
…a party that harps on sexual orientation, as the Republicans now do, forces many of its own into furtive, destructive behaviors.
More gay men going on record (http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/226703.html) to describe their sexual encounters with Daniel Craig. The kicker? One of them was also hired by Ted Haggard. Small world for the closeted anti-gay men, eh?
David Phillips is a 42-year-old information technology consultant in Washington, D.C., who says Craig picked him up at a gay club in 1986 and that they subsequently had sex.
Mike Jones is a former prostitute who told the world he had sex with the Rev. Ted Haggard last year. The former Colorado Springs evangelist at first denied it but eventually confessed. Jones says Craig paid him for sex in late 2004 or early 2005.
Greg Ruth was a 24-year-old college Republican in 1981 when he says he was hit on by Craig at a Republican meeting in Coeur d'Alene.
Tom Russell, now 48, is a former Nampa resident who lives in Utah. Russell said his encounter with Craig occurred at Bogus Basin in the early 1980s.
A fifth gay man, who is from Boise but who declined to be named for fear of retaliation, offered a recent and telling account: He was in a men's restroom at Denver International Airport in September 2006 when the man in the next stall moved his hand slowly, palm up, under the divider. Alarmed, the man said he waited outside the restroom and then identified the man in the adjoining stall as Craig, whom he had met in Idaho.
Crazed Rabbit
12-02-2007, 19:31
Sorry I missed this earlier. So your threshold for tolerance is active prosecution of people or laws banning their sexual activities? Bit of a strawman, frankly. Also note that on the state level, several laws have been in existence until recently that banned "sodomy," under various definitions. The most vigorous supporters are always Republicans. Examples galore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_States).
Sigh. So no evidence that the individual people you've been posting here recently, supported that. Again, you're mixing the party and the individuals to accuse everyone of hypocrisy.
Have fun.
CR
So no evidence that the individual people you've been posting here recently, supported that. Again, you're mixing the party and the individuals to accuse everyone of hypocrisy.
Yeah, I've got a great idea—let's get into a long, tedious debate about where to draw the lines between party stance and individual responsibility. And then let's draw down sources about whether or not each individual politician supported each individual piece of legislation, and whether or not each piece of legislation really qualifies as "anti-gay." And then let's go into a five-page dispute about whether or not the sources are biased, since that's a game everyone can play. That sounds like a good time for all.
Sorry if I don't play. I don't need to prove the Republican party's use of gay-baiting and anti-gay sentiment any more than I need to prove the direction of "up" or the wet qualities water. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear is aware of it.
You and Xiahou can spin this until you're generating electricity, and it really doesn't matter in the slightest. I'm gonna keep on posting gay Republican news for as long as I find it amusing.
Big_John
12-02-2007, 23:32
Too easy.:beam:
this thread is comedy GOLD!
Sigh. So no evidence that the individual people you've been posting here recently, supported that. Again, you're mixing the party and the individuals to accuse everyone of hypocrisy.
Have fun.
CR
so you´re saying that the individual has no responsibility in the party´s position even when he joined the party of his own free will?
this is not like saying 'well...I´m a part of the party but I don´t agree with this tiny bit of their position on car tax'...we´re talking about political positions about legislating individual sex practices of consenting adults...that´s a BIG part of the political identity of the republican party.....
if you´re saying that this isn´t necessarily the position of these individual members then I ask you how can you join a party that you (supposedly) disagree with on such a basic premise?
This time it's a guy who was aide to the Republican Chair of Orange County, CA and worked for Republican Rep. Dana Roherbacher. He is described in all articles as a "conservative activist." I'll say. AP (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7649330?nclick_check=1) has a version up, as does the Orange County Weekly (http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/nielsens-plea-deal/28158/), as does Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/politics/dickcember/dickcember-wind-is-picking-up-331231.php).
In 2003, Jeffrey Ray Nielsen here was arrested in California for having sex with a 14 year-old boy he met online when he was 33. Of course, he met him online when he was employed at a prominent law firm that agreed to hire him as a favor to the current head of the Orange County Republican Party, Scott Baugh. Yes, that’s right, it’s time for another Republican child sex scandal!
In the 4 years it took the case to come to trial (and after the mistrial earlier this year), it turns out that not only did Nielsen [have sex with] a 14 year-old in California while under the big, protective wing of Scott Baugh, he [had sex with] a 13 year-old back here in NoVa when he was working for nutjob right-wing Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Jeffrey Ray obviously has a type (and it’s far too young and very, very creepy)! Only, while the sex with the 14 year-old in California was consensual (according to the boy), the sexual contact with the 13 year-old (from whose parents Jeffrey Ray rented a basement apartment) was, well, sorta not.
Yesterday, Jeffrey Ray pleaded guilty in California to two felony sex charges (a nice reduction from the 16 felony counts he had originally faced). He received 3 years in the clink, but will spend the first 12 weeks of that in a sex offender facility. Oh, and his momma cried in court. That would almost make me feel bad, except for the whole part where he molested (at least) two other women’s sons, at which point I sorta don’t care.
AntiochusIII
12-09-2007, 06:55
:laugh4:
Great stuff, Lemur.
Obviously, Fox News is going to have to spin things:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/FoxSexBoys.jpg
That gotta be photoshopped.
I kinda doubt it. Fox News has a history of printing outrageous things (http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/03/fox-news-at-its-finest-parte-deux.html) in the subtitle and the crawl.
PanzerJaeger
12-09-2007, 21:23
Those are military advisors I believe...
Those are military advisors I believe...
giving their opinion on the value of sex with underage boys as a boost for military morale? :laugh4:
Papewaio
12-10-2007, 05:58
300 :laugh4:
PanzerJaeger
12-10-2007, 08:35
giving their opinion on the value of sex with underage boys as a boost for military morale? :laugh4:
:beam:
Its fake of course..
:beam:
Its fake of course..
of course....
no one would take spin THAT far...
I mean...I know it´s Fox and they´ve come pretty close in the past...but no one would go that far :laugh4:
of course....
no one would take spin THAT far...
I mean...I know it´s Fox and they´ve come pretty close in the past...but no one would go that far :laugh4:
Well maybe they lost it or simply gave up trying to be serious and go for the cheap laughs.
Don Corleone
12-10-2007, 16:54
So, if I understand this thread correctly, it's all about people who've lived closted lives, dropping the pretense and coming out?
The question is, which is the bigger revelation...
A) That despite belonging to the 'family values' party, there are in fact gay Republicans?
B) Or that Lemur, despite claiming for years to be neutral on political matters is in fact a Democratic shill?
I say A. While A is fairly obvious and has been strongly suspected for some time, it hasn't been quite the open secret that B has been for some time now.
By the way, Lemur, your characterization of the Republican party as categorically anti-gay seems a bit of an overstatement. Would you mind telling me where in the Republican party platform (which is what actually defines what it means to be a Republican) you or your pals from the DailyKos found patently anti-gay sentiments?
As for individual members within the Republican party, and what they may have said that you find anti-homosexual.... well, I'll own up to statements by the religious right and try to offer mititgating statements on their positions the same day you start playing apologist for Dennis Kucinich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich_presidential_campaign%2C_2008)
So, if I understand this thread correctly, it's all about people who've lived closted lives, dropping the pretense and coming out?
If by "dropping the pretense and coming out" you mean making plea-bargain deals and going to prison, then yes.
Don Corleone
12-10-2007, 17:25
By the way, Lemur, your characterization of the Republican party as categorically anti-gay seems a bit of an overstatement. Would you mind telling me where in the Republican party platform (which is what actually defines what it means to be a Republican) you or your pals from the DailyKos found patently anti-gay sentiments?
:weirdthread:
By the way, Lemur, your characterization of the Republican party as categorically anti-gay seems a bit of an overstatement. Would you mind telling me where in the Republican party platform (which is what actually defines what it means to be a Republican) you or your pals from the DailyKos found patently anti-gay sentiments?
Touchy, touchy, touchy. I already addressed this strawman several times when I was going rounds with Crazed Rabbit and Xiahou. If I didn't address it to your satisfaction, tough.
I love how both you and DevDave can't respond to this thread without trying to paint me as an extreme lefty who reads Mao and writes for DailyKos. Not only are Republicans not anti-homosexual, they're not addicted to character assassination either, eh?
I think it's a bit of a stretch to paint the Republicans as pro-homosexual, or even neutral-homosexual. Anyone who has been following American politics for the last ten years will boggle at the assertion.
I don't need to prove the Republican party's use of gay-baiting and anti-gay sentiment any more than I need to prove the direction of "up" or the wet qualities water. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear is aware of it.
Don Corleone
12-10-2007, 17:53
I'm not touchy, and I'm not upset. I'm just surprised by how low your tactics have gotten. Declaring all Republicans to be homophobes, and answering with
I don't need to prove the Republican party's use of gay-baiting and anti-gay sentiment any more than I need to prove the direction of "up" or the wet qualities water. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear is aware of it.
essentially "it is thus because I say thus", is frankly, beneath you. I've seen you make intelligent arguments defending positions and ideas you support that have been quite moving, even when I entered the discussion with a diametrically opposed viewpoint. This is not your best work. Not by a long shot. But if you feel better, patting yourself on the back while you merrily laugh at all those that disagree with you on tax policy or social security reform as a bunch of neanderthal bigots who live to gay-bash, then by all means, keep your little experiment here going.
I will be looking forward to when you return to some of your better discussions.
ICantSpellDawg
12-10-2007, 18:03
I'm not touchy, and I'm not upset. I'm just surprised by how low your tactics have gotten. Declaring all Republicans to be homophobes, and answering with
essentially "it is thus because I say thus", is frankly, beneath you. I've seen you make intelligent arguments defending positions and ideas you support that have been quite moving, even when I entered the discussion with a diametrically opposed viewpoint. This is not your best work. Not by a long shot. But if you feel better, patting yourself on the back while you merrily laugh at all those that disagree with you on tax policy or social security reform as a bunch of neanderthal bigots who live to gay-bash, then by all means, keep your little experiment here going.
I will be looking forward to when you return to some of your better discussions.
I am what some call a "homophobe". I tend to vote Republican.
BUT I am a registered conservative and am not "afraid" of gay people anymore than I am "afraid" of onions... so "Republican homophobia" doesn't really apply.
Plus, there are quite a few gay republicans. I don't view the Republican party as gay bashing as a characterization.
Big_John
12-10-2007, 23:13
I'm not touchy, and I'm not upset. I'm just surprised by how low your tactics have gotten. Declaring all Republicans to be homophobes, and answering with
essentially "it is thus because I say thus", is frankly, beneath you. I've seen you make intelligent arguments defending positions and ideas you support that have been quite moving, even when I entered the discussion with a diametrically opposed viewpoint. This is not your best work. Not by a long shot. But if you feel better, patting yourself on the back while you merrily laugh at all those that disagree with you on tax policy or social security reform as a bunch of neanderthal bigots who live to gay-bash, then by all means, keep your little experiment here going.
I will be looking forward to when you return to some of your better discussions.you're getting carried away with yourself here, don. this is a humor thread. it hardly castigates all republicans as homophobic homosexuals. it just points out a funny observation, stop taking it so hard.
the 'conservative christian' vein runs through the republican party in places. and we often see conservative christian pundits and politicians trumpeting 'family values', which often includes a stance against acceptance of homosexuality as healthy/worthy/moral.
that sometimes these same men turn out to be closeted homosexuals themselves, is ironically humorous to some of us. lemur can hardly be accused of partisanship here, since conservative christians tend to not be democrats.
how many democrats are closet cases that get unwillingly exposed after breaking some vice law or doing something embarrassing? i'm sure there are some, i just don't follow politics that much. however, even if there are as many examples of liberal closet cases doing something stupid as conservative ones, the liberal ethos doesn't have the conservative christian tradition running through it to make for all the lulz.
you don't need to get on a high horse and play up this persecution angle, claiming that lemur is painting all conservatives as cavemen or neanderthals or brutish troglodytes or .....
don, it's a humor thread.
simply put:
a)conservative christian politicians and pundits tend to be republicans.
b)some of them rally against the sin of homosexuality.
c)some of those same men turn out to be 'secret' homosexuals.
d)?????
e)profit!
To follow on Big John's post, here's an example of a publicly anti-gay fella getting busted for having sex with boys. And I don't even know if he's a Republican or not!
Anti-gay boy scout leader arrested for sex with kids. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/us/07scoutmaster.html?ei=5124&en=d5f98688c4f3f11d&ex=1354770000&adxnnl=1&partner=digg&exprod=digg&adxnnlx=1197244964-qHvqKUHHqTPbhkWegs1U1w)
Scout Leader in California Accused of Abuse
By CAROLYN MARSHALL
Published: December 7, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 6 — A scout leader who once sued the City of Berkeley for challenging a national Boy Scout ban on members who are gay or atheist has been arrested on felony charges that for at least five years he sexually abused young males in the troops he led.
Sgt. Mary Kusmiss of the Berkeley police said the scout leader, Eugene A. Evans, 64, a retired high school teacher and for 35 years leader of the Berkeley Sea Scouts, was arrested at his home in nearby Kensington on Tuesday after investigators identified four youths, ages 13 to 17, who said they had been sexually abused by him.
Sergeant Kusmiss said the police began an investigation after a boy and his mother came to them with accusations on Nov. 14.
Mr. Evans is scheduled to appear in Alameda County Superior Court on Friday to enter a plea on 19 felony counts of sexual assault.
Mr. Evans’s lawyer, Philip Schnayerson, said Thursday that “hundreds” of former scouts and friends had called to voice support.
“There have been no complaints of improper or criminal behavior in any of the communities he has lived in,” Mr. Schnayerson said of his client.
Mr. Evans sued the city in his role as a leader of the Sea Scouts, an affiliate program of the Boy Scouts. The city, after providing free berthing for a Sea Scouts boat for 60 years, said in 1998 that a Boy Scout policy barring gay scouts and atheists violated Berkeley’s rules against discrimination. The city said the Scouts would have to leave the berth or pay $500 a month rent.
Mr. Evans sued for discrimination and for violating the Scouts’ First Amendment rights. The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Berkeley.
-edit-
As usual, Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/politics/dickcember/guess-what-the-anti+gay-scout-leader-was-arrested-for-331922.php) has all of the details and her usual saucy take on pedophiles. Example:
New law: If you enter a lawsuit against teh gayz, you’ve done some nasty, nasty :daisy: in your life:
The charges [against Evans] include oral copulation with a minor, engaging in substantial sexual acts with a minor, penetration with a foreign object, and showing or distributing lewd material to a minor. Evans is accused of having sexual relations with boys aboard the SSS Farallon, the 85-foot ship used for the Sea Scouts program. Investigators recovered pornography from the boat and from his Kensington home, Brown and police said.
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 02:17
To follow on Big John's post, here's an example of a publicly anti-gay fella getting busted for having sex with boys. And I don't even know if he's a Republican or not!
You know the old adage: "He whom so valiantly smelt it is one in thy same with he who Dealt it"... or something like that.
BTW nobody is "neutral". Lemur is pretty fair minded. Political positioning is relative, so everyone standing towards the middle is too far left or right for some.
Big_John
12-11-2007, 02:22
BTW nobody is "neutral". Lemur is pretty fair minded. Political positioning is relative, so everyone standing towards the middle is too far left or right for some.i try to stand on top of everyone else.
What evil person would suggest that Republican trade on anti-gay hysteria (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/christ-not-again-antig_b_76877.html)? Just because they're, you know, introducing a state constitutional amendment in Florida to prohibit gay people from marrying, even though gay marriage is already illegal in Florida. And the Federal Defense of Marriage Act already allows them to ignore any perverts from Massachusetts who want to live the rest of their lives with a single partner.
What Florida needs is a constitutional amendment. Right now. Why? According to Jesse Phillips of MetroLife Church:
My friend John Stemberger's efforts to save marriage is closing in on an important milestone. They are only 13,000 ballots away from the required 611,000+ needed to put a marriage ammendment (sic) on the ballot for the 2008 elections.
The amendment would change Florida's constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, so that marriage cannot be defined in ways that the Bible forbids, and so that marriages and families can be protected by state law.
If you are a Florida resident and have not signed a ballot, please go to www.Florida4Marriage.org and find out what you can do to help these last minute efforts to get the ballot past.
As the linked article states so aptly, "Anti-gay amendments are the Happy Meal toy of Republican politics."
Crazed Rabbit
12-15-2007, 22:53
Gee, Lemur, that wouldn't have anything to do with courts overturning the will of the legislature on a whim would it?
CR
And I'm sure it has nothing, nothing to do with turning out the anti-gay base on election day ...
Crazed Rabbit
12-16-2007, 00:57
I'm sure it has something to do with that, at least for the state GOP officials. I bet most of the hundreds of thousands of signatories don't have that in mind, though.
But your first link in that post, which practically accuses anyone who supports the amendment of wanting to kill homosexuals, is way off base.
CR
I'm sure it has something to do with that, at least for the state GOP officials. I bet most of the hundreds of thousands of signatories don't have that in mind, though.
But your first link in that post, which practically accuses anyone who supports the amendment of wanting to kill homosexuals, is way off base.
CR
If you're not in favor of gay marriage, you're a homophobic bigot and if you're not in favor of illegal immigration, you hate latinos, if you're not in favor of socialized medicine for upper-middle class adults, you hate poor children. We've heard this song and dance many times before. :rolleyes:
Sasaki Kojiro
12-16-2007, 07:25
nevermind
Don Corleone
12-17-2007, 03:08
:kiss2:
Devastatin Dave
12-17-2007, 03:43
:yes:
:kiss2:
I think you should chill a bit. Maybe post in DevDave's thread about global warming hypocrites or so, maybe you and Dave will come closer to eachother that thread will stay open. ~;)
I didn't really read this thread anymore as I'm now aware that hypocrites exist even in America, if Lemur feels like keeping it open and posting more, why not? Just let him, you could also contribute to Xiahou's thread about green hypocrites which I found quite interesting even though some entries were a bit shady IMO. I just don't think that Lemur being a mod or a leftie(well yeah, sorry Lemur but I got the impression that you're a leftie as well ~;) ) is all that keeps this thread here open, he just seems to do a lot of thread necromancy all the time which most threadstarters don't. :shrug:
Devastatin Dave
12-17-2007, 04:26
Damn it, my last post ruled!!!:furious3:
Lemur, my toe's getting tired.:yes:
Don Corleone
12-17-2007, 05:04
I think most of us outgrew the "you're such a homo" response to people we happened to disagree with long ago. Most of us managed to get it out of our system in our teens. Apparently not all of us did. What an apt testimony to the 'feel-good' arguments of leftist America. "You don't agree with me on gay marriage, so you're obviously a closeted homosexual".
You got us Lemur! You called us out! And you were right all along!!! All of us who don't see things your way, ... we're all kissing pickles and grabbing our ankles n' spreadin' em, every chance we get!
When I say "While I think homosexuals are entitled to the legal protections of state-marriage, I don't think they should have the right to force religious institutions to marry them and I think civil-unions make a perfect compromise in that sense", what I'm really thinking is "God, that guy I picked up at the park last night really gave my colon a drilling".
And when I say "I think it ought to be determined by the will of the people, as expressed by the legislature, not dictated by a small group of black-robed Platoists that have lost touch with the reality that the rest of America lives in", what I really mean is "Mmm.... can't wait to sneak out to a gay bar and get some more protein slurpees".
And when I say "what a childish, immature thread that is only allowed to continue because the person who's running it is a Lefty and a mod", what I really mean is "Boy, I hope DevDave will give me a second look one of these days, and I'll show him why they call me Hoover."
A brilliant post, Don, one for the ages. Your "when I say" and "what I really mean" device had me rolling on the floor. And I'm sorry I missed DevDave's magnum opus, heavy on the magnum. I'm sure it would have been a brilliant and offensive read.
Don, you and I are fairly close in terms of political positioning on this issue. Where we diverge is whether or not one believes that the Republican Party has traded on fear of teh gays for electoral gain.
I hate to repeat myself, but I have mod powers in the Hardware/Software forum only. If the blackguards who run the Backroom ask me to lay off this thread, I will in a minute. But putting on the robes does not forbid me from posting back here.
AntiochusIII
12-17-2007, 07:46
"While I think homosexuals are entitled to the legal protections of state-marriage, I don't think they should have the right to force religious institutions to marry them and I think civil-unions make a perfect compromise in that sense"Do people actually disagree with that? :inquisitive:
I don't get the impression that Lemur, for one, feels that the Catholic Church ought to start blessing all marriages between mankind, pun-wise. A large number of Republican political circles (usually the ones focused on social conservatism) do tend to unfortunately portray gay marriage as the Downfall of Family, which I think is the point of this thread: making fun of that bigoted sentiment to its fullest. And more.
If you're a self-professed Republican who's a Republican because you prefer small government/capitalism/conservative judicial rulings/focus on US sovereignty/strong national security then it's really not your Republican we're having fun insulting here. But that other Republican where gays are from hell, Muslims are sub-human, Mexicans all need to die, and the government can be as big as it wants to be as long as the Children are safe.
Don Corleone
12-17-2007, 12:08
If you're a self-professed Republican who's a Republican because you prefer small government/capitalism/conservative judicial rulings/focus on US sovereignty/strong national security then it's really not your Republican we're having fun insulting here. But that other Republican where gays are from hell, Muslims are sub-human, Mexicans all need to die, and the government can be as big as it wants to be as long as the Children are safe.
That's mighty big of you. I can't begin to tell you how happy I am that my political views pass your approval. Really.
And in a similar vein, I'm going to start a thread laughing at how Democrats hate America and want the terrorists to win. And if you don't happen to be part of that particular group, I won't actually be laughing at and insulting your branch of the party.
Hmm, ok, Don posted what he just posted but he originally posted it before my post which was edited by Kukri for I don't know why(it doesn't look offensive to me and whoever can punch at others should be able to receive a punch in return or how you USers say it). Anyway just wanted to point out that my post was basically in response to what Kukri reposted and that everyone should read my wise words. That's it, thank you and I hope you learn from me. :dizzy2:
KukriKhan
12-17-2007, 15:21
There was a discussion about thread-relevance; the issue was resolved, but not before you posted your brilliance, Husar-san. Sorry for the confusion - it was my fault for working too slowly, and clumsily.
There was a discussion about thread-relevance; the issue was resolved, but not before you posted your brilliance, Husar-san. Sorry for the confusion - it was my fault for working too slowly, and clumsily.
Thanks for the clarification, I shall proceed to be brilliant now. :clown:
And in a similar vein, I'm going to start a thread laughing at how Democrats hate America and want the terrorists to win. And if you don't happen to be part of that particular group, I won't actually be laughing at and insulting your branch of the party.
Touche!
"Trading on fear"? Honestly, how ridiculous. When Republicans play to an issue that not just a majority of Republicans care about, but the majority of voters in the state regardless of party care about, they're "trading on fear". Thank God that the Democrats are above such shameless pandering. :rolleyes: Some might call it democracy in action when a party represents the views of voters- but for Lemur, it's trading on fear...at least when it's the GOP doing it.
Louis VI the Fat
12-17-2007, 21:41
Clickety-click (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdwVqGGbXno).
~;p
AntiochusIII
12-17-2007, 22:36
That's mighty big of you. I can't begin to tell you how happy I am that my political views pass your approval. Really.Dripping with sarcasm as it is, I still have to thank you kindly. :2thumbsup:
Who knows? At thirty or so I might become a Republican myself. And by then I'll hope to be your type of Republican rather than that other type I despise to the core.
And in a similar vein, I'm going to start a thread laughing at how Democrats hate America and want the terrorists to win. And if you don't happen to be part of that particular group, I won't actually be laughing at and insulting your branch of the party.Go ahead. If you can find as many lol-worthy material as the Lemur did here then I'll be laughing beside you just as eagerly. :beatnik:
Louis: That's just...psychedelic. ~:joker:
seireikhaan
12-18-2007, 05:42
https://youtube.com/watch?v=1dYpnd_9TFs
~;)
Clickety-click (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdwVqGGbXno).
~;p:laugh4: Well played. :bow:
PanzerJaeger
12-18-2007, 10:35
But that other Republican where gays are from hell, Muslims are sub-human, Mexicans all need to die, and the government can be as big as it wants to be as long as the Children are safe.
There's room for debate here, no?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.