THIS is what's wrong with Republicans:

[Tock]

They speak against earmarks, then they sponsor 'em. What's up with that?
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy.
===========================

http://sessions.house.gov/index.cfm?...9-d7ff841f5322
Appropriations

Earmarks have become a symbol of broken Washington to the American people. In these tough economic times, American families and small businesses are tightening their fiscal belts, and they have every right to expect Washington to do the same. Unfortunately, this Congress has already proven its addiction to record-breaking, pork-barrel spending.
Consequently, Congressman Sessions is supporting a temporary moratorium on earmarks. While some earmarks serve valuable purposes, such as infrastructure and research projects, wasteful earmarks have unfortunately polluted the earmark process. The need for comprehensive earmark reform is clear.
(there's more)
--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/25599
Exclusive: Earmark critic steered cash to blimp research

Rep. Pete Sessions — the chief of the Republicans’ campaign arm in the House — says on his website that earmarks have become “a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people.”
Yet in 2008, Sessions himself steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps.
What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf.
Sessions spokeswoman Emily Davis defends the airship project as a worthwhile use of federal funds and says it could eventually lead to thousands of new jobs in Sessions’s Dallas-area district.
But the company that received the earmarked funds, Jim G. Ferguson & Associates, is based in the suburbs of Chicago, with another office in San Antonio — nearly 300 miles from Dallas. And while Sessions used a Dallas address for the company when he submitted his earmark request to the House Appropriations Committee last year, one of the two men who control the company says that address is merely the home of one of his close friends.
Jim G. Ferguson IV — the younger half of the father-son team behind Jim G. Ferguson & Associates — told POLITICO that he and his father are trying to build an airship with a “high fineness ratio” that can be used in both military and civilian applications.
Fineness ratio is the technical term for the relationship between an airship’s length and its diameter; the higher the fineness ratio, the longer and more slender the airship is. A blimp with a very high fineness ratio could fly faster and be able to stay aloft longer — the holy grail for airship designers during the past century.
Yet Ferguson acknowledged that neither he nor his father has a background in the defense or aviation industries, nor any engineering or research expertise.
A search of publicly available records shows no history of the Fergusons ever being involved with the airship industry other than their attendance at a February 2005 Pentagon conference on the subject.
Jim G. Ferguson IV said in an interview that he and his father “were business people” and had acquired the patents for building an advanced airship prototype. He said that the two men are playing a supervisory role in the project and “have obtained world-class experts to work for us.”
According to a statement that Sessions included in the Congressional Record last September, slightly more than half of the $1.6 million earmark was to go toward research and engineering costs. The remainder was for overhead and administrative costs.
(there's more . . . )

[Tock]

Adrian Plesha

Quite the accomplished criminal, and Congressman Session's aide and Republican fraudster:


http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040422murs.html
FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DECEIVE VOTERS RESULTS
IN $84,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIESWASHINGTON -- The FEC has entered into conciliation agreements with Adrian Plesha and Charles Ball for Congress resulting from their fraudulent misrepresentation of their opponent’s party and a Congressman from a neighboring district in mailings and phone calls during the 1998 campaign. The Commission found probable cause to believe that Plesha and the committee had knowingly and willfully violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act). Adrian Plesha will pay a $60,000 civil penalty and Charles Ball for Congress will pay $24,000. Shortly before the 1998 general election, Ball for Congress, acting through its campaign manager Adrian Plesha, covertly arranged and financed the dissemination of approximately 40,000 letters and 10,000 phone calls that urged registered Democrats not to vote for Representative Ellen Tauscher. The letters and phone calls came from the "East Bay Democratic Committee," a fictitious organization created by Adrian Plesha and Ball for Congress. The letters contained a false address and falsely used neighboring Democratic Congressman George Miller's name as the signatory. Plesha knowingly made false statements to the FEC, denying involvement in or knowledge of this scheme when in fact he had created, authorized and distributed the fabricated letters and calls. To avoid being identified as the true sponsor of the communications, Ball for Congress and Adrian Plesha omitted the required disclaimers, created phony invoices, used stamps rather than the committee’s postal meter and asked vendors to hide any links between the communications and Ball for Congress.
The Act prohibits Federal candidates or their agents from fraudulently misrepresenting any committee under their control as speaking or writing on behalf of any other candidate or political party on a matter that is damaging to that other candidate or party. Additionally, the law requires any person who expressly advocates the election or defeat of a federal candidate through a mass mailing to include a disclaimer stating who paid for and authorized the mailing.
The FEC also referred Mr. Plesha to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. Mr. Plesha pled guilty to making false statements to the FEC and was sentenced to three years of probation, a $5,000 fine and 160 hours of community service.


=======================

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/33388/print
Published on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (http://www.citizensforethics.org)
CREW FILES DOJ COMPLAINT AGAINST TEXAS REP. PETE SESSIONS



19 Apr 2006 // Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a Department of Justice (DOJ) complaint against Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) for official actions he may have taken on behalf of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, as well as possible bribes he may have accepted from a San Francisco defense technology company. The complaint asks for the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into Rep. Sessions.
CREW’s complaint alleges that Rep. Sessions co-signed two letters, one to former Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2001 and another to former Interior Secretary Gale Norton in 2002, which benefitted Mr. Abramoff’s client, the Louisiana Coushatta. One month after his 2002 letter was sent, Rep. Sessions’ political action committee, PETE PAC, received $3,500 from the Louisiana Coushatta and another $3,500 from other tribes with casinos. Within 18 months, PETE PAC received $20,500 from tribes associated with Abramoff.
Rep. Sessions also traveled to Malaysia on an Abramoff-arranged trip with indicted public relations executive Michael Scanlon, two lobbyists from Abramoff’s firm Greenberg Traurig, one of which, Tony Rudy has been indicted, and two other Members of Congress, Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY). Prior to the trip, Rep. Sessions had shown no public interest in Malaysia, but four months after the trip, Rep. Sessions became an advocate for Malaysia by forming the Malaysia Trade, Security and Economic Cooperation in the House with trip-mate Rep. Meeks.
Additionally, Rep. Sessions promoted the interests of Promia, a firm based in San Francisco that hired Session’s former communications director, Adrian Plesha, as vice president and director of its Washington office. Mr. Plesha pleaded guilty to felony charges related to FEC offences shortly after he began working for Promia.
Promia was able to garner a nearly $800,000 Navy research and development contract in May, 2000 and Rep. Sessions, along with Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), publicly worked to get an additional $8 million for Promia through a Department of Defense grant.
In October 2000, the same month that Promia received $2 million from Trautman Wasserman & Co., a New York venture capital firm, Rep. Sessions received the maximum allowed — $1,000 each, from eight Promia executives for his re-election campaign. In 2002, Promia gave $30,000 to PETE PAC. In total Promia and its executives have contributed nearly $55,000 to Rep. Sessions since 2000 – by far the largest contribution Promia has made to any Member of Congress.

==========

[Tock]

http://www.burntorangereport.com/dia...riminal-record

TX-32: Pete Sessions' $1.6M Taxpayer Gift to Former Aide with Criminal Record


by: Matt Glazer

Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 04:07 PM CDT


Pete Session has some serious explaining to do.
According to a Politico and Washington Monthly article, Session earmarked $1.6 million to a company he may or may not have questionable ties to.

[Sessions] steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps. What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf.

Sessions has referred to earmarks in the past with unquestioning and unequivocal opposition. Saying earmarks are "a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people."
Of course, Pete Sessions staff member and spokeswoman Emily Davis defended the project before looking at a map. According to Politico, Davis said the airship project is a worthwhile use of federal funds and says it could eventually lead to thousands of new jobs in Sessions's Dallas-area district.
As mentioned above, the company is based in Illinois with a branch office in San Antonio.
Washington Monthly sums up the bizarre situation:

While lawmakers routinely support earmarks for their home district and/or state, this particular measure has nothing to do with Sessions' Dallas-area district. The company, Jim G. Ferguson & Associates, is based in a Chicago suburb. It has an office in Texas, but it's 300 miles from Sessions' district.
What's more, when Sessions submitted the earmark, he used a Dallas address for the company, but it was actually the address of a friend of one of the company's executives. It looks a little suspicious. The leaders of Jim G. Ferguson & Associates admit they have no background in aviation or defense, and no expertise in engineering or research. It's why it seems odd that Sessions would direct $1.6 million to the company, most of which would go towards research and engineering on a dirigible project.

We use words like hypocrisy on this site a lot to sum up the Republican Party in Texas, but this extends well beyond a complex idea like hypocrisy. This seems, at the very worst, corrupt and at the very best, unethical. Sessions is the National Republican Congressional Committee chairman (NRCC). He is in charge of both representing and electing Republicans to Congress.

[thegodfather]

“[I]t is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution,” President Obama said in a statement released today.

The Democrats are much better. Just today the Democratic Congress launched in inquiry into the many abuses that happened under the Republican Bush regime, and Obama supported this move, he wants to bring the war criminals to justice. Actually, I just made all that up, the reality is that the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi(who wouldn't allow an impeachment to proceed on George Bush), and Barack Obama have no interest in upholding the rule of law in the United States and putting people on trial for egregious crimes which hurt thousands of people and severely damaged the integrity of the United States. Obama seems to be of the opinion that these people who committed these acts were "only following orders," well we didn't let the criminals at Nuremburg off that easily, but I suppose its 'different' when we're talking about Americans. It's always different for us. Do as we say and not as we do. Obama and the majority of the Democrats are empty suits, a whole lot of talk, and not a lot of action. So much for your change.

[Kratos]

“[I]t is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution,” President Obama said in a statement released today.

The Democrats are much better. Just today the Democratic Congress launched in inquiry into the many abuses that happened under the Republican Bush regime, and Obama supported this move, he wants to bring the war criminals to justice. Actually, I just made all that up, the reality is that the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi(who wouldn't allow an impeachment to proceed on George Bush), and Barack Obama have no interest in upholding the rule of law in the United States and putting people on trial for egregious crimes which hurt thousands of people and severely damaged the integrity of the United States. Obama seems to be of the opinion that these people who committed these acts were "only following orders," well we didn't let the criminals at Nuremburg off that easily, but I suppose its 'different' when we're talking about Americans. It's always different for us. Do as we say and not as we do. Obama and the majority of the Democrats are empty suits, a whole lot of talk, and not a lot of action. So much for your change.

This is one area where I disagree with you Godfather. We shouldn't punish our soldiers for following orders. Rather the orgin of the order. We expect our soldiers to follow orders and not question leadership. We brainwash them to do so. It's unfair to fvck them if they do, fvck them if they don't.

These are our soldiers, the Nuremburg criminals were not. We need to allow them to follow orders and not question leadership. I think we need to respect them for the job they do, rather then keep them in fear of being held accountable. That should fall on the head of the source of the order.

[Iron_Pig]

This is one area where I disagree with you Godfather. We shouldn't punish our soldiers for following orders. Rather the orgin of the order. We expect our soldiers to follow orders and not question leadership. We brainwash them to do so. It's unfair to fvck them if they do, fvck them if they don't.

These are our soldiers, the Nuremburg criminals were not. We need to allow them to follow orders and not question leadership. I think we need to respect them for the job they do, rather then keep them in fear of being held accountable. That should fall on the head of the source of the order.

We are not brainwashed and we do question This is what separates us from other military's I was an Officer in the Army and I questioned everything we did these are my Boy's my Family and I will be Damned to hell if I sent they on some fubar mission.

[TITANIUM]

This is one area where I disagree with you Godfather. We shouldn't punish our soldiers for following orders. Rather the orgin of the order. We expect our soldiers to follow orders and not question leadership. We brainwash them to do so. It's unfair to fvck them if they do, fvck them if they don't.

These are our soldiers, the Nuremburg criminals were not. We need to allow them to follow orders and not question leadership. I think we need to respect them for the job they do, rather then keep them in fear of being held accountable. That should fall on the head of the source of the order.

I respect the Godfather as well as Kratos. You have my respect.The difference between the two parties is a very fine line in the sand. At this point, they are all dirty, and everyone knows it.So stop trying to point fingers at each other.If you want to blame a particular party, you need not to look any farther than your bathroom mirror. We the people, let this diluted goverment get out of control.

Remember, we the people should not fear the goverment, the goverment should fear the people!!!

[Iron_Pig]

I respect the Godfather as well as Kratos. You have my respect.The difference between the two parties is a very fine line in the sand. At this point, they are all dirty, and everyone knows it.So stop trying to point fingers at each other.If you want to blame a particular party, you need not to look any farther than your bathroom mirror. We the people, let this diluted goverment get out of control.

Remember, we the people should not fear the goverment, the goverment should fear the people!!!

[amcon]

didnt read much here... seems pretty straight forward... dems are leading this

[SMCengineer]

So, by analyizing the actions of one individual you come up with a conclusion based on an entire party? Further, how innocent do you think many democrats are when it comes to hypocrisy?

[Tock]

Hypocrisy. Huh.

It's been the Republicans who have bleated bleated bleated that they are the party of fiscal responsibility, while Democrats were the party of tax and spend

You have undoubtedly noticed that the Party of George Bush had so mismanaged the economy over his 8 years in office that the US had descended into massive deficit spending, that borrowing from China was at a record high, that the national debt was at a stupefying record high, and trillion-dollar bailouts of underregulated banking and insurance companies were necessary to prevent the planet from schlepping into a massive world-wide depression!

Yep, the country was a whole lot better off under the policies of the Clinton administration, than under the neo-conservative war-mongering anti-civil rights policies of the Bushies.

But, the Republicans still whine about "those tax and spend liberals." They had their opportunity to prove their mettle, and they drove the US into the biggest recession since World War 2.

----

Hypocrisy. Huh.

For years and years the Republicans beat Democrats senseless with Bibles and their claims that they were the "party of family values."

Well, the Republican Senator from Idaho was caught playing "footsie" with a cop in an airport restroom. The Republican Senator from Louisiana was caught patronizing hookers in Washington DC. The anti-gay Republican leader of Fundamentalist Evangelicals in the US was caught paying a male hooker for sex--and drugs!
Ordinarily, that wouldn't merit a second look from my prying eyes, except that all three of those Republicans (and there are plenty plenty plenty more, I assure you) claimed to be morally superior than heathen Democrats, and all three profited by deceiving the general public. That, in my book, makes them hypocrites.


Sure, some Democrats do the same thing, and some Republicans are honest. I grumble about them when their hypocrisy is uncovered.

But no, I did not "come up with a conclusion" . . . "by analyzing the actions of one individual." I've been watching both Republicans and Democrats for years and years. Lots of 'em are crooks, but there are lots more hypocrites in the Republican party.




--

So, by analyizing the actions of one individual you come up with a conclusion based on an entire party? Further, how innocent do you think many democrats are when it comes to hypocrisy?

[Tock]

all three of those Republicans (and there are plenty plenty plenty more, I assure you) claimed to be morally superior than heathen Democrats, and all three profited by deceiving the general public. That, in my book, makes them hypocrites.

Speak of the Devil; I signed off of here and went to check National News, and here's another story of Republican Hypocrisy. Not that I'm surprised; there's been so many of them over the past 10 or 20 years. And there will probably be more tomorrow.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/...enator_scandal
Tenn. senator has affair with intern, resigns

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – The Tennessee state senator said he was opposed to sex outside marriage, but his private life told a different story: He was having an affair with his 22-year-old intern.
When an extortion plot exposed married Republican Sen. Paul Stanley's illicit relationship, he said he would be "clearing up" misimpressions later. He's now clearing out his office, the latest politician caught in a sex scandal, this one made worse by not coming clean.

"If you can't explain what you've done to your constituents in 30 seconds or less in a way they would accept, then don't do it," said Bruce Oppenheimer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University. "It's amazing how many elected officials violate that very important conventional wisdom."

As news of the affair broke last month, the 47-year-old Stanley dodged reporters and issued a statement calling himself a victim. The suburban Memphis lawmaker, a married father of two who taught Sunday school, said he wanted to set the record straight. But, he insisted, prosecutors had told him not to talk.

The details that emerged, however, did nothing to vindicate him. Court documents showed he had admitted the affair to investigators and acknowledged taking explicit photos of intern McKensie Morrison in his Nashville apartment. Prosecutors issued a statement saying he was not restricted from discussing the case. After a week of mounting pressure, he reluctantly resigned.

Even as he quit, he tried to blame Morrison, suggesting in a radio interview that the intern might face charges in the extortion case.

Her boyfriend, Joel Watts, is the only person charged in the matter, accused of trying to extort $10,000 from Stanley in April. Authorities have said they do not plan to file more charges.

Investigators say Watts demanded the money in exchange for not selling Stanley's explicit photos of Morrison to the media. Morrison and Watts have said Stanley was the first to offer to pay.

Stanley kept constituents and colleagues — even the Republican speaker of the Senate — in the dark until the first court hearing in the case on July 20.

Tennessee Democratic operative Mark Brown, who blasted Republicans' handling of the incident on his blog, said Stanley's biggest mistake was appearing dishonest.

"First and foremost, tell the truth," he said. "Crisis management does not mean that you alter facts. Tell the truth, and then shut up."

Moments after submitting his resignation letter, Stanley went on a talk radio show in Memphis to say that his actions did not shake his moral ideals.

In nearly a decade in the Legislature, he repeatedly cited his belief in abstinence outside marriage as he opposed gay marriage, adoption by gay couples and family planning funding for Planned Parenthood.
"Whatever I stood for and advocated, I still believe to be true," he said last week. "And just because I fell far short of what God's standard was for me and my wife it doesn't mean that that standard is reduced in the least bit."

Voters were outraged, posting hundreds of comments on newspaper Web sites and writing letters to the editor.
"He wants others to stay out of his business while he jumps blindly into theirs," Dot Truitt Walk of Memphis said in a letter to The Commercial Appeal. "All of those sanctimonious hypocrites should remember this."
Though Stanley's resignation is unhelpful to the GOP, it is not expected to affect his district's solid Republican voting pattern. The GOP already controls the state Senate, though the governor is a Democrat. A special election will be held to fill Stanley's seat.

Oppenheimer said the timing of the scandal may actually be better for Tennessee Republicans than if the affair had surfaced closer to the election.

"The Republicans are far better off that this happened in July 2009 than if it were July 2010," he said.
Some Tennessee Republicans even made light of the situation. State Rep. Stacey Campfield of Knoxville wrote on his blog that another lawmaker told him the Stanley affair was "just more proof, Republicans are clearly irresistible to females."

Other Republicans across the country have recently been caught in extramarital affairs, among them U.S. Sens. John Ensign of Nevada and David Vitter of Louisiana. Then there's South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who on his return from a secret visit to his mistress in Argentina confessed his affair at a tearful, rambling press conference.

But Tom Ingram, a longtime Republican consultant in Tennessee, said all public officials risk the same scorn if they advocate one set of standards while acting under others. "Every public official espouses morality, just like every preacher does," Ingram said. "And the higher standards you set for yourself and others, if you violate those along the way, you're going to pay a higher price because you got caught in your own web."

[Iron_Pig]

WTF show me an asshat politician that is worth a bag of shit. They ride a moral high horse and then get caught doing shit they should not be doing.

[SMCengineer]

Hypocrisy. Huh.

It's been the Republicans who have bleated bleated bleated that they are the party of fiscal responsibility, while Democrats were the party of tax and spend

You have undoubtedly noticed that the Party of George Bush had so mismanaged the economy over his 8 years in office that the US had descended into massive deficit spending, that borrowing from China was at a record high, that the national debt was at a stupefying record high, and trillion-dollar bailouts of underregulated banking and insurance companies were necessary to prevent the planet from schlepping into a massive world-wide depression!

Yep, the country was a whole lot better off under the policies of the Clinton administration, than under the neo-conservative war-mongering anti-civil rights policies of the Bushies.

But, the Republicans still whine about "those tax and spend liberals." They had their opportunity to prove their mettle, and they drove the US into the biggest recession since World War 2.

----

Hypocrisy. Huh.

For years and years the Republicans beat Democrats senseless with Bibles and their claims that they were the "party of family values."

Well, the Republican Senator from Idaho was caught playing "footsie" with a cop in an airport restroom. The Republican Senator from Louisiana was caught patronizing hookers in Washington DC. The anti-gay Republican leader of Fundamentalist Evangelicals in the US was caught paying a male hooker for sex--and drugs!
Ordinarily, that wouldn't merit a second look from my prying eyes, except that all three of those Republicans (and there are plenty plenty plenty more, I assure you) claimed to be morally superior than heathen Democrats, and all three profited by deceiving the general public. That, in my book, makes them hypocrites.


Sure, some Democrats do the same thing, and some Republicans are honest. I grumble about them when their hypocrisy is uncovered.

But no, I did not "come up with a conclusion" . . . "by analyzing the actions of one individual." I've been watching both Republicans and Democrats for years and years. Lots of 'em are crooks, but there are lots more hypocrites in the Republican party.




--

You don't have to prove to me that many Republicans are hypocrites, I'll willingly and knowingly conceed that point. But to say that "This is what's wrong with Republicans" is simply wrong and ignoring the bigger picture that it's not a party issue. Nor is it appropriate to say "the republicans have more hypocrites," as though being a little less hypocritical makes one party morally better off than the other. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and, frankly, politicians specialize in it, don't focus on one party in particular as though it's a polarizing issue. Stop with the 'one side is better than the other' bs. They're both shit.

[Tock]

Stop with the 'one side is better than the other' bs. They're both shit.

One side IS better than the other. IMHO, sanctimonious hypocrisy is worse than ordinary hypocrisy, particularly when it's been the sanctimonious Republican hypocrites who have benefited in the past from passing laws that have made my life miserable (well, almost miserable).

These sanctimonious Republican Christian Fundamentalist anti-gay frauds have campaigned on their own supposedly "better morality" all the while they've been out bonking someone's young innocent unmarried daughter, and lied to their wives about what they were doing.

Democrats don't do that to me.
Democrats didn't kick me out of the military for being gay.
From what I've seen, Republican politicians have deep-rooted sexual problems; they hate gays and can't control themselves around women, and then they won't own up to their hypocritical conduct.
And after all that, they have the gall to say that I'm a pervert?

FTS . . .

As my little brother says, "Both Republicans and Democrats are crooks, but at least the Democrats will leave a little bit on your plate after they rob ya blind."

to Republican politicians

[SMCengineer]

One side IS better than the other. IMHO, sanctimonious hypocrisy is worse than ordinary hypocrisy, particularly when it's been the sanctimonious Republican hypocrites who have benefited in the past from passing laws that have made my life miserable (well, almost miserable).

These sanctimonious Republican Christian Fundamentalist anti-gay frauds have campaigned on their own supposedly "better morality" all the while they've been out bonking someone's young innocent unmarried daughter, and lied to their wives about what they were doing.

Democrats don't do that to me.
Democrats didn't kick me out of the military for being gay.
From what I've seen, Republican politicians have deep-rooted sexual problems; they hate gays and can't control themselves around women, and then they won't own up to their hypocritical conduct.
And after all that, they have the gall to say that I'm a pervert?

'Don't ask don't tell' was enacted by Clinton.

[Flagg]

One side IS better than the other. IMHO, sanctimonious hypocrisy is worse than ordinary hypocrisy, particularly when it's been the sanctimonious Republican hypocrites who have benefited in the past from passing laws that have made my life miserable (well, almost miserable).

These sanctimonious Republican Christian Fundamentalist anti-gay frauds have campaigned on their own supposedly "better morality" all the while they've been out bonking someone's young innocent unmarried daughter, and lied to their wives about what they were doing.

Democrats don't do that to me.
Democrats didn't kick me out of the military for being gay.
From what I've seen, Republican politicians have deep-rooted sexual problems; they hate gays and can't control themselves around women, and then they won't own up to their hypocritical conduct.
And after all that, they have the gall to say that I'm a pervert?

FTS . . .

As my little brother says, "Both Republicans and Democrats are crooks, but at least the Democrats will leave a little bit on your plate after they rob ya blind."

to Republican politicians

But Tock what you are doing is making this personal. So Democrats are better for YOU, there are plenty of people the Democrats are not better for, or does only your rights matter? Why not stop voting for either of these corrupt parties and vote for someone who is truly for ALL the people. Whether they be gay, foriegn, rich or poor.

Right now you are basically saying that the Dems are for the minority groups and the Reps are for the rich religious fruitloops. What about everyone else though?

[MuscleScience]

bla bla bla, damn republicans damn democrats. No no no, Damn all the self serving politicians. Its sheepish to blame one party or the other as being dirty or hypocritical. Good god people wake the **** up!!!

[Tock]

bla bla bla, damn republicans damn democrats. No no no, Damn all the self serving politicians. Its sheepish to blame one party or the other as being dirty or hypocritical. Good god people wake the **** up!!!

True.

But at least the Democrats have the good sense to mind their own business when it comes to sex and religion.

[Iron_Pig]

True.

But at least the Democrats have the good sense to mind their own business when it comes to sex and religion.

Because they are kissing that illegal immigrant ass for votes and spending my kids future away.

[Tock]

Because they are kissing that illegal immigrant ass for votes and spending my kids future away.

Nevertheless, it is true that Ronald Reagan and the rest of the Republicans granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens back in the 1980's, and the gov't was supposed to stop the inflow after that, but it didn't. Reagan Republicans let them continue to sneak across and stay up until 1992, and the Clinton Democrats did the same thing. In 2000, the Bush Republicans kept letting them come across, and made a few token efforts to send a few back, and now the gov't is broke, and can't afford to pay for holding centers and border guards. So things won't change much.
Point is, both the Republicans AND the Democrats suck on this issue.

And as far as spending your kid's future away, that's primarily the unhappy effect of computers and international communications.
Almost everyone in the US is going to have to compete with lower-priced foreigners for US labor. If I want to sell packages of XYZ goo in my shop, if it's cheaper to have it made in China or Andorra or Malaysia, that's what I'm gonna do because MY competitor across the street is gonna do the same thing, and customers aren't gonna buy XYZ goo from me for $8 if they can walk across the street and buy it for $4.
Semiconductor manufacturers and software people are gonna do the same thing. Nobody in the USA is going to pay $2000 for an American-made 36" LCD if they can get a Sony for $899.
So jobs are going overseas, buds. And jobs will keep going over there until they (and their companies) make as much per hour as Americans do. That might mean that their wages will go up, or that ours will go down, or more probably a combination of both.

So prepare for a US decline in living standards. As long as there are lots of computers and international communications, that's the way it's gonna be. Not the responsibility of either political party, just the way a free an open economic system works.

[Iron_Pig]

Nevertheless, it is true that Ronald Reagan and the rest of the Republicans granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens back in the 1980's, and the gov't was supposed to stop the inflow after that, but it didn't. Reagan Republicans let them continue to sneak across and stay up until 1992, and the Clinton Democrats did the same thing. In 2000, the Bush Republicans kept letting them come across, and made a few token efforts to send a few back, and now the gov't is broke, and can't afford to pay for holding centers and border guards. So things won't change much.
Point is, both the Republicans AND the Democrats suck on this issue.

And as far as spending your kid's future away, that's primarily the unhappy effect of computers and international communications.
Almost everyone in the US is going to have to compete with lower-priced foreigners for US labor. If I want to sell packages of XYZ goo in my shop, if it's cheaper to have it made in China or Andorra or Malaysia, that's what I'm gonna do because MY competitor across the street is gonna do the same thing, and customers aren't gonna buy XYZ goo from me for $8 if they can walk across the street and buy it for $4.
Semiconductor manufacturers and software people are gonna do the same thing. Nobody in the USA is going to pay $2000 for an American-made 36" LCD if they can get a Sony for $899.
So jobs are going overseas, buds. And jobs will keep going over there until they (and their companies) make as much per hour as Americans do. That might mean that their wages will go up, or that ours will go down, or more probably a combination of both.

So prepare for a US decline in living standards. As long as there are lots of computers and international communications, that's the way it's gonna be. Not the responsibility of either political party, just the way a free an open economic system works.

You hit the nail on the head on that Bro

[tboney]

True.

But at least the Democrats have the good sense to mind their own business when it comes to sex and religion.

Another fuzzy headed dem!!! Thats absurd! Both parties are full of corrupt politicians to claim one as worse is moronic!

[Tigershark]

There was way too much there to read. Where the Republicans go wrong is by not carrying through on thier promises. Bush ruined the Republican party and the Dems are not doing much better. Obama was elected because he lactates hope from his nipples and this is what Americans needed to hear at the time.

[Iron_Pig]

To all politicians they serve their own agenda not the people's. They will sell you a bill of good's and never deliver because they act like little kid's on the play ground.

[gigabitbucket]

There was way too much there to read. Where the Republicans go wrong is by not carrying through on thier promises. Bush ruined the Republican party and the Dems are not doing much better. Obama was elected because he lactates hope from his nipples and this is what Americans needed to hear at the time.

So true!

[Kratos]

Holy cow Tock, what a stupid thread. I thought you were above this.

[ScotchGuard]

DEMs better than REPs? How about Ford better than Chevy? It doesn't matter who's in office. DEMs spent $1 TRILLION DOLLARS! to bailout banks. That's $4,000 that every man woman and child has to pay back. Where does that money come from? We borrow it. China is the BIGGEST financier of our debt. So by Obama borrowing and spending $1 T to bail out banks that was doing just what the Clinton administration told them to do. A $1 T debt quiets all the REPs bleating. How are we EVER going to pay that back? We've sold the future of our children and grand children.

[BgMc31]

That stuff about Michelle Obama can be said about Laura Bush and every other 1st lady...even the Republican beloved Nancy Reagan. That's just a perk of being the 1st lady, and every other governor's wife, mayor's wife, etc., etc..

No one is disputing that waste and moral issues of most politicians. The point was Republican's tend to always campaign on morals, fiscal responsibility, and things of the like but tend to break those 'virtues' in their private lives, that's where the hypocrisy lies.

I know a lot of your republicans are trying to distance yourself from the new neo-con republican party, but let's face it, that is the face of your party. Don't try to deflect that when it's plain as the nose on your faces.

[Iron_Pig]

That stuff about Michelle Obama can be said about Laura Bush and every other 1st lady...even the Republican beloved Nancy Reagan. That's just a perk of being the 1st lady, and every other governor's wife, mayor's wife, etc., etc..

No one is disputing that waste and moral issues of most politicians. The point was Republican's tend to always campaign on morals, fiscal responsibility, and things of the like but tend to break those 'virtues' in their private lives, that's where the hypocrisy lies.

I know a lot of your republicans are trying to distance yourself from the new neo-con republican party, but let's face it, that is the face of your party. Don't try to deflect that when it's plain as the nose on your faces.

They are all dirty every DAMN one of them They all need to be lined up and shot.

[Mooseman33]

That stuff about Michelle Obama can be said about Laura Bush and every other 1st lady...even the Republican beloved Nancy Reagan. That's just a perk of being the 1st lady, and every other governor's wife, mayor's wife, etc., etc..

No one is disputing that waste and moral issues of most politicians. The point was Republican's tend to always campaign on morals, fiscal responsibility, and things of the like but tend to break those 'virtues' in their private lives, that's where the hypocrisy lies.

I know a lot of your republicans are trying to distance yourself from the new neo-con republican party, but let's face it, that is the face of your party. Don't try to deflect that when it's plain as the nose on your faces.

not true, read the bottom of the OP post where it list the amount of staffers the other first ladies had....nothing even close to michele obama...

[spywizard]

would you rather be a bigot?? or a hypocrite??

[Kratos]

I think don't ask don't tell works quite well and is much more pro gay then it's given credit for.

I have two friends who are officers in the navy and they explained it to me. It works different then most people think.

You can straight up be caught naked in the same bed by an officer. He's can't ask you about it, and you can't tell about it. You can act as gay as you want, they can suspect all they want, but at the end of the day, it isn't their buisness and they can't ask you. Big deal, nobody is kicked out of the military for being gay unless they insist on being open. Is that really so bad? How open should is equal. If you're on a sub and you feel like making out in your off duty time, should other people on the boat be forced to see it, or if they don't it isn't fair to your rights...keep in mind there are no women on subs for a reason.

[Tock]

Nope, DADT has lots of flaws.

Suppose someone discovers you're gay and they blackmail you? Do you pay the blackmail and stay in the military, or report the blackmail and get kicked out?

Everyone has the Constitutional right to petition their elected representatives. If a gay soldier writes a letter to their Congressman saying that he's gay and wants a change in DADT, and word leaks back to the military, should he be kicked out for violating DADT?




If a third party tells someone in the military that you're gay, then in their eyes, the issue has been raised, and they pursue the issue. Lots of guys have been kicked out this way.

If the military discover you've been posting on a blog and said you were gay, then in their eyes, the issue has been raised, they presume you have told, and they pursue the issue.

If they do a random inspection of your dorm room and they find a gay version of Playboy magazine, they can ask.

Sometimes a supervisor or coworker or a subordinate asks anyway, or they find out from a third party, and spread the news around. An investigation begins, and then you're out.

While they aren't supposed to ask, they still do. It's illegal for them to ask, but once they ask, it's illegal for you to lie. But even if you prove that they broke the law by asking first, once the info comes out, then you can't get back in. There is no penalty for anyone who violates the law by asking if you're gay, so nobody hesitates to ask.

Essentially, the law is very one-sided, and gays have absolutely no recourse.


Here's the "60Minutes" program on DADT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAE6j...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTBN8V42xEM&NR=1


And here's another take on the policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtx6L...eature=related

Ron Paul on DADT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE&NR=1


28 more Generals call for the end of DADT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmiMx...eature=related


Pentagon Chief (General Pace)
Gay Soldiers Violate "Laws of Nature"
General Pace: "The ucmj makes it illegal for members of the same sex or unmarried members of opposite sex to have sex with each other. It is the law, and I'm upholding it."
( . . . of course, only gay soldiers are kicked out of the military, and few if any adulterous heterosexuals are . . . )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe2bJ...eature=related


Does it make sense to discharge this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryLk5ZHz8PY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldSyh9Zisdk

. . . or this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NZDR...eature=related

. . . or this woman, who was a highly decorated nurse?
http://www.cammermeyer.com/

I think don't ask don't tell works quite well and is much more pro gay then it's given credit for.

I have two friends who are officers in the navy and they explained it to me. It works different then most people think.

You can straight up be caught naked in the same bed by an officer. He's can't ask you about it, and you can't tell about it. You can act as gay as you want, they can suspect all they want, but at the end of the day, it isn't their buisness and they can't ask you. Big deal, nobody is kicked out of the military for being gay unless they insist on being open. Is that really so bad? How open should is equal. If you're on a sub and you feel like making out in your off duty time, should other people on the boat be forced to see it, or if they don't it isn't fair to your rights...keep in mind there are no women on subs for a reason.

Basically, DADT is in place to satisify the prejudices of ignorant "bubbas" who think it's ok for heterosexuals to "make out" in front of gays, but not vice versa. Ya, kick out the guys with critical skills, and make the idiot jerks happy.

Clearly, DADT is a stupid policy to make stupid jerks happy.

[Kratos]

Here's the "60Minutes" program on DADT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAE6j...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTBN8V42xEM&NR=1


.

Did we watch the same program?

[thegodfather]

Making ASSUMPTIONS is never good practice. I have had one friend who was GAY die from AIDS....So thank you...

Anyway, I am trying to make rational analogies and you are retorting with emotions and not logic, so I'm not going to push the issue or argue any further, as it's obviously something that you are emotionally invested in, and since I am not, I see no reason to argue further and potentially hurt your feelings or insult you because I respect your posts for the most part, when they are based on facts and rational argument. Take care...

[Tock]

I respect your posts for the most part, when they are based on facts and rational argument. Take care...

These posts are based on facts.

The current restrictive laws against gay people are primarily the work of Republicans, and efforts to mitigate those laws are the work of Democrats. Republicans are against intimate personal freedoms for consenting adults, Democrats want to eliminate government regulation of sexual conduct for consenting adults.
Vote for Republicans and their policy of sex control if you like. Me, I'll vote for Democrats and less government interference.

[binder]

These posts are based on facts.

The current restrictive laws against gay people are primarily the work of Republicans, and efforts to mitigate those laws are the work of Democrats. Republicans are against intimate personal freedoms for consenting adults, Democrats want to eliminate government regulation of sexual conduct for consenting adults.
Vote for Republicans and their policy of sex control if you like. Me, I'll vote for Democrats and less government interference.

You need to make the distinction: less government interference on ONE ISSUE that is an issue personal to you. They are far from being part of less government control all together. Look at all the things President Obama is trying to put controls on now. So he loosens the reins on 1 issue and you think he's for smaller government? think again.

You're making a broad statement based on 1 issue (out of the thousands being faced every day).

[Flagg]

You need to make the distinction: less government interference on ONE ISSUE that is an issue personal to you. They are far from being part of less government control all together. Look at all the things President Obama is trying to put controls on now. So he loosens the reins on 1 issue and you think he's for smaller government? think again.

You're making a broad statement based on 1 issue (out of the thousands being faced every day).

I agree. I also agree with Tock that gays should be given all the equal rights of anyone else, but there is a multitude of issues that need to be addressed and addressing just this one is not going to make America a better place on a whole. And all the while people are voting Democrats or Republicans because they foolishly believe that deep down, somewhere, someone from one of these parties is going to change the status quo. But they wont. But that still wont stop people voting for Pepsi or Cola. And things will continue to be like this until a third option is chosen instead. And this is a problem that is prevalent everywhere in the West.

[binder]

I agree. I also agree with Tock that gays should be given all the equal rights of anyone else, but there is a multitude of issues that need to be addressed and addressing just this one is not going to make America a better place on a whole. And all the while people are voting Democrats or Republicans because they foolishly believe that deep down, somewhere, someone from one of these parties is going to change the status quo. But they wont. But that still wont stop people voting for Pepsi or Cola. And things will continue to be like this until a third option is chosen instead. And this is a problem that is prevalent everywhere in the West.

exactly! it's a POLITICIAN thing not a party thing....the lines between republican and democrat are very thing. The only thing people distinguish between the 2 parties are the pointless personal choice issues. Both parties run the country almost the same except when it comes to abortion, gay rights, religion...basically what econimists call the "small issues". Not because they don't mean anything, but they honestly do not affect the way the country as whole runs. It only affects the beliefs of the people. Our dollar will not get any more valuable by forcing all 50 states to support gay marriage. Our healthcare will not become cheaper because some politician decides that abortion isn't legal. etc, etc