Plus he’s named Lindsey. :dubious:
Wasn’t there an old rule (or at least someone trying to convince us of one) that only the passive party in man sex was truly gay, whereas a Real Man could instigate bumping uglies with anyone or anything?
Ken Melhman, until just recently the Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
He ain’t the only one <cough>Mitch McConnell</cough>.
NO, no, no, no.
It’s not the 'Pubs who are at fault here. If it weren’t for those damn liberals promoting the gay lifestyle then this poor man wouldn’t be so sorely tempted. Then this guy just feel into temptation. He was weak, but we feel sorry for his family.
This is the great thing about being a Republican. You don’t have to accept that your valued are completely fucked up (or fucked from behind). You get to blame someone else.
What would a conservative do?
A conservative would oppose any government interest in, or actions for or against any sub set of citizens based on sexual, religious, or legal social actions.
A conservative would oppose government oversight over any matter not critical to the safety or general welfare of the population.
A conservative would vociferously oppose the use of political donations to allow even the perception that such donations would affect a citizens access to any elected official.
A conservative would insist that any act limiting any freedom of any citizen for even the most legitimate threat to the general welfare, or security was open, transparent, and limited in both scope, duration.
A conservative would hold elected government to a far higher standard of behavior with respect to such things as the culpability of its leaders for the acts of their subordinates.
And of course, a unicorn would have horns, and fairies carry wands, and fly.
Tris
Actually, if a unicorn had horns, it would be a duocorn, at the very least.
A bicorn, actually. It’s not called a duocycle, after all.
Duosexual doesn’t quite ring right, either. Unless we’re talking Batman and Robin slash fiction.
What are we heading for, I wonder.
I really don’t want hypervigilance when it comes to patrolling the sexual morality of others, but I wonder if the Democrats are heading toward a situation where there are few sexual matters they will get upset about as a party.
While they stood right next to Republicans in the Packwood expulsion, when it came to the Bill Clinton matter, things split along party lines. I really don’t want to reopen that wound, but let’s remember that Clinton admitted to what amounted to actionable offenses under sexual harassment law.
There was criticism at the time from Democrats, but none favored action that would have forced any kind of meaningful penalty on him. A far cry from the Packwood matter, surely.
There are things worse than hypocrisy - and one of them is not having to worry about that charge because you have no standards at all that matter.
Democrats get involved in sex scandals too, but I never seem to see threads about that. Maybe I should start them, just to keep things nice and fair.
So, anyone else wondering what the hell Mr. Moto’s post has to do with the OP? Or is that just me?
Packwood was accused of a worse crime. Just because the two involved sex in some way doesn’t make them equivalent in anyway, and its silly to accuse people of hypocrisy for taking a different stand in two very different cases.
And the case we’re discussing now is completely different as well, so far as I can tell the politician isn’t being accused of a crime at all (rather he’s doing the accusing).
Why should either party they get upset about ANY sexual matters beyween consenting adults?
So basically what you’re saying is, “CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB!”
Didn’t the flavor wear off of that bubblegum like eight years ago?
He did manage to squeeze in “But Clinton got a blow job”. Sigh.
ETA: Me type slow
I think most of us have reached the stage where “… bbbbut what about Clinton” as a response to any criticism of the 'pubbies has gone beyond annoying and is well into too lame to be anything other than hilarious. But I guess if you’re happy with your posts being seen as a joke…
Shorter. Works!
Well, the condensed version of it is “it must somehow be the fault of my enemies that my allies are so completely psychotically fucked in the head,” but that doesn’t really answer your question.
Actually, he didn’t. Furthermore, actionable != indictable. No suit, no foul.
Like when she flashed her thong at him? I mean, when its a total horndog like Clinton, isn’t that kind of victimizing?
He’s suggesting that not all conservatives are Republicans. There is a Conservative Party in England, but not here.
Sure in a thread about american politics I can totally see somebody making reference to english political parties…
One non sequitur to another.