Clintons infidelity wasnt the whole issue. The much larger problem was him lying while under oath in an attempt to deny the whole thing. It was that which got him impeached, not the adultery. So you equating Clinton with Newt is simply a fallacy since the two arent the same thing at all.
The fact that it was an issue at all is laughable when the people going after him were doing it too.
I'll call this one a draw (to be generous) and move on.
Who are you referring to here? Barney Frank? 'Cause he is about the only mainstream politician that I know of that has been found to hire gay prostitutes.
Sure, except of course Larry Craig,
here in an article from the VERY fair and balanced Fox News!
And if you want to get into non-prostitute scandals, we've got the lovely
Mark Foley.
And of course the
Republican Bob Allen.
And of course we have the
Young Republicans National Federation Chairman Glenn Murphy....
I don't think you want me to even get into straight prostitution or adultery with the Republicans, because we will be here all day.
But you're right, just the one name springs to mind for gay prostitution. However, this means my original assertion stands. Also, Barney Frank is "out", unlike some of these faux-conservative "family values" creeps.
Point(s), Pizzaguy.
DOMA was passed overwhelmingly in both the house and senate when it passed, so more than a few democrats (who also do the things you allege) voted for that bit of legislation. Also, who signed that into law? Wasnt it Bill Clinton?
As I mention in another thread, it was that moderate Bill Clinton who signed off on this terrible piece of legislation. I jokingly refer to him as a Republican for it. So much for standing up for the little guy.
I've also stated several times that
conservative Democrats are just as guilty. That's the thing about conservatives, they aren't just Republicans.
Thank you for agreeing with my point.
Point, Pizzaguy.
[*]Means comparing homosexuality to bestiality, and that's why it shouldn't be allowed.
What mainstream elected republican does this?
Oh, choosing your words carefully now.
Why'd you have to say "mainstream", MobBoss? Is it because you knew I'd be able to EASILY whip out a Republican name? Because you'd be correct.
Also love the word "elected" too... because otherwise I wouldn't be able to name.... dunn dunn dunn DUNNN....
RICK SANTORUM!!!
He was rightly voted out. However:
Many Democratic politicians, gay rights advocates, and progressive commentators condemned the statements as homophobic and bigoted,[1]
while some conservatives supported Santorum and called the condemnations unfair.[2]
He was just saying what other conservatives were thinking.
Point, Pizzaguy.
Everyone sins. Even you. If the expectation is perfection prior to preaching, then none would be able.
This is the poorest defense there is: Non defense, and admission of guilt. Then, saying that oh, it's not so bad, everyone does it. What was that shades of gray fallacy again?
Point, Pizzaguy.
Wasnt it Ronald Reagan, a known republican, that signed the law that gave illegal aliens amnesty back in the '80s? Why I do think it was.
Name one Republican who made a sensible decision (especially one as conservative as Reagan) is fine, but that doesn't somehow cancel the extreme hypocrisy on the right about illegals, many of whom get caught hiring them.
Duplicity so bad, you have to dig up Reagan to make your point, which means that the point is actually mine.
Point, Pizzaguy.
As you pointed out, guys like Mike Huckabee do actually follow through on it. So your point is moot.
"Not everyone does it" is a poor excuse for a defense, as I said.
Point, Pizzaguy.
Not true. Speaking as a military man and republican, I respect my commander-in-chief. That doesnt mean I agree with all his decisions, but I do respect the man. I am hardly alone in that belief.
Now, if you could only convince the mainstream Republican establishment and the elected officials in Washington to denounce the Obama-as-Hitler, Obama-as-Witch-Doctor, etc, etc nonsense which they encourage, tell conservative Fox News network to stop interrupting and overtalking Obama during interviews, and tell them not to campaign on lunatic fringe theories like Obama being a Muslim, or a terrorist sympathizer, or a socialist ideologue....
You know, show some respect.
Or maybe not shout out at him in the halls of Congress during his addresses.
Do I need to cite several examples of this garbage, or can I just consider this point conceded? You don't speak for the Republican establishment, they do. And they've spoken, and they're absolutely disrespectful.
However, because this is a matter of opinion, even though I can still prove I'm right, I'll call this point debatable and move on.
I challenge you to prove that support of someone who murders a doctor because of abortion is a mainstream republican belief. Its simply not, and this particlar allegation is a bold faced falsehood.
Pro-life is a mainstream Republican platform, and the
viewpoint that Abortion Is Murder is very mainstream.
So, obviously, if Abortion doctors are murderers,
it makes sense to murder them first?
Or at the very least, not condemn the action when it happens, as it has been happening to Abortion doctors for quite some time? Which is what I said people do?
Look up some old videos from Fox News and listen to Bill O'Reilly some time about his views on the murdered doctor George Tiller, before he was murdered.
You do that, and you'll enthusiastically award me the point. These are facts.
Point, Pizzaguy.
I'm sure Jesus wouldnt approve of you attributing these criminals to conservatives or republicans in general. Again, a total and utter falsehood on your part, and an exteme ad hom.
If I can point out instances of Christian militias who want to murder cops, and it is real,
IT IS NOT A FALSEHOOD.
You lost the point before you even replied.
Point, Pizzaguy.
It would be the same as saying the earth first terrorists who spike trees to hurt loggers, and burn and destroy buildings and equipment on a routine basis are a fundamental part of the democrat party line. They arent.
Hiding behind extremists on the Left is a poor attempt at rebuttal of my very real accusation of extremists on the right.
This "everybody does it" defense is getting played out and tiresome. It does not, and never will, negate my point.
Point, Pizzaguy.
For starters, the military isnt anything like the police, firefighters, congress, or anything else you have ever experienced. Soldiers dont have the same rights as those civilians do. As I have pointed out time after time, its called a 'selective service' for a reason and you dont have a 'right' to serve.
I could use that same argument for past systemic mistreatment of women and minorities who are now protected by law. If that nonsense didn't hold up then, it doesn't hold up now. Gay people deserve equal rights, and nothing you can say alters that fact.
Other nations, western democracies, have gay people serving openly.
And on that basis, I can prove the military isn't anything special, and it's no excuse for systemic discrimination. You're not even denying the discrimination, you're embracing it.
Point, Pizzaguy.
Actually, those arabic translators requested discharge via that chapter. They did so in order to get the expensive training, and then get out of their service obligation through DADT.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I don't often do this, because I tend to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, but I demand a citation. Proof or it didn't happen.
Prove it, and I'll award you a point for at least teaching me something new.
Even if what you're saying were true, other gay people who wish to serve and have served honorably must be allowed to serve. They've already DEMONSTRATED their competence. Their rights must be upheld, and our nation cannot afford to mistreat our skilled, competent, servicemen and women who have done several tours of duty. Imagine being dishonorably discharged after that.
Not cool, MobBoss. Shame on anyone who supports this nonsense.
Also, I do believe the port security issue was spoken out against by a lot of republicans and was one of the fundamental things the GOP in general disagreed with GWB on.
How did that work out for you? Are all ports in the United States now operating under domestic security companies?
I don't think so.
Point is still mine.
Another falsehood. There is no ability to tap a phone without a warrant. There never has been. However, I do feel compelled to point out that the Patriot Act has been continued by democrats even unto this day, so again, you bringing this up is a moot point.
Many aspects of the Patriot act have been repealed, and the laws are now being enforced. It's not a moot point, it's the entire point.
No ability to tap without a warrant, then what was the big scandal about warrantless wiretaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
Point Pizzaguy.
Do you really think congressional democrats are going to change their current health plan to obamacare? I mean really.
What a dodge. That's not what I was saying and you know it.
Republicans endorsed a plan almost identical to what just got passed into law, and the endorsed it since Bill Clinton was in office.
They voted against it. They voted against their own idea.
I'm not sure you're even trying, to be frank.
Point, mine.
Concessions have to be offered first.
There were!
For a year, Obama and the Democrats supported putting Republican ideas into the bill. The whole damn thing is practically a Republican talking points page from the 1990's.
Point, mine.
Up until Scott Brown got elected, the democrats attitude was they didnt have to pay attention to the GOP at all.
I was paying attention, and they were very clearly trying to get the Republicans engaged in the debate, because I don't know if you know this, but the Democrats weren't party-line united on everything, which allowed Republican filibusters even with a 60-seat majority. Otherwise they would have passed healthcare within a few months, not a year.
You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Not all GOP politicians were for the bailouts, and very few have actuall waffled over this. I myself were against the bailouts, and disagreed with McCain on that particular issue.
"Not all/very few" weasels away from my point, and is practically a concession of the point, so I will take it as such.
I can cite you hypocrite after hypocrite on this issue. Dozens of them if necessary, at least a hundred if you give me enough time. Just let me find the voting records.
Ted Stevens was hardly the only purveyor of pork barrell politics. Before you point out the splinter in the GOPs eye over this you may want to check out the plank poking out of the head of the democrat party.
Once again your defense is not a defense. You admit freely that I am 100% correct on the point, and then say... look at the Democrats do it too.
That's not a defense, that's a counterattack. Since I want the hypocrites gone on the Democrat side, feel free to attack them. But not until I have the proverbial heads of all of the Republicans who complain about the budget and then swim in Pork.
So, my point stands.
Sounds more like Nancy Pelosi to be honest.
My points don't go away simply because you can point at a Democrat.
If you were on trial for being a shoplifter, your defense of "everyone does it" still puts you in jail.
Point, mine.
Sadly, Sarah Palin had more experience than Obama did.
You mean as the mayor of nowhere? Or was it the fact that she
just got elected as Alaskan governor, that somehow gave her experience?
Point, mine.
So pointing out the dems hypocrisy over this isnt kosher?
I've already trashed Democrats all over this thread. Join in the party, but it's still not a defense of the Republicans. Thank you.
Sure, Obama endorses expansion of Nuclear Power all across this country, a Republican sticking point for decades. Here, Obama is being more Bush than Bush.
Where's the thunderous applause from the Republicans?
Speaking of which, those tax cuts sure got the silent treatment from the Republicans as well. All I can say is, wow.
Again, more than a few dems had to vote for this to happen as well, so the point is moot.
I love how quickly you declare everything moot. There was a Democrat in the building, therefore none of what I am saying has any value.
It's the same, tired, defense.
Bush and co. lied about WMD's and greatly exaggerated the threats to this country, and scared people into voting him executive powers.
I thought small government solves everything? Shame where the principles go when people's butts are on the line. Just like the bailouts.
I declare the point un-moot, and I declare the point mine!
I dont recall Afghanistan being 'abandoned'. Pretty sure we had troops there the entire time.
Yeah, so when we diverted troops and resources to Iraq, and the Taliban went resurgent and took back much of the nation, and troops and generals on the ground were clamoring for more troops, funding, and attention...
I guess we just have two sets of parallel histories. That explains it.
Medicare is one of the most expensive and fraudulent, wasteful, abusive expenses of our government. At least something can be said in getting a return on foreign aid.
Yeah, foreign aid never ends up funding terrorism or arming insurgents or prolonging wars, and it never gets siphoned off by corrupt states. Talk to everyone whose lives depend on Medicare and tell them we aren't getting a return on Medicare.
You eliminate foreign aid, and the citizens of the United States would be just fine. Less of our money would end up in the hands of extremists abroad, as well. You eliminate Medicare, and all those people who paid into the system all this time will be cheated out of their earned benefits, and some people won't be able to pay for medication that keeps them away from constant pain and/or death.
The point is mine.
The less than a handfull of 'illegal' wiretaps were investigated and written off as error, where the resulting warrant was forgotten to be requested. You have heard of human error before havent you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
I read this article, and it didn't say "Oh... nothing much, just a few examples of human error.
Point, mine.
And I dont think you and I are going to agree on what consitutes 'torture'.
fortunately international law sides with my definition.
The point is mine.
No, polygamous marriages are not ok. Divorce is not ok.
Sure, overturn those legal rights, and see how well you do.
And I am pretty sure that there are more than a few churches that welcome gays and are certainly protected under religious freedom.
And the gays don't even ask for that much. They just want the legal right to get married. The church can go commune themselves. What matters is secular law, protecting equal rights for people.
I hadnt realized that scientology was such a GOP/conservative issue. Last I checked the thing was being run by a huge number of very liberal democrats. Or are you saying Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Will Smith and the rest vote republican?
That was under religious conservatism
and fundamentalism. 
Nice try. And ask me how gay-friendly Scientology is. Why not look it up, yourself?
Now you are simply confusing taxation with charity. I dont recall Jesus advocating for the Romans tax to be used in that fashion, but encouraged personal giving and charity.
So, you're saying Jesus would be against a state that offers medical care to the poor? Jesus was one of those people who only healed those who could afford to pay?
Yeah he was a real capitalist.
Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's ring a bell with you?
I assume you'll be rendering unto me pretty much all the points you've lost?
And Jesus praised the roman centurion for his faith. Next.
Dodge.
So that's why Christians can do offensive warfare. What can I say, you've got some really
neat theories....
Didnt Jesus say that what goes into a mans mouth isnt what makes him unclean?
What shall I tell our Jewish friends?
I actually agree. Teach them both, but not necessarily together.
Sure, assuming you allow me to teach the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun Theory of Creation alongside both of those, which reveals how absurd such a request is.
Religion and science don't belong in the same classroom, even in the separate but equal sense!
Another blatent falsehood. There are many examples where church members have acted to prevent and expose this type of behavior. Simply not an issue in comparison to the church (I include all christian churches) as a whole.
Don't make me dig out all the past and present news articles about how pedo priests aren't even defrocked. You don't just lose this point, there's a level of failure here that doesn't have a name.
Dude. Circumcisions are done sans religion every single day at every hospital in the USA. Its no longer seen as a religious decision, but a medical one.
And the medical reasons are all bogus, says the American Medical Association.
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/ama/
ICGI WELCOMES AMA TO THE BATTLE FOR GENITAL INTEGRITY
SANTA CRUZ, CA--The American Medical Association (AMA), in a statement published on its website August 17, 2000, slammed neonatal circumcision calling it a "non-therapeutic" procedure which is performed for social reasons.
The AMA said the risks and adverse effects "mitigate" any possible slight medical benefit from neonatal circumcision. The AMA does not recommend circumcision and is now aligned with other medical organizations.
It's religion-inspired tradition. And pardon me, but Judaism again, Dude.
Guess what? There are many different denominations of christianity. Do you know why? Because peoples opinion differ on a lot of these subjects. Me personally, my faith is inclusive of all scientific study and findings.
The "Not me!" defense?
I guess that makes the people who want to teach that the earth is 6000 years old as science disappear?
It has been shown that being religious and conservative makes one more charitable. And in a lot of studies, they fail to differ between christians who simply self-label out of habit, and the devout.
1) That's bull. It hasn't been shown to me.
2) I wasn't talking about charitable versus not charitable. Being religious doesn't make you stop being a sinner, or make you better than me in any way. I know that as a fact, because I happen to be unaffilated with any religion.
I'll make up some studies which show that people in prison are predominantly religious. What a horrible argument, you say? Well given that the majority of the population is religious.... and religious people commit crimes just like non-religious, guess who ends up in prison?
Religious people. So religion doesn't create morality where there was none. And I can be moral without it. Which was my point.
Others assert that I can't be moral without religion, and I just proved otherwise.
If you are without religion (i.e. an athiest) what do you care what they believe?
Because it bothers me that a billion people think I deserve to burn forever and ever in eternal hellfire because I didn't accept on faith their particular magical invisible man.
That is immorality defined. There's no moral there whatsoever.
Hardly a belief of all religious peoples. Again, simply a huge ad hom.
Pardon me while I cry laughing. What a tired refrain.
Pat Robertson and his millions of followers believe it, so therefore it must be moot according to you.
Point mine.
Rush lost a lot of weight as I recall. But I dont see him running...
Too easy...
Pat Robertson is a loon. Has been for a long time now, and no one pays him any attention.
True, true, but the last part: False. Plenty of people listen to him.
Goldline advertises on every major media channel that I have seen. Lib and con alike. And so what if he is the con version of the truthers. Apparently there is good money to be had in doing it.
The difference is that Glenn Beck promotes on his show an apocalyptic viewpoint and tells people to stockpile things for the coming inevitable disaster, while reaping the financial windfalls of scaring people into buying gold, because he does paid endorsements for them.
http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-becks-gold-endorsement-goes-too-far-for-fox-2009-12
But I dont like Beck that much either. Far too emotional for me.
See? We can agree on stuff. I mean that sincerely.
Now, please accept my sincere apology for not continuing with the rest, as it is getting late and this post is already big big.
But the main idea is this: Your rebuttals were paper-thin or apologetic, or non-substantive, or you agreed with me. And in instances where you didn't agree, I proved many of my own points.
as conservatives.
