Conservative values?

[Whiskey_Lord]

But there's never any hypocrisy on the left. No, not at all.

Pot/Kettle/Black

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

But there's never any hypocrisy on the left. No, not at all.

Pot/Kettle/Black

Never said there wasn't.

Straw man argument.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

It's not an argument. Whiskey's word is law, peasants!

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well, in all fairness it wasnt much of an OP. Its as good a rebuttal as the OP material deserves.

Aww, you've hurt my feelings.

Rofl. If your premise is so weak that you have to misrepresent your opponent to that level to convince yourself, then so be it.

If the premise is so weak, why are you so compelled to debate it?

And why such a poor showing in the attempt?

But just for the record, I pretty much deny everything you say here.

Denial is a terrible thing.

Its nothing more than a huge ad hom/troll of conservatives, republicans and religious people in general.

It's a criticism of specific examples of hypocrisy among so-called values-platform advocates. Just because you don't have much of a rebuttal, that doesn't mean the points are also invalid.

BTW I don't think you know what ad hominem means. When someone is a hypocrite and you call them out for being a hypocrite, that's attacking the hypocrisy, not the man.

Attacking the man (ad hominem) means saying "You're too short" or "You're too dumb". Hypocrisy is not the same, because it involves ideas or actions which are internally inconsistent.

You can't even dismiss my argument without being wrong...

 

[MobBoss]

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.

If you call it a draw then I must have won it. Apparently thats how your scoring system is working.

Sure, except of course Larry Craig, here in an article from the VERY fair and balanced Fox News!

What part of 'alleges' do you not grasp? I thought you actually had something solid to prove your premise. Apparently you dont.

Thanks for showing everyone the extent your allegations are factual. "Not very' are the two words that come to mind.

And if you want to get into non-prostitute scandals, we've got the lovely Mark Foley.

Foley, while dispicable, was never charged or convicted of any crime. Btw, how many dems have we seen in regards to hired prostitutes over the last few years? More than a few havent we?

Again, you utterly fail to really prove your allegation.

And of course the Republican Bob Allen.

Uh...thats the same link for your Larry Craig 'allegation'.

Btw, Bob Allen was a state congressman from Florida, never anyone important in the GOP. If you really have to screen the third benchers for your scums, you really gotta be reaching. I mean at least pull up people serving in the US congress or as a governor. It might give your argument a taste of legitimacy at least.

I mean at least use guys like LA Dem congressman William J. Jefferson, the infamous congressman that had like 50k in cold cash in his freezer that was convicted on 11 of 16 corruption charges. Talk about the dems re-electing scuz buckets, he certainly qualifies.

And of course we have the Young Republicans National Federation Chairman Glenn Murphy....

Is this the best you can do? This guy wasnt even a state level republican, but a county rep and wasnt elected to anything. Your ad hom indicates that there should be hundreds of examples of mainstream republicans to pull from, and yet you have to dredge up people that are *county* reps?

Please. Thats really pathetic that you even attempt to prove your premise by using this guy as an example. He is a nobody.

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.

Ditto for the democrats as well. They dont have any moral highground to stand on here.

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.

Rofl. If all you can do is score points on unproven allegations and have to go to county reps to prove your ad homs, then no wonder you think your winning.

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.

Oh brother.

Point, Pizzaguy.

Again, apparently for you to score points you have to consider dems like Bill Clinton conservative. Again...laughable.

Oh, choosing your words carefully now.

Not any more than you have. Remember this is supposed to be a republican/conservative ideal here.

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!!!

You may want to re-read that. Even the article you link doesnt say he was comparing homosexuality to bestiality, and even to come to that conclusion one would have to take an EXTREMELY broad interpretation of his remarks.

Course, you only offer this one example, and even its not that strong even though its from one of the most extreme GOP members to come along in a long while.

Nice try. Again, simply NOT a 'conservative value' since it only comes from a single guy and one even a lot of conservatives would consider over the line.

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.

Actually, he wasnt. He was saying what Santorum thought. And I point out again, even your own link doesnt say he was comparing homosexuality to bestiality. But as I predicted, you claimed the point anyway.

Remember its supposed to be a 'conservative value' not just a Rick Santorum value...unless you really are trying to make the claim that Santorum speaks for all conservatives on the homosexuality = bestiality issue, which I hope to god you say you are because it would show how silly your ad hom truly is.

Again, not much of a point for you under closer inspection.

I am not even going to waste my time replying to the rest. These first few pretty much illustrate how wrong and incorrect your are on all these points, and yet, will fool yourself into thinking your claims justified.

Well, they are not. Not even close. The rest of your claims are likewise just as inane and nonsensical, and in order to even remotely be believed have to be done so with such a huge suspension of reality as to be more in line with fantasy than actual anything factual.

I mean such allegations as the GOP supports abortion doctor murder is inane. That conservatives overall support christian militias that want to murder cops is likewise inane. So are pretty much the rest of your 'allegations' which arent based on anything factual at all, just hugely misinterpreted or overblown situations you deem that all conservatives, republicans or religious to endorse whole-heartedly.

Bottom line, your simply wrong, and your proven desire to suspend reality to simply score 'points' pretty much proves my argument entirely. Thanks.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

If you call it a draw then I must have won it. Apparently thats how your scoring system is working.

If you haven't disproved my statement then the statement still stands.

What part of 'alleges' do you not grasp? I thought you actually had something solid to prove your premise. Apparently you dont.

Thanks for showing everyone the extent your allegations are factual. "Not very' are the two words that come to mind.

Foley, while dispicable, was never charged or convicted of any crime. Btw, how many dems have we seen in regards to hired prostitutes over the last few years? More than a few havent we?

Again, you utterly fail to really prove your allegation.

Uh...thats the same link for your Larry Craig 'allegation'.

Btw, Bob Allen was a state congressman from Florida, never anyone important in the GOP. If you really have to screen the third benchers for your scums, you really gotta be reaching. I mean at least pull up people serving in the US congress or as a governor. It might give your argument a taste of legitimacy at least.

I mean at least use guys like LA Dem congressman William J. Jefferson, the infamous congressman that had like 50k in cold cash in his freezer that was convicted on 11 of 16 corruption charges. Talk about the dems re-electing scuz buckets, he certainly qualifies.

Is this the best you can do? This guy wasnt even a state level republican, but a county rep and wasnt elected to anything. Your ad hom indicates that there should be hundreds of examples of mainstream republicans to pull from, and yet you have to dredge up people that are *county* reps?

Please. Thats really pathetic that you even attempt to prove your premise by using this guy as an example. He is a nobody.

Ah, so they weren't really elected officials, or they weren't really important elected officials, and I don't have semen samples from Larry Craig?



You get the idea. Closeted Republicans of all stripes, especially in the family values categories, getting caught in gay sex scandals and being caught out as the hypocrites that they are, and several recent examples of such not enough for MobBoss, eh?

Sure, I can point out the hypocrisy and you can say its ad hominem. Is that really all you have? You still don't know what the term means, do you?

Ditto for the democrats as well. They dont have any moral highground to stand on here.

As if that turns aside anything I'm saying about the conservative movement.

Even were I to concede Democrats/liberals, they aren't hypocrites about it, because they're not basing all of their political capital on pretending not to be gay and pretending to have some immaculate standard of "family values".

It's worse for the Republican/conservative people who made their career on bashing gays and attacking Dems for adultery.... they are hoisted by their own petard, MobBoss.

Rofl. If all you can do is score points on unproven allegations and have to go to county reps to prove your ad homs, then no wonder you think your winning.

I shall do you a favor:

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

It's pretty light reading and it helps.

Oh brother.

You're telling me.

Again, apparently for you to score points you have to consider dems like Bill Clinton conservative. Again...laughable.

What does Bill Clinton and the Conservative/Republican establishment agree on?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

What does Bill Clinton get criticized for by the liberal/left?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Is Don't Ask, Don't Tell a conservative idea?

Yes.

Now, laugh away... you know that "he who laughs last" thing is JUST an expression right? You actually also have to be correct.

You may want to re-read that. Even the article you link doesnt say he was comparing homosexuality to bestiality, and even to come to that conclusion one would have to take an EXTREMELY broad interpretation of his remarks.

Santorum stated that he believed consenting adults do not have a Constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behaviors, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy and zoophilia (bestiality), whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.

I accept your apology.

Course, you only offer this one example, and even its not that strong even though its from one of the most extreme GOP members to come along in a long while.

Of course, I only offer examples which corroborate my claims, and you turn around and misuse "ad hominem" and think it's a defense.

Nice try. Again, simply NOT a 'conservative value' since it only comes from a single guy and one even a lot of conservatives would consider over the line.

"A lot".... says a lot.

So you'll admit "a lot" will say that his remarks are perfectly acceptable, and defend them, as they did.

Yeah another point in my column there. MobBoss.

Actually, he wasnt. He was saying what Santorum thought. And I point out again, even your own link doesnt say he was comparing homosexuality to bestiality. But as I predicted, you claimed the point anyway.

Remember its supposed to be a 'conservative value' not just a Rick Santorum value...unless you really are trying to make the claim that Santorum speaks for all conservatives on the homosexuality = bestiality issue, which I hope to god you say you are because it would show how silly your ad hom truly is.

Never said "all" conservatives.

Just Santorum and his supporters, and the people who defend him.

I am not even going to waste my time replying to the rest. These first few pretty much illustrate how wrong and incorrect your are on all these points, and yet, will fool yourself into thinking your claims justified.

Must be nice knowing that everyone else is wrong and incorrect when they have facts, and you claim the facts are ad hominem.

Well, they are not. Not even close. The rest of your claims are likewise just as inane and nonsensical, and in order to even remotely be believed have to be done so with such a huge suspension of reality as to be more in line with fantasy than actual anything factual.

So, ad hominem when it's not, and "nonsense!"

Bravo.

I mean such allegations as the GOP supports abortion doctor murder is inane. That conservatives overall support christian militias that want to murder cops is likewise inane. So are pretty much the rest of your 'allegations' which arent based on anything factual at all, just hugely misinterpreted or overblown situations you deem that all conservatives, republicans or religious to endorse whole-heartedly.

You do know the difference between "some" and "all", do you not?

Bottom line, your simply wrong

Best.... argument.... ever!

and your proven desire to suspend reality to simply score 'points' pretty much proves my argument entirely. Thanks.

You have done the following:

When shown factual cases of the things I allege, that isn't "all" Republicans or Conservatives.
When shown Conservative/FamilyValues leaders of the Republican party, betraying all their principles, your response is "Not just Republicans!"
When shown irrefutable examples of hypocrisy, you falsely claim "ad hominem"
Also, "inane" and "nonsense" and "You're simply wrong".

Got it. Well done.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Addendum, just in case the first statement wasn't clear or egregious enough.

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." (At this point, Jordan commented, "I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out," coining a phrase widely used in connection with this incident.)[4]

According to Santorum, Marriage can't include homosexuality, because marriage is not pedophilia or bestiality either.

That's a direct comparison, Mobby.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Please do come back with that link that proves your point about gay Arabic translators outing themselves in order to get a discharge from the military.

You know, those gays who just looooooove Don't Ask Don't Tell, which obviously proves that gays love to be mistreated in systematic fashion, and makes other abuses of them okay.

Gotta see that link, because I'm absolutely sure I'll be floored by it.


P.S.- here's my link for Bob Allen. Reason why it isn't in my above post is because I had copy/pasted the other link twice.

http://alaskareport.com/news/z46491_bob_allen.htm

Allen claims he was feeling nervous and offered sex to get away from a man he didn't trust.

The Republican lawmaker has repeatedly declared his innocence.

In the tape-recorded conversation with police after his arrest, Allen indicates he was scared when approached in Tampa's Veterans Memorial Park men's room. He said "This was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park."

Allen didn't know he was talking to a policeman until he pulled out a badge. He explained his behavior shortly after his arrest.

"I went ahhh -- I'm about to be a statistic. You catch all kinds of people, so a legislator is like whoa! You know, especially one that's the (police union) guy of the year...this is too ironic!"

Truly hilarious stuff. Gotta love that not-even-subtle RACISM as well.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I dont think she quit because of 'investigations' because those could continue even after she was gone if they had merit. No, she quit to make more money. Cant really fault her for that.

Not the reason she claimed she quit. So who am I supposed to believe, you or Palin's resignation speech?

And while you chid(e) her for her 'big girl' words, she is making a ton of money with those same words. Why dont you try and actually insult someone for not being successful. It might be more effective.

When have I ever claimed Republicans were unsuccessful? (other than in the 06/08 elections)

Her inability to articulate a damn thing is why opinion polls of her sunk whenever she was forced to answer questions and give interviews.

But, you're right, when she's given a wide latitude to screech jingoistic and divisive rhetoric, a certain base eats it up and buys it up, too. I even acknowledge that elsewhere in this thread.

I followed the McCain campaign pretty close and I sure dont remember him trying to do that to Obama.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

Look, we don't care about an old washed-up terrorist and his wife, who still, at least on Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. ... The point is, Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We need to know that's not true.

It's a good smear, in that it's not factually inaccurate. The claim isn't explicit, but it does get more explicit.

George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.

The first to begin using the new line of attack against Obama was McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, after a lengthy article appeared Oct. 3 in the New York Times about Obama and Ayers:

Our opponents see America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who would bomb their own country.

This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois. ... And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that ... I've 'palled around with a terrorist', all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points.

Palin was a big part of the McCain campaign. Some might even say, half.

Like how she's a half-term governor....

Now, I'd really rather not have to drag up youtube videos of campaign ads accusing Obama of direct ties to terrorists based on this rubbish, thanks. But if I must, then I must, and I'll certainly oblige. Does any of this refresh your memory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONfJ7YSXE5w

He certainly put his money where his mouth was in regards to gov spending and it was his work that led to our erasure of the gov deficit in the '90s more than anyone else. All Clinton did was sign the silly paper.

I'm dead certain the economy had nothing to do with it too, MobBoss.

However, I already gave him and the Republicans credit for actually being internally consistent and getting something positive done. That's why I credit them for it in another thread.

It's been a long time since I saw something like that, and that's including all the Bush years. I'm not even crediting this healthcare bill as an internally consistent example of Democratic values, because it's quite frankly a bad bill compromised with conservative garbage.

But like I said I'm not arguing the fiscal aspect. It is his "moral high ground" which is built on quicksand. You can take the point I'm not arguing, at least give me the points I am or debate those instead.

I agree with you. But the Obamanation thing is starting to wear off at least.

Now we have Tea Party crazies to contend with. I shudder to think how the Reps will rally the base this time. Will it be the gays again? Will they parade around their social morality and use it to get elected, and then do nothing about their campaign promises?

Or will it be the Health Care is Socialist! Even though it's more conservative than Romney-care.

Will it be the birthers?

Will it be the deathers?

What will they think of next? Fortunately, they have a plan of action. March around with their guns held high. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Luckymoose]

Or cutting an athlete from the team on the bus to the starting line.

If anything abortion should be extended until highschool to see if the child is worthy of life.

 

[Merkinball]

It's a good smear, in that it's not factually inaccurate. The claim isn't explicit, but it does get more explicit. - PizzaGuy

A good smear? Obama is out there deriding simple critics, who are not using violent rhetoric, and telling them to tone it down. Obama himself sat in the pew of a church with a guy that actually spouted violent rhetoric in a house of God, and started his campaign in the house of an unapologetic terrorist.

 

[Phrossack]

It may not be violent, but screaming endlessly that Obama is a communist-fascist-socialist-baby-killing secret-Muslim-Kenyan-born-Nazi is somewhat over the top, no?

 

[MobBoss]

If you haven't disproved my statement then the statement still stands.

But they are disproved, and also shown to be so weak as to be truly meaningless.

Ah, so they weren't really elected officials, or they weren't really important elected officials, and I don't have semen samples from Larry Craig?

Like I said, you have less than a handfull of unimportant people along with pure allegation. Nothing more.

You get the idea. Closeted Republicans of all stripes, especially in the family values categories, getting caught in gay sex scandals and being caught out as the hypocrites that they are, and several recent examples of such not enough for MobBoss, eh?

Less than a handful doesnt equate to 'all stripes'. Nor does it even prove a proclivity for such behavior. However, apparently it is enough to illicit propaganda.

Sure, I can point out the hypocrisy and you can say its ad hominem. Is that really all you have? You still don't know what the term means, do you?

Sure I do and I point out again how you use a blanket statement for conservative(s) (see the plural?).

As if that turns aside anything I'm saying about the conservative movement.

It does.

Even were I to concede Democrats/liberals, they aren't hypocrites about it, because they're not basing all of their political capital on pretending not to be gay and pretending to have some immaculate standard of "family values".

Actually, not true. What about the anti-abortion democrats recently in the headlines of the healthcare debate? Not 'family values' types? Sure they are.

It's worse for the Republican/conservative people who made their career on bashing gays and attacking Dems for adultery.... they are hoisted by their own petard, MobBoss.

All less than a handfull of them. In comparison to the hundreds of thousands of the total demograph.

You are better at pointing out the needles in the haystack than recognizing the condition of the actual hay.

Now, laugh away... you know that "he who laughs last" thing is JUST an expression right? You actually also have to be correct.

Rofl, I have no doubts I am correct in this debate.

Anyway, I am going to abbreviate my replies here.

When shown factual cases of the things I allege, that isn't "all" Republicans or Conservatives.

Actually, your 'facts' are based on allegation, and people so unimportant as to not matter at all. Your argument is akin to saying all conservatives speed by showing Joe Smith of Montana once got a speeding ticket.

When shown Conservative/FamilyValues leaders of the Republican party

Rofl. A newly elected state rep from Florida, or county representative arent 'LEADERS' of the republican party. Try harder.

According to Santorum, Marriage can't include homosexuality, because marriage is not pedophilia or bestiality either.

That's a direct comparison, Mobby.

Uhm, No, its not. Which is why your own link doesnt even say it is.

Please do come back with that link that proves your point about gay Arabic translators outing themselves in order to get a discharge from the military.

Actually, and you may not be aware of this, roughly 80-85% of those removed under DADT actually self-disclose. I know about the translators because my office removed some of them. Anyway, here is your requested story:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml

Seven of the soldiers were discharged after telling superiors they are gay, and the two others got in trouble when they were caught together after curfew, said Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that defends homosexuals in the military.

My bad...only a vast a majority of them asked to get out. Two were actually caught doing the deed.

But I have no doubt you will still count this as a point to you.

You know, those gays who just looooooove Don't Ask Don't Tell, which obviously proves that gays love to be mistreated in systematic fashion, and makes other abuses of them okay.

Actually, it gives them a viable way out of service that others dont have.

Gotta see that link, because I'm absolutely sure I'll be floored by it.

Need help up?

Anyway, its Easter, and I got better things to do than address such baseless accusations.

Happy Easter and have a nice day.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

But they are disproved, and also shown to be so weak as to be truly meaningless.

I don't suppose telling you that simply saying it is disproved doesn't equate with disproving something would help matters?

Like I said, you have less than a handfull of unimportant people along with pure allegation. Nothing more.

Sure, not like actual Senators and stuff, or leaders of large Young Republican organizations, or how about that lovely Ted Haggard fellow. Course, even though he was the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, that must mean he's not a conservative or not a leader. I guess you'll be clinging to that "unelected" part, which is fine.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. If I actually did some research, and not just the people off of the top of my head I'd find dozens more in recent memory.

I'm just sticking to the gay ones from "family values conservatives" mind you, because as I said, if I focus on just prostitution, or just adultery, or just pedophiles, I would have dozens more links. Even though all of those rip "family values" to shreds.

I'm also not including the gay pedophilia ones, because I honestly don't want to equate gay with pedophilia, even if it is male-male stuff. So you'll get a free pass on that one just for the sake of placing those people in the really sick criminal category, not just absurdly hypocritical on gay issues. Though I do include one or two where the gay prostitute was slightly underage, because I'm not going to mark that down as being a mostly child predator issue, that's a anti-gay conservative who likes gay sex issue.

Not including the people I already mentioned,

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000158-503544.html

http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_7149.php

Ugh, what's sad is I am actually finding more links for Republican pedophiles than I am for gay scandals. I'm strongly reconsidering showing these links, just to demonstrate how widespread this phenomenon is.

I'm talking dozens of examples per year... when the much tamer simply gay/family values Republicans are only once or twice every year or so. 2005 was a bad year to be a child near an elected Republican.

Here we go, Jim West:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/story.asp?ID=050505_west_politics

Jim West, Spokane Mayor. Supported a bill, which failed, would have barred gays and lesbians from working in schools, day-care centers and some state agencies. Voted to bar the state from distributing pamphlets telling people how to protect themselves from AIDS. Proposed that “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person” among teens be criminalized. Had a sexual affair with an 18 year old boy.[77]

But I suppose Mayors don't count either, right?

No, no, you're right, we can ONLY focus on Senators and Congressmen. That's such a ridiculous standard. If you eliminate state senators, mayors, city councilmen, leaders of evangelical movements and young Republican movements... because none of them count as family values conservatives, obviously.... then sure, I can only find a handful.

I didn't include congressional aides, staffers, or other appointed underlings from Republican congressmen and Senators either, because even though that shows rather poor judgment of character, and is much worse than Obama's supposed affiliation "Palling around with terrorists" with Ayers, which John McCain made part of his approved advertisements, that's beneath me to go there. But I just thought I'd mention I've got well more than a dozen links to those working directly underneath such people.

Oh, here you go, one that meets your standards of Republican Party, Family Values Conservative, two-term Republican Congressman, with a 92% approval rating from the Christian Coalition, Cosponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, consistently opposed gay rights, Married, wife and kids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Schrock
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47194-2004Aug30.html

Didn't know about him, but what a wonder the internet is.

Here's total scumbag David Dreier, House of Representatives, anti-gay Republican.

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

In the fall of 2004, journalist Doug Ireland claimed to "out" Dreier in print in L.A. Weekly, in its issue of September 24–September 30, 2004.[20][21] The L.A. Weekly printed that Dreier had had a romantic relationship with his longtime chief of staff, Brad W. Smith, who at the time collected a $156,600 government salary. Smith earned the highest possible salary allowed by law for a committee staff member[22] and was reportedly the highest-paid chief of staff working for any House of Representatives committee chair. ("By comparison," wrote Ireland, "the chief of staff to the chair of the House Judiciary Committee makes $126,000, while the chief of staff to the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee makes just $100,696.")[20][23][24]

The alleged "outing" was a result of Dreier coming under increasing scrutiny from gay rights groups because of his voting record, which includes support of the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as votes against gay adoption,[citation needed] and against inclusion of homosexuals as a protected class in hate crime. However, he did vote for employment discrimination legislation to protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2007. [25]

Dreier's 1998 and 2000 Democratic opponent, Janice Nelson, alleged that his relationship with Smith had been an open secret for many years. His 2004 opponent, Cynthia Matthews, came out of the closet and demanded that Dreier do the same. Dreier did not publicly respond to these charges, which were discussed on local radio programs in his district. At the time, the mainstream U.S. print media did not cover the story (although the controversy was later, in June 2005, addressed in the British press[26] after it was announced that British prime minister Tony Blair's son Euan would work as an unpaid intern for Dreier's committee during the summer of 2005).

Amid the controversy, Dreier voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment on September 30, 2004. He explained his opposition to the amendment by stating that he felt the Constitution was not the appropriate tool for restricting rights.[citation needed]

Dreier also opposed hate crimes protections for gay people in his vote against the Matthew Shepard Act.

On September 6, 2007, blogger Mike Rogers outed Dreier on Talk of the Nation on NPR. The topic of the program was, "The Ethics of Outing."[27]

Dreier's alleged closeted sexuality is one of the features of the 2009 documentary film Outrage. The film depicted photos of various exotic vacation locales around the world that were visited by Dreier, noting that each time, Dreier's chief of staff Brad W. Smith would arrive at the same getaway spot a day later.

State Rep, GOP family man Brent Parker caught soliciting gay sex from undercover police officer:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,565036793,00.html
Sorry, can't help this one, it's pretty much exactly what I was talking about with regards to the pedophilia/family values, hellfire and brimstone hypocrites. But I know it doesn't count because it's actually worse than just being hypocritical about gayness, so I'll move on.

Matthew Glavin, president and CEO of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, big player in the Clinton Impeachment, and many anti-gay jihads, has been arrested multiple times for public indecency, one time fondling the crotch of the officer who was arresting him.

http://www.gvny.com/columns/nichols/nichols10-13-00.html

Couldn't find much on this guy, but

1980: Rep. Robert Bauman, a Maryland Republican Representative, was arrested after patronizing an underage male prostitute. He blamed his actions on addictions to alcohol and sex. A month later, Bauman lost his bid for re-election.

Of course I'm sure that doesn't count, because it happened a while back.

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

He also wrote an autobiography, The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a Gay Conservative, which was published in 1986.[4]

Now, I never claimed to be a great researcher, but it took me all of thirty minutes to find this stuff, and this was after sifting through pages upon pages upon pages of Republican pedophilia scandals, adultery scandals, and so forth, all things which add up to the main point, which is that you'll find hypocrisy in conservative ideologues, particularly the ones advocating "family values", because many of them don't hold themselves to the same standards they hold others to.

Particularly egregious are the evangelical, anti-gay preachers, leaders of anti-gay movements, and anti-gay elected politicians, who are later found to have been soliciting gay sex from prostitutes, underage or otherwise, or otherwise leading secret gay lives.

But that's not all of them, we haven't gone into people like Sanford and Ensign, supposedly titans among family values conservatives, engaged in long standing adulterous affairs, some involving bribery.

Also gotta love "The Family" or "The Fellowship" if you prefer, a fundamentalist conservative secretive religious group who is all about anti-gay and pro-family, and yet prominent members have been involved in not one or two, but handfuls of scandals involving blatant hypocrisy, corruption, and unethical activity.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/1...tive-Conservative-Religious-Group-The-Family-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)

Yeah.

Do you want me to find you more, or is the hypocricially anti-gay examples enough for you? Because I'd just love to dive into the prostitution, pedophilia, adultery, and possession of child pornography examples.

I assure you, the list is much more extensive, and that's even if I leave out everyone except elected Republican politicians. Shall I?

But I'm sure none of these are factual, it's all a conspiracy, I made it all up. Or shall we roll out the egregious misuse of the term ad hominem again, where it doesn't apply?

Less than a handful doesnt equate to 'all stripes'. Nor does it even prove a proclivity for such behavior. However, apparently it is enough to illicit propaganda.

I can keep digging. I can show you pages where it's just links to news articles and a brief description of what happened. And the links don't generally lead to left-wing blogs and rumor mills, but news organizations.

I guess the entire mainstream media outlet is just a wing of the Democratic party.

Sure I do and I point out again how you use a blanket statement for conservative(s) (see the plural?).

If you know what ad hominem means, then stop using it as it doesn't apply to hypocrisy when the topic of discussion is conservative hypocrisy.

It does.

You're not even trying to argue with me, you're just going "no it isn't" or "it does", which is a nice opening premise but it's not leading anywhere.

If you wish to concede because you cannot debate, that's your prerogative, but don't waste my time.

Actually, not true. What about the anti-abortion democrats recently in the headlines of the healthcare debate? Not 'family values' types? Sure they are.

What about them? You gotta do more than just say Democrat in order to make your point. And if you're talking anti-abortion/conservative Democratic hypocrites, then you're only helping me make my point about these two-faced loons.

You're not helping your case.

It's worse for the Republican/conservative people who made their career on bashing gays and attacking Dems for adultery.... they are hoisted by their own petard, MobBoss.

All less than a handfull of them. In comparison to the hundreds of thousands of the total demograph.

ORLY MobBoss, shall I start posting dozens of links? Because I think I can break a hundred if I try, with my mediocre internet browsing skills.

Should I even bother if you're this blind to reality?

You are better at pointing out the needles in the haystack than recognizing the condition of the actual hay.

A more apt analogy would be to say that there's a bunch of gumballs in a gumball machine, and only 1 out of every 10 are red. And they're easy to point out, because they make headlines.

Rofl, I have no doubts I am correct in this debate.

Your blind faith doesn't advance your argument.

Anyway, I am going to abbreviate my replies here.

Good, because you've already bewildered me with the breakneck pace and the long, well thought out arguments you've presented.

Actually, your 'facts' are based on allegation, and people so unimportant as to not matter at all. Your argument is akin to saying all conservatives speed by showing Joe Smith of Montana once got a speeding ticket.

At this point I could rightly suggest you're either delusional or simply stubborn.

Rofl. A newly elected state rep from Florida, or county representative arent 'LEADERS' of the republican party. Try harder.

Sure, how about the Congressmen I link to above?

By the way, dodging leaders of the conservative movement simply because they aren't all elected Congressmen is not an impressive rebuttal. Your argument needs a stretcher. But hey, I can't fault you for not having a better reply, because there apparently isn't one.

Uhm, No, its not. Which is why your own link doesnt even say it is.

Yes it does. Are you denying the facts now? How shall we settle this, by a poll?

Actually, and you may not be aware of this, roughly 80-85% of those removed under DADT actually self-disclose. I know about the translators because my office removed some of them. Anyway, here is your requested story:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml

My bad...only a vast a majority of them asked to get out. Two were actually caught doing the deed.

But I have no doubt you will still count this as a point to you.

Actually, it gives them a viable way out of service that others dont have.

Yeah, very impressive... I mean that sincerely. I'll give you credit that you didn't just make that up. So you have 7 soldiers who abused Don't Ask Don't Tell to get out.

So, that is an excuse for forcing out gay and lesbian soldiers who did their duties and served honorably and didn't out themselves, but were outed by others?

I'll give you a point on this, but it's missing the larger point entirely, which is that Don't Ask Don't Tell is systemic, unfounded, irrational, and unjust discrimination against gay and lesbian soldiers. Which is what I was saying, and you've yet to establish that it's not true, (which would be absurd) you haven't established why it's necessary to the survival of our military (which I can disprove just by pointing to other industrialized nations) or that it isn't a duplicitous policy to begin with.

If your only rebuttal to Don't Ask, Don't Tell is those soldiers you've described? I hate to burst your bubble, but not only does it have nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but it's actually yet another argument in favor of abolishing it.

Here's your point on the technicality, for at least stating an actual fact somewhere in your rebuttals, weak as it was, and damaging to your own case as it was.

Need help up?

Given how weak the rest of your arguments were, yeah, I can say I am impressed you have some proof. I also admit to morbid curiosity about it.

Anyway, its Easter, and I got better things to do than address such baseless accusations.

Well, I've got a rejoinder for you, my friend. Since you're only focusing on my accusation of conservative hypocrisy as it relates to social morality (and I've given you plenty of examples, and can find hundreds more examples) which I've proven isn't baseless at all, no matter how much you want to believe it, and if you don't come up with something better (and you can't, because facts don't go away if you ignore them), then I'll move on to everything else I allege that hasn't even been addressed.

See next post.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Let's go back to what got people all riled up in the first place, the OP.

[*]Means being able to cheat on your wife and not be thrown out of office. Or, all things being equal, decrying Bill Clinton's behavior and then doing the same thing years later, or in Newt's case, at the same time.

MobBoss doesn't deny that Newt is a total hypocrite for attacking Clinton on adultery while engaging in adultery. Only point is Clinton lied under oath about it.

Well that's good, because I'm not defending Clinton, in fact I attack him later on, this is a thread about.... CONSERVATIVE HYPOCRISY.

[*]Means being able to speak out against the evils of gayness while hiring gay prostitutes. Oooh scandalous!

Gave at least a few examples of actual solicitation of gay sex, one which is an allegation, the others were caught by the police. Let's not forget that Larry Craig was brushin' his happy little feetsies up against other men in the bathroom stall.

WIDE STANCE.

[*]Means being for a constitutional amendment to "protect marriage", while cheating on your spouse, soliciting gay sex, or getting several divorces, while Vegas drive-thru marriage "chapels" remain open and polygamous cults have their liberties protected, because that's religious freedom.

Religious conservatives who have been for "protecting marriage" in this way, were often caught betraying their marriage, found to be gay themselves, or divorced their spouses.

No rebuttal given, because this isn't even debatable.

[*]Means comparing homosexuality to bestiality, and that's why it shouldn't be allowed.

Conservative Rick Santorum on record as comparing the two in at least two instances, one more explicit than the other. He also compared it to pedophilia as well, but who's counting?

[*]Means preaching about immorality while being addicted to painkillers.

Hi, Rush Limbaugh. No debate there.

[*]Means speaking out about the evils of illegal immigration while hiring illegal workers yourself.

None other than the BOSTON GLOBE:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/05/more_immigrant_woes_for_romney/

[*]Means talking a good game about the Bible while not actually following through on any of it.

It's a broad stroke, this one. Easily proven with the religious conservatives and their scandalous affairs, divorces, or gay escapades, so it's sorta redundant.

[*]Means saying we've got to respect our commander-in-chief in a time of war (unless he's a Democrat)

Republicans were big on making sure we respected our commander-in-chief GWB, but Obama is the Rodney Dangerfield of Presidents because he gets no respect.

Several examples of which can be found in my posts.

[*]Means murdering abortion doctors because murder is wrong. Or saying that while you don't condone that behavior, you don't condemn it either.

I even cited a poll regarding how many people think abortion is murder. But for the really juicy stuff, you've got to follow the trail of blood to the (laughably) PRO-LIFE TERRORISTS who murder abortion doctors.

The lack of outcry or even an apology on Fox News for fanning the flames... the silence, deafening.

[*]Means forming pro-Christian cop-murdering militias.... I'm sure Jesus would have approved.

Gun-toting Christians of all kinds just smack of hypocrisy to me. Don't know why this is even debatable.

[*]Means having openly gay police officers, firefighters, congressmen, businessmen, and having anti-discrimination laws in all sectors... except of course, in the main institution which is meant to defend such protected freedoms, the military.

Cited other industrialized, western, integrated military forces, which work side-by-side with the United States, and there's no problems there.

The fact that gays don't destroy other sections of our society, and have been PROVEN to be capable of integrating, doesn't mean a thing to MobBoss or other DADT conservatives.

[*]Means being so concerned about national security, you contract out port security to foreign countries. And of course, firing desperately-needed Arabic translators for being gay.

Example given was a handful of gays who abused the system to get out... doesn't that make DADT a good policy? No...

In fact, it kind of makes it worse, doesn't it? And how does that make systemic discrimination against gays okay in the first place? No answer there.

[*]Means being able to tap anyone's phone whenever you want without a warrant, but flushing millions of government emails so no one knows what you were doing.

Gave the link, and no rebuttal.

[*]Means endorsing and supporting a market where, when you gamble with other people's money, you win big and pay very few taxes on it. Unless you lose a lot of money, then "we're all in this together", so gimme a bailout with public money so I can do it again.

Well, at least we got some conservatives agreeing with me on this one.

It's nice to know that we can lay down our arms and agree that some things are just plain not right.

Kinda warms my heart a little.

[*]Means suggesting that mandated health care would lead to death panels and no health care for grandma, while under the current system, any insurer can just toss grandma out on her wrinkled old behind for no reason other than to protect profits, never mind how much she spent on that insurance over the years. Oh, let's not forget, denying coverage to children for pre-existing conditions when many are born with them. Too bad, so sad, let them die. But the government, who wants to cover those people, is the source of the DEATH PANELS.

Absolutely no fight on this one. So surprising.

[*]Means turning a budget surplus into a massive federal deficit, then complaining that there is a deficit under (the very next) Democratic administration.

There was an argument that Republicans and Clinton together caused the budget surplus to begin with, or that Clinton just signed off on it. I'd argue that the economy meant higher total tax receipts as well, so I don't think either side is technically wrong here.

The main point is that the Republicans maxed out the deficit and gave us terrible job losses after 2 terms of Bush economics. You can't blame Slick Willy for this one, especially if you take credit for Clinton-era prosperity as well.

Then, turn around and attack Obama for reversing but not totally eliminating the Bush depression, and not totally eliminating the Bush debt and deficits, while Obama is still fighting both of Bush's wars... that's your hypocrisy.

Especially when Oink Oink Oink goes the Congress with their Pork spending.

[*]Means no-bid government contracts for stuff we don't even need, while ignoring better armor for the troops, while complaining about the budget.

No rebuttal to this.

[*]Means being against raising the minimum wage while voting yourself a pay increase.

No rebuttal to this.

[*]Means private jets and trips to Hawaii and spending money on lesbian nightclubs with RNC contributor dollars, in a recession.

No rebuttal to this.

[*]Means endorsing a mandated arrangement for consumers of the private insurance industry, then turning around and rejecting the idea as socialist.

No rebuttal to this.

[*]Means endorsing government bailouts of the automotive industry when they couldn't compete in the "free" market.

No rebuttal to this.

[*]Means bailing out or buying up lots of corporations when they cannot meet their debts, but leaving homeowners and insurance holders and cardholders out to dry, then calling it socialist.

No rebuttal to this.

[*]Means voting against government works projects in a recession with high unemployment, but accepting the money anyway and showing up at ribbon-cutting events with a big check, smiling, and taking credit for it, while actively sending letters requesting MORE federal dollars for those same projects, in private, and talking up all the jobs it would create, while saying it doesn't create jobs.

Said that the hypocrisy on this one wasn't widespread... no, really....

That one tickles. This was all over mainstream news outlets. Obama even called them out on this to their face, with no rebuttal ever given.

[*]Means being for reducing or ending unemployment benefits in a recession with high unemployment.

No rebuttal to this.

[*]Means using special privileges as a Senator to delay vital benefits for devastated families because of the impact on the federal debt, while accepting millions of dollars in pork spending for YOUR district, while not caring about the deficit then.

No rebuttal to this.

[*]Means being for farm subsidies and military bases in your district, while saying the federal government can't be trusted with our money and never does anything right.

No rebuttal to this.

[*]Means being for repealing or privatizing Medicare... but not being for repealing or privatizing federally funded transportation projects in your state, or privatizing the F.B.I or homeland security. Just privatize things that other people need, not things you want.

No rebuttal to this.

[*]Means being for your own health care plan before you were against it.

Ah, but it's federal, not state! Weak.

But at least an attempted explanation. I'll accept that answer, even though it is profoundly ridiculous.

[*]Means telling the opposition to be bi-partisan while making no concessions whatsoever.

A rebuttal given, but so factually inaccurate as to be dismissed, and I did.

[*]Means being for the bailouts before you were against it.

No rebuttal to this.

[*]Means being for the bridge to nowhere before you were against it.

Stevens and Palin were both for it, before they were against it. The response was that others are loaded with Pork too...

So weak.

[*]Means asking people for money to repeal a bill that you will never repeal, then using that money to pay for private planes to give paid political speeches and sell books and autographs.

No comment on how disingenuous it is to tell people you'll repeal healthcare if they would only donate to the RNC, which has been doing all of the above?? (And scandalously more!!!)

That's fine, I mean we wouldn't want to confuse people with a response to that.

[*]Means saying Obama lacks the experience to be president, then having Sarah Palin as your running mate.

An ambiguous comment that Sarah was actually more experienced. No explanation how.

[*]Means campaigning on "Drill baby drill" and then being unsupportive of a Democratic president who expands offshore drilling.

No rebuttal to this.

[*]Means being for Nuclear power, except when Obama does it.

No rebuttal to this.

[*]Means giving Bush unprecedented unchecked executive power, while being for smaller government and not trusting Washington.

No rebuttal to this except "well the Dems voted for it, too!"

So, the internal philosophical inconsistency doesn't mean a thing, then?

Smaller government is the answer, except when it's not? Or just when the Democrats are in power?

[*]Means going to war in Afghanistan to get Bin Laden "dead or alive", then abandoning that war in favor of Iraq which had nothing to do with 9-11, and saying that capturing Bin laden wouldn't matter.

No real rebuttal to this either.

[*]Means being for money to prop up foreign governments, and then saying unemployment benefits and medicare for Americans is wasteful spending.

Some debate on this. All that was given was a difference of opinion on which should place a higher priority.

No actual rebuttal.

[*]Means being fiercely in support of the sanctity of the Constitution and the law, while proposing changing the Constitution in order to make sure gays can't get married, and doing illegal wiretaps and torturing prisoners, which is against domestic and international laws, respectively.

When said this was a lie, I provided proof.

No rebuttal to this.


Different subject, mostly about conservatives and religion or fundamentalism in general:

[*]Means polygamous marriages are okay, straight marriages are okay, divorce is okay, but homosexual unions are not. What if gays had a church? Would it be protected religious freedom then?

Some comment but no true explanation as to why gays don't deserve equal protections under the constitution.

[*]Means Scientologists who leave the Sea Org compound and complain about beatings and forced labor aren't protected, but the church's tax-exempt status and massive profits from selling fraudulent medical consultations, hundreds of books and related products, and practicing mental therapy without a license are protected.

Notice how the Scientologists get special protections for their obvious fraud, because that's a religion, but gay people can't have equal protection under the law.

Not even special protection, equal protection. And btw, Scientology teaches that gay is a mental disease which can and must be cured, among other dingbat theories. This may belong in another thread though. It's a statement about fundamentalism and how dangerous it is and how awful the special protections are, but it's confused some into thinking I expect them to defend Scientology as being necessary conservative when it isn't on the whole (parts of it are), so I'll concede that.

[*]Means reading a book which asks you to take care of the poor, the needy, and the sick, but then being against putting that into practice with tax dollars.

Not much argument other than quotes from the Bible which don't explain why Jesus would be opposed to health insurance coverage for those who cannot afford to pay. Didn't expect much either, of course.

[*]Means reading a book which preaches peace, non-violence, and tells you to turn the other cheek, while supporting an offensive war and polishing up your guns.

Never was explained how Jesus condones offensive warfare... (or defensive, for that matter, but I'll even give you that one as a freebie).

[*]Means reading a book which says being gay is an offense to God, in the same chapter which says that eating certain animals is forbidden, and embracing one while ignoring the other.

New Testament, yeah, but what about Judaism? And again, where does Jesus focus on gay people in the New Testament? You see what Jesus "campaigned" on, and you won't find much mention of gayness there.

There's also the part about us all being sinners in the eyes of God... but I digress.

[*]Means "God said it, I believe it, that ends it" and science are directly incompatible, so stop trying to teach religion as an alternative scientific viewpoint.

Only comments amount to "Well I don't personally believe that" which doesn't negate the movement for teaching creationism in public schools.

So, no real rebuttal there.

[*]Means teaching that pedophilia is wrong, but not lifting a finger to stop it in your own church, that's fine. The church can police itself, after all.

There's whole other threads dedicated to this, but the main point is, pedophile behavior is often covered up and those responsible continue to prey on the innocent.

You'll find people of all belief systems in dismay over this. Perhaps it's too easy a target.

[*]Means having the infallible word of God directly contradict itself.
[*]Means having an infallible Pope, when supposedly only God is infallible.
[*]Means having an infallible Pope which repeals policies of previous infallible Popes.
[*]Means unnecessary, often-irreversible elective genital surgery which sometimes results in urinary fistulas, chordee, cysts, lymphedema, ulceration of the glans, necrosis of all or part of the penis, hypospadias, epispadias and impotence, forced upon an infant without any painkillers is okay!

The part about infallibility was given Biblical citations... none have been rebutted.

The part about circumcision was falsely claimed to be a legitimate medical procedure, when international and domestic medical organizations (the big ones) say it's totally unnecessary in infants.

This is a religious tradition, or a secular tradition with religious roots. Either way, needs to be abolished. No real rebuttal on that.

[*]Means being especially skeptical of any scientific field of study which directly contradicts your creation mythology, even though organized religion has amended itself in the past, but not against other scientific fields of study which don't directly contradict it.

Cited examples regarding Geology and Evolution, no rebuttal.

[*]Means being able to say with a straight face that religion helps turn sinners into morally upstanding people, when atheists and non-believers are not any more likely to commit crimes than religious people, or more likely to start offensive wars.

I suppose the onus is on me to dredge up posts from people to give anecdotal evidence. But I'm sure no one here has that poor of an imagination. Had I said any of this on a more conservative website, I'd have been torn to shreds by now. I'm not even going to bother with this one because it would actually be too easy to prove, and winning this battle would be pretty meaningless.

Some variant of this has been said to me by evangelical, recruitment-style Christians since I was just a child, a hundred or more times a year. It's the main reason (besides avoiding damnation) that is given for converting.

That's insulting. As if I can't have a moral compass unless the needle moves like a Ouija board, moved by an unseen invisible hand from the great beyond...

No morality unless it comes from a book that also says good people burn forever for not believing in a certain mythology, and bad people can get into heaven as long as they believe it. Which is, by its very nature, an immoral theology.

It means morality is based on faith in God, not moral behavior. That's the opposite of morality. It's apologetic amorality.

[*]Means denying that you can be a good person without religion... not good enough for your particular peaceful afterlife, anyway.

I shouldn't care that millions upon millions consider me nothing more than God's kindling? Doesn't that de-humanize me in their eyes?

Such rhetoric would be called hate speech were it not protected by "religion".

[*]Means when earthquakes and hurricanes hit, it is just God's punishment for "pagans, homosexuals, and fornicators". Even when it kills religious people. It's funny how sexuality and lack of belief makes you evil, but actual crimes aren't the main focus. Just once I'd like to see an anti-pedophilia campaign larger than the anti-homosexual campaign.

No one ever even commented on how true it was that the campaign against homosexuality is larger than the campaign against pedophilia in religious circles.

That's okay, I got a conservative to agree that Pat Robertson and people who believe this ridiculous nonsense are kooks. Or rather I didn't have to get him to agree, he did anyway. So, nolo contendere.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Just to head off any silly assertion that being the Mayor of Spokane isn't good enough to be an example of conservative Republican leadership:

With a population of 202,319 as of 2008, Spokane is the second largest city in Washington, and the fourth largest in the Pacific Northwest, behind Seattle

About Wasilla:

The city's population was 5,469 at the 2000 census; the Census Bureau estimated that it had risen to 10,256 in 2008

I'll give you the 10,256 number to be fair,

And btw, about Alaska:

Alaska (Listeni /əˈlæskə/) is the largest state of the United States by area; it is situated in the northwest extremity of the North American continent, with Canada to the east, the Arctic Ocean to the north, and the Pacific Ocean to the west and south, with Russia further west across the Bering Strait. Approximately half of Alaska's 698,473 residents live within the Anchorage metropolitan area

So if the Mayor of Spokane is a nobody, then Sarah Palin was obviously unqualified to be Vice President with all her years of Wasilla experience, now, wasn't she?

 

[cardgame]

+++++++++++++++++++rep

 

[Merkinball]

Smaller government is the answer, except when it's not? Or just when the Democrats are in power? - Askthepizzaguy

More government is the answer, except when it's around the bong and the bedroom.

 

[MobBoss]

Rofl. This is like Loose Change. But a bit less funny. The only real redeeming feature of your tl/dr posts is they have probably driven most people away since they have no desire to read that much. Heh. Its certainly not worth trying to argue it with you on any real basis because you simply wont recognize any opinion other than your own as being correct. Thats not debate, thats simply spewing propaganda.

I mean really. Even that which you offer is so poorly supported its not even really funny. County reps. Junior state senators that no one outside of Florida heard of. Etc. Etc. Your google browser must be smoking.

You even say you might find a hundred. Well guess what? WHO CARES. Finding a hundred examples of people who break the law that happen to be conservative/religious/GOP doesnt prove ANYTHING, when one considers how many conservatives/religious/GOPers are out there.

If I had half a mind and were that rabid, I could do the exact same and list decades of democrats and their sex scandals, drug use, criminal historys, etc. etc. But its not really worth it, since it still doesnt prove the allegation. Just like in your case.

And it CERTAINLY doesnt prove that their acts are a 'conservative value' or anything remote to it like you allege in your OP.

All you do is take the acts of a extremely small set of what you define as hypocrites (some actually are, some arent) and use it as an example to identify/label the entire demograph.

I'll let you figure out what flavor of logical fallacy that is.

 

[cardgame]

Rofl. This is like Loose Change. But a bit less funny. The only real redeeming feature of your tl/dr posts is they have probably driven most people away since they have no desire to read that much. Heh. Its certainly not worth trying to argue it with you on any real basis because you simply wont recognize any opinion other than your own as being correct. Thats not debate, thats simply spewing propaganda.

I mean really. Even that which you offer is so poorly supported its not even really funny. County reps. Junior state senators that no one outside of Florida heard of. Etc. Etc. Your google browser must be smoking.

You even say you might find a hundred. Well guess what? WHO CARES. Finding a hundred examples of people who break the law that happen to be conservative/religious/GOP doesnt prove ANYTHING, when one considers how many conservatives/religious/GOPers are out there.

If I had half a mind and were that rabid, I could do the exact same and list decades of democrats and their sex scandals, drug use, criminal historys, etc. etc. But its not really worth it, since it still doesnt prove the allegation. Just like in your case.

And it CERTAINLY doesnt prove that their acts are a 'conservative value' or anything remote to it like you allege in your OP.

All you do is take the acts of a extremely small set of what you define as hypocrites (some actually are, some arent) and use it as an example to identify/label the entire demograph.

I'll let you figure out what flavor of logical fallacy that is.

tl;dr