KaskadskyjKozak

Absolutely it's newsworthy -- we should all hear about exactly these sort of things. Often. And, I'm not saying we should turn our backs and pretend it didn't happen. Maybe that's what KKKK is proposing, but not me certainly. I bet the voters kick his ass out next election (I would.) I guess I'm just saying he's just another piece of shit from D.C. so I'm not really surprised. Whether he stays or goes, another piece of shit will just replace him and be just as (or more) ineffectual. Fuck it, let's go climbing We've already heard about Craig's case. Ad nauseam. Everyone is aware of it.

....and you are telling me you don't feel like a hypocrite yourself when you say the above with Clinton in mind? No. Because it's part of my point. You guys do not apply your "indignation" or demands for morality equally. If you knew me, which you don't, you'd know I am fair. I apply the same standard across the board. I am not going to endure one-sided vindictiveness. In bringing up Clinton (so easy, since we are talking about interns), I have already proven my point - we have people making excuses for him, and why his case was different. It's close enough, my friend - consensual, but improper sex while in public office. The outrage should be the same. What I see instead is a cry for a pound of flesh in one case, and rationalizations and excuses in the other.

Do you feel the same way about clinton? Nah, he owned up in the end. This craig guy, I mean, COME ON. Does he think I'm a retard? Besides, dude -- a cigar. That's fuckin class. He owed up in the end? Come on, dude. There was a friggin cum stain - that's the only reason he owned up. And it took a hell of a lot to get to that point.

Hmm, I dunno. Personally, I think soliciting sex in a bathroom should be legal. Why not? And as to his anti-gay legislation double-speak, well...who knows? Maybe he's representing his constituents? Maybe he's all fucked up by religion and the anti-gay upbringing he inevitably received as a child, forever holding back his inner-gay at the risk of eternal damnation? Who knows. Should he lose his office cause he's a hypocrit? Well, we'd run out of senators pretty quick. Should he lose his office cause he tried to get a blowjob from an anonymous man in a bathroom stall (I'm assuming he's the pitcher)? Nah. Knock yerself out, buddy. Should the fine people of Idaho re-elect him? Well, there's the rub, and as I'm not a registered voter in Idaho, I will simply lean back on my general impression that all politicians are lying, steaming piles of shit (just like the rest of us). That way I'm not disappointed in the end. But is it newsworthy Rob? I realize you might not WANT to hear about that stuff happening (I know I don't, but I'm also not going to ignore it). We could just turn our backs on him and pretend like it didn't happen, I guess that is what you and KKKK are proposing. There are other things to consider other than your own personal viewpoints, such as the law. The law is the one thing we have that keeps the playing field level. It should be applied evenly whether it is President Clinton or a Senator Craig getting a BJ. There is the letter of the law, and there is there is just common decency. If Clinton got a BJ in private and Craig did it in public, well there is a difference there in legal terms. Its just too hard to legislate decency. I mean, you think having sex in public is fine (a public restroom is a public restroom). Its fine if you're the one getting some , but the bottom line is it is just one viewpoint in this country. Most people in this country will disagree with you. i won't ask you the question as to whether you would want your son or daughter interning for Craig, its obvious you wouldn't have them intern for anyone And what is the law in this case? I think he's already faced the legal consequences. Again, let's review that mantra circa 1998 and onwards: "It does not rise to the level of impeachment"

Do you feel the same way about clinton?

Hmm, I dunno. Personally, I think soliciting sex in a bathroom should be legal. Why not? And as to his anti-gay legislation double-speak, well...who knows? Maybe he's representing his constituents? Maybe he's all fucked up by religion and the anti-gay upbringing he inevitably received as a child, forever holding back his inner-gay at the risk of eternal damnation? Who knows. Should he lose his office cause he's a hypocrit? Well, we'd run out of senators pretty quick. Should he lose his office cause he tried to get a blowjob from an anonymous man in a bathroom stall (I'm assuming he's the pitcher)? Nah. Knock yerself out, buddy. Should the fine people of Idaho re-elect him? Well, there's the rub, and as I'm not a registered voter in Idaho, I will simply lean back on my general impression that all politicians are lying, steaming piles of shit (just like the rest of us). That way I'm not disappointed. It's a post like that which makes you the antithesis of a wing-nut Rob.

Your black heart spews vitriol. Your soul is in torment. And you know it.

Whether it's photographing women and posting their images without permission, or posting attacks against people's family members, you prove again and again that you have absolutely no decency or morality. You are an evil, petty little man, worth absolutely nothing.

I've noticed you acknowledging the other side's point of view on more than one occasion.

My problem is with you left wing nuts with your constant hypocritical use of your "politics of personal destruction". I've said it repeatedly. Once more, slowly: You guys dredge up the same names over and over and over again with the same lame attacks and mudslinging (Hey I can name 6 guys who were conservative and were gay, and so all conservatives are closet gays, blah blah blah). And at the same time you conveniently ignore the fact that at least an equal number of people have done similar or worse misdeeds who are not conservative, but like-minded people such as yourself. Nothing to see here folks, move along! Then when you are called on this, do you stop and actually consider the criticism, and maybe acknowledge it. Nope. So keep on with your bad selves. Just repeat over and over again a mind-numbing mantra of derisive foaming-at-the-mouth attacks against those whose politics you disagree with, and make yourself feel so much better about yourself. If you can dehumanize the "other side" effectively enough, why you have no time to look at "your side". Of course, it's the "other side" who is "extreme", "hypocritical" and "partisan", not you. Note: I am using a rhetorical not literal "you" here Porter, so don't get up in arms.

Actually, I didn't really laugh at that. It was just the fastest and most offensive thing I could google that I knew would get a reaction out of you. And to answer your question- actually yes. Martin Van Buren was a really shitty president. I'm glad that fucker is 6 feet under. OK, that was funny (Porter: take notes)

thank you, Rob, a sensible answer at last!

Not immediately. And like I said, he did far worse. Yeah, how about him? You guys dredge up the same half-dozen examples over and over and over again. Get a life. And Haggard is not a politician. There are plenty of liberals in private life doing all kinds of shit too. Maybe even you yourself are.

Another clueless fella who cannot distinguish homosexuality and pedophilia. you're the one who can't distinguish between public consensual sex and (potential) harassment of interns

gee, SS, do you laugh with equal contempt at any (dead) Democrats? thought not.

go crawl back under the rock you came from Trashcanlicker.

You're so PC. I know you guys like to beat a dead horse, but that is ridiculous.

actually the issue is he has an "R" by his name, not a "D", that's really all you care about. Ah, and around from side he comes once again, with the totally unexpected "you're just a partisan hack who wouldn't say a thing if it was a democrat..." finger pointing. I'm so defeated, I'll concede to you now, Mister Neutrality. Thank you for keeping this a "no-spin zone"! Just admit it - the reason you are so concerned is because the dude's a Republican. It's really not so hard to admit. There have been sex scandals with D's. Remember the MA governor with his boy-toy? Did you get so upset about that guy's hypocrisy? And he went well beyond what Craig did. No, I don't think you weren't so upset.

umm, prole, he's dead.

actually the issue is he has an "R" by his name, not a "D", that's really all you care about.

censure and move on, Porter, just move on.

and don't forget, Porter, "everyone" lies about sex, sex is not a big deal, and it's does rise to the level of impeachment.

because he's gay? so, do you trust gays as Scoutmasters? its not that he is just gay...he is also dishonest and misleading...and has no problem breaking the law to get his "fix". he had gay sex with strangers in airports, not people he knew in his congressional office.

Seems like just yesterday our intolerant homeboy was whining about a Clarence Thomas article dated February 25, 2008. Why don't you print up some more copies of the "I believe Anita" t-shirt and sell it to all your relevant, like-minded friends here.