Liberal hypocrisy

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#1
Governor Jim McGreevey comes out that he was gay in 2004, "its ok, it’s a lifestyle" Gerry Studds banged some 17 year old kid, was re-elected many times and received standing ovations without anyone so much as batting an eye. But now Senator Larry Craig, a Republican gets hell for looking for sex in the bathroom. So why is not a “lifestyle” now?

It’s possible to be gay and still oppose gay marriage and be against creating classes under the law.

It’s possible to be a Republican and gay.

Its all liberal hypocrisy.

It’s almost as bad as hippies wearing leather sandals… :sneaky2:


 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#2
Peoples' problem with Larry Craig is that he claims to be a "Family Values" politician, and votes against gay rights, but he pleaded guilty to soliciting gay sex in a men's room. Last time I checked, that constituted adultery which is not a family value.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#3
Peoples' problem with Larry Craig is that he claims to be a "Family Values" politician, and votes against gay rights, but he pleaded guilty to soliciting gay sex in a men's room. Last time I checked, that constituted adultery which is not a family value.
Kind of like Bill Clinton teaching my 4 year old cousin what a BJ is?
 

tipsycatlover

Registered Member
#4
Assuming he's gay, is it impossible that a person who is gay can oppose certain rights homosexuals are demanding? Or, are they all cookie cutter borgs who share one mind?

He plead guilty to disorderly conduct because the police threatened to make a big case out of it if he didn't. Disorderly conduct is NOT soliciting for sex, nor is it lewd conduct, those are recent lies to make the case against Craig more palatable.

If the arresting officer is to be believed, and why not, there was no conduct at all. There was the exhibition of certain "signals" which are understood to be signals for a willingness to engage in conduct that would be considered lewd. There was no solicitation or lewd conduct.

This is certainly a stretch, but a stretch that many are apparently willing to make.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#6
What liberals in particular are we to single out as hypocrites here? Do we know of an instance where someone of said political persuasion said that what Senator Craig did was fine and dandy, only to turn around and condemn him for the action itself later (without changing their mind on the subject in the interim)? If so, I'd say that any hypocrisy belongs to that person, and not to "liberals" in general.

That's the whole problem with such generalizations isn't it? It would be silly to draw any conclusions about haberdashers in general because one of them likes Stilton cheese. In the same vein, I can't imagine how liberalism and hypocrisy are supposed to be related. The two have nothing to do with one another. So it's just as much nonsense to talk of "liberal hypocrisy" as it would be to talk of "haberdasher Stilton-loving".


"If you wish to study a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon."—Bokonon
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#7
1) Because solicitation is a crime.

2) Because the Senator came out and said that Clinton's conduct was horrific

3) He's against gay rights

Neither Studds nor the governor broke the law, the age of consent in DC at the time was 16. As they supported gay rights, we have no reason to equate their conduct.

What about conservative hypocrisy? Gingrich bemoaning Clinton's affair while he had one himself, Foley and Haggard's shennanigans. I don't see liberals as being ones to point out here.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#8
It makes me laugh that you guys are all for "equal rights" and “Gay rights” but now that there is a Republican that is gay it's suddenly not ok, and not equal...

You all just proved my point :laugh:

Now Kaz you say that Studds didn't break the law by banging a 17 year old... on basis of moral values that’s still sick. That just shows the liberals have no moral values and see it OK for old men to have sex with 17 year olds. You really want people like this running the nation? How well do you think that would have gone if Studds were a Republican? You know full and well that it would have been plastered all over the front page of the New York Times and Washington Post.

Like I said, you can be with a party and oppose certain aspects of it. I'm a Republican but support the legalization of weed. Shwa said he was a registered Republican in another thread, but openly admits he's gay.

Any time there is a Republican in a sticky situation such as this it always gets blown out of proportion. But a Democrat does something 10x worse like getting a blow job in the oval office or having sex with a 17 year old, we’d be lucky to see it on page 10 of a newspaper, if at all.

 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#10
It makes me laugh that you guys are all for "equal rights" and “Gay rights” but now that there is a Republican that is gay it's suddenly not ok, and not equal...

You all just proved my point :laugh:
What's not ok is that he took a stance (a wide stance heh heh ) on an issue and his actions proved to be inconsistent with his postion on such issues as family values and gay rights. Whether he is gay or not is not the issue. Nobody said it's not ok that he's gay.