|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Awesome Republican Primary Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Maybe if the Board of Directors were liable for the jail time things would straighten out?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Do you know how many Herman Cain stories I haven't posted? Like all the ones about sexual harassment, I figured I'd wait for the other shoe to drop. Talk about a double standard! Didn't we hear a lot of "it's just about sex" during the late 1990s? After stories of real indiscretions deftly handled by a large "bimbo eruptions" team whose main task seems to have been to slander the girls who came forward? But for a democrat, it was acceptable! No problem, he's on our side so we can ignore anything we have to. This isn't even about sex, just that nebulous PC "sexual harassment" nonsense which can be as innocuous as "Gee, you look nice today." What a joke. Guess the democrats are getting a bit nervous about 2012, eh? We now have a serious Black presidential candidate who is conservative and who has left the democrat plantation, but we can't have that! The rest of the folks there might get ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Uh, how acceptable was it? Clinton was impeached for that, as you'll recall. Clinton was impeached largely for lying under oath. The excuse was "it's just about sex and everyone lies about sex" but if I recall he also lost his law license for a time as well. And if "it is the charges that count" as is often the case, Clinton was in far hotter water than Cain. But all the libs just fell in line to support him because he was all they had. So much for principles, eh?
Look, Coyote, I read Frum Forum too, so I know your marching orders are "be sure to deflect criticism from Herman Cain by reminding liberals that Democrat sex scandals always get excused." But here's the problem - Frum (and you) seem to forget that it's never liberal sex scandals that get excused - the aforementioned Clinton impeachment, Edwards currently facing Federal indictment for not using campaign money to pay off his preggo mistress, Elliot Spitzer. It's Republicans who always get away with it - Newt Gingrich's adultery while he was impeaching Clinton for his, David Vitter who confessed to crimes on national TV and yet was never charged, Rush Limbaugh stealing Viagra for a trip to the Dominican Republic (this hemisphere's primary sex tourism destination.) I don't read Frum, and from what I know about him I wouldn't want to. (Sorry to disappoint you.)
Guess the democrats are getting a bit nervous about 2012, eh? You're not thinking it through. Come November 2012, we'd much prefer to have Obama up against not-ready-for-primetime, gaffe-a-minute Herman Cain than Mitt Romney, currently the only Republican adult in the room. Unlike Cain, Romney has actually won elections and has experience as an executive. Romney's ACA-predecessor Massachussets health care system is much more of a liability for him in your primary than in our general, since Obama can hardly hang around his neck what Obama would like to claim as a victory for himself, right? No, we'd much rather have Cain vs. Obama. Call it the Audacity of Hope vs. the Audacity of a Dope. Even Cain is saying this is an inside job. Look to your own guys, Coyote. Obama's style is to let his opponents shoot themselves in the face. I agree with you--I'll take Obama vs. Cain in 2012 any time. (Be careful what you wish for.) Who are the Blacks going to vote for then? They voted about 96% for Obama last time, what do you think they will do with an Obama vs. Cain race? Maybe a sizable percentage of them would see a new way of doing things? Is that what you're so afraid of?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Are we sure about this? According to the strict interpretation of the law, he didn't even lie. They never listed fellatio part of a sexual encounter. From Wiki: Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on December 19, 1998, but acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. Two other impeachment articles, a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power, failed in the House. ... Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228—206 vote)[15] and obstruction of justice (by a 221—212 vote).[16] Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205—229 vote)[17] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148—285 vote).[18]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Um, soldiers who have any smarts at all don't complain to Generals about their policies, especially not with lots of reporters present.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I was responding to a post, not the article.
And you take a lot upon yourself to decide what my opinion is regarding gays, in the military or out. My comment had to do with soldiers mouthing off in front of the press to a General. Pretty soon the General and all the press are gone, and what then? The soldiers know what then and toe the line, no matter what they might actually think. But you jumped to conclusions, didn't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Feel free to enlighten me. I have no problem with gays in the military or anywhere else. Subbie eat heap big crow?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
DUMB soldiers dont complain about their officers policies, if they seem wrong. I dont know much about the US millitary... Smart soldiers don't complain about their Generals' policies in front of a pack of reporters. Period. DUMB soldiers, who knows.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Maybe next time you make a relevant comment? Maybe next time you think with your head and not your conservative ass.
And which opinion is conservative? That smart soldiers don't contradict their Generals in front of a bunch of reporters? Or supporting gays in the military and everywhere else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
For what it's worth, my own experience suggests that Buz is completely wrong about the way most servicemen think. I served (pre DADT) in quarters about as close as it gets in the military; in a crew of 100+ men on a 400 foot long submarine. Yes there were gay men aboard, some openly and some in the closet. The effect on morale was reasonably close to zero. The most important issue about your fellow sailor on a submarine was whether or not he was qualified to stand a watch so that you could get into a three shift rotation so that you might get some sleep now and then.
That's true not just in submarines but everywhere. Submarines though might be one of the most extreme environments to test this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
"Test" what? The repeal of DADT doesn't suddenly turn anyone gay, it just makes it so they aren't discriminated against because of who they are. You guys act like there weren't already homosexuals in the armed forces. And you are acting like a jerk. Your biases are showing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
This link has a more accurate story, including a video.
http://legalinsurrection.com/...gays-should-vote-for-obama/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The Democrat party is politically liberal, socially liberal.
The Republican party is politically liberal, socially conservative. The tea party folks are politically conservative, and socially try very hard not to state an opinion at all. The Republican and Democrat parties both despise the folks with the crazy idea known as political conservatism. Both of those parties, and their members, trash and lie about the tea party folks because they represent the biggest threat to the other two parties dividing the spoils of government up between them. A pox on both their houses!Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024