|
OK, so it’s not news that politicians are hypocrites. But, my goodness. This just takes the hypocritical cake. As reported by PageOneQ.com, two infamous senators have signed on to the bill of Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker to establish a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as between a man and a woman. You probably only need two guesses as to which two senators announced they were co-sponsoring the bill today — David “John” Vitter and Larry “Wide Stance” Craig. The actual wording of the amendment and the status of Vitter and Craig as co-sponsors can be seen here.
I mean, really now. How much further down the rabbit hole can we go? A man who pleaded guilty to lewd conduct in propositioning an undercover police officer for anonymous sex in a bathroom, and a man who allegedly has a diaper fetish exerting their moral authority over the rest of us. How can it have come to this? Sure, we know that the moral high ground was ceded by the far right a long time ago. It all depends just how far back you want to go. The list of disgraced fundamentalist zealots reads like a Who’s Who of giddy peccadilloes: Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard and on and on. But, generally speaking, once they’ve been outed as self-loathing perverts, they try not to come down on the rest of us anymore.
Perhaps we should send a message to Vitter and Craig, because obviously, it hasn’t hit them yet: You. Do. Not. Get. To. Tell. Us. How. To. Live. Any. More. You lost the right to moralize about the same time you strapped on a pair of adult diapers and/or opened your stance a little too wide. People who moralize lead first by example. You think Ghandi ever hooked up in a men’s room?
How can people take these clowns seriously?
“How can people take these clowns seriously?”
As a Louisiana citizen, I can ask this:
How did we elect Vitter?
The capacity of mankind to delude themselves is only exceeded by their ability to be deluded by delusional people.
The scary thing isn’t that Vitter and Craig are continuing to moralize against other people, it is that they see no conflict in this behavior at all.
Shouldn’t you have to be religious to get married?
Hurray! For another year we can call middle-aged white Republican males a bunch of homos and still be right about it.
So only perfect people are allowed to pass laws on morality?
#4 – Lyin’ Mike
Haw! Leave it to you to support Pampers Vitter and Wide-Stance Craig, just because they’re right wingnuts.
No one is “perfect”, Mikey, but these two deviants bring hypocrisy to a whole new level. To think that they would be legislating “morality” even for zoo animals is so far beyond ludicrous that I’m going to have to side with Scottie….there truly is no hope for humanity if this is what we’ve come to.
A guy who cheats on his wife by playing baby dressing up in diapers, and a guy who cheats on his wife by trying to give men blow jobs in public bathrooms legislating morality??
Only during a Bush administration could we see this kind of idiocy.
HAW!!
Someone needs to attach Sen. Larry Craig to a polygraph and ask him a few questions.
I know. Since the definition of word marriage has
alway (in this country) meant between man & woman let’s just change the definition of any word we want to get what ever we want. I will change the definition of Free Speech to be shooting anyone who annoys me. Bingo, murdering annoying people is now a protected right.
#7 – Paddy-O
If we want it, what’s the problem? If you don’t want to marry another man – hey, it’s a free country! Just say no! Isn’t it great? Ahh, America!
On the other hand, what the fuck is it to you what other people do in the privacy of their own lives?
In any case, the real issue in this thread is the hypocrisy of two “heterosexuals” who have debased the institution of marriage beyond belief signing up for a bill telling other people what marriage is.
Or is the conservative viewpoint now that marriage includes guys sucking dick in the men’s room and paying hookers to dress you up like an infant? That’s sure what it seems like.
#8 “If we want it, what’s the problem?”
I don’t have a problem with redefining words to get what you want. As long as you don’t restrict to only words you want to redefine and not ones I want to.
I think this is totally unfair. Jeanette Maier, the Canal Street Madam, said that Vitter “was not a freak. He was not into anything unusual or kinky or weird…”.
So my question is, of all the prostitutes that David Vitter uses, which one are you going to believe?
#10 – Paddy-O
>>I don’t have a problem with redefining words
>>to get what you want. As long as you don’t
>>restrict to only words you want to redefine
>>and not ones I want to.
I don’t “want” anything, Mr. O, other than for you to keep your snout out of other people’s fucking business.
Is that too much to ask?
If, in the privacy of my own home, I want to redefine filet mignon as “any kind of beef”, what the fuck’s it to ya? And if people, in the privacy of their own lives, want to call same-sex marriage “marriage” (which doesn’t have a legal definition, btw), what the fuck’s it to ya?
In any case, the major theme in this thread is not “what is marriage?”, it’s “should right-wing perverts be legislating morality for the rest of America?”
Please try to stay on topic.
TIA.
#11 – Cubie
>>So my question is, of all the prostitutes that
>>David Vitter uses, which one are you going to
>>believe?
I’m going with the DC Madame. The Canal St. madame’s claim of Vitter’s “normal” infidelity has been contradicted by other denizens of Canal St.
http://tinyurl.com/6pg3ax
Or maybe she just doesn’t think dressing a fat middle-aged guy up in diapers is unusual or kinky or weird.
#12 “I don’t “want” anything, Mr. O, other than for you to keep your snout out of other people’s fucking business.
Is that too much to ask?”
As long as people quit asking the gov’t to stick its nose into my business on their behalf I have no problem. If not, then I have to stick mine into theirs. Understand?
#15 – “Great! So you’re not a supporter of these homophobic “legislative initiatives” to tell people what they can do in the privacy of their own lives (like marry whomever they want), right?”
Correct, as long as the gov’t doesn’t make me acknowledge that “marriage” I have no problem. I own a business BTW.
#16 – Paddy-O
Who gives a fuck if you acknowledge the marriage or not? What, you’re not going to rent them a room in your Motel 6, or what? They’ll just stay at the Four Seasons.
Looks like you’re the odd man out here, Irish.
#17 Good. As long as you agree that by them being “married” I’m not obligated to pay (health ins benefits) or any other burden on me then I’m fine.
I have a feeling that wouldn’t sit well with you.
I was wrong.
#18 – Paddy-O
Right now, the law does not disallow same-sex marriages. Only government intervention (in the form of homophobic initiatives, or “legislating from the bench”). So you can pay, or suffer the penalty for hatemongering. Sound good?
Would you like to avoid paying health insurance for inter-racial couples too? Inter-faith couples? Couples with different color hair? How far does your bigotry extend?
Does this really make you proud of yourself?
So if a white guy is voting for affirmative action, isn’t that hypocrisy? Someone who has taken bribes had better not be voting for campaign finance reform.
#20 – Lyin’ Mike
Why would a white guy’s vote on affirmative action be hypocritical?
In this case (Diapers and Wide-Stance), two guys who have spent a good portion of their lives engaging in sexual conduct that most people would consider “unconventional”, and a lot of people would consider perverted, are throwing their support behind “traditional marriage” (like they have any first-hand experience with what the fuck that is), and seeking to criminalize a large number of patriotic, tax-paying Americans.
Can you see why people are laughing at us?
It’s like if Bill Clinton supported a bill providing jail time for anyone who stained up a fat girl’s dress.
The faster we can get these Repuke fucks out of office, the faster we can repair the damage they’ve done.
#19 – I knew if I let you type long enough your hypocrisy would show. It’s not about the privacy of your bedroom (as you dishonestly claim) it’s about forcing others to accept and pay for it.
So, since you want it in the arena of public policy, the public get a say.
#22 – Paddy-O
What if the “public” had a say in giving equal rights (and pay, and benefits) to jigaboos, coons, and bluegums?
I suggest you go back to middle school and take an intro class in civics. Maybe they’ll teach you something about civil rights.
The fact that you’re a bigoted homophobe has no bearing on whether all citizens of America should be afforded the same civil rights as others.
And you never answered the question; do you chafe under the law that says you must give benefits to the darkies, spics, high yellers, inter-racial couples, etc.??
Get with the program, dude. If the Founding Fathers had wanted to ban same-sex marriage, they would have put it in the Constitution. Oh, that’s right; the Constitution GRANTS rights, it does not take them away.
#22, Patrick,
It is starting to appear that you want to be able to discriminate and justify it at the same time. That doesn’t make you a hypocrite. It does mean you’re a bigot though.
If you want to run a business then good for you. You do have to run it within the laws of the land though. And if that means providing health insurance or not discriminating then that applies to you as well. If you don’t like the law then cry to your elected representatives that you want the law changed or hire a lawyer and challenge the law. Or I guess you could disobey the law and run the risk of being fined or jailed.
A white guy who benefited from white privilege now wants to outlaw it.
#25 Lyin’ Mike
>>A white guy who benefited from white privilege
>>now wants to outlaw it.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you taking rhetoric lessons from Bobbo?
These ass-clown perverts are going to tell me and my partner of 12 years we’re not “morally” fit to be married and we’re damaging marriage? These scum bags (including McCain, Newt and the rest of the ‘dump the old wife for the new younger one’) are going to lecture ME on morality? That’s…amazing. And my friends wonder why even though I’m a basic ‘conservative midwest’ guy I never vote Republican. You don’t get to spit in my eye, call ME a threat to America’s morality while you’re cheating on your wives and then expect my vote. Kiss MY ass.
“How can people take these clowns seriously?”
People take Al Gore and Obama seriously and they’re just as credible as Vitter and Craig.
You mention Gandhi, but Gandhi was an admitted gambler, smoker, meat-eater, and adulterer. He hired a prostitute. No mention of a ‘wide-stance’ but in his later years he was known to sleep with little girls(but without sex we’re told).
He beat his wife while preaching non-violence.
#29 Whoa, with a track record like that was the a drunk too?
Unless you are mental, what other excuse can you use?
So are you guys going to object and put up a blog post if former Klansman Robert Byrd votes on civil rights legislation? Is he sponsoring the Equal Rights Amendment?