Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Democrats Hit Ethics Pole


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
41 replies to this topic

#25 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,176
  • Reputation: 5,288
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2009 - 10:48 PM

I don't care where Barney puts his mouth. But he effed this country with his Freddie and Fannie crap.


that's here nor there. speed called barney frank a pedophile because he had sex with an adult male. even though the article he linked specifically says "The scandal does not involve seducing a minor, as it does with Lukens, or adultery, since Frank is single."

Edited by rodeo, 20 February 2009 - 10:51 PM.


#26 Speed

Speed

    Banned

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,571
  • Reputation: 0
Banned

Posted 21 February 2009 - 07:42 AM

you said little boys. this article says that republican donald lukens had sex with a minor, and specifically says that barney frank didn't. are you saying that because barney frank had an affair with an adult prostitute he is "diddling little boys?" or are gay people just pedophiles by default to you?

I always thought those congressional paiges little boys.
http://www.freerepub...s/1890185/posts
Remember Barney Frank As Larry Craig Resigns (male-prostitution ring in his house)
Just last fall, as the networks exploded with coverage of Mark Foley's creepy instant messaging, we noted the networks (like ABC) had a very different way of covering Republican sex scandals -- especially the gay-themed ones -- than they did for Democrats. The best example is Barney Frank.

Notice how the networks define hypocrisy, and how liberals never seem to qualify. Frank was a lawmaker with a male-prostitution ring in his house, not to mention a lawmaker who kept getting the pimp's parking tickets waved off. Notice how they all mention "the voters" will decide, instead of going searching for legislators and party activists to underline his need to resign.

The people who manufacture the news in America are very persistent at writing the narrative exactly as it helps liberalism emerge victorious. On ethical scandals, they're very good at making sure Republicans force theirs to resign, and they're also very good at keeping Democrats shamelessly in power.

#27 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,599
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2009 - 08:00 PM

I always thought those congressional paiges little boys.
http://www.freerepub...s/1890185/posts
Remember Barney Frank As Larry Craig Resigns (male-prostitution ring in his house)
Just last fall, as the networks exploded with coverage of Mark Foley's creepy instant messaging, we noted the networks (like ABC) had a very different way of covering Republican sex scandals -- especially the gay-themed ones -- than they did for Democrats. The best example is Barney Frank.

Notice how the networks define hypocrisy, and how liberals never seem to qualify. Frank was a lawmaker with a male-prostitution ring in his house, not to mention a lawmaker who kept getting the pimp's parking tickets waved off. Notice how they all mention "the voters" will decide, instead of going searching for legislators and party activists to underline his need to resign.

The people who manufacture the news in America are very persistent at writing the narrative exactly as it helps liberalism emerge victorious. On ethical scandals, they're very good at making sure Republicans force theirs to resign, and they're also very good at keeping Democrats shamelessly in power.


Yeah, dems are as corrupt and immoral as they come, but they are not held accountable by the media because they don't claim any standards of personal conduct to begin with.

Frank, Rangel, Dodd, Clinton, Daschle, Richardson...The list seems endless.

#28 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,130
  • Reputation: 1,529
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2009 - 08:15 PM

There is good and bad on all sides of the politial spectrum, and neither side is worse or better than the other in that regard.

#29 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2009 - 08:25 PM

There is good and bad on all sides of the politial spectrum, and neither side is worse or better than the other in that regard.


Agreed, but I also think the Dems choose not to look at their candidates' faults more than Repubs do. At least in terms of ethical misconduct.

#30 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,176
  • Reputation: 5,288
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2009 - 08:57 PM

says the party who nominated a guy for president who was reprimanded by the senate ethics committee.

#31 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2009 - 09:14 PM

says the party who nominated a guy for president who was reprimanded by the senate ethics committee.


What cracks me up is that in your mind, McCain's one scandal (if you can call it that) is equal to the 10 scandals Bill Clinton was involved in BEFORE even coming to Washington.

#32 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,599
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2009 - 09:17 PM

There is good and bad on all sides of the politial spectrum, and neither side is worse or better than the other in that regard.


couldn't agree more...but, only one side is held accountable it seems.

#33 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,130
  • Reputation: 1,529
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2009 - 09:43 PM

says the party who nominated a guy for president who was reprimanded by the senate ethics committee.


And the democrats had a president who committed perjury. And the republicans had a president who authorized breakins at the opponents office. And the Democrats had a president who had a smoking hot wife, but still had to bang Marilyn Monroe on the side (well, I can almost understand that one :))

#34 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,176
  • Reputation: 5,288
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2009 - 10:23 PM

And the democrats had a president who committed perjury. And the republicans had a president who authorized breakins at the opponents office. And the Democrats had a president who had a smoking hot wife, but still had to bang Marilyn Monroe on the side (well, I can almost understand that one :))


all of those things happened after they were president. mccain was reprimanded before, and the republicans still thought he was a swell enough guy to nominate.

#35 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,599
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2009 - 10:43 PM

all of those things happened after they were president. mccain was reprimanded before, and the republicans still thought he was a swell enough guy to nominate.


You gotta be kidding me...The open primaries in several states selected McCain as our candidate. The Dems gave us that nomination. He wasn't my choice.

#36 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,130
  • Reputation: 1,529
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2009 - 11:28 PM

all of those things happened after they were president. mccain was reprimanded before, and the republicans still thought he was a swell enough guy to nominate.


Clinton lied on national television during the primaries, and yet the Democrats still thought enough of him to elect him.

Mccain was reprimanded for poor judgement. Hell, if a lapse of judgement restricts one from being president, Clinton, Obama, Reagan, Washington, etc... would never have been president.

George Washington once was accused of war crimes in the French and Indian War. He signed an agreement stating that he had murdered a french colonel. Thomas Jefferson hired someone to write slanderous articles about his supposed friend John Adams. Our current president spent years in the congregration of a minister who spewed hatred towards much of america.

IMO, anyone who thinks that one side is more guilty than the other is unable to see the forest for the trees. That applies to both sides.

Edited by Davidson Deac II, 21 February 2009 - 11:46 PM.