Originally Posted By jonvn What democrat did worse than having illicit sex with an underage person they were a supervisor or some other higher up than? And when that did happen, when did they ever get praised for their strength and courage? I'm just curious, as I simply don't recall that happening.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I can think of one who drove home from a party drunk, ran off a bridge and the girl he was with was killed, and he had a convenient memory lapse until the next morning....and he is still in Congress...that would be one.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What democrat did worse than having illicit sex with an underage person they were a supervisor or some other higher up than?> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G erry_Studds</a> <And when that did happen, when did they ever get praised for their strength and courage?> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/14/AR2006101400965.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/14/AR2006101400965.html</a>
Originally Posted By ShermanTakesAtlanta nice work Duggie Fresh! That was a powerful response to some ignorance around here.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I'm not confusing him with Roy Cohn - that's who I meant all along. I meant that in their efforts to get rid of McCarthy, they weren't beneath bringing up things such as the sexual orientation of Roy Cohn. > But I don't think that happened at the time when McCarthy was powerful. In fact, I don't think Cohn's orientation was generally known until the 70's. And it's worth noting that Cohn was publically anti-gay all his life, denying his sexuality even after it became a very open secret and even after he contracted HIV. And continued to fight against gay people, in some desperate attempt I guess to fight off the rumors. As I've said, such people deserve to be outed.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 He opposed marriage equality, certainly, and argued against it many times on TV.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Like I said, I'm not aware of Ken Mehlman ever "fighting against gay people".
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I understand. I just disagree that supporting the traditional definition of marriage and the democratic process is "fighting against gay people".
Originally Posted By jonvn OK, so Gerry Studs engaged in a legal sexual activity, but was censured by Congress for it, deservedly, because it was a page. No one praised him for his strength and courage in the matter. So that was a nice pile of nonsense. Then we have Teddy Kennedy, and no one praised him for his strength and courage in the matter, either. Again, not exactly what I was talking about either. Neither of these events were good. But no one praised them for it. Suggesting that was ridiculous.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I understand.> No, you really don't. <I just disagree that supporting the traditional definition of marriage and the democratic process is "fighting against gay people."> Just as many people 40 years ago and before who felt that supporting the traditional definition of marriage between same-race people and the "democratic process" which hadn't allowed for it wasn't "fighting against racial equality." But of course it was.
Originally Posted By ecdc "I just disagree that supporting the traditional definition of marriage and the democratic process is "fighting against gay people." You're welcome to disagree, but it is fighting against gay people. Dabob already made an apt comparison to race, another one would be to gender. Saying that supporting traditional gender roles and the democratic process by outlawing women from working in the corporate world is not fighting against women would be dead wrong too.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Then we have Teddy Kennedy, and no one praised him for his strength and courage in the matter, either. Again, not exactly what I was talking about either. Neither of these events were good. But no one praised them for it. Suggesting that was ridiculous. < -------------------------------------- you would not call re- electing him how many times over the past 35 years praising him ? When he wins by landslides each time -- then what would you call that ? His party gives him continual high focus roles and a few brief years after the event was still considering him as a potential presidential candidate. I call that rewarding him even after the act that would have taken ANYONE without a last name of Kennedy out of politics. He is truly a member of the teflon family and nothing they ( and this includes all the fun stuff nephews etc have been associated with inside the 'compounds' ) do sticks.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Oh and btw, I am old enough and I believe many are here also to remember the Dem news spin trying to make him out to be a Hero also , citing his recollection of repeated attempts to dive under the water and extricate her from the submerged car. Funny he 'remembered' those details. So yes, I consider this, as well as his continued political rewards, praise.
Originally Posted By ecdc "you would not call re- electing him how many times over the past 35 years praising him ?" No. I call it "electing him". When he wins by landslides each time -- then what would you call that ?" Again, the voters of Massachusetts, electing him. No different than the voters of South Carolina electing Strom Thurmond year in and year out, or the voters electing George W. Bush President twice. They're called free elections, not praise.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <OK, so Gerry Studs engaged in a legal sexual activity, but was censured by Congress for it, deservedly, because it was a page.> Which is more than Mark Foley did. <No one praised him for his strength and courage in the matter.> From the wikipedia article: "Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You're welcome to disagree, but it is fighting against gay people.> Repeating an assertion does not make it true.
Originally Posted By ecdc As for Bill Maher, I never miss his show. I recognize that he's not everyone's cup of tea (my wife can't stand him) and I take some of his over the top stuff with a grain of salt, but I enjoy him and his panels quite a bit. We all have our tastes - unless I'm mistaken, someone who labeled him a slimeball is a fan of Bill O'Reilly's. I'd call O'Reilly a slimeball, but I'm afraid of being sued for slander by the American chapter of Slimeballs.
