Forums | MacLife

I wonder how many of these closeted politicians got similar advise?

I wonder why that advice still is more or less wise. I really thought this would long since have ceased to be an issue. The fact it still is of anyone's concern (within the law) is just sooooo wasteful of time, energy, bandwidth, etc.

Live and let live.

I really don't care about anyone's bedroom. If it has bearing on policy (as in blackmail) then I have to care about it. Or, I suppose, the first half of the 'dead girl/live boy' scandal. (When boy is of age...underage would be a big problem.)

Pisses me off. We've got DEADLY bridge collapse just miles from this (alleged) incident. What's more important in the long run?

In any kind of sane political environment, this rash of scandals would totally undermine the mere existence of gay rights as a political issue; the grumblers and homophobes would realize their hate is being cynically exploited people people who scorn their opinions.

But of course America's is not a sane political environment, so I expect revalations like these (with many more to come) will have little or no impact.

And by the way I had no idea guys still met in public washrooms for sex. I associate that kind of behaviour with the 1950s.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

In any kind of sane political environment, this rash of scandals would totally undermine the mere existence of gay rights as a political issue; the grumblers and homophobes would realize their hate is being cynically exploited people people who scorn their opinions.

But of course America's is not a sane political environment, so I expect revalations like these (with many more to come) will have little or no impact.

And by the way I had no idea guys still met in public washrooms for sex. I associate that kind of behaviour with the 1950s.

Take this as insane fevered thinking, but my 'intuition' lately has been that that is exactly where this whole ball of wax is heading.

Many things are like McCarthy. But, specifically, there is some nostalgia for 'Leave it to Beaver' (no pun there, thank you.) and 'Ozzie and Harriet' whitebread status quo.

Obliterate the '60's in short.

Not to mention what Robert Alito want. The whiteout of 'punumbra' as postulated in Griswold. The specific assertion of a right to privacy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g … ;invol=479

Just to refresh memory. Plus, that same guy wrote the quote in my sig link.

Beware! Insane thinking has spread from B/B HeadQuarterz to Reading, PA via WaPo chat today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … id=topnews

Reading, Pa.: Jonathan: What has this country come to when a U.S. Senator cannot play a little "footsie" in a public bathroom with a hunky undercover agent? I can live with suspension of habeas corpus and warrentless wiretaps but this has gone too far!

Jonathan Weisman: Indeed!

Sadly, Mr. Weisman has succumbed as well.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

In any kind of sane political environment, this rash of scandals would totally undermine the mere existence of gay rights as a political issue; the grumblers and homophobes would realize their hate is being cynically exploited people people who scorn their opinions.

But of course America's is not a sane political environment, so I expect revalations like these (with many more to come) will have little or no impact.

And by the way I had no idea guys still met in public washrooms for sex. I associate that kind of behaviour with the 1950s.

It has no bearing because the perpetrator need only make a public confession and express that he/she has found Jesus.  All is forgiven and quickly swept under the rug, for minimal political damage.

What you point out is so important, because we've seen such an extreme amount of these just in the past 12 months, and there's been really NO MEDIA ANALYSIS of what it is in the Republican party causing this, because THAT would be MSM bias.

A lack of gay equality creates the environment in which all of this thrives.

bedstuy wrote:

methinks this is a big ole MUST READ and that Sen. Craig will resigning by the end of the week!

Sorry, but now your link is a "Page not found."

Try this one:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews … 43801.html

btw, it's interesting how conservative blogs are immediately dumping Craig but they did not do the same thing to David Vitter.  I guess family value infractions are only important if they involve cock sucking.

Well, if he's innocent, why shouldn't he?

"Off we go! Into the wild blue yonder...."

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Ah, closeted gay men.  Don't you just love them?

In Minneapolis there is a computer repair company specifically aimed right at them, "Why call a geek when you can call a twink?" is their motto.  They promise discretion while they rescue all the gayboi porn from your hard drive.

I personally know a couple, I don't know why they are still married, that's between them, obviously they still love each other despite the fact that he is gay, and they are both in their 60's.  When he was young he went to the priest and confessed that he felt sexual feelings about men, the priest told him to "find a nice woman, marry her and have children and these feelings will fade."  Well, he did, did and did but the feelings never went away.

I wonder how many of these closeted politicians got similar advise?

Love, fidelity, and sexual attraction aren't exclusively linked. There have been arranged marriages for many millennium, and I'm sure that many had no sexual interest, quite a few probably had little love - and yet a lot of them lasted until the partners died.

Frankly, a commitment should be a commitment. I'm sure a lot of straight men would love to bow out of their marriages for a younger/more attractive woman and vice versa. We call those people adulterous smurfs. That someone wants out of a marriage to pursue someone of their own sex is no different.

Ultimately, though; it's none of our business.

Farmerkev wrote:

mackerm wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Yeah, it's true.  The Democrats still support the Military Corporate Fascist Empire (or MCFE), they're just less gung-ho about it.  Screw the lot of 'em, I'm Green.  We'll never win anything, so you can't criticize our leadership.

Kev's example attacks MoveOn.org as being hypocritical, not the Democrats. Careful whom you punish.

Yes, I picked on them that post since the thrust was on the other sides far side.
For the politicians themselves the examples are also numerous.
Take last month for example. How often have you heard about Bush's fiscal irresponsibility? The Dem's rejected his budget for 2008 and added 22 billion.
Massive debt all because of the "tax cuts for the rich" but that apparently doesn't stop them from spending even more we don't have.

Hey, Metacell! Apparently Farmerkev endorses your decision to waste your vote on the Greens. Congratulations.

And as for the behavior of Congressional Democrats over the past five years - "hypocritical" doesn't describe it. "Suicidal" is more apt. Or "criminally negligent".  I like "Gullible to the point of being a cyborg."