Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
his arrest and the subsequent publicity are his own problem. I'm sure the democrat's candidate will bring it up next election. all that is his to deal with.

What i find weird isn't whether he is a hypocrite. He appears to be one. What I find weird is that you guys don't see that you are also.

also, did anyone think it weird how AG always claimed nfh was really a guy pretending to be a girl? what if he was? what is wrong with that?

In order:

1. And if he were a Dem the GOP wouldn't?

2. They're not. Not at all. What they are is people outing a hypocrite. You seem to think, or are trying to persuade people that, outing a person as a hypocrite is somehow hypocritical, or akin to outing someone as a homosexual. Neither is true.

3. Pass.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
My question: what should I have done? Not posted it? Allow a sitting U.S. Senator to continue to sponsor anti-gay legislation because it's really hard to be gay in Idaho and he's entitled to his privacy? What about his gay constituents -- do you think they also find it hard to be openly gay in Idaho, in no small part thanks to the good Senator? The moral high ground here may very well be a molehill, but neither you nor Senator Craig are on it.

Actually, sir, there are conservatives aplenty who actually believe that we should not out hypocrites. They say that the fixation on the policymaker is a Liberal trick used to get around the unassailably moral policies of the GOP. And they actually argue that every time we show the Emporer to be not only naked, but masturbating to gay porn, we undermine the Republic, which is made of policies, which are bigger than the flawed people who support them.

Stated otherwise, we should not expect people to practice what they preach. This argument has been flogged all over National review and by that little scumbag Bill Kristol.

At its core its an argument that the populous is too stupid to think for itself and needs to be lead and we shouldn't shoot out the Republic's weakest supports - the policymakers.

I love Buckley, and I agree the average American is an imbecile, but even I can't get behind that sort of imperial thinking.

And of course, that horseshit doesn't stand up the two word retort - "Clinton Impeachment."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What i find weird isn't whether he is a hypocrite. He appears to be one. What I find weird is that you guys don't see that you are also.

If we sought to hoist him on our petard that might be an issue; the question is, when he hands one his petard and leaps upon it, while imploring one to raise it high, should one not respect his last wishes, and hoist him?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the fact that an elected official from Idaho might have to hide his sexuality is equal to an enlightened, educated man finding the elected offical's sexuality cause for a laugh?

and this isn't personal to AG, several of you guys do this sort of post.

Yes, when his own policies cause him to have to hide it. Very funny indeed. Black humor, I think they call that.

Laugh at funny things? I try not to, but it just kind of happens.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
You are way off base here. Before the dust of human particles had even cleared, the number one sentiment expressed (loudly or behind closed doors) was that the 9/11 attack was caused by that America's undue support (not just financial but support in general) of Israel. I've heard it in Manhattan, and I've heard it across the country in many communities (especially the African American community).

In short, there are many people in the United States who want to abandon Israel in the hopes that Islamists will then leave us alone.

I find the notion that this was the "number one sentiment" expressed after 9/11 to be unsurpassingly bizarre. I personally don't know anyone who thinks that.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Actually, sir, there are conservatives aplenty who actually believe that we should not out hypocrites. They say that the fixation on the policymaker is a Liberal trick used to get around the unassailably moral policies of the GOP. And they actually argue that every time we show the Emporer to be not only naked, but masturbating to gay porn, we undermine the Republic, which is made of policies, which are bigger than the flawed people who support them.

Stated otherwise, we should not expect people to practice what they preach. This argument has been flogged all over National review and by that little scumbag Bill Kristol.

At its core its an argument that the populous is too stupid to think for itself and needs to be lead and we shouldn't shoot out the Republic's weakest supports - the policymakers.

I love Buckley, and I agree the average American is an imbecile, but even I can't get behind that sort of imperial thinking.

And of course, that horseshit doesn't stand up the two word retort - "Clinton Impeachment."

But, wait, the Dems are all traitors, so different standards should apply, no?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I find the notion that this was the "number one sentiment" expressed after 9/11 to be unsurpassingly bizarre. I personally don't know anyone who thinks that.

We all know that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
On the first sentence, I don't think we here have enough information to judge, and wouldn't use that term in any event. Surely that is a subject open to debate.

The number one problem is the lack of reconciliation between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, and the associated non-viability of the Iraqi state. The presence of Al Qaeda is a sideshow, albeit an aggravating one. Al Qaeda is trying to take advantage of the larger problem. And the Administration is occasionally happy to take advantage of Al Qaeda's presence, to solve political problems.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The number one problem is the lack of reconciliation between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, and the associated non-viability of the Iraqi state. The presence of Al Qaeda is a sideshow, albeit an aggravating one. Al Qaeda is trying to take advantage of the larger problem. And the Administration is occasionally happy to take advantage of Al Qaeda's presence, to solve political problems.

Way to kill the board there, Ty.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The number one problem is the lack of reconciliation between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, and the associated non-viability of the Iraqi state. The presence of Al Qaeda is a sideshow, albeit an aggravating one. Al Qaeda is trying to take advantage of the larger problem. And the Administration is occasionally happy to take advantage of Al Qaeda's presence, to solve political problems.

So are you instead advocating that we either kill them all (or let themselves kill each other off) and then repopulate the region with Americans?

Because I just read this theory somewhere else.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In order:

1. And if he were a Dem the GOP wouldn't?

2. They're not. Not at all. What they are is people outing a hypocrite. You seem to think, or are trying to persuade people that, outing a person as a hypocrite is somehow hypocritical, or akin to outing someone as a homosexual. Neither is true.

3. Pass.

if you were truly a champion of gay rights, you would be bothered that he got arrested at all. say if, before you got married, you were in the Minneapolis airport, you saw a really hot woman, and maybe she liked you, you said "hey let's go behind that ticket booth over there and get busy- kill 5 minutes" You should be arrested? how is it different? the proposed sex was homo so he should get arrested? Sup Ct. said that don't go.

And I don't have a problem with the story being published, I just am curious if the tone of the posts here don't imply that the fact he might be gay is the underlying joke. If these guys have some other motivation, they should proceed. I'm just trying to keep it clean in case ncs' friends ever do stop to read here.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The idea that Al Qaeda is our big problem in Iraq is moronic. As is the notion that there are many people in the United States who want to abandon Israel in the hopes that Islamists will then leave us alone.

As this Lieutenant Colonel is the literally there on the ground facing the enemy, and you receive your information concerning that enemy from thousands of miles away from second hand sources that is filtered through a biased press or from left leaning blogs written in the US by people who don’t seem to care much for actual facts, your criticisms of his statements seem a little ripe.

Having said that, I am questioning my own judgement because I find those Geico commercials really funny.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Actually, sir, there are conservatives aplenty who actually believe that we should not out hypocrites. They say that the fixation on the policymaker is a Liberal trick used to get around the unassailably moral policies of the GOP. And they actually argue that every time we show the Emporer to be not only naked, but masturbating to gay porn, we undermine the Republic, which is made of policies, which are bigger than the flawed people who support them.

Stated otherwise, we should not expect people to practice what they preach. This argument has been flogged all over National review and by that little scumbag Bill Kristol.

At its core its an argument that the populous is too stupid to think for itself and needs to be lead and we shouldn't shoot out the Republic's weakest supports - the policymakers.

I love Buckley, and I agree the average American is an imbecile, but even I can't get behind that sort of imperial thinking.

And of course, that horseshit doesn't stand up the two word retort - "Clinton Impeachment."

ummm, are you aware of an Oregon Senator the Dems ran out because of simply making suggestive comments (allegedly) to an intern? Are you aware that the only proof the Dems had to run him off was his diary that showed when he was younger he actually had sex with an intern? Do you know at all of hisotry? Clinton's impeachment was simply the crows coming home to roost.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
As this Lieutenant Colonel is the literally there on the ground facing the enemy, and you receive your information concerning that enemy from thousands of miles away from second hand sources that is filtered through a biased press or from left leaning blogs written in the US by people who don’t seem to care much for actual facts, your criticisms of his statements seem a little ripe.

Having said that, I am questioning my own judgement because I find those Geico commercials really funny.

If you question the validity of Ty's blogs, well sir, I say you are questioning the very underpinnings of this board. And I for one will not listen to those who question this board's underpinning while using it to express those views. Harumpfff

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's a good question.

2.