Another day, another Right-wing hypocrite.
- Thread starter B_OtterJoq
- Start date
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 68
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
You answered your own question.
Rejection is a part of life. However, it doesn't have to be a double whammy.
I take your point, Nudey. I would add Barbara Bush jr., Cindy and Meghan McCain to that list, although like Laura B they are not in positions of power, have no direct influence on policy, nor have they lied about their orientation (that I know of). I'm a little skeptical that there could be a politcal calculation to all this - putting these "safe" spokespersons out there to soften the image of the party in an attempt to retain especially younger, more socially moderate members as the country moves to greater tolerance on these issues. Kinda like making an incompetent black guy party chair just to show how racially inclusive they are.
One only has to look at the PR moves by Cindy M. vs. Senator John's positions to see the reality and the disconnect. Still, if these women's visibility on the issue has the potential to change minds inside that big Republican circus tent, I welcome the support.Cheney is a different case entirely. As far as I know, the best he's managed is to say he has "no problem" with gay marriage, while apparently he still has no problem with states making it illegal either. Notably he did not come to this dramatic epiphany while he was in office and could have made a difference. I think his shift, subtle as it is, is like everything else he does - coldly, politically calculated. In light of the fact that he has a lesbian daughter (who fairly recently was allowed to come out of the shadows and into the tent) it must have been quite a dilemna for him . . . hmmm . . . gay marriage . . . family values . . . . hmmm . . . . . Though TBH, I probably couldn't find anything positive to say about him unless he waterboarded me.
As far as Mehlman is concerned, who knows his real motives? It's entirely possible he was forced into coming out to head off a revelation he couldn't control. It's happened before. At any rate, he had a chance to make a mea culpa for his actions - instead he backtracked, dissembled, washed his hands of his destruction, and claimed he only recently came to the awareness he is gay. Again I say, "Oh puh-leeeeze!!!" From what he's demonstrated so far, he remains "a lying, opportunistic, hypocritical pig". He's got a long way to go to change my mind and even begin to make up for the damage he's done. Being honest and saying "I'm profoundly truly sorry" would be a good start.
Last edited:
"If that's what you want to call it"??
It's textbook "hypocrisy". What else would you call it???
You "don't have a problem" with that?
Oh, my heart just bleeds for him.
Actually, he's said friends, family and political associates have been been very supportive.
(Not that it was probably a bombshell for most of them.)
Why he even got a call from good ol 'W' himself!
Not to mention, do you have any idea how fukn rich he is?
I wouldn't worry too much about him. I think he'll do just fine.
Last edited:
This is not about some ordinary person needing to reveal details about their "sex life".
However, if someone is in a position of power and pushing policies harmful to gay people, while hiding in the closet and denying he is gay, his sexual orientation is entirely relevant. It is the height of "hypocrisy". Capiche?
This topic is NOT about you or your confusion over your own sexual identity.
Stop projecting, and try to catch up. Good luck with that, btw.
Now that he has "accepted himself" and made it public - He needs to make amends!
Mehlman is still out of touch with glbt issues! Telling gays to vote Republican in their support against Muslims - because the Muslim faith is anti-gay - is so pathetic.
The 8 years of the Bush/Cheney administration did not do anything to stop anti-gay violence in the middle east during their reign and invasion. The republicans have always been silent when anti-gay atrocities are happening in other countries. The GOP just need to Hate a group for their election numbers. Today Muslims are the target. But hating Gays will be back on their campaign trail one day!
Mehlman is still out of touch with glbt issues! Telling gays to vote Republican in their support against Muslims - because the Muslim faith is anti-gay - is so pathetic.
The 8 years of the Bush/Cheney administration did not do anything to stop anti-gay violence in the middle east during their reign and invasion. The republicans have always been silent when anti-gay atrocities are happening in other countries. The GOP just need to Hate a group for their election numbers. Today Muslims are the target. But hating Gays will be back on their campaign trail one day!
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 68
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Why don't you ask the people in government who were adamant about impeaching Bill Clinton about that?
D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III
Experimental Member
Why don't you ask the people in government who were adamant about impeaching Bill Clinton about that?
I think sexual orientation and getting blowjobs from the help in the white house are are hardly comparable
what is "is".... classic
Last edited:
You're right. One is relevant to policy and job performance, and the other isn't.
Can you figure out which? We'll wait . . . . .
And it's not his orientation that's the issue, it's the hypocrisy, stupid.
(btw: Monica made it her mission to bag Bill, not vice versa. She told her friends she was going to fuck the president, even before she got to Washington. The first time she met the president on an intern tour, before they were even introduced, she pulled up her skirt and exposed her thong undies and her ass. It was like some bizarre baboon mating ritual. Oh yes, poor pitiful little intern was sooo taken advantage of.)
LOLOLOL
Last edited:
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 68
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
The Mighty Casey strikes out... again.
Now pay attention because I'm only doing this one.
The question was: If someone is rude enough to ask about your sex life, does that mean a person has to tell the truth?
My answer: Why don't you ask the people in government who were adamant about impeaching Bill Clinton about that?
Why did I say this: Because if a person's sex life was truly personal and it was optional for someone to tell the truth about it, then opponents for Bill Clinton wouldn't have made a big deal about his antics with Monica Lewinsky and pushed for his impeachment.
It really wasn't that hard to figure out where this was going. No analysis or comparison regarding coming out of the closet or getting some side fellatio needed.
Maxkok, Vinal Boy,
Of course there is a difference.
The most important reason is
that Pres. Clinton was underoath
at the time. Sex is usuall a personal
issue, however, if it starts taking
part in the work place. That's another
story. As far as I know, Mehlman
never got caught having sex at the
office. (After all, it's my tax money
that pays for the upkeep of the oval
office---shouldn't I be entitled to have
sex in there too!)
Of course there is a difference.
The most important reason is
that Pres. Clinton was underoath
at the time. Sex is usuall a personal
issue, however, if it starts taking
part in the work place. That's another
story. As far as I know, Mehlman
never got caught having sex at the
office. (After all, it's my tax money
that pays for the upkeep of the oval
office---shouldn't I be entitled to have
sex in there too!)
:rolleyes2:
(p.s. not to mention the Oval Office is the president's home office.)
No, I don't think you do.
:confused13: The most intolerant of what? The most intolerant of whom? Intolerant of hypocrites? Intolerant of liars? Intolerant of people who would deny others equal treatment under the law? Intolerance of people who visciously judge others for immutable characteristics like sexual orientation? Intolerant of intolerance?
Intolerant of what exactly?
Last edited:
Bbucko
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Posts
- 7,232
- Media
- 8
- Likes
- 325
- Points
- 208
- Location
- Sunny SoFla
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
:wave2::wiggle::wave2::wiggle:
I guess I was just that lucky, but I was never money-motivated; my career was based on satisfaction to doing my personal best and never cost me a night's sleep.
Mary Cheney's work for Coors made her, essentially, a professional lesbian and homophobe apologist beginning in the 1990s, which made her mother's attempt at denying Mary's sexual orientation during the 2000 election especially disingenuous and deeply distasteful to me, personally. From Lynn's Wikipedia page:
The fact remains that LGBTs were used as a wedge issue in both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, as well as the mid-terms in 2002 and 2006. If either the VP or his otherwise very outspoken wife had any issue with using their own daughter as a political punching bag, they were uncharacteristically quiet about it, his hedging during the 2004 VP debate with Edwards, especially, when he could have made an impassioned plea for greater acceptance, being only the best example.
I suppose that anything is possible, but how on earth could someone of Mehlman's intelligence, educational background (Harvard Law, etc) and political savvy (including working on Bill Weld's successful gubernatorial bid in Massachusetts in 1990: in case you weren't aware, Weld is perhaps the strongest voice for LGBT civil rights in the GOP) have been so entirely un-self aware? It strains my credulity past the breaking point.
He was a pathetic closet case who capitalized on his party's entrenched homophobia to order to win both prestige and acres of loot. I wouldn't be a smidge surprised if this isn't all some spin and advanced damage-control in light of a piece of journalism being planned exposing him for the tool he truly is.
Now that his source of income rests entirely in the private sector, he has nothing to lose by coming out: jellyfish have been discovered with firmer backbones.
Why don't you ask the people in government who were adamant about impeaching Bill Clinton about that?
You know I love you, VB, and I agree with the sentiment. But equating the Mehlman non-story and the Lewinsky scandal, while a satisfying exercise in hypocrisy-watch, suggests that a righteous reflex of shame be attached to each and to the same degree.
Though overblown (pardon the pun), the Lewinsky Scandal was ultimately about perjury, which is both a crime and, though in that one case, entirely understandable from a personal standpoint, deeply ill-advised from both a political and legal one.
Mehlman's being gay in and of itself connotes no shame; it's only within the context of his active role in demonizing LGBTs that he proved himself to be the ball of infected snot that he truly is.
Even by my insanely relativistic standards the two are not comparable.