Only Republicans would have the audacity, hypocrisy and gall to have the likes of Senators Larry Craig and David Vitter co-sponsor the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, known as the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment” that denies gay couples the right that every other American enjoys, the right to marry whoever they please.
Craig, R-ID, and Vitter, R-LA, are just two of 12 cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 23, but their past performance is the absolute height of hypocrisy. This is old news because the resolution was introduced on June 25, but I just heard about it. It just struck me as shameless. Perhaps the best way to protect marriage would be to not allow Craig and Vitter to marry.
As you know, Craig was arrested June 11, 2007 on charges of lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport terminal restroom in the infamous foot-tapping incident. Craig pled guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct, was detained and charged for attempting to engage in sexual activity with a male undercover police officer. His arrest and plea became public two months later. At that time, Craig attempted to withdraw his plea and enter a new plea of not guilty. To date, his efforts have been denied by the courts. He has been a strong supporter of anti-gay measures, and despite an attempt to have sex with another man, he denies he is gay.
In July of 2007, Vitter was identified as a client of a prostitution firm owned by the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, commonly known as The DC Madam. Upon his return to the Senate, he was cheered by his GOP senate colleagues. Perhaps, they were just happy his indiscretion was with a Congressional Page or a male.
The language is nothing new from past efforts. Section 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.
Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
This appears to be little more than a ploy to boost the GOP’s sagging prospects at the polls where they are stuck with an unexciting and uninspiring candidate who has flip-flopped on almost every single issue just to get elected. With the candidate’s past marriage record, maybe the best way to protect marriage is to also bar him this basic human right too.
18 comments:
Gee, I wonder why they didn't ask Debbie Stabenow's husband (caught with a prostitute in Feb. 08) to help them advertise this legislation.
Or maybe they could dig up Gerry Studds, who was nailed diddling a page and then cheered upon his return to the House Floor.
Bill Clinton is a very good speaker, they could have used him to stand up for their cause and we could all wonder where his humidor is.
There is no shortage of perverts in Government on either side. If the writer of this blog was a fair and honest person, he'd talk about the perverts on both sides rather than just his hatred of the right.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
Wow, that’s the best you have?
I can answer that easily. Debbie Stabenow’s husband is not a legislator and he never introduced this discriminatory and hypocritical legislation. It seems kind of ironic that you bring up a Gary Studds, who was censured 25 years ago, but you failed to mention that he was censured along with Rep. Dan Crane (R-IL) for the same offense. Would that be one of those alleged half-truths you are always falsely accusing me of or did you just forget to mention Crane? As for his being cheered upon returning to the House floor you will have to prove that one.
Yes, Bill Clinton is a good speaker, as well as a good president, but again, he also did not introduce this discriminatory and hypocritical legislation.
I also was not talking about the perverts in government, I was talking about how hypocrites like Craig and Vitter introducing a defense of marriage act when their actions are why marriage is in trouble. You are correct in that there are “perverts in Government on either side,” but the difference is they do not introduce discriminatory and hypocritical legislation, like Mark Foley being the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.
Most Democrats are statanic worships and baby killers
You’re an idiot, but you know that.
I dare you to stop posting anonymously and try and make an intelligent comment. I didn’t think you could.
CG are you stupid
Is anonymous spelled Obama
You stupid ass baby killer.
Too bad you Mom did not kill you when you were in her.
Yes. Either make an intelligent comment, if that’s possible, or go away.
I see. So, Barney Frank, currently in congress, having one of his lovers operating a prostitution ring out of Frank's home doesn't count towards perversion because Frank didn't introduce legislation.
I'm happy to know that deviant behavior doesn't count when they don't legislate according to their deviancy.
Brett
This is your response to my last comment? Lame. Again, you ducked the question. Man you are really digging deep for dirt to deflect from the issue. At least this time you didn’t have to go back 25 years, only 18 years.
The answer to your question is yes. Plus, I don’t see any “perversion” or “deviancy” on Frank’s part. Also, according to the Washington Post, he was unaware of the activities, and he was officially reprimanded by the House. What other punishment should he get? According to Wikipedia, Frank reported himself.
“After an investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity. Regarding Gobie's more scandalous claims the report by the Ethics Committee concluded, "In numerous instances where an assertion made by Mr. Gobie (either publicly or during his Committee deposition) was investigated for accuracy, the assertion was contradicted by third-party sworn testimony or other evidence of Mr. Gobie himself.”
The New York Times reported on July 20, 1990 that the House Ethics Committee recommended "that Representative Barney Frank receive a formal reprimand from the House for his relationship with a male prostitute. Attempts to expel or censure Frank, led by Republican member Larry Craig, failed.
Wow, more hypocrisy from your hero Craig.
Once again, Debbie Stabenow’s husband, President Clinton, Gary Studds or Barney Frank never introduced this discriminatory and hypocritical legislation.
First of all, my heroes are not in politics, as I've said already. They are there to represent us, but they never do. A man chasing pages (Studds, and maybe Foley although never convicted) is not representing me. Barney Frank, is not representing me. Gather your list and I don't care if they have an (R) or a (D) after their names. They are into politics to make a name for themselves and they only hope that their perversions aren't how their names are made household names.
If Debbie Stabenow can't manage her own home, how can she handle issues of a government for millions of people? If Bill Clinton can't keep his cigars out of young girls, how can he be trusted to manage a country? By the way, Clinton was blackmailed by a foreign government due to his so called indescretions.
The same goes for Larry Craig, Vitter, Packwood and the rest of the perverts that are only in office for their own self gratification.
Do you want to get away from perverts? Good, let's talk about the Representative from New Orleans who took away vital resources to empty his freezer of the $100,000, and then that same vital resource got stuck in his front yard requiring a second needed resource to pull the first out while that Representative used a helicopter (another rescue vehicle) to get out of the area.
Or we could talk about Senator Dodd and Senator Conrad and their sweetheart deals from mortgage lenders while others more in need don't get the same VIP treatment.
Or perhaps Obama's sweetheart mortgage from his buddy who is now under indictment (has he been found guilty yet?).
Or maybe you prefer to speak of Senator Harry Reids big real estate deal in Nevada all gleaned from their position in government.
We would all be so much better off if these clowns that we keep electing to office would actually look at some facts for a change. A fact that the only successful business that the government has run is the military.
The fact that each time taxes are decreased the economy improves and revenue to the government increases and each time taxes are implemented, or raised, the economy does worse.
Or the fact that government spending is making people dependent on the government and unable to fend for themselves.
The list goes on and on. But alas, you're a gimme gimme gimme liberal who can't see the forest for the trees. You're wanting to suck off the tit of government at the expense of the people that do the work and pay the taxes in this country.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
I do think Craig is your hero, he’s a hypocrite. Politicians do represent us. It’s hard for me understand how you can say they do not represent us. Many politicians are my heroes because they are also leaders. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy are also politicians, and they are also heroes to me. You keep forgetting to mention Dan Crane when you talk about pages. Obviously, that is an example of the half-truths you like to float. You’re the one who brought up Barney Frank not me, and again, I see no pervasion he has engaged in. As a reporter, I can be very cynical, but apparently not as much as you. Working in politics, I know many politicians personally, and 98 percent of people enter politics to serve.
I disagree with your misguided assessment of Debbie Stabenow. If it bothers you, don’t vote for her, but you never had any of intention of voting for her. Wow, here’s a new Clinton smear I have never heard before. Sorry, not true.
If you want to run out names of corrupt politicians, no one compares to the likes of Jack Abramoff, Scooter Libby and Duke Cunningham. Obviously, you must be talking about Rep. William Jefferson. It seems to me that with the politicized U.S. Justice Department we have that only goes after Democrats that if there was something there he would have been indicted by now.
I’m not all that familiar with the alleged deals for Dodd, Conrad and Reid, but Obama only got a favorable mortgage because he agreed to deposit the money he was going to make from the sale of his book in that bank. “Obama received a 5.625 percent interest rate on his loan, which was below Northern Trust's going rate at the time of 5.81 percent. “ It doesn’t sound earth shattering to me. Here’s the bottom line, he got the break because he’s rich, not because he’s a senator. It’s like Grampy McSame not paying the taxes on one his homes in San Diego. If you or I, at least me, were late with the taxes I would be foreclosed on. He’s rich so they cut him slack.
Just lowering taxes alone does not improve the economy. If that was the case, we could just lower taxes now to get us out of this recession, but that would not stop bush from spending billions on his unnecessary occupation.
I don’t know where you got this “gimme gimme gimme liberal” BS; I have worked for everything I have. I’m not “wanting to suck off of” anything. I am the people who “do the work and pay the taxes in this country,” and I have worn the uniform to serve this country. My patriotism is more than just wearing a flag label pin or putting a yellow ribbon bumper sticker on my car.
Prove the recession. You say we're in a recession. Here's your quote:
"we could just lower taxes now to get us out of this recession,".
So prove the recession. I want to see if you're just ignorant or a liar.
This should be interesting, if you even put out an answer.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
You’re kidding right? How many times have we debated this? Leading economists like Allan Greenspan say we are in a recession, some do not. I’m going with their opinion. If you want to go with other economists, that’s your prerogative
Greenspan did NOT say we were in a recession. He did say we were headed that way, but then, he's not the Fed Chairman any longer.
Again, prove the recession. You didn't do it. There is something specific that defines a recession. Do you know what that is? If so, please show how we are in a recession using that definition which the government and economists use.
I knew you'd come up with some lazy comment. I thought I'd make it easy for you by just saying "prove the recession". Apparently, I was wrong. So I'm asking you to prove the recession using the accepted definition of recession.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
Yes, he did. “Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Tuesday the U.S. economy was in recession, and said it would be appropriate to tap public funds to resolve the mortgage-related crisis that has helped pull the economy under.” And “Greenspan went farther than the Fed has by saying outright that the economy is in a recession, although he said it is too soon to say how deep or prolonged the downturn will be.”
I argued this with you and one of your felloe rightwing tools who called himself Scott back in May. For all I know that could be you. Greenspan isn’t the only one saying there is recession. I’m not going to rehash this with you again. Again, some economists say we are in a recession, some say we are not. Again, if you want to believe this country economy is in peachy shape you can go right ahead and believe that.
You really aren't good at giving facts are you?
To be a recession, there must be two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
Fact: Fourth quarter of 2007, the growth rate was .6%.
Fact: First quarter of 2008, the growth rate was 1%.
Fact: Had either of those been negative, we'd have still not been in a recession. One negative growth quarter is not enough to be defined as a recession. You must have TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE GROWTH.
I especially like it when you tell me what I believe. I'd ask you to find any comment from me where I said the economy in this country is "peachy", but with your track record of avoiding facts and even worse, making up facts, it would be pointless to ask you to point it out.
In addition, if you had read what I've said in my blog, as you say you do, you'd have seen that I have said the economy is in a slowdown, but not in a recession.
I suspect that when the figures come out for the second quarter, due out any day now, we'll see that the economy grew between 2% and 3% during the second quarter. This means that the earliest a recession could be declared definitively would be next January.
The liberals want the economy bad so that they can blame the Republicans for the poor economy. The fact is that this economy has been better the 7 years than it's been in 25 years.
Lastly, make all of the accusations you choose, but when I put something on here, I use my own name. I NEVER use another name other than my own. If I'm going to say it, I put my name to it. I don't call myself conservative to get people to read me, as you do by calling yourself the The Conservative Media. I am Conservative and very proud to be.
I also rarely use foul language and as much as I know how you hope that you're making me angry, I don't get angry at things you say. Usually, I'm laughing at how silly most of the things you say are.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
Sorry, I’m going to take the words of an expert over a rightwing tool like you. I have never made up facts like you claim. I provided the reasons I think the country is in a recession. You have rejected that reason, and that’s your right. I really could care less what you think. Also, I’m not trying to change closed minds like yours anyway.
According to the Market Oracle, a Financial Markets Analysis and Forecasting online publication, The GDP growth of the previous two quarters was positive, as you say, but it’s apparently just one way to predict if the country is in a recession. Of course, I’m not an economist like you apparently are. As one common definition of a recession is negative economic growth for at least two consecutive fiscal quarters, some analysts suggest this indicates that the U.S. economy was not in a recession at the time; like you, even though you are no expert. However this estimate has been disputed by some analysts who argue that if inflation is taken into account, the GDP growth was negative for the past two quarters, making it a technical recession.
First, it’s really kind of a stretch to call what you have a blog. Second, I don’t waste my time reading it because it’s boring, substandard writing.
I hope you are right and we do come out of the recession, slowdown or whatever you want to call it next quarter. We certainly mortgaged our children’s future with the so-called stimulus checks, so I hope it was worth it and and it works. You are again, 100 percent wrong on what I want, or what every liberal in this country wants.
Why is you can question my military career, something that I am very proud of, even when I provided proof, but you are in a huff simply because I suggested you could have posted anonymously like you have been doing? Again, you are so wrong about the name of my blog, and it’s certainly not to get rightwing tools like you to read it. Again, it’s called the conservative media because that is what the media is.
I could care less whether or not you use foul language, get angry, red the blog, comment on the blog or just go away.
Thank you. You just made my point. This is one of those times that after reading what you had to say, all I can do is grab my stomach and try to keep it from exploding because I'm laughing so hard at your ignorance.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
Really. And what point is that? That you can’t refute an argument, so you write the silly crap you just floated? We are in a recession. I’m not sure what that has to with a pair of rightwing hypocrites trying to take people’s rights away, tell other peoples how to live and to do what they say not what they do, but I’m sure there’s some connection in your muddled head.
Post a Comment