Conservative republican senator linked to DC madam

Is not wrong to have some fun, but not with possibly my tax money. He probably was also one of those who want to legislate agasint porn.
 
Is not wrong to have some fun, but not with possibly my tax money. He probably was also one of those who want to legislate agasint porn.

Read the story he is some right wing nut job from Louisiana.:bowdown:
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
Does it even say what he did?
I think he cheated on his wife, but the article doesn't really say that.
Ok I'll assume he cheated on his wife, if so other than the fact that your'e expressing that your'e extremely anti republican again, whats the point?
 
What is the agenda here?

Read the story he is some right wing nut job from Louisiana.:bowdown:
And I can show you plenty of "left-wing nut job" Democrats as well -- from those accused and even convicted of statutory rape to simple things like using the "N" word.
No offense, but you are so hell bent on a left-wing agenda and utter lack of context and comparison to past administrations that I can't take you seriously.
Especially since you like to define things from only one aspect, and not another context that many would argue is equally as valid.
 
Does it even say what he did?
I think he cheated on his wife, but the article doesn't really say that.
Ok I'll assume he cheated on his wife, if so other than the fact that your'e expressing that your'e extremely anti republican again, whats the point?


"Asked whether she could forgive her husband after an extramarital affair, as Livingston's wife had done, Wendy Vitter told the Times-Picayune: "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary [Clinton]. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."


Its not that I'm anti-republican so much its that I'm anti-right winger.If the republicans were not the party of racist,intolerant of any lifestyle then one deemed appropriate by their right wing religious views,refuse to fund medical procedures and research also based on so-called family values then I would be fine with them.Read about this guy in particular ,his career in LA started when he went to their statehouse as state senator replacing David Duke the former nazi.
 
Interesting, you just described Hollywood ...

Its not that I'm anti-republican so much its that I'm anti-right winger.If the republicans were not the party of racist,intolerant of any lifestyle then one deemed appropriate by their right wing religious views,
Interesting, because you just described Hollywood right there.
People wonder why actresses and actors are so left-wing, it's because of their own industry.

Furthermore, many environmental movements can be considered of similar, blind belief and loyalty.
As I've stated regularly, I believe global warming is occurring and I want to reverse that, but I constantly have to fight the "Church of Popular Environmentalism" to do that!

refuse to fund medical procedures
No offense, but you can flip that argument around -- many alleged "right wingers" don't want the tax payer to fund what could be against their morals when they are not "life threatening."
I don't agree, but it's hardly as "simple" as "refuse to fund medical procedures."

Furthermore, I don't know about you, but our Constitution does not guarantee the rights to funds for such.
We are the land of "opportunity," not "entitlement" -- no one is "entitled" to anything in the US, period!
If that's "right wing," then the entire American Libertarian party is "right wing"!

and research also based on so-called family values then I would be fine with them.Read about this guy in particular ,his career in LA started when he went to their statehouse as state senator replacing David Duke the former nazi.
And I can show you plenty of left-wing racial bigots in the Democrat party -- sometimes whites and blacks who would never be in the same room.
The attitudes are not mutually exclusive to the right-wing, in fact, there is quite the "counter-balance."

I'm not really interested in watching left-wingers and right-wingers debate how they should be abusing my tax dollars.
I can do a crapload more good with it than they can funding their own pork and agendas.
Like helping people get educations with scholarships (UNCF), funding various projects and -- gasp -- that "evil, capitalist" concept known as investing and creating private sector jobs.
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
F.o.m.m,
Ok, I understand.
See I think differently.
I'll just address the racist accusation now.
The way I see it the Dems are racist in many forms.
Heres why, for almost 50 years the Dems have been tellin the black folks " Vote for us, We'll make it better for you", and the blacks have voted for them.
Most cities for years have had Democratic Mayors, and there have been many Democratic governors and a few Presidents as well.
And has it gotten better?, Other than racial tolerance ( which is not a result of the Democratic party), no.
More black children are growing up in single parent homes than ever before, more violence is occuring in the cities than ever before and the schools aint getting any better either.

Ok so the dems are more apt to give "those poor colored folks" more free money and services.
What are the Dems saying by doing that? That their( blacks) are too dumb and helpless to make it on their own?
That they can't succeed without the Dems help?
Thats the way I take it, because thats the underlying implication by the dems, and if I were black I would be offended. Hell, I'm white and I'm offended.
No the dems advocate "blame someone else for your problems" mentality, and its counter-productive for blacks and creates more racial tension in the U.S. , but it gets them votes which is the real motive.
 
F.o.m.m,
Ok, I understand.
See I think differently.
I'll just address the racist accusation now.
The way I see it the Dems are racist in many forms.
Heres why, for almost 50 years the Dems have been tellin the black folks " Vote for us, We'll make it better for you", and the blacks have voted for them.
Most cities for years have had Democratic Mayors, and there have been many Democratic governors and a few Presidents as well.
And has it gotten better?, Other than racial tolerance ( which is not a result of the Democratic party), no.
More black children are growing up in single parent homes than ever before, more violence is occuring in the cities than ever before and the schools aint getting any better either.

Ok so the dems are more apt to give "those poor colored folks" more free money and services.
What are the Dems saying by doing that? That their( blacks) are too dumb and helpless to make it on their own?
That they can't succeed without the Dems help?
Thats the way I take it, because thats the underlying implication by the dems, and if I were black I would be offended. Hell, I'm white and I'm offended.
No the dems advocate "blame someone else for your problems" mentality, and its counter-productive for blacks and creates more racial tension in the U.S. , but it gets them votes which is the real motive.

Yeah the silly minorities not realizing they shoudn't vote 89% dem compared to 11% republican in Presidential races.While I would agree more could be done by the dems to advance their issues,they know the other guys aren't going to even try.Just look at the difference in diversity in the 2008 field of candidates.

http://sistertoldjah.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/repcandidates.jpg
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/images/060307-6v_290.jpg
http://d.yimg.com/ca.yimg.com/p/070....jpg?x=180&y=134&sig=SnxvCAwBEGf3Cxs6eAjXig--
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
Yeah the silly minorities not realizing they shoudn't vote 89% dem compared to 11% republican in Presidential races.While I would agree more could be done by the dems to advance their issues,they know the other guys aren't going to even try.Just look at the difference in diversity in the 2008 field of candidates.

http://sistertoldjah.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/repcandidates.jpg
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/images/060307-6v_290.jpg
http://d.yimg.com/ca.yimg.com/p/070....jpg?x=180&y=134&sig=SnxvCAwBEGf3Cxs6eAjXig--

There you go again, judging people by skin color or gender. You just proved my point.
To me it doesn't matter, but you just said to you it does.
Diversity?, Its something that should naturally occur, like when you grab a handfull of M&M's.
Once you start saying "ok, we need a black guy, a white woman, an asian woman, a white guy, and 2 latinos", well then thats not diversity, thats choosing upon race and gender. Last I checked thats called predjudice.
This ain't a movie or a play, its real life and I would like a president who's the most competent , not just the right skin color or gender.
 
There you go again, judging people by skin color or gender.
To me it doesn't matter, but you just said to you it does.
Diversity?, Its something that should naturally occur, like when you grab a handfull of M&M's.
Once you start saying "ok, we need a black guy, a white woman, an asian woman, a white guy, and 2 latinos", well then thats not diversity, thats choosing upon race and gender. Last I checked thats called predjudice.
This ain't a movie or a play, its real life and I would like a president who's the most compitent regardless of skin or sex.

It has "naturally" occured on the democratic side and not on the republican side thats my point.
 
What it means ...

Yeah the silly minorities not realizing they shoudn't vote 89% dem compared to 11% republican in Presidential races
Go back 50+ years and you'll find rather interesting statistics as well. ;)
There was a major shift after JFK and LBJ.
Interesting how being a "conservative" was "radical" at one time, and now "conservative" is "racist"?

While I would agree more could be done by the dems to advance their issues,they know the other guys aren't going to even try.Just look at the difference in diversity in the 2008 field of candidates.
What it means is that almost 9 out of 10 African Americans don't feel the Republican party is addressing their issues.
I don't disagree with that real assessment, based on first-hand colleagues and their views.
And those are from the most affluent African Americans statistically, so I'm sure I'm not getting the half of it.

Frankly, until we address the fact that African Americans have been systematically denied equal access and opportunity to education over generations,
which has fucked the demographics of generations to come after them -- something that was not done to women or any other minority group (other than Native Americans) --
nothing will solve the problem -- not Affirmative Action, not privileged access, and definitely not focusing on race because that only favors alerady affluent African Americans, not the underprivileged.

Which is why most African Americans I work with, very successful ones, are utterly against Affirmative Action -- because their accomplishments are regularly belittled in the backlash against it.
And that continues to mean that it will be about politics, instead of the actual, core, root causes.

Although I do find it interesting that the Urban League and several other organizations favor the "10% Rule" that worked very well for Bush in Texas, and not Affirmative Action / Race-based that the NAACP does.
The ultimate irony is that more African Americans, let alone underprivileged ones, have entered the Texas State University system under the 10% Rule than prior.
But that makes simple, statistical sense because you're now reaching underachieving African Americans at poor schools who are given opportunities that would normally go to those African Americans who had better grades because of their more affluent opportunity.

Which makes sense why the Urban League parts with the NAACP and sides with W. -- because of who the former focuses on and represents. ;)
 
It's still a valid statistic in the end ...

There you go again, judging people by skin color or gender. You just proved my point.
To me it doesn't matter, but you just said to you it does.
Diversity?, Its something that should naturally occur, like when you grab a handfull of M&M's.
Once you start saying "ok, we need a black guy, a white woman, an asian woman, a white guy, and 2 latinos", well then thats not diversity, thats choosing upon race and gender. Last I checked thats called predjudice.
This ain't a movie or a play, its real life and I would like a president who's the most competent , not just the right skin color or gender.
But the statistics do show that almost 9 out of 10 African Americans don't feel well represented by Republicans.
Then again, you go back 50 years (let alone 100 years), and things were quite different.

But the solution is not to make it about race, I agree.
The solution is to address the inner city African American youth who have been the victim of their ancestor's denial to opportunity.
You don't address that by giving "entitlements" to African Americans, as that will only favor those African Americans already affluent.

Which is a major issue the Urban League continues to have with the NAACP.
 
Fine by me ...

Apparently it's Larry Flynt and Hustler who are digging up dirt on these right wing hypocrites.
The story can be read right here.
Fine by me.
If you're going to run on a platform, then people in the media are free to expose if you're a hypocrite.
I rather enjoy Larry Flynt, he keeps our freedoms alive and well.
 
Re: Conservative republican senator ...

i know it's a very distinct cases but reading this brought my mind back to the Mark Foley scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal

where Foley, a Republican Congressman, who was chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, which introduced legislation targeting sexual predators and created stricter guidelines for tracking them, was caught out soliciting e-mails from and sending sexually explicit instant messages to teenaged boys who had formerly served as congressional pages



- the behaviour of some of these "conservative republicans" reminds me of how some Conservatives in John Major's UK government in the early to mid 90s used to carry on
< at a time when major & co were advocating "Back to Basics" policies with traditional, old-fashioned, family values>

while they were forever getting caught having affairs & other "scandals", including death by auto-erotic asphyxiation

(the failure of "Back to Basics" was then a big help to TonyB entering power as a white knight, promising to be "whiter than white",
but i guess that's a whole other story :rolleyes: )
 
Is it just me...or does it seem like the louder that these people preach and attempt to shove their morals and ideals down everyone's throats, the happier it is when you find out that they're complete hypocrites. :rofl:
 
Top