|
OK, so it’s not news that politicians are hypocrites. But, my goodness. This just takes the hypocritical cake. As reported by PageOneQ.com, two infamous senators have signed on to the bill of Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker to establish a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as between a man and a woman. You probably only need two guesses as to which two senators announced they were co-sponsoring the bill today — David “John” Vitter and Larry “Wide Stance” Craig. The actual wording of the amendment and the status of Vitter and Craig as co-sponsors can be seen here.
I mean, really now. How much further down the rabbit hole can we go? A man who pleaded guilty to lewd conduct in propositioning an undercover police officer for anonymous sex in a bathroom, and a man who allegedly has a diaper fetish exerting their moral authority over the rest of us. How can it have come to this? Sure, we know that the moral high ground was ceded by the far right a long time ago. It all depends just how far back you want to go. The list of disgraced fundamentalist zealots reads like a Who’s Who of giddy peccadilloes: Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard and on and on. But, generally speaking, once they’ve been outed as self-loathing perverts, they try not to come down on the rest of us anymore.
Perhaps we should send a message to Vitter and Craig, because obviously, it hasn’t hit them yet: You. Do. Not. Get. To. Tell. Us. How. To. Live. Any. More. You lost the right to moralize about the same time you strapped on a pair of adult diapers and/or opened your stance a little too wide. People who moralize lead first by example. You think Ghandi ever hooked up in a men’s room?
How can people take these clowns seriously?
“How can people take these clowns seriously?”
As a Louisiana citizen, I can ask this:
How did we elect Vitter?
The capacity of mankind to delude themselves is only exceeded by their ability to be deluded by delusional people.
The scary thing isn’t that Vitter and Craig are continuing to moralize against other people, it is that they see no conflict in this behavior at all.
Shouldn’t you have to be religious to get married?
Hurray! For another year we can call middle-aged white Republican males a bunch of homos and still be right about it.
So only perfect people are allowed to pass laws on morality?
#4 – Lyin’ Mike
Haw! Leave it to you to support Pampers Vitter and Wide-Stance Craig, just because they’re right wingnuts.
No one is “perfect”, Mikey, but these two deviants bring hypocrisy to a whole new level. To think that they would be legislating “morality” even for zoo animals is so far beyond ludicrous that I’m going to have to side with Scottie….there truly is no hope for humanity if this is what we’ve come to.
A guy who cheats on his wife by playing baby dressing up in diapers, and a guy who cheats on his wife by trying to give men blow jobs in public bathrooms legislating morality??
Only during a Bush administration could we see this kind of idiocy.
HAW!!
Someone needs to attach Sen. Larry Craig to a polygraph and ask him a few questions.
I know. Since the definition of word marriage has
alway (in this country) meant between man & woman let’s just change the definition of any word we want to get what ever we want. I will change the definition of Free Speech to be shooting anyone who annoys me. Bingo, murdering annoying people is now a protected right.
#7 – Paddy-O
If we want it, what’s the problem? If you don’t want to marry another man – hey, it’s a free country! Just say no! Isn’t it great? Ahh, America!
On the other hand, what the fuck is it to you what other people do in the privacy of their own lives?
In any case, the real issue in this thread is the hypocrisy of two “heterosexuals” who have debased the institution of marriage beyond belief signing up for a bill telling other people what marriage is.
Or is the conservative viewpoint now that marriage includes guys sucking dick in the men’s room and paying hookers to dress you up like an infant? That’s sure what it seems like.
#8 “If we want it, what’s the problem?”
I don’t have a problem with redefining words to get what you want. As long as you don’t restrict to only words you want to redefine and not ones I want to.
I think this is totally unfair. Jeanette Maier, the Canal Street Madam, said that Vitter “was not a freak. He was not into anything unusual or kinky or weird…”.
So my question is, of all the prostitutes that David Vitter uses, which one are you going to believe?
#10 – Paddy-O
>>I don’t have a problem with redefining words
>>to get what you want. As long as you don’t
>>restrict to only words you want to redefine
>>and not ones I want to.
I don’t “want” anything, Mr. O, other than for you to keep your snout out of other people’s fucking business.
Is that too much to ask?
If, in the privacy of my own home, I want to redefine filet mignon as “any kind of beef”, what the fuck’s it to ya? And if people, in the privacy of their own lives, want to call same-sex marriage “marriage” (which doesn’t have a legal definition, btw), what the fuck’s it to ya?
In any case, the major theme in this thread is not “what is marriage?”, it’s “should right-wing perverts be legislating morality for the rest of America?”
Please try to stay on topic.
TIA.
#11 – Cubie
>>So my question is, of all the prostitutes that
>>David Vitter uses, which one are you going to
>>believe?
I’m going with the DC Madame. The Canal St. madame’s claim of Vitter’s “normal” infidelity has been contradicted by other denizens of Canal St.
http://tinyurl.com/6pg3ax
Or maybe she just doesn’t think dressing a fat middle-aged guy up in diapers is unusual or kinky or weird.
#12 “I don’t “want” anything, Mr. O, other than for you to keep your snout out of other people’s fucking business.
Is that too much to ask?”
As long as people quit asking the gov’t to stick its nose into my business on their behalf I have no problem. If not, then I have to stick mine into theirs. Understand?
#14 – Paddy-O
>>As long as people quit asking the gov’t to
>>stick its nose into my business on their
>>behalf I have no problem.
Great! So you’re not a supporter of these homophobic “legislative initiatives” to tell people what they can do in the privacy of their own lives (like marry whomever they want), right?
You’re more enlightened than I thought! And here I was imagining that you supported new, unprecedented laws mandating the parameters of marriage.
Kudos.
#15 – “Great! So you’re not a supporter of these homophobic “legislative initiatives” to tell people what they can do in the privacy of their own lives (like marry whomever they want), right?”
Correct, as long as the gov’t doesn’t make me acknowledge that “marriage” I have no problem. I own a business BTW.
#16 – Paddy-O
Who gives a fuck if you acknowledge the marriage or not? What, you’re not going to rent them a room in your Motel 6, or what? They’ll just stay at the Four Seasons.
Looks like you’re the odd man out here, Irish.
#17 Good. As long as you agree that by them being “married” I’m not obligated to pay (health ins benefits) or any other burden on me then I’m fine.
I have a feeling that wouldn’t sit well with you.
I was wrong.
#18 – Paddy-O
Right now, the law does not disallow same-sex marriages. Only government intervention (in the form of homophobic initiatives, or “legislating from the bench”). So you can pay, or suffer the penalty for hatemongering. Sound good?
Would you like to avoid paying health insurance for inter-racial couples too? Inter-faith couples? Couples with different color hair? How far does your bigotry extend?
Does this really make you proud of yourself?
So if a white guy is voting for affirmative action, isn’t that hypocrisy? Someone who has taken bribes had better not be voting for campaign finance reform.