What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
207 Comments
- opencad, on 10/12/2007, -29/+68Seriously . . . does the GOP actively recruit politicians with criminal backgrounds or shady sexual pasts?
Do the senior members of the GOP pick these people and support them election after election after election because they are easy to blackmail?
It would sure explain the republican "lock step" when it comes to congressional votes. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+54Here we go again, rather than a witch-hunt, or a terrorist-enabler hunt, we are having *****-hunts. Why must our country have a government run by high schoolers?
- cybortrip, on 10/12/2007, -13/+50detritus: you're right...wrong is wrong. but the reason this is such a hot topic is because of how discriminatory the republicans are when it comes to homosexuals. its bad enough they are against gay rights, they also believe it is a sin to be a homosexual and that they can somehow be reprogrammed because its a mental deffect. being gay and republican does not mix well with their conservative base. the more ***** like this gets out in the open, the more the conservative sheep will flock to the other side or become independant. or who knows? they may begin to realize that we need to ignore this ***** and focus on REAL ISSUES such as education, health care, iraq/north korea, etc. i can go on and on...
- gronne, on 10/12/2007, -10/+46I don't think that the politicians we pay with our tax dollars should get a free pass when they say one thing and do another for many years. They're supposed to be held to a higher standard.
If believing that is juvenile then call me juvenile. - mattman59, on 10/12/2007, -9/+43We do, but you can't talk about how bad homosexuals are out of one side of your mouth and then put a ***** in the other. It would be the same thing if a Dem was anti-gay and then was outed as gay.
- crombenevolant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36@Cam_86
One could argue that he actually voted as to his constituencies beliefs (Idaho is a very conservative state), vs his own personal beliefs. Of course that would be assuming that a politician would actually be concerned with serving the people vs serving their own wishes... - Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -12/+42There is a growing belief that something along these lines is at play. I don't think it is fair to blame this soly on Republicans though, there are an awfull lot of Democrats who are also in lock step.
When you consider that both sides of the isle are members of organizations such as Skull & Bones (both parties' 2004 presidential candidates were members) and add to this stories about prostitution rings and other ***** up ***** in D.C. you start to wonder where people like Kubrick got their inspiration. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+42"Your party claims to be non-disciminating, and then turns around and 'outs' a Republican simply to swing votes"
This 'outing' was done not to swing votes, but to show that this particular senator has a long history of hypocrisy. He is gay, yet he passes anti-gay legislation.
What does this mean? It means that, if he can be this hypocritical about his own sexual orientation, just imagine what ELSE he can be hypocritical about. THIS is the reason for outing gay republicans. It's not to embarrass them or mock them for being gay (those actions are exclusive to conservatives). It is to highlight the dangers of having hypocrites given the power to pass laws. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+38"Just look at how Studds was treated compared to Foley"
Just watch FOXNews, you'll get your fair and balanced fix there. - griz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22@opencad
" or shady sexual pasts? "
What is "shady" about being homosexual? - Cam_86, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25HMTKSteve, I think it has more to do with his stance on gay issues... Being gay, while at the same time voting to allow discrimination against gays kinda seems un-ethical... unless you don't give a ***** about freedoms, and are more interested in the 'anti-gay vote'...
- tobyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21A person's sexual activity (or any personal activity), if legal, if of NO CONCERN to anyone, no matter how they choose to represent their constituents and what positions they support.
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19This isn't about being gay, this is about being a two-faced hypocrite. He's openly anti-gay and secretly is gay. That's what he's being outed for.
- johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17An interesting viewpoint.
You have the Republicans who, as a majority, are against gay marriage, a private event that the government should not be involved in.
You have Republicans who allowed Buchanan to give a 1992 speach at the Republican convention warning people about the Homosexual agenda.
You have Republicans who attempted to pass an amendment that would prevent two consenting adults of the same sex from getting married.
You have Republicans who curry votes from people like Jerry Falwell, who tells people that 9-11 happened because we have been tolerant with homosexuals.
And then, when Republicans in office are shown to be hypocrits who are in fact gay themselves, and don't care about anything but their own power base, why not out them? Why not reveal that the politician who speaks against a President having an affair has had a mistress for years (Newt Gingrich)? Why not show that a man who publicly decries drug use is themselves an addict?
If people are willing to lie and cheat regarding their own sexual orientation, what *can* we trust them with - our tax dollars, our soldiers, our safety? If you want to be a homosexual, more power to you! If you don't want to tell people - fine!
But you can't have it both ways. You can't try to get votes from the people by spewing hate when you're a member of that group - because all that tells me is that you are a liar, and I don't want you anywhere near any office of power. - sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17If you're an anti-gay politician you're directly affecting the quality of life of gays you represent. If that doesn't deserve outing then I don't know what does.
- grooviekenn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16@smoothmedia
I don't care that the senator is gay... BUT
I get pissed off when a gay senator has a voting record of making gays second class citizens!
The gay senators are either F*CKING COWARDS or SELFISH BASTARDS...
either way I'm glad that they are being outted! - TKR05, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18Your private life is your private life. It doesn't matter how much of a dick you are in public.
- griz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11You group Homosexuals with Pedophiles? I'm rather disgusted by that!!
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12But if we didn't have a new witch hunt to distract us every decade, we might start paying attention to what Congress is actually doing, which is the last thing they want us to do.
- fjvwing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10TKR05: Unfortunately, representatives like Craig are intent on making my private life a public issue. Tit for tat, theirs becomes an issue then as well.
Craig has the luxury of being able to shield himself and his private life with money and connections from unpleasantries most ***** cannot, like job discrimination and being unable to get protections for their families any straight jokel can get by applying for a marriage license. He wants to close those doors for me, and add slogans like "Keep your private life private!" to justify shoving me back in the closet so I don't get fired for being as honest about my family life as anyone else who brings a picture of their spouse to their desk, or brings their partner to the company picknick. "Keep your private life private" is a slogan people use who do not want to confrotn that not everyone is like them.
I am not standing for it. Straight married people do not keep their families private, and neither will I. And if he can't keep from making my public life harder by harshing on my private life, I am not gonna stay out of his private life.
And a personal aside, open, honest, proud, functional people are not closeted anyway. They are forthright about themselves the way every straight person is about their friendships, dating, and marriages. Living in the closet is seriously warping. I know, I have been there. You don't want that as your representative. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Democrats are anti-racist, so outing Democrats that are racist should be just as acceptable."
If they are, ***** do it. People like that have no business holding public office. - dan2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I support this, if you are anti-gay in public and live a gay lifestyle in private you are the ultimate hypocrite.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20I thought Democrats believed in the "Right to Privacy" ???
- harumph, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20outing people is something i generally do not support. unless of course you are rabidly anti-gay publicly and gay in private, you are then fair game unfortunately. it would even be different if you weren't voting on these issues directly. it is sad that people are filled with such self-loathing though.
- tobyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Living one way and voting another is not hypocrisy if you are a representative. You are voting FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS, not for yourself.
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"I don't think that the politicians we pay with our tax dollars should get a free pass when they say one thing and do another for many years. They're supposed to be held to a higher standard."
Care to cite where this particular person has done that? I love how if you're gay you have to be for gay marraige. You're no different than someone who calls someone who happens to be a fiscal conservative an uncle tom. Bigotry is bad, no matter who's guilty of it. - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds
Gerry Eastman Studds was a Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts who served from 1973 until 1997. He was the first openly gay national politician in the U.S. In 1983, he admitted to having had an affair with a 17-year-old page in 1973 and was censured by the House of Representatives.
Studds was re-elected to the House seven more terms after the censure.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp
January 2001: Just before leaving office, President Clinton (at the urging of Jesse Jackson, among others) commuted the sentence of former Illinois congressman Mel Reynolds, who had spent 30 months in a state prison for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and was serving a five-year sentence in federal prison for lying to obtain loans and illegally diverting campaign money for personal use. - tobyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"would the CONSTITUENTS have voted for him in the first place if they had known he was gay....? NO"
If not, they would have obviously been wrong in making that choice, as he seems to represent the homophobic viewpoint quite well.
Are you implying that folks running for office are obligated to list every sexual encounter, desire, or impulse they've ever had? Why should someone be compelled to disclose such personal information if it clearly has no inherent impact on how you represent your base? - oneiroi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@p0s3r
Mike Rogers has said that he is only outing homosexuals who are part of the Republican party who push anti homosexual policies (outing them as hypocrites). People that are homosexuals that he believes are furthering homosexual rights and issues he will "leave alone".
So take that for what it's worth. Still doesn't give him the "right" but he's also not just outing everyone. - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Love comments like this. "I THOUGHT DEMOCRATS BELIEVED IN THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY"
Newsflash, dude. This is one guy's blog. Its not the "Democrats", and its not a Democratic policy announcement, its not the DNC's new platform statement. It is ONE GUY'S BLOG. He may BE a Democrat, and he may NOT believe in the right to privacy, in this case. Doesn't mean its the Democrats as a whole. Try to keep that in mind when you read stories like this. For the record, many Republicans (esp. those with libertarian bents) AND Democrats believe in the "Right to Privacy". - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Yes, if you're passing anti-gay legislation.
You people don't seem to understand that nobody cares if he's gay or not. It's him being gay in conjunction with his rabidly anti-gay political stance and voting history. - amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8It's pathetic how the neo-cons on here refuse to listen to the reality and instead dredge up Studds who did not do even a similar thing to Foley.
The Democratic Party didn't hide Studds for years and ignore pages who were feeling harassed.
The fact that these closeted gay men vote against their own human rights shows how ethically bankrupt they've become on their quest for power.
The Republican Party created this culture that produces self-loathing gay Republicans and then when outed uses them as yet another way to criticize opponents.
What these scandals show is that the current Republican response to all of their mistakes, crimes, and scandals is to point at the other party and blame them like a five year old. - UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"A person's sexual activity (or any personal activity), if legal, if of NO CONCERN to anyone, no matter how they choose to represent their constituents and what positions they support."
Some of these ***** support legislation to make sodomy illegal despite practicing it themselves. - Spirckle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Wait a minute. I don't really give a flip whether a politician is outed or not, but I looked at the poll on this congressman's votes and it seems kind of vindictive just to out him based on his voting record. I mean, I know gay guys that give thoughtful reasons why they oppose, 1) adding gender discrimitation to hate crime legislation, 2) gay marriage. 3) any other so called 'gay' issue.
If this guy wants to out him, ok, But just realize that a person's voting record may be based on something other than his gay identity.
Gay people have to co-exist with others just like the next guy. Values are based on a whole mix of things. I am so bored with one-issue numbskulls. - Supernova36, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sorry, that was a bit sharp on the comeback...
(saviour this moment, it's not often someone on Digg will apologise..) - omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The legal age in Washington DC is 16, not 18. If both people are of legal age, and it wasn't rape, then it must be a consenting adult relationship... just like Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski.
- bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14I heard that he smoked marijuana once too, when he was in college, he also engaged in pre-marital sex!
OH NO!!!!! - mad1stl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This should have been everyones first clue. Cowboy day http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.RES.138:
- neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13first they came for the forigners, and I didnt mind, next they came for the gay republicans and I still didnt mind....
How long until its *MY* turn, and will there be anyone left to panic yet?
Although it is slightly amuzing to watch Republicans eat their own.
Ha ha ha.. double entendre. - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Erm, the guy who outed him is gay. Noone on the democratic side (really just this one gay blogger. I doubt the DNC had anything to do with it, but I'm sure they're smiling) thinks gay people are bad because they're gay. He was outed to demonstrate his hypocracy and because Republican Christian Conservatives don't like gay people, so it will cause chaos in the organization.
Is this guy up for reelection on the 7th? Is the race close? - froman98, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That guy kind of reminds me of Senator Kelly from the X-Men movies... He's completely against Mutants yet is one himself.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Doesn't this tie in nicely with National Character Week?
- cougar618, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"I believe that this latest homosexual is really an undercover democrat"
-Bill O'Rilley
He'll say this within 24 hours. - ShiN3R, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@denomolos
Actually, that would be the history of marriage and an inaccurate one. Historically, marriage has included having multiple wives and concubines. Also, adultry was focused on the wife more so than the man. For Example, if a woman sleeps with any other man she committed adultry. A man only commits adultry if he sleeps with another man's woman. That was only wrong because it was disrespectful to the other man. You see, historically you are almost correct, but to DEFINE marriage as having always been this way would be completely wrong. Definitions do change. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Pos3r
I dugg up everything you said till this:
"It makes total sense. Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else. Apparently, thats not good enough. They want more rights."
I would undigg everything I previously dugg for this idiotic blathering. - LouisC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So wait... so if you're gay you automatically have to vote for "gay rights"? Since when? Sure he could be gay (and I just think this guy is calling out random people like a middle schooler... "Hey John Kerry! You're Gay!" Like that except to republicans) but he can still have his own personal opinions.
Just like straight people can stand for "gay rights", gay people can stand against them. - haggie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I don't think it has as much to do with sexuality as it does with blatant lies and misrepresentation to your constituency. Don't bad-mouth gays if you like *****. Don't bad mouth illegals if your maid is one. Don't be a hawk if you avoided military service. Etc....
Basically, don't be a gay bashing, anti-immigrant Republican if your illegal pool boy Paco is banging you in the ass. - TexMurphy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5A GAY Republican.
Next they'll tell us Republicans are corrupt politicians.
Tom DeLay. - jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@p0s3r:
Guess what. You're a closet homosexual. There is really no other explanation for you being so obsessed about gays that you would post 10 times in this thread, and getting all emotional about everything. - lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5i understand your frustration but seriously, Clinton and Sudds were not bible-thumping hypocrits like the current gang. You gotta admit, that means something.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 207 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is