T1B

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:44 am**

Yeah, screwed.

We get what a redass you are.

Go fuck yourself, punk.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:53 am**

Screw_Michigan wrote:What is it about GOPers claiming moral superiority and quoting bible scriptures when crafting legislation and making policy that makes it so difficult for your FAT ASS to understand?

Dude, it's about standards, that's it. Let's use football as an analogy. Every QB throws an interception from time to time. It sucks when they do it, nobody likes to throw an interception, and the rule of thumb is "Don't throw an interception".

There are certain standards as they relate to the relationships we have other people. The Ten Commandments aren't the only listing of them, the Code of Hammurabi addresses them, Sharia, and the Buddist and Hindu principles all suggest that when we:

1. Do murder.
2. Steal.
3. Lie about our neighbors
4. Covet

It disrupts our ability to have relationships with people that are decent and healthy. I'm not talking about just sexual relationships here.

Having standards is not having superiority. And when someone falls the standard is raised to help them back up, not to castigate and condemn.

I mean, how are any of us potty trained ? I mean our parents shit in their pants at one point too ? Right ?

Fucking hypocrites.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:18 am**

Tom;
Having standards for ourselves is a great thing. But when one imposes their standards on another person it makes their own violations more flagrant. What's so hard to understand about that?

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:14 pm**

Diego in Seattle wrote:Tom;
Having standards for ourselves is a great thing. But when one imposes their standards on another person it makes their own violations more flagrant. What's so hard to understand about that?

So you obviously continue to shit your pants because mommy and daddy shit their pants at one point. Understood.

May I suggest Boudreauxs Butt Paste for your rash. Works great on babies.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:45 pm**

Problem is mom and pops will be shitting the bed later in life, too. And guess who's got to clean it up?

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:46 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:Tom;
Having standards for ourselves is a great thing. But when one imposes their standards on another person it makes their own violations more flagrant. What's so hard to understand about that?
So you obviously continue to shit your pants because mommy and daddy shit their pants at one point. Understood.

May I suggest Boudreauxs Butt Paste for your rash. Works great on babies.

We're talking about adults, dumbshit.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:50 pm**

Natural cycle of life I suppose. Watching my grandfather die of kidney failue and alzheimer's was definitely an interesting lesson.

A retired Lt. Col. and socially reared with all the good graces and manners of an officer and a gentlemen it was interesting to see his behavior degenerate in the last two years of his life. Hocking loogies wherever he pleased, incontinence, etc.. etc..

I think Diego is right. No sense in having standards. As a natural born man, in order to procreate, all our ancestors had to do was probably walk up behind some broad - sniff her ass, and then mount as other mammals do.

I'll try a social experiment and start with sniffing asses.

It's time to lower the standards, for Diego. He's feeling imposed upon and victimized.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:52 pm**

Diego in Seattle wrote: We're talking about adults, dumbshit.

Adults need standards too Diego. When was the last time you were around adults ?

Read the board, look at the news, read history or in general - pull your head out of your ass -

Adults, without standards, are nothing more than larger and more dangerous babies.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:05 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote: We're talking about adults, dumbshit.
Adults need standards too Diego. When was the last time you were around adults ?

Read the board, look at the news, read history or in general - pull your head out of your ass -

Adults, without standards, are nothing more than larger and more dangerous babies.

Ok, I can agree with that.

But when a group of people claim moral superiority & use their morals to impose standards on others that they don't apply to themselves...you know what that's called. That's why it's different.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:32 pm**

Derron wrote:Your posts are painful to read, with your witty verbiage...

Yeah. I really hate it when people are all witty and stuff. It really makes for a painful post.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:36 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:How come you didn't respond to MY post?

I hope your vulva didn't get rupture due to this most heinous of crimes. The nerve.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:46 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:How come you didn't respond to MY post?

Dude, you've gotta jump a little higher to be seen above the tabletop.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:30 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:But when a group of people claim moral superiority & use their morals to impose standards on others that they don't apply to themselves...you know what that's called. That's why it's different.
It isn't different at all, you brainless, kiddie diddling dipshit. Sanford is finished. Done. His career, his marriage and his life is in ashes right now. Whereas sick perverts like Barney Frank, Gerry Studds and Ted Kennedy continued along with their careers uninterrupted.

Sanford is being held accountable for his tawdry, pathetic and totally unprofessional behavior and that is the difference.

Since when is Sanford being held accountable, vapid fuckstick? He's being roundly criticized, but I see no official movement to remove him from office (which was the case with Clinton - who's removal Sanford advocated). That's a big difference that's easy to see unless one is looking through bukkake-covered glasses.

You may now return to sniveling victimhood, asswipe

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:44 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:I see no official movement to remove him from office
That's because your head is stuck up a ten year old boy's ass, you sick, stupid freak.

South Carolina GOP: Mark Sanford must go

Gov. Mark Sanford’s long and emotional interview with The Associated Press Tuesday appears to have been the final straw for South Carolina’s Republican establishment, much of which is now actively seeking his resignation.

While Sanford seemed to have weathered the storm in the brutal days immediately following his admission of an affair with an Argentine woman, his support has cratered in the wake of the AP interview in which he talked of his “tragic” and “forbidden” love for his “soul mate” and admitted to having “crossed lines” with a handful of other women.

Fourteen GOP state senators — more than half the Senate Republican caucus — have already called for Sanford’s resignation, joining a list that, as of Wednesday afternoon, included 11 Republican members of the state House and six of the state's biggest newspapers.

And three leading South Carolina Republican officeholders, including the state’s two U.S. senators, called Sanford today for what sources close to the lawmakers described as frank conversations about the governor’s ability to carry out his job.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24426.html

There's a big difference between calling for someone's resignation & impeachment, junk-sucker. Let me know when the impeachment hearings begin.

Anything else, mvsLevin?

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:11 pm**

Look Diego, hypocrisy and human beings is like farting in a crowded elevator. Nobody likes to do it but occasionally one creeps out. Your myopia has you thinking the "right" is the only group of hypocrites and "morally superior" types. Each has it's hypocrisy. It is indisputable.

Further, your myopia is failing to see the truth behind WHY Clinton was being impeached. He was being impeached because he lied under oath. Sanford has yet to be put under oath and unlike Clinton had the opportunity to come clean outside a formal court hearing.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:48 pm**

Avi, the hypocrisy comes when the cunt struck politician bases his candidacy on a premise of puritanical Christer moralizing, etc. This is simply not the case with Barney Frank, who has always been out front and honest about his private life--far more than he should need to be. Sanford, of course, is a genuine hypocrite because he appealed directly to his constituency by promising to uphold their cherished puritan norms, etc. Why are you so confused? Oh yeah..

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:00 pm**

mvscal wrote:Sanford is finished. Done. His career, his marriage and his life is in ashes right now. Whereas sick perverts like Barney Frank, Gerry Studds and Ted Kennedy continued along with their careers uninterrupted.

You forgot about me.

Sin,

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:41 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:Further, your myopia is failing to see the truth behind WHY Clinton was being impeached. He was being impeached because he lied under oath.

Conservatives like to point out that Clinton wasn't impeached for having sexual relations. So let's look at that reason from one of the conservative congressmen who voted to impeach Clinton...one Mark Sanford:

"This is "very damaging stuff," Sanford declared at one point, when details of Clinton's conduct became known. "I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign)... I come from the business side," he said. "If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he'd be gone."

So I think it's entirely accurate to use the same logic with Sanford. He shouldn't resign as governor for having an affair, but he should as SC National Guard Commander for going AWOL for several days.

The fact that he hasn't shows that he's a hypocrite of the highest order.

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:39 pm**

mvscal wrote:Of course, if he was a libtard scumbag, his wife would stand by him and his party would rally around him and all would be forgiven.

Now you're forgetting about us.

Sin,

Posted: **Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:32 am**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
mvscal wrote:Of course, if he was a libtard scumbag, his wife would stand by him and his party would rally around him and all would be forgiven.
Now you're forgetting about us.

Sin,

Spitzer was not run for fukking around on the OL. He was run for buying hookers with money that wasn't his.

Last I checked, the silky pony wasn't run from any office. He just won't land one any time in the future, because, even the dems have a modicum of decency.

Posted: **Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:44 pm**

smackaholic wrote:Last I checked, the silky pony wasn't run from any office. He just won't land one any time in the future, because, even the dems have a modicum of decency.

But for the affair, Edwards would've been all but a lock for a cabinet position in an Obama administration. And while it's extremely early to talk about this, he probably would've been, at least right now, the frontrunner for the Presidential nomination in 2016, if he had wanted to stick around that long. I suppose you could argue that he got bounced not so much because of the affair as because he at first lied about it and tried to get a campaign staffer to take the fall for him. But no affair, no fall from grace.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:06 pm**

Holy earfuzz, batman.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:12 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
smackaholic wrote:Last I checked, the silky pony wasn't run from any office. He just won't land one any time in the future, because, even the dems have a modicum of decency.
But for the affair, Edwards would've been all but a lock for a cabinet position in an Obama administration. And while it's extremely early to talk about this, he probably would've been, at least right now, the frontrunner for the Presidential nomination in 2016, if he had wanted to stick around that long. I suppose you could argue that he got bounced not so much because of the affair as because he at first lied about it and tried to get a campaign staffer to take the fall for him. But no affair, no fall from grace.

Kinda typical lefty way of viewing it. Notice that the infidelity itself ain't the problem. No, it was the lie about it. Just as lefties get all bent on some righty's hypocrisy, there's no problem with th eunderlying behavior...again, the infidelity. Whether we're talking about Sandford, Newt, or anyone else. The common complaint is the hypocrisy. Reflects quite well the absence or shallowness of the left's morality...until it comes to how the US treats terrorists.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:52 pm**

JMak wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
smackaholic wrote:Last I checked, the silky pony wasn't run from any office. He just won't land one any time in the future, because, even the dems have a modicum of decency.
But for the affair, Edwards would've been all but a lock for a cabinet position in an Obama administration. And while it's extremely early to talk about this, he probably would've been, at least right now, the frontrunner for the Presidential nomination in 2016, if he had wanted to stick around that long. I suppose you could argue that he got bounced not so much because of the affair as because he at first lied about it and tried to get a campaign staffer to take the fall for him. But no affair, no fall from grace.
Kinda typical lefty way of viewing it. Notice that the infidelity itself ain't the problem. No, it was the lie about it. Just as lefties get all bent on some righty's hypocrisy, there's no problem with th eunderlying behavior...again, the infidelity. Whether we're talking about Sandford, Newt, or anyone else. The common complaint is the hypocrisy. Reflects quite well the absence or shallowness of the left's morality...until it comes to how the US treats terrorists.

Jesus, can you even read? I said you could argue it that way. Nowhere did I say I would argue it that way. Kinda like how you righties say Clinton didn't get impeached because he had an affair.

And fwiw, I don't think a consensual affair should disqualify someone from political office. There's a difference between one's public persona and one's private persona. If we're now at the point that a consensual extramarital affair is a disqualifier for political office in the U.S., then the U.S. is alone in the world, or at least in the developed, civilized world, in that regard.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:25 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Cuda wrote:What, doesn't NC have a Lt. Governor? Wat the fuck was he doing those 4 days, jerking off?
Enlighten me here. What does North Carolina's Lieutenant Governor have to do with the fact that South Carolina's Governor went missing for 4 or 5 days?

Sometimes my "S's" look like "N's". Gofuckyerself

Posted: **Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:56 pm**

Like...

“Do you really comprehend how beautiful your smile is? Have you been told lately how warm your eyes are and how they softly glow with the special nature of your soul.”

Well, yeah Mark, she's works on television! She stares in a mirror all day and knows exactly how hot she is from every angle in every type of light.

“To me, and I suspect no one else on earth, there is something wonderful about listening to country music playing in the cab, air conditioner running, the hum of a huge diesel engine in the background, the tranquility that comes with being in a virtual wilderness of trees and marsh, the day breaking and vibrant pink coming alive in the morning clouds — and getting to build something with each scoop of dirt.”

I like the "vibrant pink coming alive" part

"You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night's light - but hey, that would be going into sexual details ..."

She responds: "I never gave you sexual details but you don't need to. . .close your eyes and just remember. I'll do the same.”

Are you remembering?

Posted: **Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:49 am**

CREEEEEEPPPERRRR!!!!HATE GOVERNMENT!!! COMUNISM GOOOOOODDD!!!!

Posted: **Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:42 pm**

Yo Creep, you misspelled "communism." More to the point, can you spell mind bending, soul expanding, life transcending pussy? Can you put that into words? Cuz that's what makes the world go round--and occasionally go off the rails for a hapless traveler like Mark Sanford. You appear blinded by sheer ideology. You're angry and writhing for change. Well, pussy is eternal and unchanging. Get used to it.

Posted: **Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:49 pm**

Let's get back on track. If there is any residual doubt or denial as to the essential perversion of the GOP and its elected officials, let's consider this lil' news from arch conservative David Brooks:

David Brooks: A Republican Senator 'Had His Hand On My Inner Thigh' For A 'Whole' Dinner Party

David Brooks offers a fantastic anecdote that supports his recent New York Times column lamenting the loss of dignity in America. Apparently, Brooks was at a dinner party and had the misfortune to sit next to a Republican senator who "had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here."

Co-host John Harwood exclaims "what?" while Norah O'Donnell lets loose her trademark guffaw. Sadly, Brooks refuses to identify the touchy-feely senator.

What's next? Perhaps reports that GW Bush is a total closet homosexual who had a former male prostitute pretend to be a reporter so he could visit the White House over one hundred times? oh yeah...

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:08 pm**

Bump.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200907 ... Pe0f8DW7oF

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:04 am**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Let's get back on track. If there is any residual doubt or denial as to the essential perversion of the GOP and its elected officials, let's consider this lil' news from arch conservative David Brooks:

David Brooks: A Republican Senator 'Had His Hand On My Inner Thigh' For A 'Whole' Dinner Party

David Brooks offers a fantastic anecdote that supports his recent New York Times column lamenting the loss of dignity in America. Apparently, Brooks was at a dinner party and had the misfortune to sit next to a Republican senator who "had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here."

Co-host John Harwood exclaims "what?" while Norah O'Donnell lets loose her trademark guffaw. Sadly, Brooks refuses to identify the touchy-feely senator.

What's next? Perhaps reports that GW Bush is a total closet homosexual who had a former male prostitute pretend to be a reporter so he could visit the White House over one hundred times? oh yeah...

Go fuck your diseased, shit and semen spattered ass with a 55 gallon drum of nuclear waste, prolapsed reindeer anus.

Posted: **Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:37 pm**

Bump

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090810/ap_ ... estigation

Posted: **Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:08 am**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
David Brooks: A Republican Senator 'Had His Hand On My Inner Thigh' For A 'Whole' Dinner Party

David Brooks offers a fantastic anecdote that supports his recent New York Times column lamenting the loss of dignity in America. Apparently, Brooks was at a dinner party and had the misfortune to sit next to a Republican senator who "had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here."[ubt or denial as to the essential perversion of the GOP and its elected officials, let's consider this lil' news from arch conservative David Brooks:/b]

I can just imagine how that went:

Brooks: "Senator Hatch, you've got just 20 minutes to get your hand off my thigh"

Lindsay Graham: " OK, but I'm not Orrin Hatch"

Brooks: "When did he leave?"

T1B

Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair

Re: Yet another GOP pol busted in an affair