T1B

Yep, those republicans sure do have the higher moral ground. Just ask Mike Duvall.

They should stop trying to control other people's lives & concentrate on their own.

You mean like your boy John Edwards? Liberals are the biggest bunch of hypocrites.

Katy wrote:You mean like your boy John Edwards? Liberals are the biggest bunch of hypocrites.

Care to back that up (or at least make a flailing attempt at it)?

He fucked some whore while his wife is dying of cancer and fathered a child with her. That's something only the lowest common denominator would do.

Politicians are shitheads. No matter what party they're affiliated with.

Katy wrote:He fucked some whore while his wife is dying of cancer and fathered a child with her. That's something only the lowest common denominator would do.

Yeah, I would never do something like that!

Sincerely,
Newt Gingrich

Politicians are shitheads. Not matter what party they're affiliated with.

True to a point.

The difference here is that the liberals aren't the ones trying to control people's bedrooms based on their "morals" while doing anything they please in their own.

Diego my pendejo. Duvall said he gave the girl "spankings"...no doubt for her "bad" behavior...sounds convervative enough....

By the way, you are Katy's pinata. Eject.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Katy wrote:He fucked some whore while his wife is dying of cancer and fathered a child with her. That's something only the lowest common denominator would do.

Yeah, I would never do something like that!

Sincerely,
Newt Gingrich

Politicians are shitheads. Not matter what party they're affiliated with.

True to a point.

The difference here is that the liberals aren't the ones trying to control people's bedrooms based on their "morals" while doing anything they please in their own.

You seriously need to stop masturbating to Keith Olbermann and the likes of Chris Matthews. You''re a meat puppet and the reason this country is an embarrassment. Republicans aren't trying to control your life, moron, this communist president is.

Diego in Seattle wrote:The difference here is that the liberals aren't the ones trying to control people's bedrooms based on their "morals" while doing anything they please in their own.

Yeah, the libs are just trying to control all other aspects of our lives.

Look, I have no problem with individuals who have moral failings being accused of hypocrisy. That's life. But, one thing that strikes me is the elevation of hypocrisy by the libs as the greatest failing of all. To you fools hypocrisy is the greatest of all evils. This explains why guys like Byrd, Clinton, Studds, Edwards, et al don't offend you. You do not possess a moral compass. Morality is a punch line for you people to condemn others.

You condemn Rush Limbaugh not because of his abuse of prescription drugs but because he was a hypocrite. Had one of your own had a similar problem abusing prescription drugs you'd have been lecturing us about not judging him and his inner demons. The drug use, like Edwards adultery, like Kennedy leaving a woman to die, didn't offend you at all. Again, morality is a punchline for you idiots.

mvscal wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:They should stop trying to control other people's lives & concentrate on their own.

Try looking in the mirror some day, you kiddy diddling fucktard.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Katy wrote:You mean like your boy John Edwards? Liberals are the biggest bunch of hypocrites.

Care to back that up (or at least make a flailing attempt at it)?

Back up what? Out of the mouth of John Edwards himself. The only difference is that Edwards denied it at first.

trev wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Katy wrote:You mean like your boy John Edwards? Liberals are the biggest bunch of hypocrites.

Care to back that up (or at least make a flailing attempt at it)?

Back up what? Out of the mouth of John Edwards himself. The only difference is that Edwards denied it at first.

Th eonly thing I'd say here is that it's tough for these liberals to be called hypocrites. A more appropriate term would be liar, see Edwards, see Kennedy, see Clinton. You cannot be hypocritical, as the libs define it, if you lack the values in the first place. That's why they have this fetish with hypocrisy. They don't care about the behavior. They only care if you've condemned the behavior before and then conduct yourself in a way that varies from that expected level of behavior.

Bottom line - liberals lack morality.

That is what the libs do, though, R-Jack. They don't take moral stances because doing so requires exercising judgment and we should all know by now that actually judging the behavior of others is strictly off limits. That's why they have no problem with Gerry Studds, Ted Kennedy, JFK's serial infidelity, Bill Clinton, or even shit like Castro and Chavez. If you haven't walked in their shoes, well, you have no right to judge their behavior. That's how they excuse drug use, infidelity, etc. And that's why they have elevted hypocrisy to the greatest of all evils.

JMak wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:The difference here is that the liberals aren't the ones trying to control people's bedrooms based on their "morals" while doing anything they please in their own.

Yeah, the libs are just trying to control all other aspects of our lives.

Look, I have no problem with individuals who have moral failings being accused of hypocrisy. That's life. But, one thing that strikes me is the elevation of hypocrisy by the libs as the greatest failing of all. To you fools hypocrisy is the greatest of all evils. This explains why guys like Byrd, Clinton, Studds, Edwards, et al don't offend you. You do not possess a moral compass. Morality is a punch line for you people to condemn others.

You condemn Rush Limbaugh not because of his abuse of prescription drugs but because he was a hypocrite. Had one of your own had a similar problem abusing prescription drugs you'd have been lecturing us about not judging him and his inner demons. The drug use, like Edwards adultery, like Kennedy leaving a woman to die, didn't offend you at all. Again, morality is a punchline for you idiots.

Rack that take

MadRussian wrote:

JMak wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:The difference here is that the liberals aren't the ones trying to control people's bedrooms based on their "morals" while doing anything they please in their own.

Yeah, the libs are just trying to control all other aspects of our lives.

Look, I have no problem with individuals who have moral failings being accused of hypocrisy. That's life. But, one thing that strikes me is the elevation of hypocrisy by the libs as the greatest failing of all. To you fools hypocrisy is the greatest of all evils. This explains why guys like Byrd, Clinton, Studds, Edwards, et al don't offend you. You do not possess a moral compass. Morality is a punch line for you people to condemn others.

Rack that take

Birds of a feather & all....especially since you're both bird brained.

It figures that a simpleton like DrDetoilet thinks hypocrisy is the biggest offense to liberals. Are conservatives the only ones guilty of "moral failings?" Obviously not. The difference is that many conservatives stand on their "values" to restrict the rights & privileges of others. If conservatives weren't denying gays & lesbians the same rights & privileges of marriage that they enjoy it wouldn't be such a big deal for them to have a "failing." It's one thing to have a "failing" and quite another to "fail" at upholding the same standards one is imposing on others.

Do liberals have "morals?" Certainly. And funny enough, many come from the same place that conservatives get theirs. It sure looks like liberals have a better grasp on that book than conservatives. Looking at what republicans stand for it's ponderous how they can always skip over Matthew 7:12.

And the source for these morals....wasn't that the same source that provided the morals that denied whites & blacks to marry for so long?

It's been said many times that "the higher they are, the harder they fall." If republicans are going to put themselves high on a moral pedestal then they have to expect a big fall when they "fail." Deal with it.

Diego in Seattle wrote:It's been said many times that "the higher they are, the harder they fall."

By whom? I've heard, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall," but not what you quoted.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:It's been said many times that "the higher they are, the harder they fall."

By whom? I've heard, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall," but not what you quoted.

Shhh...

You'll only confuse him further..

you spent a lot of time looking up those pictures...

Bizzarofelice wrote:you spent a lot of time looking up those pictures...

What did you expect from people who can't address the issue directly?

I expect them to embrace their stance even more obnoxiously. Page one of this place is one boorish political argument after the next.

Tons of fun. Really.

As usual, Avi--and the tiny bimbo, Katy--are about as anxious as Sarah Palin facing a pop quiz on current affairs.

Look, Democrats don't base their candidacy on upholding "Christian" values. GOP hack do. Democrats don't campaign on anti-homosexual attacks, GOP hacks do. Democrats don't promote anti-government fears, GOP hacks and demented racist Libertarian Survivalists do.

And Democrats don't get caught in absurdly hypocritical homosexual encounters while preaching some Christer bullshit, etc. GOP hacks do.

The so-called GOP is a joke, a totally dysfunctional political entity whose record is one of galling failure and scandal, and which is now dominated by loose cannons and ludicrous radicals spouting anything to get some attention from their idiotic constituency. Pathetic.

mvscal wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:you spent a lot of time looking up those pictures...

It really doesn't much time to type a name.

Must be relative. I don't want to spend much time on such things. You seem todedicate all your free time to obsessing over politics. Red-headed stepchild...

Bizzarofelice wrote: You seem todedicate all your free time to obsessing over politics. Red-headed stepchild...

he might as well- his Padres arennt going anywherem- despite beating up on the Cows 2 games in a row- and neither are his Bolts, btw

HAHAHAH Yeah his Chargers are all like dumb and...

Seahawks 28
Rams 0

FUCK!!!!!

Bizzarofelice wrote:HAHAHAH Yeah his Chargers are all like dumb and...

Seahawks 28
Rams 0

FUCK!!!!!

:D

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As usual, Avi--and the tiny bimbo, Katy--are about as anxious

Not in the least. Duvall was a squishy moderate pile of shit who broke his no new tax pledge and was in the crosshairs of genuine fiscal conservatives in the county.

I consider his loss a win for the taxpayer.

"Genuine fiscal conservatives"???

The GOP, or "conservatives"...or Republicans.....or Christer wing nut/Libertarian Survivalists, what ever you call yourselves, are the ones who pushed and pushed for DEREGULATION of the financial markets, etc. YOU are the ones who have ushered in the biggest fuck up of all time. And, overwhelmingly you accepted the lies and schemes of the neocons and supported the catastrophic invasion of Iraq, etc. You are a total disgrace--and LOOK at who is left standing (i.e., not facing jail time) as a leader in the GOP: fucking Newt Gingrich!!! Are you kidding!! This ADS hack--and of course the utterly insane Romney--are all that's left...

And really, after a parade of weirdos and freaks like Nixon and Reagan and the Chimp and Cheney...how can you exist?

Bizzarofelice wrote:Red-headed stepchild...

Quite possibly the best description of mvscal I've ever seen on these boards. In more ways than one.

Diego in Seattle wrote:It figures that a simpleton like DrDetoilet thinks hypocrisy is the biggest offense to liberals.

It's certainly not just my imagination. The whole of your thread here was to scream "hypocrite," moron.

Are conservatives the only ones guilty of "moral failings?" Obviously not. The difference is that many conservatives stand on their "values" to restrict the rights & privileges of others.

What 'rights"? What "privileges"? It's your side that is punishing liberty in this country with climate control, unions, taxes, health care, environmental justice, affirmative action, etc., etc., etc. I just don't see conservatives attempting to restrict any rights, help me out here.

If conservatives weren't denying gays & lesbians the same rights & privileges of marriage that they enjoy it wouldn't be such a big deal for them to have a "failing." It's one thing to have a "failing" and quite another to "fail" at upholding the same standards one is imposing on others.

Make sense much? Maybe I don't understand the analogy, but it doesn't appear to work.

I just have to wonder then how you feel about Obama and very nearly the entire Democratic leadership also being opposed to gay marriage? Are they not also failing to uphold the standard you're appealing to?

Do liberals have "morals?" Certainly. And funny enough, many come from the same place that conservatives get theirs. It sure looks like liberals have a better grasp on that book than conservatives. Looking at what republicans stand for it's ponderous how they can always skip over Matthew 7:12.

And the source for these morals....wasn't that the same source that provided the morals that denied whites & blacks to marry for so long?

If libs had morals then they wouldn't focus only on hypocrisy. Gerry Studds, Ted kennedy, John Edwards, Bill Clinton never would have made it through to Congress or the presidency. You people would have slammed Rush for abusing precription drugs, not cried that he didn't live up to your behavioral expectations. The same with Bill Bennett. The same with Packwood. Etc., etc.

It's been said many times that "the higher they are, the harder they fall." If republicans are going to put themselves high on a moral pedestal then they have to expect a big fall when they "fail." Deal with it.

That's the funny thing, though, you don't hit them on the actual moral failing, but on the mere hypocrisy of the matter, It's precisely what you did here.

Another example, who was the bathroom troller or the page guy? You people had no problem with the outrageous behavior. It was the hypocrisy or perceived hypocrisy of the event that concerned you.

You people have a fetish with hypocrisy. Period. And everytime you cry hypocrisy you make yourselves look even more foolish because you're acknowledging that you approve of the outrageous, absurd behavior displayed by those you're attacking as hypocrites.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Look, Democrats don't base their candidacy on upholding "Christian" values. GOP hack do.

Nice bit of generalizing here...but, did you miss Obama's 2008 campaign?

Yer right, Willie, in that the perv route would have been business as usual. It's always a lark when the GOP hack is caught going straight.

As for the repealing of Glass-Steagall, this was achieved in a GOP dominated congress and by the direct and all-but evangelical intensity of Phil Gramm and his fellow Free Market lackeys. For the Demos who caved in it was a betrayal of basic Democratic values and platform. For the "fiscal conservatives" however, it represented a fundamental fulfillment of the Friedman/Greenspan (Reagan) wet dream of "trickle down" kleptocracy. This has of course been proven to be a disastrous farce, a fake and utterly incompetent theory which will remain the legacy of the so-called GOP. :doh:

Papa Willie wrote:Something tells me Duvall wouldn't be getting any attention here had he been fucking a 4 year old boy.....

Since he's a Republican, it certainly would be less surprising.

Papa Willie wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:Something tells me Duvall wouldn't be getting any attention here had he been fucking a 4 year old boy.....

Since he's a Republican, it certainly would be less surprising.

I pretty much think all pedophiles should be shot and killed on the spot without a trial.

You?

He likely would say the Dem had some issue that we all need to understand and forgive such minor transgressions.

RACK R-Jack

Papa Willie wrote:Something tells me Duvall wouldn't be getting any attention here had he been fucking a 4 year old boy.....

He'd certainly be getting all of Diego's attention

R-Jack wrote:Can we all just agree that it's nice to see Republican sex scandals retrun back to the guy/girl format?

RACK! I laughed.