Roy Ashburn

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Roy Ashburn

Postby Ragorn » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:25 am

Don't you guys ever get tired of seeing your "sanctity of marriage" crusaders busted for having gay sex?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:11 pm

yes and the affairs and the kick backs.

At least I'm not a NY Democrat. Lost 2 governors in 1 year to ethics issues?
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Ragorn » Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:29 pm

Ethics issues are a bit harder to swallow when you tout yourself as the moral majority. And Spitzer, as big a douche as he was, didn't get elected for campaigning against the exact thing he got caught doing :)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Corth » Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:56 pm

One of several thousand anonymous Republican state level politicians nobody has ever heard of and Ragorn is trying to make him the hypocritical face of the party. I suppose that's what happens when your arguments on the actual issues are deficient.

I guess it's a good thing that the Democrats never stand for any sort of traditional morality or we could paint them as hypocrites too.

I'm still looking for a democrat politician who is secretly in favor of saving the taxpayer's money instead of lavishing favor upon all sorts of special interests. Unfortunately there are no hypocrites in the democratic party as far as I can tell. :(

But seriously, Ragorn, you have nothing better to work with than this? You want to get a cheap shot in against Republicans.. fine. But who the fuck is Roy Ashburn?! :)
Last edited by Corth on Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:04 pm

Corth wrote:One of several thousand anonymous Republican state level politicians nobody has ever heard of and Ragorn is trying to make him the hypocritical face of the party. I suppose that's what happens when your arguments on the actual issues are deficient.


The Republicans wanting to legislate morality is not an issue for you, Corth?

Unfortunately there are no hypocrites in the democratic party as far as I can tell. :(


Yes, exactly.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Corth » Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:09 pm

Sarvis,

Honestly, I'm not a very big fan of the Republicans legislating morality. I'm very liberal when it comes to most social issues. I'm in favor of gay marriage, drug legalization, etc. I tend to identify more with the Republican platform because of the issue that I find most important: limited government. The democrats, at a philosophical level, support increasing the size of government, which is the antithesis of the Libertarian ideal. At least the Republicans give lip service to the idea of limited government, though they almost always fail at that as well.

My point to Ragorn, though, is that it's a pretty weak argument to take some unknown state level politician and use his indiscretion as a means of painting the entire republican party hypocritical.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Ragorn » Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:28 pm

Corth wrote:But seriously, Ragorn, you have nothing better to work with than this? You want to get a cheap shot in against Republicans.. fine. But who the fuck is Roy Ashburn?! :)

Really, my involvement on this board lately has been "find a funny article bashing Republicans and post it." I don't really have the time or motivation to continue arguing fifteen political threads a day.

My point to Ragorn, though, is that it's a pretty weak argument to take some unknown state level politician and use his indiscretion as a means of painting the entire republican party hypocritical.

I'd agree with you if Republican gay sex scandals didn't hit the news every six weeks or so. At this point, it's a cultural trend. Roy Ashburn isn't the hypocritical face of the Republican party, but maybe Larry Craig or Ted Haggard are :)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:46 pm

Corth wrote:Sarvis,

Honestly, I'm not a very big fan of the Republicans legislating morality. I'm very liberal when it comes to most social issues. I'm in favor of gay marriage, drug legalization, etc. I tend to identify more with the Republican platform because of the issue that I find most important: limited government.


Legislating morality is not limited government. In fact it is far more controlling than the Democrat's attempts to provide services.

The democrats, at a philosophical level, support increasing the size of government, which is the antithesis of the Libertarian ideal. At least the Republicans give lip service to the idea of limited government, though they almost always fail at that as well.

My point to Ragorn, though, is that it's a pretty weak argument to take some unknown state level politician and use his indiscretion as a means of painting the entire republican party hypocritical.


Even if he's just another in a long, long list?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Corth » Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:37 pm

Legislating morality is not limited government. I agree. That is why I am liberal when it comes to most social issues. I do not like government legislating morality (though I try to live my life according to traditional mores). The reason I identify more with the republicans is that as a matter of principle (though not often practice), the party is against intrusive government. The democrat party, as a matter of principle, is in favor of expansion of government.

As for another in a long list... most politicians are assholes. It's probably a job requirement. There are moral failings on both sides of the aisle. On the other hand, it effects the Republicans more because they come off as hypocrites. Democrats, like Spitzer or Edwards, just come off as scumbags. But in the end, there's a long list of both Republican and Democrats who cheat on their wives, are closet homosexuals, use hookers, etc. etc. etc.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:43 pm

Corth wrote:the party is against intrusive government.


No, they aren't. They are for intrusive government. Warrantless wiretaps, choosing who you can marry, controlling what you can watch, drink and smoke.

They may have, at one time, been for small government, but now they just say that to keep that old contingent of voters who care about small government. In recent decades they've been courting theocracy.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:03 pm

What people believe in and what they do are two completely separate things. They always have been and they always will.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Corth » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:22 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:the party is against intrusive government.


No, they aren't. They are for intrusive government. Warrantless wiretaps, choosing who you can marry, controlling what you can watch, drink and smoke.

They may have, at one time, been for small government, but now they just say that to keep that old contingent of voters who care about small government. In recent decades they've been courting theocracy.


Your quote of what I said is disingenuous, as it left out the following words that occurred immediately before it: "as a matter of principle (though not often practice)"

However, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I have been very disapointed with the Republicans in recent years. They aren't any better than the Dems most of the time. On the other hand, the dems are more intrusive in areas that I feel are more important than social issues. Taxation and expansion of entitlement programs in particular. It's a lesser of two evils sort of thing.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:32 pm

Corth wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Corth wrote:the party is against intrusive government.


No, they aren't. They are for intrusive government. Warrantless wiretaps, choosing who you can marry, controlling what you can watch, drink and smoke.

They may have, at one time, been for small government, but now they just say that to keep that old contingent of voters who care about small government. In recent decades they've been courting theocracy.


Your quote of what I said is disingenuous, as it left out the following words that occurred immediately before it: "as a matter of principle (though not often practice)"


Not really, it doesn't change your meaning or mine. They are simple not for that, in principle OR practice.

However, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I have been very disapointed with the Republicans in recent years. They aren't any better than the Dems most of the time. On the other hand, the dems are more intrusive in areas that I feel are more important than social issues. Taxation and expansion of entitlement programs in particular. It's a lesser of two evils sort of thing.


You'll have to explain for us how "entitlement programs" are more of a threat than taking away your freedoms.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Corth » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:43 pm

Yes, it did have a very different meaning. When you quote someone the purpose is to characterize their position so you can respond. By leaving out that qualifying language you mischaracterized my position. You might feel that the Republican party promotes intrusive government in both principle and practice. My belief is that as a matter of principle they are against intrusive government, but as a matter of practice they often support intrusions. You mischaracterized my position to make it sound like I was saying the Republican party is against intrusive government in both principle and practice.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:45 pm

Either way you're still dodging the main point. Why is taking away our freedoms less of a threat than creating so-called entitlement programs?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Corth » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:58 pm

Sarvis wrote:Why is taking away our freedoms less of a threat than creating so-called entitlement programs?


The whole country is effected when economic growth is curtailed because the free market is distorted. A lot fewer people are effected by, for instance, their inability to marry a gay lover, or inability to legally consume drugs. I'm totally in favor of drug legalization and gay marriage, but infringements upon the market are a much bigger threat to our nation's quality of life.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:15 pm

Corth wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Why is taking away our freedoms less of a threat than creating so-called entitlement programs?


The whole country is effected when economic growth is curtailed because the free market is distorted. A lot fewer people are effected by, for instance, their inability to marry a gay lover, or inability to legally consume drugs. I'm totally in favor of drug legalization and gay marriage, but infringements upon the market are a much bigger threat to our nation's quality of life.


How much economic growth could be fueled by legalized prostitution or marijuana sales?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Corth » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:21 pm

Some? :)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:33 pm

*pat Corth*

So the Democrats distort the free market, but the Republicans take away your freedoms AND distort the free market while lying to you about being for small government.

That about sum it up?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Corth » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:39 pm

The democrats are trying to undermine the free market. The republicans aren't trying to, but often do so anyway though incompetence and compromise. The loss of economic growth in the hookers and marijuana industries is a shade less important than the wholesale redistribution of wealth from the productive members of society to the less productive members of society that the dems are advocating. To the extent that we get any fight at all from the Republicans against the Dem big government goals, I find that they at least have some usefulness.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Sarvis » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:47 pm

Corth wrote:The democrats are trying to undermine the free market. The republicans aren't trying to,


Pipe dreams again, Corth! The Republicans want power and control, not a free market. To the extent that they advocate a free market it's because it keeps them in power. Yet they've largely tossed aside that ideal to appeal to the masses of Christians out there who fear people being able to make choices. They, of course, have done THAT because it more effectively keeps them in power.

It all goes back to Greed, Corth. They want more power and more money. They'll destroy the free market to get it. All while telling you they're preserving it.

Again Corth, free market ideals demand that the free market cannot exist. Any actor in the free market will attempt to make it less free as they perceive doing so will benefit them. This is how they MUST act, and therefore how they WILL act. The Republicans have the power to do it, too.

but often do so anyway though incompetence and compromise. The loss of economic growth in the hookers and marijuana industries is a shade less important than the wholesale redistribution of wealth from the productive members of society to the less productive members of society that the dems are advocating. To the extent that we get any fight at all from the Republicans against the Dem big government goals, I find that they at least have some usefulness.


How big of an industry is the wedding industry? How big could a gay wedding industry be?
Entire countries have economies based on selling drugs we've made illegal.
We're wasting billions if not trillions incarcerating people who have done nothing more than harm themselves through drug use.

But no, the Republicans "care about the free market."
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby kiryan » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:46 pm

lol, done nothing other than harm themselves? by harming themselves they have squandered the public education and healthcare they receive. They are consuming more services than they would if they were clean and additionally hurting future tax revenues. You're not a very good liberal Democrat if you don't understand that the American citizens are the US government's resources.

A bunch of dairy cows, take them off the pastures, feed them special "health" formulas and increase their milk production!
Callarduran
Staff Member - Admin
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The Twin Paradises of Bytopia

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Callarduran » Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:20 pm

Just remember - if the party you favor is doing something, then it is the right thing to do to protect people - it's for their own good. If the party you don't favor is doing something, then they are intruding on your rights, and are obviously evil.


As for the story with Roy? Sad that it even is a story. There are more pressing things that deserve coverage. The only reason it is a story is because he is Republican, and has voted against gay rights. Of course, the worst part of this whole thing is that his sexual orientation is even an issue to begin with.
--There needs to be a word for the irrational desire to reason with the delusional.

Oghma OOC: 'Please use me.'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:17 pm

Sarvis wrote:It all goes back to Greed, Corth. They want more power and more money.

Your argument is based on nothing. Between the two parties, one is clearly more disruptive to markets than the other. Republicans support the market as a model of wealth distribution far more than Democrats.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 pm

WTF up with Firefox lately. Keeps erasing posts on PHP and reverting back to original.

My apologies.
Last edited by Adriorn Darkcloak on Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 pm

Sarvis wrote:The Republicans want power and control, not a free market. To the extent that they advocate a free market it's because it keeps them in power.


I agree Sarvis, and so do tens of thousands of other Conservatives who completely despise what the Republican party has become. That is why the Tea Parties were created, the town hall meetings, the massive participation by right-wing citizens, etc. The politicians are a sham. Look at that POS Dede Scozzafava in NY, Arlen Spector, etc. We know it, and we're doing something about it.

But notice, I highlighted the word power. I think you're right, the Republican politicians want power, but I think you are wrong about control. I think that's what the Democrat politicians are after, control. It's the same crap regardless, but the terminology better explains what's wrong with BOTH parties.

I talk to many liberals and democrats at school (teachers of course). I'd say 90% of them are damn good people, more in the old-school definition of Democrat. 10% of them are jaded people who are angry at everything, express anti-American sentiments and express that anger by going all out radical leftist (same shit you find on the opposite end of the political spectrum also). The 90% are just political opposites of myself, good Americans who just have different points of view about government, money, etc.

In my opinion, the trouble with the Democrat party now, however, is that it has totally catered to that radical, angry (socialist/communist) 10% and has grown to almost become mostly that. (Charles Rangel, the Black Democrat Caucus that went to Cuba to say hi to Fidel, etc., the list is long) Yet we don't see the same level of criticism of BAD Democrat politicians by their own constituents as we see against BAD Republican politicians by theirs. Why?
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Ragorn » Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:08 pm

Callarduran wrote:As for the story with Roy? Sad that it even is a story. There are more pressing things that deserve coverage. The only reason it is a story is because he is Republican, and has voted against gay rights. Of course, the worst part of this whole thing is that his sexual orientation is even an issue to begin with.

When somebody makes it a focal point of his career to ensure that sexual orientation is an issue, you better believe it will continue to be an issue when his comes to light :)
Callarduran
Staff Member - Admin
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The Twin Paradises of Bytopia

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Callarduran » Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:13 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Callarduran wrote:As for the story with Roy? Sad that it even is a story. There are more pressing things that deserve coverage. The only reason it is a story is because he is Republican, and has voted against gay rights. Of course, the worst part of this whole thing is that his sexual orientation is even an issue to begin with.

When somebody makes it a focal point of his career to ensure that sexual orientation is an issue, you better believe it will continue to be an issue when his comes to light :)


Heh, maybe I should have been more clear. I agree with you - when you have a party that partly defines itself as being anti-gay, a member of said party who's voting record is entirely anti-gay, and then comes out gay? Yes, it is a story. (Please note, I'm not saying everyone who is Republican is anti-gay. I'm simply stating that the party's platform largely is.)

Now, he has come out saying that his voting record is because he was voting for his constituents, and not his own opinions. While normally I would say that this is admirable, I just don't believe him. Maybe that is a disservice to him - I don't really know, nor really care since I don't vote for him. What I think it partly boils down to is that if you have conservative ideals, and are a politician, you pretty much have to be Republican. If you are running for any office as a Republican, you can't be gay. That means hiding who you are. You can only hide things for so long - nobody is perfect, and eventually you'll slip up. Bam - instant scandal for the Republicans. Dems don't really have a problem with this scandal (they get others though!), because they don't care what you do in the bedroom.

I will restate that it is silly that this is getting airtime when there are other things to report, but I guess we can thank the 24 hour news cycle for that. :) Of course, one of the reasons I think it's silly that this is getting air time is because I'm all for gay rights, and think it's ridiculous that it's even an issue at all.
--There needs to be a word for the irrational desire to reason with the delusional.

Oghma OOC: 'Please use me.'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Corth » Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:40 pm

Log Cabin Republicans - National LGBT Republican organization.
http://online.logcabin.org/

There are plenty of openly gay republicans. The social conservatives are not the end all and be all of the party. Just like there are pro-life and pro-gun democrats.

As you mentioned, there are few openly gay republican candidates. See article below.
http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publi ... e_3717.php
Callarduran
Staff Member - Admin
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The Twin Paradises of Bytopia

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Callarduran » Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:12 pm

Agreed Corth - I was trying to not talk entirely in absolutes, but in generalities. Please take my statement as an overarching argument, not tied to specifics. Just because you belong to a party does not mean that you agree with everything the party says or does. I was just stating that on the national stage (whether your role is actually national or not), when something like this crops up it becomes a story for the Republicans, because of the general stance they take on the issue, sad though that may be.

Personally, I thought it was great about a month ago when Ryan Sorba got booed off the stage at CPAC.
--There needs to be a word for the irrational desire to reason with the delusional.

Oghma OOC: 'Please use me.'
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Ragorn » Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:08 pm

Callarduran wrote:Now, he has come out saying that his voting record is because he was voting for his constituents, and not his own opinions. While normally I would say that this is admirable, I just don't believe him.

While this is a very interesting stance to take, I agree with your assessment. Politicians are elected because their ideals are representative of the ideals of their constituents. A politician whose personal beliefs differ from the platform upon which he campaigns is a hypocrite and a phony. Your constituents want you to EMBODY their ideals, not just pay them lip service.

So he's either a hypocrite, a lousy politican, or most likely, both.

I also agree that you can't be a gay Republican and command any kind of respect within the party. The party is swayed too much by the religious right to ever embrace any kind of alternative lifestyle... hell, you can't even be a serious contender for national office if you're not married and Christian.
Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Todrael » Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:01 pm

I used to be a hypocrite.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:26 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Callarduran wrote:As for the story with Roy? Sad that it even is a story. There are more pressing things that deserve coverage. The only reason it is a story is because he is Republican, and has voted against gay rights. Of course, the worst part of this whole thing is that his sexual orientation is even an issue to begin with.

When somebody makes it a focal point of his career to ensure that sexual orientation is an issue, you better believe it will continue to be an issue when his comes to light :)

Yeah, except what you are and what you believe government should be are two different things.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Corth » Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:58 am

Too bad Eric Massa is a Democrat. Otherwise we could have named a thread after him too.

Is the Obama administration's style of backroom Chicago politics (while publically promoting transparent and open government) the Democratic equivalent of political hypocrisy?
Callarduran
Staff Member - Admin
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The Twin Paradises of Bytopia

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Callarduran » Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:10 am

Well Corth, I guess I'm still a bit fuzzy on exactly how "Chicago Politics" are any different than regular politics. :)
--There needs to be a word for the irrational desire to reason with the delusional.

Oghma OOC: 'Please use me.'
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby kiryan » Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:34 pm

its called the mob and the mobs' 1st cousin unions. all deals in chicago are backroom mob/union deals which is exactly opposite of Obama's campaign platform of hope, change, reduction in special interests control of washington and open/transparent government.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Sarvis » Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:41 pm

Must be nice to throw around random claims without feeling the need to provide proof...
Callarduran
Staff Member - Admin
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The Twin Paradises of Bytopia

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Callarduran » Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:55 pm

Here's the thing though Kiryan...that still sounds exactly like regular politics. :) My question wasn't how Obama's politics are different from regular politics.

As far as Massa goes, though, something just smells fishy with his stories from over the weekend. He's changed his stories a few times. First he was just not going to run for re-election. Then he was being forced out due to a possible ethics violation that seems minuscule - hardly anything worth talking about in the realm of Washington politics, but it's because of his "stance on the healthcare bill." Then he says that he forced himself out. Now new news about dealings with a staffer.

So far all I'm seeing is someone throwing up smokescreens for his own screwups. What I haven't seen is any proof of "Chicago Politics" in this case, other than one man's unreliable word.
--There needs to be a word for the irrational desire to reason with the delusional.

Oghma OOC: 'Please use me.'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Corth » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:27 pm

I agree with Callarduan. Massa does not come off as very reputable in his wild claims. Especially given the fact that his initial response to an ethics inquiry was to resign from Congress. In all likelihood the democrats have their own closeted homosexual predator. Though at least he isn't a hypocrite.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Ragorn » Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:02 pm

Corth wrote:I agree with Callarduan. Massa does not come off as very reputable in his wild claims. Especially given the fact that his initial response to an ethics inquiry was to resign from Congress. In all likelihood the democrats have their own closeted homosexual predator. Though at least he isn't a hypocrite.

I dunno, it kind of seems likely. It came out that he made some inappropriate comment to a staffer at an after-hours party, but no complaint was filed. I think the reason for this guy's resignation is still a roulette spin... could be gay sex, could be ethics, could be shady finances. At this point, who knows? :)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Corth » Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:10 pm

Environmental Hypocrisy!
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234674
Botef
Sojourner
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Eastern Washington
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Botef » Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:47 am

Image
Botef
Sojourner
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Eastern Washington
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Botef » Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:01 am

Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Roy Ashburn

Postby Todrael » Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:46 pm

The Daily Show pontificates on political hypocrisy regarding issues like Massa and the filibuster.

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests