What is up with this? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Superbelt · 08-30-2004, 03:51 PM

Self hating individuals. Usually on the conservative side of politics. (Please, if you know any from the liberal side post them up. I would love to know)

They have their dirty little secrets and to punish themselves for being that way, they choose to punish the rest of the nation as proxy.

Ie, Bob Barr and Gingrich persecuting Clinton for indescretions when they had pussy on the side the whole time.

Plenty of others like Bill Bennett etc.

Now we get this retarded fucking asshole.

Virginia representative Ed Shrock (r) who was co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment and opposes any rights for Gays including sanctioning sexual preference discrimination in the workplace. Has a 92% conservative rating from the Christian Coalition.

Quote:

U.S. Rep. Ed Schrock withdrew from his re-election race this afternoon, citing unspecified allegations.

"In recent weeks, allegations have surfaced that have called into question my ability to represent the citizens of Virginia's Second Congressional Distict," Shrock said in a press release.

Schrock, who would have been seeking his third term, did not elaborate on the nature of the allegations.

"After much thought and prayer, I have come to the realization that these allegations will not allow my campaign to focus on the real issues facing our nation and region," the statement said. "Therefore, as of today, I am stepping aside and will no longer be the Republican nominee for Congress in Virginia's Second Congressional District.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...982&ran=126361

The nature of the allegations? Schrock seeks out gay sex through telephone dating services. There are tapes, they were released.

link

irateplatypus · 08-30-2004, 03:58 PM

i think the difference is that none of the conservative politicians you listed had lied under oath. furthermore, the difference between rep. schrock and clinton's case is apparent. schrock is leaving public life after the disgrace while clinton is selling books.

Superbelt · 08-30-2004, 04:02 PM

You know what I'm talking about here though?

Where are the Democrats pursuing other individuals or segments of america for the very vices that they themselves are afflicted with (or perceived vices).

Is this a phenomenon utterly reserved to the conservatives or is it blooming in the liberals as well and I just can't see it?

My personal opinion is it is the culture of repression that conservatism pushes on certain people and they try to bury it out of guilt. But it's just natural to them and explodes out at inappropriate times, or degrees.

Journeyman · 08-30-2004, 04:18 PM

Clinton writing a book might have something to do with the fact that he was a two-term president of the United States of America. You think because he cheated on his wife and lied about it, people aren't interested in his life story? Who the hell is Ed Schrock, and why should I care about his life story other than this tidbit right here?

Furthermore, Ed Schrock is married. The man wanted to bring down legislation on gays like it was his own hammer of God, and now it's alleged that he's in that same boat. I don't believe for one second that if he was ever on the stand and asked about his sexual life during his marriage, he'd choose not to deny any gay encounters. Purjering and the readiness to purjer are a matter of circumstances.

irateplatypus · 08-30-2004, 04:39 PM

yes, i know presidents write books. it was a hyperbolic riposte to illustrate the differences between the situations that superbelt seemed to equate in his first post.

superbelt - i understand what you're trying to get at. forgive my flippancy. hypocrisy on either side of the aisle concerns me. i feel that many republican officials dress themselves in morality simply to cater to voters... not because they feel the need to measure up to those standards themselves.

but just because conservatives don't always hold up to their ideals doesn't mean that those ideals are the ones we should strive for and expect from our officials. this really could evolve into a great discussion about the need (or excess) of moral obligations in public life.

if we, ourselves, are unable to measure to our ideals... are we unfit for public office if we fight for those ideals though we're far short of them?

i truly believe that rep schrock believed his legislation was moral in his mind. like superbelt said, i'm sure he hated the part of himself that made him a hypocrite... but that doesn't necessarily make his cause less just.

the issue of gay marriage has so much baggage, i think it'd be difficult to discuss this issue in particular from this perspective. we shall see.

Superbelt · 08-30-2004, 04:52 PM

No, Schrock didn't just dress up. He is/was actively into aggressively persecuting homosexuality. He could have just gone along with everything with his vote to be dressed up. This guy was sponsoring bills and speaking out against gays. There is something very different there, and something very very wrong about it.

What this guy was doing was hating himself so severely he was willing to take it out on the rest of the country.
Just like Bob Barr, just like Newt, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes. Just like Bennett, just like Limbaugh (Divorce, no children-Sancity of Marriage). Just like countless others who did this and turned out to be the same thing they were persecuting.

It's something messed up and as yet I am convinced it only happens on one side of the aisle. It's hypocracy.

Superbelt · 08-30-2004, 05:08 PM

George Will cheated on his wife with another conservative columnist

Helen Chenoweth cheated at the same time she was urging people to get out and vote in godly men to charge this country

Jesse Helms had his own "Jezebel" as he liked to call Monica

Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, no description needed.

Matt Gavin of the Family Research Council, head of ex-gay ministry. Famous for railing against gays in the scouts. Found in gay bar. Busted twice in national parks fondling a ranger.

Rush, again. Loves Paris, french wines. He said this in Cigar Afficionado. Now he just calls them pussies and every other slur and says it like he has always held that view.

Really, you might be able to pick out a democrat or two with some questionable practices. But this is endemic of high profile Republicans.

Seaver · 08-30-2004, 05:28 PM

[/QUOTE]Please, if you know any from the liberal side post them up. I would love to know[QUOTE]

All those damn Hollywood liberals. I could post a laundry list, but the biggest one is Barbra Streisand (dont care about her enough to spell it right). Dont have any links present but I do remember hearing her tell the country not to use Air Conditioning because it uses too much electrisity... Now this wouldnt offend me but think how much her multi-million dollar homeS (plural) take up. And I seriously doubt she turns off the AC whether she's there or not. I'd like her to come to Texas and tell me to turn off my AC.

Superbelt · 08-30-2004, 05:38 PM

You could use a link on that one. And if it is true, you found one of a few, against the legion.

And don't forget that she shapes american policy to the zero power. She gets used by some people for money and that's about it. Everyone I mentioned has influence.

filtherton · 08-30-2004, 05:38 PM

They're overcompensating. It's just like homophobia in general. The more passionately homophobic someone is the more likely they are to actually be a homosexual. It's either about punishing yourself or mistakenly believing that working directly against what is in your nature will somehow alter your nature. Although it doesn't always apply. If it did, our president would have to be a closeted poor or middle class inner-city homosexual terrorist.

smooth · 08-30-2004, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

You could use a link on that one. And if it is true, you found one of a few, against the legion.

And don't forget that she shapes american policy to the zero power. She gets used by some people for money and that's about it. Everyone I mentioned has influence.

superbelt, I can't even believe you bothered to answer that!

What would you like to know is true:

1) Whether she actually told the nation not to use air conditioning

2) Whether she actually has more than one multi-million dollar homes

3) Whether she actually uses air conditioning in any of them

I mean, the whole post was like...well you know what it was like! I guess a kind description would be silly.

I'm kinda tempted to ask for the laundry list, actually. But if you produce it, Seaver, please post some facts with it like superbelt did instead of leaving it at your memory of some comments coupled with what you suspect goes on in someone's home.

sprocket · 08-30-2004, 06:01 PM

This is on both sides of the fence superbelt. Its the same.... but different.

Democratic/Liberals in power are the self hating rich. They hate themselves because they have money. They overcompensate by demonizing anyone that is too financially successful.

Either way, I think all the focus on this sort of thing generally leads nowhere. Turns polotics into a "He said, She said" back and forth bullshit side show that isnt even fit for a soap opera. But unfortunately, this kind of thing is all you hear about in the mainstream media.

Superbelt · 08-30-2004, 06:22 PM

I personally believe the rich liberal politicians (95% of federal politicians) are motivated by the desire to strenghten our weakest links. Thats our difference of opinion I guess

Still, it's a flimsy argument you made of self-hating rich. Especially compared to clear infidelities and closet homosexuals as I have highlighted.

filtherton · 08-30-2004, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

This is on both sides of the fence superbelt. Its the same.... but different.

Democratic/Liberals in power are the self hating rich. They hate themselves because they have money. They overcompensate by demonizing anyone that is too financially successful.

I don't think they are self hating as much as they see that the good of all of society is in their best interest as human beings. They don't think that being rich gives them a license to tell the rest of the world to fuck off.

sprocket · 08-30-2004, 06:42 PM

So on the liberal side its all philanthropy, and on the conservative side its all self loathing manifested to almost a psychotic level? I guess I just cant see how anyone conservative or liberal a like continue to myopically view THEIR side of the fence as the one that has all the good guys on it.

MSD · 08-30-2004, 06:56 PM

Politicians say what they need to say to get votes. It's that simple. That's why people keep voting the idiots into power, they don't think enough.

filtherton · 08-30-2004, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

So on the liberal side its all philanthropy, and on the conservative side its all self loathing manifested to almost a psychotic level? I guess I just cant see how anyone conservative or liberal a like continue to myopically view THEIR side of the fence as the one that has all the good guys on it.

I'm speaking generally here. This thread isn't about all conservatives, it is about the few who compulsively attempt to publicly censure and sanction groups of people whom they secretly belong to. For the record, i think there are just as many fucked up liberals as there are fucked up conservatives, i just didn't agree with your general comparison. Rich liberals generally aren't "in the closet" about their wealth and so can't really play that game in that way. A more appropriate example would be of an environmentalist having a secret love of fine mink coats or a pacifist having a secret habit of kicking puppies.

irateplatypus · 08-30-2004, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

A more appropriate example would be of an environmentalist having a secret love of fine mink coats or a pacifist having a secret habit of kicking puppies.

i genuinely laughed out loud on that one. good times.

08-30-2004, 03:58 PM	#2 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i think the difference is that none of the conservative politicians you listed had lied under oath. furthermore, the difference between rep. schrock and clinton's case is apparent. schrock is leaving public life after the disgrace while clinton is selling books. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-30-2004, 04:18 PM	#4 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	Clinton writing a book might have something to do with the fact that he was a two-term president of the United States of America. You think because he cheated on his wife and lied about it, people aren't interested in his life story? Who the hell is Ed Schrock, and why should I care about his life story other than this tidbit right here? Furthermore, Ed Schrock is married. The man wanted to bring down legislation on gays like it was his own hammer of God, and now it's alleged that he's in that same boat. I don't believe for one second that if he was ever on the stand and asked about his sexual life during his marriage, he'd choose not to deny any gay encounters. Purjering and the readiness to purjer are a matter of circumstances. Last edited by Journeyman; 08-30-2004 at 04:22 PM..

08-30-2004, 04:39 PM	#5 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	yes, i know presidents write books. it was a hyperbolic riposte to illustrate the differences between the situations that superbelt seemed to equate in his first post. superbelt - i understand what you're trying to get at. forgive my flippancy. hypocrisy on either side of the aisle concerns me. i feel that many republican officials dress themselves in morality simply to cater to voters... not because they feel the need to measure up to those standards themselves. but just because conservatives don't always hold up to their ideals doesn't mean that those ideals are the ones we should strive for and expect from our officials. this really could evolve into a great discussion about the need (or excess) of moral obligations in public life. if we, ourselves, are unable to measure to our ideals... are we unfit for public office if we fight for those ideals though we're far short of them? i truly believe that rep schrock believed his legislation was moral in his mind. like superbelt said, i'm sure he hated the part of himself that made him a hypocrite... but that doesn't necessarily make his cause less just. the issue of gay marriage has so much baggage, i think it'd be difficult to discuss this issue in particular from this perspective. we shall see. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-30-2004, 04:52 PM	#6 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	No, Schrock didn't just dress up. He is/was actively into aggressively persecuting homosexuality. He could have just gone along with everything with his vote to be dressed up. This guy was sponsoring bills and speaking out against gays. There is something very different there, and something very very wrong about it. What this guy was doing was hating himself so severely he was willing to take it out on the rest of the country. Just like Bob Barr, just like Newt, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes. Just like Bennett, just like Limbaugh (Divorce, no children-Sancity of Marriage). Just like countless others who did this and turned out to be the same thing they were persecuting. It's something messed up and as yet I am convinced it only happens on one side of the aisle. It's hypocracy. Last edited by Superbelt; 08-30-2004 at 04:54 PM..

08-30-2004, 06:01 PM	#12 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	This is on both sides of the fence superbelt. Its the same.... but different. Democratic/Liberals in power are the self hating rich. They hate themselves because they have money. They overcompensate by demonizing anyone that is too financially successful. Either way, I think all the focus on this sort of thing generally leads nowhere. Turns polotics into a "He said, She said" back and forth bullshit side show that isnt even fit for a soap opera. But unfortunately, this kind of thing is all you hear about in the mainstream media. __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are. Last edited by sprocket; 08-30-2004 at 06:08 PM..

08-30-2004, 04:02 PM	#3 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	You know what I'm talking about here though? Where are the Democrats pursuing other individuals or segments of america for the very vices that they themselves are afflicted with (or perceived vices). Is this a phenomenon utterly reserved to the conservatives or is it blooming in the liberals as well and I just can't see it? My personal opinion is it is the culture of repression that conservatism pushes on certain people and they try to bury it out of guilt. But it's just natural to them and explodes out at inappropriate times, or degrees.

08-30-2004, 05:08 PM	#7 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	George Will cheated on his wife with another conservative columnist Helen Chenoweth cheated at the same time she was urging people to get out and vote in godly men to charge this country Jesse Helms had his own "Jezebel" as he liked to call Monica Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, no description needed. Matt Gavin of the Family Research Council, head of ex-gay ministry. Famous for railing against gays in the scouts. Found in gay bar. Busted twice in national parks fondling a ranger. Rush, again. Loves Paris, french wines. He said this in Cigar Afficionado. Now he just calls them pussies and every other slur and says it like he has always held that view. Really, you might be able to pick out a democrat or two with some questionable practices. But this is endemic of high profile Republicans.

08-30-2004, 05:28 PM	#8 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	[/QUOTE]Please, if you know any from the liberal side post them up. I would love to know[QUOTE] All those damn Hollywood liberals. I could post a laundry list, but the biggest one is Barbra Streisand (dont care about her enough to spell it right). Dont have any links present but I do remember hearing her tell the country not to use Air Conditioning because it uses too much electrisity... Now this wouldnt offend me but think how much her multi-million dollar homeS (plural) take up. And I seriously doubt she turns off the AC whether she's there or not. I'd like her to come to Texas and tell me to turn off my AC.

08-30-2004, 05:38 PM	#9 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	You could use a link on that one. And if it is true, you found one of a few, against the legion. And don't forget that she shapes american policy to the zero power. She gets used by some people for money and that's about it. Everyone I mentioned has influence.

08-30-2004, 05:38 PM	#10 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	They're overcompensating. It's just like homophobia in general. The more passionately homophobic someone is the more likely they are to actually be a homosexual. It's either about punishing yourself or mistakenly believing that working directly against what is in your nature will somehow alter your nature. Although it doesn't always apply. If it did, our president would have to be a closeted poor or middle class inner-city homosexual terrorist.

08-30-2004, 06:22 PM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I personally believe the rich liberal politicians (95% of federal politicians) are motivated by the desire to strenghten our weakest links. Thats our difference of opinion I guess Still, it's a flimsy argument you made of self-hating rich. Especially compared to clear infidelities and closet homosexuals as I have highlighted.

08-30-2004, 06:42 PM	#15 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	So on the liberal side its all philanthropy, and on the conservative side its all self loathing manifested to almost a psychotic level? I guess I just cant see how anyone conservative or liberal a like continue to myopically view THEIR side of the fence as the one that has all the good guys on it. __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

08-30-2004, 06:56 PM	#16 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Politicians say what they need to say to get votes. It's that simple. That's why people keep voting the idiots into power, they don't think enough.