PDA

View Full Version : GOP “pro-traditional family” candidate- polygomy, spousal abuse, unpaid child support


jAZ
06-02-2006, 10:02 PM
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060602-9999-7m2galley.html

By Caitlin Rother
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
June 2, 2006

Republican Jim Galley, who is running for Congress as a “pro-traditional family” candidate, was married to two women at the same time, defaulted on his child support payments and has been accused of abuse by one of his ex-wives.

The San Diego Union-Tribune discovered the personal history in making public-records checks on Galley, who is making his fourth run for elective office in four years. These checks are part of the newspaper's election reporting process.

Galley married his second wife, Beth, in 1982 when, unbeknownst to her, he was still married to his first wife, Terry. Beth and Galley divorced in 1990 after she sought a restraining order alleging abuse.

The child support was owed to his first wife.

Galley said the contemporaneous marriages were a mistake because he thought his first divorce had been completed. He said the child support default was only for a few months and that the abuse allegation was made only to get him out of the house.

Before launching his campaign for the 51st Congressional District seat, the San Diego water treatment operator ran unsuccessfully for the San Diego City Council in 2002 and 2004 and a state Senate seat in 2004.

Although Galley, 50, has never held elective office, his campaign Web site says he is endorsed in Tuesday's primary election by a number of current and former Republican elected officials from San Diego County.

They include former Rep. Brian Bilbray, who is running to replace imprisoned former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham in the 50th District; former Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian; El Cajon Councilman Bob McClellan; and Assemblymen George Plescia and Mark Wyland. The site says Bruce Ruff, who is challenging Sheriff Bill Kolender, has also endorsed him.

Rep. Bob Filner, who has held the 51st District seat since 1992, is running against two fellow Democrats, Assemblyman Juan Vargas and Daniel “Danny” Ramirez, a Calexico businessman.

Galley's Republican opponent is Blake Miles, a teacher from El Centro. Dan “Frodo” Litwin, a San Diego software project manager, is the sole Libertarian in the race.

The district includes southern sections of San Diego, plus Chula Vista and National City, and stretches eastward along the border to encompass all of Imperial County.

Terry and Galley had been separated for about seven months when he married Beth in February 1982.

Terry said she filed for divorce but the papers her Legal Aid attorney sent for Galley's signature weren't returned. When Galley's mother told Terry that he had remarried, Terry said she called to remind him they were still married and asked him to sign the divorce papers.

The divorce was final in July 1983, 17 months after he had married Beth. (Galley and Beth married again in a confidential ceremony in August 1984.)

Terry said she went on welfare after she separated from Galley in July 1981. She provided Michigan court records to show Galley defaulted on support payments for their two children in the 1980s, which forced the Michigan welfare system to obtain the money through legal proceedings.

When asked about the child support, Galley first said he was only in default for several months because of a back injury. He later acknowledged that money was garnisheed from his paychecks for four years but said it was because of a billing mix-up and his money was ultimately refunded.

However, Beth, who is now Beth Bradford and lives in Santee, said Galley told her he couldn't afford the support payments to Terry because he was supporting Beth's two children.

Galley said that when he married Beth, “I had honestly thought that my divorce had gone through on the first marriage.”

Galley is married to his third wife, Carol.

In addition to his “pro-traditional family” stance, Galley promotes his belief in a “strong military.”

During interviews, Galley has touted his military service as an advantage over other candidates in the congressional race, saying he was drafted by the Navy during the Vietnam War. His Web site states, “I was drafted it (sic) to the Navy, serviced my time,” and then later joined the Army.

Galley's military records, obtained by the Union-Tribune through a Freedom of Information Act request, show he started his Navy service April 29, 1974, and was discharged less than six weeks later, while in “recruit training.”

Navy spokesman Lt. William Marks said the Navy stopped the draft July 1, 1973, nine months before Galley started his Navy service.

When asked about the discrepancy, Galley insisted that he was drafted, saying he was notified partway through training camp that the Navy had a “reduction in force” and no longer needed him.

Navy officials said privacy laws prevent them from saying whether Galley was drafted or volunteered. They also said they couldn't comment on the reason for his discharge. Marks would only say that Galley's explanations are “plausible.”

After serving in the Navy, Galley's Web site states, he went to work for General Motors, and then “because of massive layoffs in the '70s I enlisted into the Army.” His records show he did not enter the Army until February 1981. He left the Army in December 1984.

His explanation for this discrepancy: “I got the dates wrong.”

In February 1988, while Galley, Beth and her two teenage children were living in Lemon Grove, court records show that she obtained a temporary restraining order against Galley. She alleged in court records that she filed for the order after he repeatedly punched and kicked her, slapped her son twice and threatened to kill a neighbor.

“He used to only hit me and now he is hitting my children. I'm very scared of what my husband is capable of,” Beth wrote.

Galley said he never saw the court records. He also said her accusations are false. He said she filed the papers just to get him removed from the house.

Beth believes voters should know how Galley's personal history contradicts the foundation of his campaign. She started trying to bring attention to her ex-husband's past to state and federal elected officials when she learned he was running for office in 2004.

“What galls me the most, one that he has the . . . (nerve) to do this, thinking that he could get away with this and he has for all these years,” she said. “(And two) that he's got people believing in him.”

cdcox
06-02-2006, 10:45 PM
So which is it:

a) you routinely post cases where Democrats are hypocrites
b) Democrats are never hypocrites
c) You're a hypocrite

jAZ
06-02-2006, 11:16 PM
So which is it:

a) you routinely post cases where Democrats are hypocrites
b) Democrats are never hypocrites
c) You're a hypocrite
Yeah, sorry... Bill Clinton and his "moral values" campaign of 96. I forgot about that.

:shake:

My bad.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-02-2006, 11:45 PM
So which is it:

a) you routinely post cases where Democrats are hypocrites
b) Democrats are never hypocrites
c) You're a hypocrite

This definitely seems like the right thread to mount a strong defense :spock:

Mr. Kotter
06-03-2006, 12:14 AM
Yeah, sorry... Bill Clinton and his "moral values" campaign of 96. I forgot about that.

:shake:

My bad.

Heh. You don't remember his "Covenant" with the American people speeches? Hilarious he can't keep his covenant with his own wife, if he's gonna spew that garbage....ROFL

patteeu
06-03-2006, 07:15 AM
I would say that if you are pro-traditional family values you probably shouldn't vote for this guy...


or for many (most?) democrats. :p

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 07:35 AM
Hilarious he can't keep his covenant with his own wife, if he's gonna spew that garbage....ROFL

Hilarious is a good word for a union with Hillary.
My understanding, is that Bill & Hill have a marriage of convenience for the sake of power. They both have their affairs, and accept it. In fact she's had more with men and women. She's well known up on the hill to be bi. Their TV act is just that...public relations to pander to the public.

unlurking
06-03-2006, 09:30 AM
The important thing from this article, is to reconize the LP candidate and vote for Frodo!

"One ring to rule them all!!!!'

:D

Mr. Kotter
06-03-2006, 09:31 AM
Hilarious is a good word for a union with Hillary.
My understanding, is that Bill & Hill have a marriage of convenience for the sake of power. They both have their affairs, and accept it. In fact she's had more with men and women. She's well known up on the hill to be bi. Their TV act is just that...public relations to pander to the public.

It wouldn't surprise me, in the least. However, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. The only thing that's been clearly established thus far is that he is a philanderer.

go bowe
06-03-2006, 02:18 PM
Hilarious is a good word for a union with Hillary.
My understanding, is that Bill & Hill have a marriage of convenience for the sake of power. They both have their affairs, and accept it. In fact she's had more with men and women. She's well known up on the hill to be bi. Their TV act is just that...public relations to pander to the public.hey, there's no need to malign bi-sexual women everywhere...

seriously, if hillary were bi-sexual, don't you think that carl rove and the republican character assassination teams would be on that issue like stink on shit?

go bowe
06-03-2006, 02:21 PM
It wouldn't surprise me, in the least. However, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. The only thing that's been clearly established thus far is that he is a philanderer.philanderer, huh?

when did you start using 50 cent words? :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 02:37 PM
hey, there's no need to malign bi-sexual women everywhere...

seriously, if hillary were bi-sexual, don't you think that carl rove and the republican character assassination teams would be on that issue like stink on shit?

Not maligning bi women everywhere. Just that Bill & Hill's relationship exists on a different basis. They're not a traditional family.

Also, I certainly don't expect the "mainstream" media to cover it no... nor the RHINO's. It would be bad Public Relations imo.

But it's actually been in some conservative press since the early nineties even.
Specialized publications...such as her being caught in bed with Markie Post accidentally by someone who worked there.

Remember the former FBI agent, that retired, who was a non-partisan who wrote one book... Unlimited Access-Gary Aldrich (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895264064/104-9539864-8648760?v=glance&n=283155).
Hillary wanted gays in key job positions.

It was also in some investment news areas as I recall as well. My gf has a PR firm that did work for them ( I forget the name) and she knew one of the men who reported it that she had affairs too with both men and women. It was actually a well known well accepted fact on the hill per this source. Vince Foster was her lover.

Look at some of Hillary's friends from college who were placed into certain positions. They're obviously dykes. She's the one who drove the gay issue.Not saying they can't get certain positions but it just seems these were her buds to support that she could easily be "bi."

Seems to match the stories that another gf of mine told me, about Hilarious. This gf dated a SS agent at that time. Hilarious positively despised the military too. Threw things at them even among other things. He also thought she was bi.

Mr. Kotter
06-03-2006, 02:39 PM
philanderer, huh?

when did you start using 50 cent words? :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

I know it's a bit archaic....but adulterer seems a bit too judgemental, given our society, even if it's true. :p

banyon
06-03-2006, 04:40 PM
Blasting off...

They both have their affairs, and accept it. In fact she's had more with men and women. She's well known up on the hill to be bi.

...and backing up...

Look at some of Hillary's friends from college who were placed into certain positions. They're obviously dykes. She's the one who drove the gay issue.Not saying they can't get certain positions but it just seems these were her buds to support that she could easily be "bi.".

ROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-03-2006, 04:45 PM
Not maligning bi women everywhere. Just that Bill & Hill's relationship exists on a different basis. They're not a traditional family.

Also, I certainly don't expect the "mainstream" media to cover it no... nor the RHINO's. It would be bad Public Relations imo.

But it's actually been in some conservative press since the early nineties even.
Specialized publications...such as her being caught in bed with Markie Post accidentally by someone who worked there.

Remember the former FBI agent, that retired, who was a non-partisan who wrote one book... Unlimited Access-Gary Aldrich (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895264064/104-9539864-8648760?v=glance&n=283155).
Hillary wanted gays in key job positions.

It was also in some investment news areas as I recall as well. My gf has a PR firm that did work for them ( I forget the name) and she knew one of the men who reported it that she had affairs too with both men and women. It was actually a well known well accepted fact on the hill per this source. Vince Foster was her lover.

Look at some of Hillary's friends from college who were placed into certain positions. They're obviously dykes. She's the one who drove the gay issue.Not saying they can't get certain positions but it just seems these were her buds to support that she could easily be "bi."

Seems to match the stories that another gf of mine told me, about Hilarious. This gf dated a SS agent at that time. Hilarious positively despised the military too. Threw things at them even among other things. He also thought she was bi.

Now this is some preposterous shit. The Republicans would spend tens of millions to impeach Clinton on a trumped up charge, but wouldn't find it convenient to excavate the fact that his wife is bisexual?? Give me a break.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 07:38 PM
Now this is some preposterous shit. The Republicans would spend tens of millions to impeach Clinton on a trumped up charge, but wouldn't find it convenient to excavate the fact that his wife is bisexual?? Give me a break.
In your opinion.

go bowe
06-03-2006, 07:42 PM
Not maligning bi women everywhere. Just that Bill & Hill's relationship exists on a different basis. They're not a traditional family.

Also, I certainly don't expect the "mainstream" media to cover it no... nor the RHINO's. It would be bad Public Relations imo.

But it's actually been in some conservative press since the early nineties even.
Specialized publications...such as her being caught in bed with Markie Post accidentally by someone who worked there.

Remember the former FBI agent, that retired, who was a non-partisan who wrote one book... Unlimited Access-Gary Aldrich (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895264064/104-9539864-8648760?v=glance&n=283155).
Hillary wanted gays in key job positions.

It was also in some investment news areas as I recall as well. My gf has a PR firm that did work for them ( I forget the name) and she knew one of the men who reported it that she had affairs too with both men and women. It was actually a well known well accepted fact on the hill per this source. Vince Foster was her lover.

Look at some of Hillary's friends from college who were placed into certain positions. They're obviously dykes. She's the one who drove the gay issue.Not saying they can't get certain positions but it just seems these were her buds to support that she could easily be "bi."

Seems to match the stories that another gf of mine told me, about Hilarious. This gf dated a SS agent at that time. Hilarious positively despised the military too. Threw things at them even among other things. He also thought she was bi.ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

go bowe
06-03-2006, 07:45 PM
Now this is some preposterous shit. The Republicans would spend tens of millions to impeach Clinton on a trumped up charge, but wouldn't find it convenient to excavate the fact that his wife is bisexual?? Give me a break.no, no...

it's been in the conservative press for years...

you just haven't been paying close enough attention... :p :p :p

BucEyedPea
06-03-2006, 07:52 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Did you read Aldrich's book?

I did.


Don't forget that RHINO's are not conservatives.

Adept Havelock
06-04-2006, 12:17 AM
Frankly, I could care less if Hillary was a cross eyed Chinese Bisexual Jew... :shrug:

The sexual orientation of politicos is utterly irrelevant to their ability to be a leader, IMO.

That said, I wouldn't vote for her....

BucEyedPea
06-04-2006, 10:55 PM
Frankly, I could care less if Hillary was a cross eyed Chinese Bisexual Jew... :shrug:

The sexual orientation of politicos is utterly irrelevant to their ability to be a leader, IMO.

That said, I wouldn't vote for her....

I agree. I wouldn't vote for her because of her policies.
It was more out of human interest to me that her marriage was one based on convenience, for power. I just don't buy the Public Relations on her standing by her man is all. I think it's an act. Just sharing an opinion on it.

Bootlegged
06-05-2006, 07:42 AM
By Dani Dodge
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
June 3, 2006

If an election can turn on a sentence, this could be the one: “You don't need papers for voting.”

On Thursday night, Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate for the 50th Congressional District, was speaking before a largely Latino crowd in Escondido when she uttered those words. She said yesterday she simply misspoke.

But someone taped it and a recording began circulating yesterday. After she made that statement at the meeting, Busby immediately said: “You don't need to be a registered voter to help (the campaign).”
She said that subsequent statement was to clarify what she meant.

The recording, which was played yesterday on Roger Hedgecock's radio talk show, jolted the campaign.

Busby, a Cardiff school board member, is in a tight race with Republican Brian Bilbray, a congressman-turned-lobbyist, who has based his campaign on a tough anti-illegal-immigration stance. Busby has focused her campaign on ethics reform. The two are vying to replace Randy “Duke” Cunningham, who was jailed after pleading guilty to taking bribes.

Busby said she was invited to the forum at the Jocelyn Senior Center in Escondido by the leader of a local soccer league. Many of the 50 or so people there were Spanish speakers. Toward the end, a man in the audience asked in Spanish: “I want to help, but I don't have papers.”

It was translated and Busby replied: “Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help.”

Bilbray said at worst, Busby was encouraging someone to vote illegally. At best, she was encouraging someone who is illegally in the country to work on her campaign.

“She's soliciting illegal aliens to campaign for her and it's on tape – this isn't exactly what you call the pinnacle of ethical campaign strategy,” Bilbray said. “I don't know how she shows her face.”

The two later met in a debate in Carlsbad last night.

Earlier, San Diego Minutemen volunteer Anthony Porrello said he got the tape from an an anonymous Minuteman and passed it on to the news media and talk radio. News of the gathering had circulated among local Minutemen before the meeting, according to William Griffith, the independent candidate in the race who has been endorsed by the San Diego Minutemen.

He attended, but did not hear the statement. He said he was in the back of the room.

“I heard what I expected to hear from a Democrat who supports amnesty,” he said. Busby says she doesn't support amnesty, but backs the comprehensive plan pushed by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that includes opening a path to citizenship for people in the United States illegally if they pay penalties and abide by certain conditions.

Busby said that Republicans are now twisting her words. She does not in any way support or advocate that illegal immigrants vote, she said.

“I was clarifying the question that was being asked in Spanish and then stated that you do not have to be a registered voter to help the campaign because there were many people who appeared to be to be under 18 in the group who wanted to volunteer,” she said in a statement. “I'm not surprised that the Republican Party is making this last-minute, desperate ploy and it is absolutely false.”

go bowe
06-05-2006, 11:34 AM
By Dani Dodge
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
June 3, 2006

* * *

Busby said she was invited to the forum at the Jocelyn Senior Center in Escondido by the leader of a local soccer league. Many of the 50 or so people there were Spanish speakers. Toward the end, a man in the audience asked in Spanish: “I want to help, but I don't have papers.”

It was translated and Busby replied: “Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help.”

Bilbray said at worst, Busby was encouraging someone to vote illegally. At best, she was encouraging someone who is illegally in the country to work on her campaign.

* * *

“I was clarifying the question that was being asked in Spanish and then stated that you do not have to be a registered voter to help the campaign because there were many people who appeared to be to be under 18 in the group who wanted to volunteer,” she said in a statement. “I'm not surprised that the Republican Party is making this last-minute, desperate ploy and it is absolutely false.”i don't know about you (the rhetorical you), but this seems like an obvious case of bullshit...

a man with no papers asks if HE can help with the campaign...

she says yes...

the point being made by the other guy, besides her misstatement about voting, was that she was encouraging illegals to work on her campaign...

but then she claims she meant people under 18 who wanted to help with the campaign...

but the answer was to a guestion from a man with no papers...

did she miss that part?

or is it bullshit (what jaz would call a lie, if you will)...

rhetorically speaking...

jAZ
06-05-2006, 02:27 PM
i don't know about you (the rhetorical you), but this seems like an obvious case of bullshit...

a man with no papers asks if HE can help with the campaign...

she says yes...

the point being made by the other guy, besides her misstatement about voting, was that she was encouraging illegals to work on her campaign...

but then she claims she meant people under 18 who wanted to help with the campaign...

but the answer was to a guestion from a man with no papers...

did she miss that part?

or is it bullshit (what jaz would call a lie, if you will)...

rhetorically speaking...
Sounds to me like at least part of what she was doing with her response was to reframe the question in a way that would make it more appropriate for her to answer directly.

Is it BS? Yes.

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to solicit illegal votes in front of a public audience. So that part is also BS.

alpha_omega
06-05-2006, 03:30 PM
She alleged in court records that she filed for the order after he repeatedly punched and kicked her, slapped her son twice and threatened to kill a neighbor.


They probably had it coming! :p

BucEyedPea
06-05-2006, 07:51 PM
Blasting off...
...and backing up...



Originally appeared in Strategic Investment Newsletter and I remember seeing it. It is Republican however…so say what you will about the source.

This is the closest mention of it that I could find. I know nothing about these people though. http://mediamatters.org/items/200406300002


Wheeler wrote of Bill Clinton's memoir:

All of that stuff about Hillary being mad, making him sleep on the couch, going to marriage counselors for a year, yada yada, is all made up. They have had a pact for decades: He gets to fool around with women, and she gets to fool around with women (plus the occasional man like Vince Foster).

Yes, she's bisexual -- I disclosed that in an infamous Strategic Investment column in January 1993, and Dick Morris publicly revealed it a few years ago. You knew that, right?



http://lesbianstudies.com/oldsite/hillary.htm
President Clinton's former lover, Gennifer Flowers writes in her book "Passion & Betrayal" of Bill confessing to her that Hillary sleeps with more woman than he does.


“Unlimited Access:” Career FBI officer, Gary Aldrich was at the pinnacle of his career. One of his responsibilities was to do the background checks on White House staff and advisors. At almost every turn, he was stonewalled and not allowed to do even perfunctory checks of Clinton's friends and associates.

When Aldrich viewed the White House Christmas tree, only to discover that the majority of the "ornaments" were sex toys. [ Actually the whole description of this scene is pretty funny…but on the White House tree?]--from Reviewss at amazon.com


My point is that she is insincere.
Does it carry-over?

Hillary Like to have things both ways (http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1536799/posts)
The right knows that she is, at best, an unreliable ally and, at worst, an insincere one. The left will not accept anything less than full-out opposition to the war.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2006, 08:09 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/adv/hillary/index.cfm?refid=1216

"a look at the lying, manipulating, dishonest – and extremely dysfunctional – former first lady who has been on an inexorable march to the Oval Office for over 30 years."


The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and his wife, Liz, despised Hillary…

"Both the Senator and his wife, Liz, went 'after' Hillary for her years of lies, deceptions and exaggerations. Clearly there was no love lost between the Moynihans and Hillary Rodham Clinton.


The Truth About Hillary-Klein (http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/showdetl.cfm?DID=6&Product_ID=1918&af_id=1216)

• How the culture of lesbianism at Wellesley College shaped Hillary’s politics. [She’s a feminist but rides into power on her husband’s coat tails?]

• What she really knew early on about Monica Lewinsky and hid from the country.

• How her image makeover as a moderate senator is a sham.

Mr. Laz
06-06-2006, 11:05 AM
does the GOP's tradition family values plan include a penis sucking president?

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 11:09 AM
does the GOP's tradition family values plan include a penis sucking president?
Does the suggestion that a Republican is gay cost the Republicans more votes than the eventual realization that the Democrats have as much or more disdain for homosexuality as anyone else costs them?

banyon
06-06-2006, 12:24 PM
Wow, BEP. I haven't seen anyone trot out Newsmax as a source since recxjake. Thanks, that was hilarious. LMAO ROFL

banyon
06-06-2006, 12:26 PM
Does the suggestion that a Republican is gay cost the Republicans more votes than the eventual realization that the Democrats have as much or more disdain for homosexuality as anyone else costs them?

Do you not believe that the demographics bear out that Republican voters would be less willing to support a gay candidate? Just trying to clarify.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 01:06 PM
Wow, BEP. I haven't seen anyone trot out Newsmax as a source since recxjake. Thanks, that was hilarious. LMAO ROFL

You wanted backup...that's all that came up in Google.
I never claimed a link was proof. Everyone has their own sources they believe are credible. I never read Newsmax.

But Strategic Investment is considered a prestigious newsletter to many.
Too bad they no longer have the story. I remember it.

Anyhow, I just have to take one look at Hillary's operating basis to know she's an actress and will do anything for power. Then again she's not unlike most politicians just better at it. She CAN'T run on what she really is or stand for at all. People do have a right to know.

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 01:14 PM
Do you not believe that the demographics bear out that Republican voters would be less willing to support a gay candidate? Just trying to clarify.
Do I think there are individuals who vote Republican who would refuse to vote for a gay person?
Of course, but that wasn't the point I was making. Go back and read it.

The only analogy I can come up with is for the likes of Pat Robertson's followers dissing some Democrat for being 'gasp!!' Pro-Life!!!

Doesn't hit the ear well, and if you heard it youd question the genuineness of their support of the right to life position.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 01:19 PM
The only analogy I can come up with is for the likes of Pat Robertson's followers dissing some Democrat for being 'gasp!!' Pro-Life!!!

ROFL

banyon
06-06-2006, 02:04 PM
Do I think there are individuals who vote Republican who would refuse to vote for a gay person?
Of course, but that wasn't the point I was making. Go back and read it.

The only analogy I can come up with is for the likes of Pat Robertson's followers dissing some Democrat for being 'gasp!!' Pro-Life!!!

Doesn't hit the ear well, and if you heard it youd question the genuineness of their support of the right to life position.

If it were a Democrat who ran on a platform of Women's Rights and catering to NOW and their desires, then it would be directly analagous and likely be lambasted for the same appearance of hypocrisy that it would represent.

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 02:19 PM
If it were a Democrat who ran on a platform of Women's Rights and catering to NOW and their desires, then it would be directly analagous and likely be lambasted for the same appearance of hypocrisy that it would represent.
Oh COME ON!! It's becoming increasingly clear that these kinds of stories have nothing to do with hypocrisy. It has everything to do with the people alleging them having the same visceral revulsion of and derision towards homosexuality as they think their political opponents must.

jAZ
06-06-2006, 03:01 PM
Does the suggestion that a Republican is gay cost the Republicans more votes than the eventual realization that the Democrats have as much or more disdain for homosexuality as anyone else costs them?
You don't even believe the crap you spew. You are much smarter than this statement.

jAZ
06-06-2006, 03:01 PM
Oh COME ON!! It's becoming increasingly clear that these kinds of stories have nothing to do with hypocrisy. It has everything to do with the people alleging them having the same visceral revulsion of and derision towards homosexuality as they think their political opponents must.
Seriously, you don't believe this crap. You are too smart.

go bowe
06-06-2006, 03:05 PM
Seriously, you don't believe this crap. You are too smart.intelligence and believing crap are not necessarily related, nor are they mutually exclusive...

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 03:17 PM
Seriously, you don't believe this crap. You are too smart.
It is not a belief, per se. It's a growing notion. You cannot refute that there has been a rash of [Tony Soprano]'He's a Faaa-aaggg'[/TS] rejoinders from the 'left.'
Laz, in this very thread, termed it "a penis sucking president." Does that terminology suggest to you that Laz is a stalwart friend of the homosexual, who's simply and forthrightly pointing out conservative 'hypocrisy.?'
You are WAAAY too smart for that.

jAZ
06-06-2006, 03:18 PM
intelligence and believing crap are not necessarily related, nor are they mutually exclusive...
BabyLee is doing his best deflection job when the reality of his mass conspriacy theory is that what he wishes to be an example of Dems having seething hatred toward gay folks is in reality an example of dirty politics from the Dems. It's Dems finding an opportunity to drive a wedge between the Moralist Republicans and the libertarian Republicans by making a big splash about a Republican getting busted for (pick your moral values issue).

It's a purely political maneuver, that BabyLee fully understand I suspect. He's just found his prefered counter maneuver, which is to claim that Dems hate gays more than Republicans (or some such nonsense).

He prides himself on being the uber-objective patriarch of DC, but if this schtick is any indicator he's a dishonest political shill (as opposed to an honest political shill that the rest of us are).

jAZ
06-06-2006, 03:19 PM
It is not a belief, per se. It's a growing notion. You cannot refute that there has been a rash of [Tony Soprano]'He's a Faaa-aaggg'[/TS] rejoinders from the 'left.'
Laz, in this very thread, termed it "a penis sucking president." Does that terminology suggest to you that Laz is a stalwart friend of the homosexual, who's simply and forthrightly pointing out conservative 'hypocrisy.?'
You are WAAAY too smart for that.
It's political opportunism (by Dems), and you know it. It's political judo. Using your opponents attack on himself. You are not stupid, you surely understand this.

go bowe
06-06-2006, 03:22 PM
. . .(as opposed to an honest political shill that the rest of us are).speak for yourself there, bub...

i'm neither honest nor a political shill...

i used to be a lawyer...

what can i say? :shrug:

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 03:25 PM
BabyLee is doing his best deflection job when the reality of his mass conspriacy theory is that what he wishes to be an example of Dems having seething hatred toward gay folks is in reality an example of dirty politics from the Dems. It's Dems finding an opportunity to drive a wedge between the Moralist Republicans and the libertarian Republicans by making a big splash about a Republican getting busted for (pick your moral values issue).

It's a purely political maneuver, that BabyLee fully understand I suspect. He's just found his prefered counter maneuver, which is to claim that Dems hate gays more than Republicans (or some such nonsense).

He prides himself on being the uber-objective patriarch of DC, but if this schtick is any indicator he's a dishonest political shill (as opposed to an honest political shill that the rest of us are).
I am offering my honest observations. I'm not spinning anything. I think if you looked back, my resolve on this issue started as a possibility, evolving to a hunch to a growing notion as the gleeful "He's a FAAA-AAGGG!!" assertions have persisted.

Remember, or maybe you don't, my experience is couched in being an intern for a Dem in Jeff City, and watching the Dem reps and senators, and their secretaries and lobbyists, holding correspondence from a known gay representative by the corner of the document and shuddering as they placed it in a file, and hearing them chuckle about the 'cock sucking pansy' behind his back.

Also, recall my long recounted opinion of the Representative from Arizona [whose name escapes me now] who was on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher long ago when the issue of Clinton 'inhaling' came up. His response? "inhale? Hell I drank the bong water." And appluaded him for his candor and wit.

Dave Lane
06-06-2006, 04:46 PM
In your opinion.

Mine to...

Dave Lane
06-06-2006, 04:47 PM
speak for yourself there, bub...

i'm neither honest nor a political shill...

i used to be a lawyer...

what can i say? :shrug:


You seem awfully shy for a lawyer. Were you a shyster lawyer?

Dave

banyon
06-06-2006, 05:43 PM
Oh COME ON!! It's becoming increasingly clear that these kinds of stories have nothing to do with hypocrisy. It has everything to do with the people alleging them having the same visceral revulsion of and derision towards homosexuality as they think their political opponents must.

Normally, you're pretty level headed about this kind of stuff, but i do disagree. People these days love nothing more than pointing out hypocrisy wherever they can in our modern political system, Republicans and Dems alike. It's the contemporary coin of the realm.

Whether that should be where we put all of our political emphasis , branding people as hypocrites, is probably dubious though, since we all are at least, to some extent, hypocrites.

But I think it's pretty reasonable to view to Dem's desire to "expose" people as hypocrites to be a stronger motivator than whatever homophobic tendencies that may lie beneath the surface.

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 05:50 PM
Normally, you're pretty level headed about this kind of stuff, but i do disagree. People these days love nothing more than pointing out hypocrisy wherever they can in our modern political system, Republicans and Dems alike. It's the contemporary coin of the realm.

Whether that should be where we put all of our political emphasis , branding people as hypocrites, is probably dubious though, since we all are at least, to some extent, hypocrites.

But I think it's pretty reasonable to view to Dem's desire to "expose" people as hypocrites to be a stronger motivator than whatever homophobic tendencies that may lie beneath the surface.

For the last time, I'm not saying that homophobia or hate of homosexuals is driving the allegations. I'm saying that being skeeved by homosexuality coarsens the alleging party to the fact that, by positing that because someone has homosexuality in their present or past there is SCANDAL in the air, they are being as insulting to homosexuals as they are scandalizing to the opposition.

As I posited in another thread;

"It's no different than running on a platform of understanding of the disease process and need for medical treatment of alcoholism, then attacking your opponent for being a deginerate f@cking lush."

patteeu
06-06-2006, 05:54 PM
For the last time, I'm not saying that homophobia or hate of homosexuals is driving the allegations. I'm saying that being skeeved by homosexuality coarsens the alleging party to the fact that, by positing that because someone has homosexuality in their present or past there is SCANDAL in the air, they are being as insulting to homosexuals as they are scandalizing to the opposition.

As I posited in another thread;

"It's no different than running on a platform of understanding of the disease process and need for medical treatment of alcoholism, then attacking your opponent for being a deginerate f@cking lush."

You'd think that the party of nuance would be able to get what you're saying by now.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 05:55 PM
You seem awfully shy for a lawyer. Were you a shyster lawyer?

Dave
ROFL ROFL ROFL

patteeu
06-06-2006, 05:58 PM
Normally, you're pretty level headed about this kind of stuff, but i do disagree. People these days love nothing more than pointing out hypocrisy wherever they can in our modern political system, Republicans and Dems alike. It's the contemporary coin of the realm.

Whether that should be where we put all of our political emphasis , branding people as hypocrites, is probably dubious though, since we all are at least, to some extent, hypocrites.

But I think it's pretty reasonable to view to Dem's desire to "expose" people as hypocrites to be a stronger motivator than whatever homophobic tendencies that may lie beneath the surface.

If we are pointing out hypocrisy, would it be fair to compare the guys pushing this story here on CP today (and I note that you are not among them) with the anonymous push pollers who drove the rumors about John McCain's "illegitimate black baby" in the South Carolina primaries in 2000 and to point out that they are some of the same people who bring those stories up from time to time to accuse Bush and his people of a capacity for nefarious activities?

Mr. Laz
06-06-2006, 05:59 PM
Laz, in this very thread, termed it "a penis sucking president." Does that terminology suggest to you that Laz is a stalwart friend of the homosexual, who's simply and forthrightly pointing out conservative 'hypocrisy.?'

You are WAAAY too smart for that.

so which is it guys ...


am i gay

am i a gay hugging liberal

am i a gay basher



ROFL

banyon
06-06-2006, 05:59 PM
For the last time, I'm not saying that homophobia or hate of homosexuals is driving the allegations. I'm saying that being skeeved by homosexuality coarsens the alleging party to the fact that, by positing that because someone has homosexuality in their present or past there is SCANDAL in the air, they are being as insulting to homosexuals as they are scandalizing to the opposition.

Well, hell. Good thing we don't live in Britain then, huh? Anybody who has sex of any kind there gets put in the tabloids.

But I do take your point.

That's a step back from this, though...

Does the suggestion that a Republican is gay cost the Republicans more votes than the eventual realization that the Democrats have as much or more disdain for homosexuality as anyone else costs them?

How could anyone beleive that Dem's hate homosexuality more than Repubs, when people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are given such prominent positions in the Republican Party and they attribute events like the Tsunami to the "homosexual-loving" Swedes or whatever they were called (I apologize, I don't have time to find the actual quote by Robertson). I don't think anyone on the left has that kind of anti-gay cache unless we are going back to Stalin.

banyon
06-06-2006, 06:01 PM
If we are pointing out hypocrisy, would it be fair to compare the guys pushing this story here on CP today (and I note that you are not among them) with the anonymous push pollers who drove the rumors about John McCain's "illegitimate black baby" in the South Carolina primaries in 2000 and to point out that they are some of the same people who bring those stories up from time to time to accuse Bush and his people of a capacity for nefarious activities?

like I said, It might be an interesting question as to how much time we should spend in our society trying to expose hypocrisy at every turn.

patteeu
06-06-2006, 06:01 PM
so which is it guys ...


am i gay

am i a gay hugging liberal

am i a gay basher



ROFL

You tell us, Sybil. ;)

jAZ
06-06-2006, 06:03 PM
I'm saying that being skeeved by homosexuality coarsens the alleging party to the fact that, by positing that because someone has homosexuality in their present or past there is SCANDAL in the air, they are being as insulting to homosexuals as they are scandalizing to the opposition.
That was not what you were implying until I pointed out that what you were saying was horseshit and that this is the real rebuttle to the the Political Judo in a thread like this.

You are welcome.

patteeu
06-06-2006, 06:09 PM
That was not what you were implying until I pointed out that what you were saying was horseshit and that this is the real rebuttle to the the Political Judo in a thread like this.

You are welcome.

When was the last time you heard a democrat operative "out" a Republican for his contributions to the Sierra Club or the ACLU? The closest thing I can think of is Rupert Murdoch agreeing to hold a fundraiser for Hillary, but even in that case I don't remember a dem/lib talking it up as though it reflected poorly on Murdoch's character.

WilliamTheIrish
06-06-2006, 06:11 PM
That's not what you were implying until I pointed out that the rest is horseshit and that this is the real rebuttle to the arguement.

You are welcome.

As Skip was so gracious a few days back and pointed out to me the correct spelling is rebuttal.

And since he has 83 threads of greater than 100 posts, and WPI would kill to have a poster like him, I felt the need to point out your misspelling.

Skip says "You're welcome."

Mr. Laz
06-06-2006, 06:19 PM
You tell us, Sybil. ;)

i'll poll my 110 different personalities and get back to ya :)

jAZ
06-06-2006, 06:44 PM
As Skip was so gracious a few days back and pointed out to me the correct spelling is rebuttal.

And since he has 83 threads of greater than 100 posts, and <a href="http://chiefsplanet.com">WPI</a> would kill to have a poster like him, I felt the need to point out your misspelling.

Skip says "You're welcome."
ROFL

jAZ
06-06-2006, 06:46 PM
When was the last time you heard a democrat operative "out" a Republican for his contributions to the Sierra Club or the ACLU? The closest thing I can think of is Rupert Murdoch agreeing to hold a fundraiser for Hillary, but even in that case I don't remember a dem/lib talking it up as though it reflected poorly on Murdoch's character.
Let me know when a massive block of the Republican party's voting priorities line up with visceral opposition to the Sierra Club.

patteeu
06-06-2006, 07:25 PM
Let me know when a massive block of the Republican party's voting priorities line up with visceral opposition to the Sierra Club.

If you don't think the Sierra Club was a good enough example, what's your answer wrt the ACLU?

jAZ
06-06-2006, 08:45 PM
If you don't think the Sierra Club was a good enough example, what's your answer wrt the ACLU?
Let me know when a massive block of the Republican party's voting priorities line up with visceral opposition to the ACLU.

patteeu
06-07-2006, 02:32 AM
Let me know when a massive block of the Republican party's voting priorities line up with visceral opposition to the ACLU.

I think they already do. The ACLU is a favorite whipping boy in the conservative alternative media (as I'm sure you know).

Face it, jAZ. There's something special in the minds of dems/libs when it comes to homosexuality and it isn't just the presence of a block of Republicans who have visceral opposition to it.

jAZ
06-07-2006, 08:51 AM
Face it, jAZ. There's something special in the minds of dems/libs when it comes to homosexuality and it isn't just the presence of a block of Republicans who have visceral opposition to it.
As I said before... horseshit. You are WAAAAY too smart to not recognize this.