Randy Randy the Top Gun

[rubydick]

Seems Randy "Duke" Cunningham just couldn't keep his weapon holstered. Guess they didn't call him Top Gun for nuttin'. Seems that that the Dukester is probably gay.

Duke's House of Cards

What is lost in all this is the treason aspect. The Dukester was on the take while our nation is at war. He has pleaded guilty to padding his own pocket with defense contractors' bribes.

Just what does that involve? Let's say you are in the US military, you are sent to fight a war. You rely on your government to supply you with the best support it can muster, right? Except for people like Duke, who are on the take. Contracts don't go to those best qualified, but those who pay people off. Problem with your weapon? Not my problem, I got mine.

I really don't care if Randy is gay. Good on ya', I say. But when such a man issues diatrbes against gays, isn't there something wrong?

Similarly, I don't care if Dick Cheney's daughter is gay. But when she works for her father's reelection, supporting a party that actively works to support discrimination against gays, isn't there something wrong? Mary, Duke, what's with the whiteface?

And moving on, when Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas and Ken Blackwell mouth their sweet somethings, how do they feel the morning after? Is it all simply a question of gettin' yours? Are you any different from Mary Cheney and the Dukester?

Witness the past few years. We've had that paragon of Republican moral virtue, William Bennett, admit to a serious gambling jones. We've had fright-wing DJ Rush Limbaugh admit to being a junkie. We've had the virtuous Bill O'Reilly pay off an ex-staffer because his desire to rub certain condiments all over her "spectacular boobs" became public. We've had right-wing journalists being paid with tax dollars to become shills for the executive branch, including one who was given White House access while simultaneously running a male hooker ring!

We've got the chief-of-staff of the House Majority Leader pleading guilty to serious crimes. We've got the chief-of-staff of the Vice President under indictment. We've got the Senate Majority Leader under investigation for securities crimes. And all this happening when their own party is in control of virtually every lever of government.

Is it just me? I'm looking for a bit of outrage from those who claim the moral monopoly. From those who "support our troops," support "family values." I'm looking for a bit of outrage from those who really believe that homosexuality is a sin. Are you out there?

I'm looking for something from the 30 percenters. Give us just a few slender tendrils that show there is still some monofilament connecting you to a sense of right and wrong, to morals grounded in something other than me, my and mine.

Please, explain. But in doing so, please find an excuse other than Clinton to explain it away.

 

[movie zombie]

it does make ''family values'' look like a very disfunctional family.......

peace, movie zombie

 

[strmrdr]

tar and feathers.

The repukeicans are just a moraly currupt as the democraps.
With a very very few good people in both parties.

Why not be fair and post the dems that are in hot water?
Then we can talk about how currupt congress is as a whole.
one side dont have a monopoly on curruption.

As long as you cast it as a conservative vs liberal issue your shutting off a lot of possible discussion and agreement.
Of coursr both parties love when that happens.
Cant get too many people to agree with each other that would be bad for business.

 

[movie zombie]

storm, oh, there is not doubt about the corrupt democrats.....and that they are total wusses when it comes to standing up for the american people. with all the fodder the republicans have provided the best the dems can do is tremble that the voters might reject them if they speak out too loudly against this insane, immoral, and illegal war we're waging....and the statistics show that the people want the war to end! geez, i wish these people would get a backbone.

peace, movie zombie

eta: but this is another topic for this forum. the topic richard has posted really is about this particular politician and his hypocracy re gays......and family values that are so greatly touted.

i think a more detailed discussion of 'family values' is appropriate in this thread.......if this guy is an example of family values then perhaps we are in more trouble than we know.

 

[rubydick]

Date: 12/8/2005 6:25:08 AM
Author: strmrdr

Why not be fair and post the dems that are in hot water?

Then we can talk about how currupt congress is as a whole.

one side dont have a monopoly on curruption.

Strmrdr,

Help me out, please. Why don't you list out for me the "corrupt" dems and I'll help you damn them.

Let me get this started. Clinton had a chance to do something about gay rights and backed down. Shame on him. Want to dig deep into Clinton's background. You can do no better than Mara Leveritt's The Boys on the Tracks. (The answer to the post-9/11 anthrax attacks is also in that book if you follow the leads).

Hillary supported this war, along with many Dems. Shame on each and every one of them. Tim Robbins echoed my thoughts exactly when he said last week that Hillary could kiss his ass.

My thoughts on Kerry are summed up in this essay, which I penned long before the 2004 election:

John Kerry, You Suck

You see, I'm an equal opportunity offender, even if it doesn't seem that way on these forums.

Today a Dem (Earl Pomeroy) in Congress told Howard Dean to keep his mouth shut. I called his office in Washington DC and told his staffer that it was Pomeroy who should be quiet, since he had voted to give Bush the chance for this illegal war, not Howard Dean.

There were a number of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who abused the the free postage deal. Rostenkowski comes to mind (didn't he quit as a result?). Also John McCain (didn't he remain?). Oh, sorry, McCain is a Republican. This is about Dems.

Strmrdr, you are right, politics is a dirty business. But to imply that there is no difference from one party to another, to suggest that all are equally guilty in this world means we throw away our brains completely. Life is all about shades of gray. The ability to discern differences between different shades is a basic skill not just for gemologists and gem dealers, but for citizens of all nations.

I know you and I share a lot of beliefs. Thanks for pointing out that we've got some crooked Dems to deal with, too. But when the corruption scale has only two pans, putting each in their proper place today results in a serious tilt.

 

[perry]

My view on this issue is that it is not one sided either.

The basic problem is that power and riches can corrupt the weak (peope who do not have really good personal values). The republican party has been dominant for the recent past so they have had more of the most powerfull positions - and the result is that more of them have noticable problems than the democrates at the moment. In that I will agree with Richard Hughes current observation. A similar affect with the parties reversed is seen when and where the democratic party is dominant for a long time.

Within both parties - and within the independents their are some good people who don''t get corrupted. Within both parties - and within the independents there are people who do get corrupted.

It is an open debate on where the corruption stated. In some cases it started in state or local government - in others the people did not really fall untill the temptations of national level power and money came into play.

As far as calling them the "moral majority"... The very term is a misnomer - a contradiction in some sense. When people feel that they are "morally supperior" they have usually fallen because they have let their own ego''s take control. The people who are truely moral don''t need to parade it - don''t need to shout it - becasue the example they leave just by being who they are shouts louder than any few words of ego from others.

Perry