25 Comments

• 1. bongoman  |  August 16th, 2008 at 5:40 am

  Let freedom ring!

• 2. majoriot  |  August 16th, 2008 at 8:01 am

  I agree that there is a better place to practice the art.

  But yes, we “lefties” (I’ll include myself for the sake of argument) do think freedom is okay.

  Now, if you have a moral problem with it, ask your god why?

• 3. Stretchrun  |  August 16th, 2008 at 8:09 am

  Why post if no pictures? At first I thought this was a Leo post. I had to check twice.

• 4. coulterfan  |  August 16th, 2008 at 9:14 am

  What’s your point????

  That the left embraces a (conservative a la Goldwater) “Live and let live” philosophy? That the Right doesn’t think folks should be free in the privacy of their own homes?

  You are correct on both these points. But I want to remind you that it is only the PUBLIC STATEMENTS which matter to Republicans. . .

  Even while they condemn others for this behavior, Republicans solicit gay sex in bathroom stalls (Craig), cavort with male pages (Foley), have serial affairs (Gingrich, McCain, etc, etc), Jim Gibbons, Ted Haggard, Vito Fossella, Richard Curtis, Neal Horsley, Jeff Miller, Jeff Gannon, etc, etc, etc! And didn’t the owner of the “Manhunt” casual gay sex site max out donations to McCain?

  So, I guess I agree with you. . . Democrats think Americans should be free in their private lives, while Republicans insist on Puritanical laws that they themselves spectacularly disregard these very laws with their own twisted, sick behaviors. . .

  In other words, Republicans are hypocrites.

  News Flash!

• 5. neocon  |  August 16th, 2008 at 9:49 am

  All men have failings, you would know that coulter if you knew Jesus. Just because those men know right from wrong, yet succumb to the desire of the flesh, does not make them hypocrites, it makes them men.

  Now in order for the Democrats, who are guilty of the same indiscretions to not be hypocrites, they would have to endorse the absence of all moralities and I don’t remember Greavy standing at the podium boasting about his infidelities. Why not?

  Why wont Democrats state publicly that they endorse all deviant behaviour? That is the only way that they can escape the hypocrite label.

  Why wont they do that coulter?

• 6. Upstart  |  August 16th, 2008 at 10:05 am

  5. neocon | August 16th, 2008 at 9:49 am
  So sad your brain is but a pea. What Bill Clinton did using his power position to get a BJ was wrong, Vitter, Greevey and McCain violating their marriage vows was wrong, picking up Pages on the people’s floor of Congreess is wrong, men picking up men in public restrooms is wrong.

  But neocon if you and your better half want to sit around your livingroom naked listening to McCain speeches; go for it.

• 7. neocon  |  August 16th, 2008 at 10:09 am

  Greevy’s indiscretions weren’t public. It was a very private gay affair, which should have been embraced by the Democrats, according to you.

  According to you, Democrats think Americans should be free in their private lives, so why was Greevy forced to resign? And why don’t you stand up for him?

  Why do you say what he did was wrong? It was his private life and he should be free to do what he wants, right?

  Careful, you’re soon to be exposed as hypocrite. I am looking forward to your answer.

• 8. neocon  |  August 16th, 2008 at 10:12 am

  “men picking up men in public restrooms is wrong.” - Upstart

  What about men picking up men in public bars, shopping centers, etc. Is that wrong?

  If not, then why is a public bathroom any different?

  Please explain

• 9. coulterfan  |  August 16th, 2008 at 10:45 am

  >>Why wont Democrats state publicly that they endorse all deviant behaviour? That is the only way that they can escape the hypocrite label.<<

  Huh?

  Democrats are for individual freedoms. Republicans are for CORPORATE freedom.

  But to think that not regulating something means condoning it. . . Bob Barr is a Libertarian- does that mean that Bob Barr condones heroin, cocaine, pornography, etc? Of course not. . . he thinks it is NOT the government’s job to legislate morality!

  Just like most Democrats. Freedom means nothing if one is not allowed to choose, but is mandated by law.

  Remember Ronald Reagan being against motorcycle helmet laws? Does this mean that he was against motorcycle helmets? Or against highway safety generally? Of course not. He was for personal responsibility.

  Many Republicans were against the Assault Weapons Ban. Does this mean that they were FOR the use of assault weapons? Were they FOR school shootings, or just for violence generally?

  Republicans are against many environmental laws. Does this mean that they are FOR pollution? Are they FOR CFCs, lead poisoning, mercury, environmental toxins, extermination of species, and destruction of ecosystems?

  More likely, I would guess the argument is that they are against government regulation and want more FREEDOM for corporations and consumers. The argument is that consumers can choose from which corporations they purchase things and that this is self-regulation. Does everyone make a good, healthy decision? Of course not.

  But shouldn’t folks be free to decide for themselves?

  Maybe I’m wrong and the GOP DOES stand FOR pollution, global warming, more fatalities on our highways, more lead in children’s toys, corporations like Enron manipulating energy prices and bankrupting employee pensions, etc, etc?

  If so, they should come out and say so!

  Right, Neocon?

• 10. coulterfan  |  August 16th, 2008 at 10:58 am

  I forgot to point out, Neocon, that it was the Republicans who were against the ‘Clean Indoor Act’, Smoking Bans, and Seat Belt Laws.

  I guess (by your logic) that Republicans are STRONG PROPONENTS for more children smoking, more lung cancer, and more traffic death?!?!?!

  Shouldn’t they come right out and say so?

• 11. Danish Artist  |  August 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am

  “Democrats are for individual freedoms.”

  Excluding some 1st 2nd 4th & 10th amendment rights, nanny state laws, big government controls of parks, recreational areas and in some cases private land and ultimately government confiscation of profits and private lands for tax purposes only.

  Yep, Democrats are for just let you do your own thing.

• 12. Upstart  |  August 16th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

  8. neocon | August 16th, 2008 at 10:12 am
  I’ll play along Mr Pea. You should be getting this from church! Greevey was romping and banging someone on the Jersey shore with a person other than the one he made a vow to honor and to forsake all others for. This was wrong. I take my young son into public bathrooms. It is wrong for Larry Craig or anyone else for that matter to be on their hands and knees in a bathroom stall when minors could walk in. If you ever see a women going down on someone in the center of your local mall by all means call the police this is wrong. Not sure about your state, but in my state bars are off limits to anyone under 21. Are there any more moral lessons you need?

• 13. neocon  |  August 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  Danish,

  Spot on. Liberals embrace government regulation which just doesn’t mesh with this personal freedom meme upstart and coulter are indoctrinated with. Poor souls just can’t discern the difference.

  Upstart,

  So then Democrats are not for private freedoms. If Greavy was forced to resign because of a very private affair, then that is hypocritical according to your assertion. That was my only point, try and keep up.

  coulter,

  If you’ll remember, Enron, Global Crossing, etc. all committed their crimes during the Clinton administration and were tried and convicted under the Bush administration. So that doesn’t really mesh with your claim, right? And if Democrats are for individual freedoms, why are you attempting to legislate the first amendment and restrict the second amendment? Why do you want to impose UHC on everyone? Why do you want to arbitrarily tax “profits”? These desires just seem to contradict the personal freedom screed.

  Both of you really need to quit parroting the talking points and think just a bit more objectively.

• 14. Upstart  |  August 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

  That was my only point, try and keep up. 13. neocon | August 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  No it wasn’t Mr.Pea you had a whole list spread over a couple of postings. Or do you simply post without a thought process?

  If you’ll remember, Enron, Global Crossing, etc. all committed their crimes during the Clinton administration13. neocon | August 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  Not even close Mr Pea On September 10, 2000 Ken Lay gave $290,000 to Bush’s campaign, by Jan he was on Bush’s transition team. Are you saying Bush knew he was a criminal and put him on his transition team anyway?

• 15. Mark Noonan  |  August 16th, 2008 at 4:19 pm

  bongo,

  Indeed - and lets see if the Democrats have the guts to really declare themselves from now until November…won’t happen, of course, because if the American people really fully and totally understood the kook left driving the Democratic party, that party would be crushed to death…

• 16. Faceplant  |  August 16th, 2008 at 7:23 pm

  “Just because those men know right from wrong, yet succumb to the desire of the flesh, does not make them hypocrites, it makes them men.”

  So basically it’s okay to cheat on your wife, as long as you know what you are doing is wrong. Thanks for letting us all in on that twisted logic.

  I wait with bated breath for you to defend John Edwards, who has been slammed by your blog heroes here on BFV.

• 17. Faceplant  |  August 16th, 2008 at 7:28 pm

  “Greevy’s indiscretions weren’t public. It was a very private gay affair, which should have been embraced by the Democrats, according to you.”

  You’d be hard pressed to find a single democrat who doesn’t think McGreevy’s a slimeball.

  The difference is Democrats don’t think gay sex is morally wrong. They think cheating on your spouse is morally wrong.

• 18. Faceplant  |  August 16th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

  “If not, then why is a public bathroom any different?”

  Stop playing dumb. Craig didn’t “pick up” men in a public bathroom. He had sex with men in a public bathroom.

  Just a slight difference.

• 19. Faceplant  |  August 16th, 2008 at 7:40 pm

  Anyway, this is typical Marky Noonan. Takes some isolated event (like mobile sex trailers) , and tries to pretend that it’s indicative of all Obama supporters…

  “…if the American people really fully and totally understood the kook left driving the Democratic party, that party would be crushed to death…”

  As if Obama supporters all have mobile sex trailers, and naked parties.

  Sadly, his little lemming followers eat this garbage up. Good thing the American people seem to be quickly realizing what a radical and unamerican view of the nation people like Marky hold.

• 20. neocon  |  August 16th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

  I never said it was ok faceplant, obviously it’s not. All of those men have stepped up and owned that moral fault of theirs, therefore they are not hypocrites, only mortal.

  I don’t pass judgement on John Edwards. That’s a personal thing for he and his family. Had this come out in 2006 when he was running, or if he was currently running, I would expect him to drop out though.

  And I only have one hero. He died on the cross.

• 21. Faceplant  |  August 17th, 2008 at 3:07 am

  “I don’t pass judgement on John Edwards.”

  Buy you didn’t bother defending him when Marky was mocking, and attacking him did you?

  Funny how that works.

• 22. Ray Ban  |  August 17th, 2008 at 5:47 am

  What is worse, the pretend mobile dungeon for a few kinky Obama supporters, or the very real dungeons that Bush has in Cuba, Iraq, and black sites all over Eastern Europe”

  The goverment is running a true-life version of the movie “Hostile” and you guys are silent.

• 23. neocon  |  August 17th, 2008 at 9:12 am

  Face,

  I wont defend him either. Neither scold nor defend. That’s fairly consistent.

  See how that works.
  You’re learning today, I am proud of you

  Ray,

  You should move from this evil country and raise arms against it, if you had any self respect at all. You have obviously identified this country as the source of evil in this world and you owe it to your international brethren to raise arms and confront this scourge.

  So what is it? Will you continue to be the complaining victim, or will you champion the little guy?

  Your call
  neocon

• 24. Ray Ban  |  August 17th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

  I am a champion of the little guy, which is why I am voting for Obama. Obama will see to it that Bush & Co. go to The Hague for Crimes Against Humanity.

• 25. Faceplant  |  August 18th, 2008 at 4:17 am

  “I wont defend him either. Neither scold nor defend. That’s fairly consistent.”

  But you defend McCain, and all of the other Republicans that people pointed out had cheated on their wives.

  I quote,

  “Just because those men know right from wrong, yet succumb to the desire of the flesh, does not make them hypocrites, it makes them men.”

  Where was that little speech when your blog buddy’s were bashing John Edwards? It was nowhere to be found. Not until someone pointed out that people in your party do the same thing did you see fit to inject that.

  That’s called being inconsistent. Some would say hypocritical.