I'm beginning to think that it's related to the fact that every Republican scandal involves homosexual sex and perhaps they just hated Clinton for being one of the enemies -- a heterosexual.
I just read a story about Republican Florida state rep. Robert Allen who was arrested Wednesday and charged with soliciting an undercover male officer for sex at a park in Florida.
Of course, we all know about the Mark Foley scandal and we have yet to learn all there is to know about the Jeff Gannon scandal; and we've all pretty much forgotten the Reagan/Bush homosexual scandal and the Franklin sex scandal. But why is it that everytime I hear about a Republican sex scandal, it is a homosexual scandal?
Robert Allen Scandal
http://www.local6.com/news/13664897/detail.html
------------------------------
From the Washington Times, June 1989
Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush
http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/franklin.htm
2007-07-13
11:01:24
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Trevor S
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
I get it, dude. You're taking a shot at all of those foaming right-wingers who constantly rip on "gay liberals." Meanwhile all of the Republican sex scandals are gay. Nice job!
2007-07-13 15:20:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by ThorVeblen 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
They are politicians. It wouldn't matter if it was sex with a woman or man they were dating, the opposing political party would find some way to use it against them.
Republicans used Clinton/Lewinsky for two reasons:
1. If it was true, Bill Clinton would have broken the law and could be impeached for it.
2. Just making Clinton look bad (as an immoral person) was enough to boost their numbers.
Democrats like to point to supposed sexual scandals involving Repulbicans because it will hurt them with their base of Traditional Values Families.
The scandals of both past and present (Republican or Democrat) are nothing more than the opposing parties trying to one-up one another for your vote.
2007-07-13 11:11:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by paladin_hammer 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
You have to understand the Lewinsky matter.
Sexual Harassment became a tortious act many years ago. Courts have long since ruled that a Defendant's sexual history is "relevant" in such a case, as it may tend to prove a pattern of tortious conduct of the kind alleged.
Clinton was sued by Paula Jones for Sexual Harassment. Clinton and his lawyers did everything they could to evade the suit, including assertion that his position as Commander In Chief gave him protection under the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act. Courts ruled on these various maneuvers one by one, and basically demanded that the Interrogatories be answered.
Under oath, Bill Clinton denied any sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky, a fact that would be relevant in Paula Jones' case. That's "perjury".
Perjury is a serious crime, because it is an attack on our entire legal system. Our entire civil and criminal system is founded on the ability to compel truthful testimony, with the limitation of the Fifth Amendment in criminal matters.
There's no doubt he was under oath. There's no doubt that he lied. There's no doubt that he knew he was lying. All of these things, he admitted on national TV. What people fail to understand is that it was about a "material matter", which is the only thing he didn't admit because it was so obvious anyway, and that makes it Perjury.
Do you get it? It had nothing to do with sex. It's about PERJURY.
2007-07-13 11:11:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by open4one 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Clinton put his hand on the Bible and lied under oath. The fact that he had to lie to cover up an affair makes him an easy target for blackmail. Plus, he was screwing around on taxpayer time in a place that I'm paying the bills on. At least FDR had to courtesy to take a vacation and head out to his private retreat for a little hanky panky with his girlfriend.
2007-07-13 12:52:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by Eukodol 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Lewinsky was a federal employee that had sex with Clinton and he lied about it.
Lewinsky was also a witness on the case against Clinton for sexually harassing Paula Jones.
2007-07-13 11:06:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bonneville P 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I was OK with it, it provided many opportunities to skewer hypocrite feminists who think a guy looking at their derreriere constitutes rape who stuck up for the fellatio master in charge.
Plus, I think if Monica slimmed up a bit, not too much, she was pretty nice looking.
One thing we do know about Bubba, he's a hooter man.
2007-07-13 11:07:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by RP McMurphy 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Clinton lied, democrats can't deny that fact.
He also was:
-disbarred
-impeached
-selling pardons
-committing adultery in the whitehouse
2007-07-13 11:05:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by infobrokernate 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Shocking.
Republicans starting to act like Democrats.
(Let's see what Hillary does to girls.)
2007-07-13 11:05:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by wolf 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If he hadn't had his horn honked in the oval office I'd not be bugged by it a bit.
2007-07-13 12:16:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
they don't know how to have a good time, and hate everyone that does.
2007-07-13 11:08:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋