finally a ray of hope. Gay sex isnt a real issue. I could care less. We need an energy policy, out of Iraq, rational immigration, and a sound economic platform just for starters.
2007-08-28 07:51:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
100% with you. The world's biggest economy is spending 16% of GDP on healthcare and still has millions uninsured. We are carrying 6% of GDP annually in debt and are allowed to do this only because of tacit agreements between the rest of the world in sustaining the US economy.
We are getting older and will have to find ways to fund social security and medicare (old people vote), where will we get this money... from the 6% of GDP spent on the military?
I am convinced that I will see the end of American preeminence, I only wonder whether it will be a hard or soft fall, I have no interest in what two consenting adults do. But why should the media have to actually report, when they can simply react and look pretty next to enticing video or images.
2007-08-28 05:33:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mark P 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think it is just one more example of media bias - bias towards sensationalist crap!
I mean you can have 2 minutes of the media saying, "Yesterday Bush admitted to stealing purses from old ladies. The Democrats responded that no one should be allowed to steal and they are moving toward hearings and a censure resolution".
And then a half hour of Britney, Craig and so on.
All this, I think, helps the republicans, since we are not talking about the real issues. So I care about the story a lot - I wish it would go away and they could talk about something serious for a change - as if that is going to happen.
2007-08-28 14:09:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes, but he is in Congress. If it were a Dem, the conservative would be having a field day!
I don't really care that much, but the double standard id something I do care about!
And gay sex is not an issue with me, it is for almost all the Republicans!
I guess it isn't that it was gay, there are other people who use bathrooms, including children! I wouldn't have sex with a woman in a public bathroom, I don't think! He should have just gone to a porn store and stuck his penis through the hole!
Clinton has not been president for 7 years, but the Repubs seem to forget that little fact as they still attack him!
2007-08-28 09:21:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Except the hypocrite is trampling over the notion of civil rights with his self-righteous anti-gay positioning, not to mention his holier-than-thou posturing vis Clinton with Lewinsky.
If Larry Craig actually showed evidence of ever giving a goddamn about latchkey kids in two-job households or senior citizens cutting their pills in half, then MAYBE you'd have a point.
But you don't.
2007-08-28 08:21:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think it's very interesting that yet another gay-bashing right-winger is himself gay. It's also very interesting that Larry Craig is the Senator most under the thumb of the National Rifle Association. The guy is rabid about guns. If he resigns, and it looks like he will have to, or at least not run for re-election, good riddance to one of the worst Senators of my lifetime.
To the one who said people are focusing on this because there's no real news: Alberto Gonzales. Gee, maybe that's why Bush picked now for Alberto to "resign," to take the heat off his gun-lovin', gay-bashin'-though-he's-gay-himself buddy Craig. Ah, the Republicans and their scandals: The gift that keeps on giving.
2007-08-28 05:34:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
My first thought on seeing your question was Larry who? Then when you jogged my memory, my second thought was, Yeah, yeah, another Moral Majoritarian caught in a gay sex scandal, just another example of how Reagan's "Big tent" is becoming Bush's "Big Closet." Another reason to rename the GOP, "Gang of Pedophiles." "Idaho?" Yep, you da ho, Larry.
Then I looked up the guy's voting record. You've got to see this. http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Larry_Craig.htm
Larry Craig is just so wrong on so many issues, it's incredible. Abortion and stem cell research, Corporate giveaways, relations with Vietnam--our best potential ally against Chinese expansionism, Deficit reduction, Civil Rights, job exportation--you name, he's on the wrong side of it.
As you say, America has bigger problems than sex scandals and Larry Craig is one of them. Using sex scandals to force Republicans out of office has become just soooo cliche. But it works and America needs this guy GONE.
2007-08-28 08:23:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Considering that he led the campaign to get a state constitutional amendment in Idaho not only making gay marriage illegal but also outlawing civil unions, I am glad to see his comeuppance. It falls under the "methinks the lady dost protest too much" rule and shows yet again the rank hypocrisy of these "family values" people. Odd that Dodson hasn't had anything to say about it.
2007-08-28 09:46:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
As a former Lib, it's not about the sex act it's about the fact that those who appose gay rights and yell the loudest about the marriage being between a man and and women, have the power to acknowledge the needs and rights of gays, but instead hide in public restrooms doing what we all know what, while passing both judgment and legislation that go against their very nature.
2007-08-28 05:30:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by jean 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Normally, I really wouldn't care.
I am a firm believer in people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
I am surprised that this didn't come out when this actually happened, considering this happened months ago.
But then you have people on here wanting to know if Hillary is really a man. They even bring up how she dresses and showed some cleavage.
2007-08-28 05:43:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by midnight&moonlight'smom 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
Yes and no.
On one hand,his conduct doesn't amount to much,on the other,this man spent 25 years making a career out of promoting "family values",while at the same time,doing every thing he could to ensure that the average American family was struggling while the corporations and the very rich got richer at their expense.
2007-08-28 05:28:52
·
answer #11
·
answered by ? 4
·
4⤊
0⤋