The Energon Pub

This newest scandal to come out of the GOP, the Larry Craig toe-tapping "sex" scandal is just the latest in an endless line of embarrassments this party has to offer. You know, a few years ago I was as right-wing as you get. I even wrote for my college paper as the singular Republican writer. But I've become so embarrassed by the party that I no longer associate myself with it.

I just want to know what the deal is with these politicians that are caught and outed as homosexuals, while all along they had voted against gay rights. Are they self-haters? If you are a secretly gay senator, and you are blocking gay people from equal rights, you are a HUGE hyprocrite. Can't really beat the hypocrisy on that. I just wonder, why can't they just be gay and be happy with that? It's all about their image--nevermind the women they lie to for decades, the children that were made to cover up their lies, and their "pro-family, pro-value" stance they claim to have. The same goes for that pastor that got outed by his gay lover/meth dealer. What a lie he was! Personally, I'm glad these guys get caught. Their utter hypocrisy deserves to be revealed to all.

Has anyone else been revolted by the current state of the GOP? I doubt I'll ever be a Republican again.

My personal theory, and I haven't done enough research yet, is that these people were raised Christian and Republican and, when faced with their own homosexuality, try to find any way to suppress it.

In the case of Republicans, it's "If I rally against homosexuality and in favor of family values, they'll never suspect that I'm gay!"

In the case of Priests, it's "Oh crap, I like men. But if I ever act on those impulses, my family will never speak to me again. But if I'm not married by the time I'm thirty, people will begin to suspect me of being gay. I need to find a way to stay single and not have that draw any attention. I know! I'll become a priest. Priests are celebate, so I'd never have to worry about acting on those urges."

This, of course, is all a product how stigmatized homosexuality has become. Rather than just be themselves, these poor people try to hide from it with disasterous results.

See, I don't care if they are gay. Most people don't care if they are gay. They lie to the very people that give them their power. THOSE people care if they are gay (well, a good number of them!) That pastor (Ted Haggard?) led a church of thousands and was the exact opposite of what he preached. So is Larry Craig and Mark Foley. Had they just been honest with themselves and everyone else, they could've been successful people regardless of their sexuality. Now look at them! The same happened with Tchaikovsky. He was gay, and back then that was a definite no-no. He married to cover it up and then had a complete mental breakdown. Nowadays, that isn't necessary. Oh well. Maybe progress really hasn't been made.

Why single out republicans? Dems are just as bad. You should retitle the thread name to "politicians" instead of just "republicans".

Frankly, I have to laugh. I didn't trust Bush's white house from the start, and sooooo many people are leaving it mid-run.

As for this guy, the real tragedy is that he had to keep his true life a secret in order to do his job. He probably didn't dare switch to democrat because of the same reason I won't switch to republican: I find most of their values laughable and out of touch with the real world. So he went on trying to hide it.

In this world, it's still very wrong to be gay. Most peolple still find it upsetting, no matter how hard they try to pretend otherwise. Just the other day, me and some guys were talking about this kid in our class who is bi, and after he lost his boyfriend, he started having this S&M mistress come over and kick his ass all night. They were basically making fun of him (I wasn't, he's cool I think), and then they would say "but whatever floats his boat". Please. They thought he was a freak and then some.

You still can't be gay in most of this world. It's the hard truth. And if you're over 60 and have otherwise solid Christian conventional values, then you probably do hate yourself. It's like a guy who looks at child porn and likes to watch kids get molested and raped and every so often will wipe his hard drive and swear it off, but keeps coming back. That's probably how this guy saw himself. He was opposed to gays because he thought that was right, but meanwhile, he had a bit of a problem that he didn't know how to deal with.

HoosierDaddy wrote:Why single out republicans? Dems are just as bad. You should retitle the thread name to "politicians" instead of just "republicans".

No, it's the Republicans who are having all the scandals right now. Dig up any dirt on a Democrat you want, it won't be a scandal, because nobody cares about him if he's not in the spotlight. They had their turn ten years ago. Slick Willy and his schlong ruined them in the minds of many people forever, to the point where I'll be voting for Obama in the primaries because I know how little chance Hilary has with swing voters.

And also because I'm pissed at her for acting like GTA San Andreas was the anti-christ of video games because of a PG-13 level sex scene with animated boobs.

Bill Clinton's scandal is nothing like the endless list of goofs this administration has made. Adultery doesn't compare to the war and the blunder that is, the Hurricane Katrina debacle, and so on and so on. But the problem with a gay senator is that he is actively working against equality for gay people, all the while being gay himself.

And please, let's get a president in office that is a great orator. PLEASE! Remember FDR? The guy knew how to make a speech, as did Ronald Reagan. We need a great speaker. I'm not going to just make fun of Bush here, but we all know the guy can't talk worth a DAMN.

Moonbase2 wrote:This newest scandal to come out of the GOP, the Larry Craig toe-tapping "sex" scandal is just the latest in an endless line of embarrassments this party has to offer. You know, a few years ago I was as right-wing as you get. I even wrote for my college paper as the singular Republican writer. But I've become so embarrassed by the party that I no longer associate myself with it.

Only in America are you left changing your entire political affiliatian by falling out with one party's view. That two-party system is not the way to go. In Northern Ireland, there's four main parties, and then a number of smaller ones (and by smaller, I mean half the size, not a millionth), with two on either side of the voting divide, a hardline party and a more liberal party each. Ideal? Not really, cause no one looks at the actual policies of each party, but as I understand it, a lot of you guys don't either. I dunno, I'm just ranting.

There are many reasons I am no longer a Republican, and not all of them have to do with Bush, necessarily, or even these hypocritical idiots. I am not very religious, so I'm not gonna vote for someone who wants our government and the church to go hand in hand in ANY WAY. Also, I don't believe old men have the right to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies. I used to be staunchly anti-abortion (and I still think it should be used sparingly), but nobody else has a right to tell a woman she is forced to give birth. These are just two of many things that have me turned off from the party. But I wouldn't say I'm a true-blue Dem either.

That's the beauty of the English system. You might vote for a party that's anti-abortion, but you can still support the ministers who would vote pro-choice in parliament. You uys have congress, but that's subject to presidential veto - Gordon Brown doesn't have that same ultimate say. The ongoing Trident fiasco here is a good example. If it wash America, Bush would buy the missiles straight up, no argument - but here there was a parliamentary vote over it, which was pretty close, and it could still end up with the decision being reversed.

Moonbase2 wrote:Bill Clinton's scandal is nothing like the endless list of goofs this administration has made. Adultery doesn't compare to the war and the blunder that is, the Hurricane Katrina debacle, and so on and so on. But the problem with a gay senator is that he is actively working against equality for gay people, all the while being gay himself.

And please, let's get a president in office that is a great orator. PLEASE! Remember FDR? The guy knew how to make a speech, as did Ronald Reagan. We need a great speaker. I'm not going to just make fun of Bush here, but we all know the guy can't talk worth a DAMN.

Clinton bombed people to get people to look the other direction from his scandel, at least Bush had good intentions going into Iraq, which in turn became a big blunder. There's a difference. (Please spare me the Bush lied, people died tag line...it's tired, and quite frankly if you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you).

Great public speaking doesn't make you a good leader (not arguing for Bush being a great leader either), case in point...Hitler was a great public speaker, didn't necessarily make him a great leader.

Back to the topic at hand, it's not as if though the Dems hadn't had their share if scandels either. After the aformentioned Clinton 8 years of lunacy and treating his interns like a brothel (At least JFK had enough class to do it with Marilyn Monroe), there's the honerable Ted Kennedy and his "incident" involving Mary Jo Kopechne, Barney Frank Dem Representative from Massachusetts who admitted to paying a male prosistute, Sandy "Hamburglar" who "accidentaly" mistook his underwear for a file cabnet, James McGreevey, New Jersey Governor, who admitted to having a gay affair, Jesse Jackson who fathered an illegitimate child,
Gary Condit lied to police about his affair after she went missing and later turned up dead, John Murtha considered a bribe from undercover federal investigators (to his credit, he didn't take it, but he did give the impression that he would consider it at a later date)...

The list goes on...

Loki120 wrote:Hitler was a great public speaker, didn't necessarily make him a great leader.

Being a terrible person doesn't mean he wasn't a great leader. Yeah, the man was a monster, but he took a nation which has been stripped down to nothing by the aftermath of WW1 and gave the entire rest of the world a fight they're not going to forget any time soon. Properly directed, Hitler's leadership could have worked miracles, but he chose to use it for evil instead.

Jesus Prime wrote:

Loki120 wrote:Hitler was a great public speaker, didn't necessarily make him a great leader.

Being a terrible person doesn't mean he wasn't a great leader. Yeah, the man was a monster, but he took a nation which has been stripped down to nothing by the aftermath of WW1 and gave the entire rest of the world a fight they're not going to forget any time soon. Properly directed, Hitler's leadership could have worked miracles, but he chose to use it for evil instead.

Beat me to it. Hitler was one of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen. If Hitler had fancied American Football he'd have coached the local Pee-Wee team to a Superbowl dynasty!

Yes, he's directly responsible for more pain and suffering than any human being who's ever lived (except maybe Jesus, but the jury's still out on that one), but he was one HELL of a leader!

Professor Smooth wrote:Yes, he's directly responsible for more pain and suffering than any human being who's ever lived (except maybe Jesus, but the jury's still out on that one)

Billy Ray Cyrus, too.

Professor Smooth wrote:he's directly responsible for more pain and suffering than any human being who's ever lived (except maybe Jesus, but the jury's still out on that one)

No, the jury's in:

He's off the hook.


The Catholic Church is directly responsible for both the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Would you blame Mohammed for 911?

Would you blame Rammstein, KMFDM, and id Software for the Columbine incident?

What bothers me is not the fact that these politicians cheat---most do, and it's nothing new. It's when they CLAIM to be all about family values. That's what bothers me. I really couldn't care less if the pres is cheating, or any politician. Hell, even royalty cheats and there isn't really a stigma attached to that. Just don't go spouting about how immoral gays are or how you're a great family man if you are gay or an adulterer. Just be honest. Oh yeah, that doesn't exist in politics.

Hitler was a great leader. Can't really deny that....well, until the end, that is, when the Parkinson's and the barbituates started making him an absolute lunatic. But had Germany been run benignly under Hitler, the country would've been a shining example of efficiency and achievement. Too bad it went the other way.

But nothing compares to the woes caused to mankind over religion. Reason numero uno that I'm not religious at all. I don't want the control over my life, my money, or my family. I'm a good person without being religious.

Dark Zarak wrote:Would you blame Rammstein, KMFDM, and id Software for the Columbine incident?

I blame Columbine for the Columbine incident. Might sound harsh, but they poked one seriously disturbed pair of sleeping bears.

Dark Zarak wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:he's directly responsible for more pain and suffering than any human being who's ever lived (except maybe Jesus, but the jury's still out on that one)

No, the jury's in:

He's off the hook.


The Catholic Church is directly responsible for both the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Would you blame Mohammed for 911?

Would you blame Rammstein, KMFDM, and id Software for the Columbine incident?

I meant that the jury is still out on if Jesus ever actually existed.

Yeah, I'd say that the founder of Islam is responsible for the atrocities committed by Islam.

As for the Columbine incident, I blame the kids who, instead of just leaving the creepy little buggers alone, decided to pick on them.

It's not even a fair comparison. The founder of Islam told his followers to "spread Islam by the sword" and suggested all sorts of unsavory things. Rammstein, KMFDM, etc, sing. They don't tell their fans to go and murder people to get an eternal reward.

The thing about Islam is that there's two very different types of it, just like not all Christians are Jerry Falwell. There's those fanatical nut-job retards who blow **** up for their virgins in heaven, and there's the Muslims who won't even wear silk because it entails unnecessary death. You can't really lump it all as being violent. Remember, the Old Testament is pretty brutal too. Samson's massacre on Jawbone Hill, anyone?

Professor Smooth wrote:
As for the Columbine incident, I blame the kids who, instead of just leaving the creepy little buggers alone, decided to pick on them.

I just blame the creepy little buggers who were too pussy to ever stand up for themselves with out guns to back them up.

The only ones who will ever be responsible for Columbine, are the evil creatures who did it. Yes. I deny them thier humanity.

The thing you guys have to take into account is that all the "nutjobs" like Falwell are the REAL Christians. All that insane stuff that they spout is actually in The Bible. The nice ones are the ones who are not following The Bible to the letter. The same is true of the Koran. You can't say that all muslims are evil murderous people, but all of the God of Abraham religions DO advocate violence, rape, genocide, slavery, mutilation, and other nastiness.

If you want to discuss Columbine, please make another thread for it.

Professor Smooth wrote:The thing you guys have to take into account is that all the "nutjobs" like Falwell are the REAL Christians. All that insane stuff that they spout is actually in The Bible. The nice ones are the ones who are not following The Bible to the letter. The same is true of the Koran. You can't say that all muslims are evil murderous people, but all of the God of Abraham religions DO advocate violence, rape, genocide, slavery, mutilation, and other nastiness.

If you want to discuss Columbine, please make another thread for it.

I don't buy that, Smooth. Jesus preached compassion, forgiveness, humility and modesty. I don't see any of those attributes in your 'real Christians'.

I don't care who a "real" Christian is, as long as they don't shove their beliefs down my throat. When I was pregnant, an old man in a mall asked me what I was having. I said it was a boy, and out of nowhere he asked if I was going to give him to Jesus. Uh....what? Keep that kind of talk to yourself! It's just weird.

Televangelists that have marathons telling people to give them money while living in utter opulance make me sick. The people that give their time and money aren't really the ones that have a lot of it. I'm certainly not giving people my money when they are sitting on a luxurious television set (like the one that pink-haired lady sits on a gold throne on). Plus with all the corruption, the lies...they won't get a dime out of me. I'm a good person that doesn't do anything in the name of God. I just do nice things just cause. That's how we should be.

Jesus Prime wrote:
I don't buy that, Smooth. Jesus preached compassion, forgiveness, humility and modesty. I don't see any of those attributes in your 'real Christians'.

I'll get to Jesus in just a moment, but are you saying that Christians completely disregard what's said in The Old Testament? Because violence, rape, murder, slavery, etc are advocated in those pages.

Until Jesus was introduced to save his people from it, there was no mention of Hell in the Bible. Come to think of it, until Jesus, there's really not a whole lot about life after death at all. Isn't it strange that the all-knowing God never bothered to tell his people about an afterlife involving eternal torment?

Professor Smooth wrote:

Jesus Prime wrote:
I don't buy that, Smooth. Jesus preached compassion, forgiveness, humility and modesty. I don't see any of those attributes in your 'real Christians'.

I'll get to Jesus in just a moment, but are you saying that Christians completely disregard what's said in The Old Testament? Because violence, rape, murder, slavery, etc are advocated in those pages.

Until Jesus was introduced to save his people from it, there was no mention of Hell in the Bible. Come to think of it, until Jesus, there's really not a whole lot about life after death at all. Isn't it strange that the all-knowing God never bothered to tell his people about an afterlife involving eternal torment?

The Old Testament isn't every book in the Jewish Bible, plus they have their own view of the afterlife. So they obviously got it from somewhere.

And, the whole semantics thing gets me. CHRISTians. You know, that Christ guy. The emphasis is supposed to be on him, since, you know, it's his religion. If we were arguing Judaism, you might have a point, but not Christianity.

Jesus Prime wrote:
The Old Testament isn't every book in the Jewish Bible, plus they have their own view of the afterlife. So they obviously got it from somewhere.

What do the Jews think about an afterlife? If it's so obvious, then why not tell us about it?

Jesus Prime wrote:And, the whole semantics thing gets me. CHRISTians. You know, that Christ guy. The emphasis is supposed to be on him, since, you know, it's his religion. If we were arguing Judaism, you might have a point, but not Christianity.

Christianity is the Old Testament AND the New Testament. It is not just what Jesus (so called Christ) said/did. If you want me to expose the stories of Jesus as untrue, then I'd be happy to. First, you need to take into account that Jesus did not write any of The New Testament. His followers did. These accounts, accounts of the same events, differ greatly from one to the next. Four different accounts of the same event means that at least three need to be false. If at least three are false, well, that puts quite a hole in "The Bible is the word of God" then, doesn't it?

You also need to consider that Jesus was a Jew and, thus, he wanted his teachings followed by Jews. He'd have been pissed if he found out that people outside of God's Chosen People had chosen to follow him.