This may well be the greatest excuse I've ever heard a politician make. And by greatest, I mean "most spectacularly stupid". From the Orlando Sentinel:

State Rep. Bob Allen told police he was just playing along when a undercover officer suggested in a public restroom that the legislator give him oral sex and $20 because he was intimidated, according to a taped statement and other documents released Thursday ....

.... "This was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park," Allen, who is white, told police in a taped statement after his arrest. Allen said he feared he "was about to be a statistic" and would have said anything just to get away. (Sellers (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-allentape0307aug03,0,1892734.story?coll=orl_tab01_ layout))

To the other, I know police reports and such are sketchy, but it's worth noting that the police tell a completely different story:

After peering over the stall a second time, Allen pushed open the door and joined Kavanaugh inside, the officer wrote. Allen muttered " 'hi,' " and then said, " 'this is kind of a public place, isn't it,' " the report said. (ibid (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-allentape0307aug03,0,1892734.story?coll=orl_tab01_ layout))

Now, the tale goes on to describe an incident that falls within the range of busts that I criticize. That's not my point.

Rather, according to police, perpetrator Allen initiated the incident. If he was afraid of the black man, he should have just run instead of entering the stall. We're left wondering what, exactly, Allen was up to in the first place.

Oh, one last note from the article:

When Allen was being placed in a marked patrol car, he asked whether "it would help" if he was a state legislator, according to a police report. The officer replied, "No." (ibid (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-allentape0307aug03,0,1892734.story?coll=orl_tab01_ layout))

We might want to pay attention to the race in Titusville come the next election. It could be rather fun.
____________________

Notes:

Sellers, Laurin. "State Rep. Allen explains sex case: Fear made me play along". OrlandoSentinel.com, August 3, 2007. See http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-allentape0307aug03,0,1892734.story?coll=orl_tab01_ layout

When faced by a group of black men, immediately offer them money and a blow job. That was the best he could come up with??
And I thought Bush was a dumb politician.

I would be cautious and choose different route to walk. That's what I do in real life, I make it seem like I saw something on the other side of the street...walk to the corner in normal pace...and than run as far as I can.

I choose to exercise my American right and shoot him... because that was the answer that made me laugh the most.

Is there an "additional" option to torture before killing?

~String

Is there an "additional" option to torture before killing?

Well ... I think you have the power to add that one to the list. Or maybe not. I don't know. I don't fiddle with the polls much. We can throw one in there. I thought the "shoot him" option was a bit excessive, but I didn't want to leave anyone out. You know, respecting diversity and all.

But I suppose I should ask, because I know we have one or two posters from Florida. Does this sort of "stupid racism" (is there any other kind?) play in Florida?


When faced by a group of black men, immediately offer them money and a blow job.

Minority groups tend to be more homophobic; to be honest, I wouldn't proposition a black man in a public park bathroom because what frightens me is the prospective reaction. Of course, there are a few parks (e.g., Volunteer Park in Seattle) where that fear would be unfounded. Titusville is a growing waterfront city of 44,000+ due east of Orlando and across the Indian River from the Kennedy Space Center. The median income is below the rest of Florida, as is the median home value, but its poverty rate is lower than the rest of the state. Rep. Allen represents Merritt Island, the nearest city I can find to the Space Center. Now, in Seattle, Volunteer Park is known as a place where you can hire or score a lay, buy drugs, &c. In Salem, Oregon, a city of 140,000, the homeless hang out in Marion Square Park, and one can usually find someone willing to exchange sex for money. Puyallup, Washington, a town of 33,000, is one I've known at least something about for most of my life. I couldn't even begin to tell you, though, where to find the park-bathroom sexual gratification.

According to the Sentinel article in the topic post, officers on a stake-out of a nearby condo observed Allen behaving suspiciously, as if he was looking for a sex partner. In the first place, what the hell does that mean? To the other, is a Florida town of 44,000 the kind of place where there would be a park notorious for its flesh trade? Out here in our corner, the cities generally need to be a little bit larger before this sort of park develops. So it's hard to say, on the one hand, that Allen "knew where he was". To the other, though, it's nearly impossible to say he didn't.

From an earlier article in the Orlando Sentinel:

Reaction among Allen's fellow Republicans was cautious.

Rep. Mitch Needelman, R-Melbourne, said the allegations held "severe moral implications."

"For the foreseeable future, Rep. Allen needs to put his political career on hold," Needelman said. "I have concerns for his family."

House Speaker Marco Rubio said in a statement that, "The charge against Rep. Allen is serious." But because it's a misdemeanor, he added, a guilty verdict would not require Allen to resign. Asked in Miami about the arrest, Gov. Charlie Crist said, "It just seems sad and tragic." (Sherman (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-allen1307jul13,0,5667267.story))
____________________

Notes:

Sherman, Chris. "State Rep. Bob Allen insists he's innocent, will not quit". OrlandoSentinel.com, July 12, 2007. See http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-allen1307jul13,0,5667267.story

Some commentary from across the Pond:

The idea that homosexual relationships, or at least acts, between men, express a power relationship, in which one party is exalted, and the other degraded seems to lie behind an awful lot of visceral homophobia. There's obviously some truth in it. A mob of boys at my public school sodomised with a broomstick a child who was (thank god) even less popular than I was. The only lust in that was the lust to humiliate. One hears that this sort of thing goes on in American prisons, too, though they charge lower fees.

If these acts are understood to express a relationship of dominance, it would explain why they are both so widespread and so heavily tabooed in societies where there is a surplus of sex-starved young men. The shameful thing, then, is not to be gay, but to be a victim, a submissive loser who will never get a woman; still, the two terms come to be defined as the same thing. When Bob Allen drove into the park, he was just gay in the 1980s sense: he wanted sex with men. But when he blamed the whole thing on blacks, he was gay in the schoolyard sense as well: weak, disgusting - and, let's not forget - Republican. (Brown (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/08/a_blow_for_posterity.html))

I couldn't resist this article, in part for its title. I also appreciate the fact that he found a way to use the "that's so gay" slur in an appropriate context.
____________________

Notes:

Brown, Andrew. "A blow for posterity". GuardianUnlimited, August 9, 2007. See http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/08/a_blow_for_posterity.html

I think it says something about Florida that the legislator thought he would be better off pretending to be a racist rather than admitting to being gay.

Minority groups tend to be more homophobic; to be honest, I wouldn't proposition a black man in a public park bathroom because what frightens me is the prospective reaction.
Tiassa, you have about ten minutes to provide the statistics that you must necessarily have on hand in order to make such a claim.

Ten minutes ... Go.

Willy

Sciforums has considered this topic before. Like, four years ago: "The need of Normalization of Homosexuality: CDC & Closeted men (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=17021)"

Or you can go straight to the CDC for a more recent look:

Homophobia and stigma can cause some black MSM to identify themselves as heterosexual or not to disclose their sexual orientation. Indeed, black MSM are more likely than other MSM not to identify themselves as gay. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm))

I wish you guys would allow Flash videos. Anyway, here is a link to the Daily Show segment on this, http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=91136

Some tidbits from here and there:

Mr Allen is a married Republican with a child, who was considered by one gay group to be the most homophobic politician in the state, based on his voting record (he also had an approval rating of 92% from the Christian coalition ....

.... If convicted, he may face a sentence of up to year in jail, thanks to the firm line that the state of Florida takes against immorality. He had done his bit for that, too: according to AP, he has sponsored six separate bills increasing the penalties for illicit sex this year alone. (Brown (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/08/a_blow_for_posterity.html))

I rehash the Andrew Brown article posted earlier because it brought me to mind of something one of his fellow Englishmen said a few years back:

There's hardly a month goes by without some prominent judge or politician being found in suspenders and stockings, being hit with a stick of rhubarb and stood in a bucket of cod; which, personally, doesn't really bother me, except that it always turns out that the day before they've stood up in the House of Commons and said, "If there's one thing that makes me sick, it's people who dress up in suspenders and stockings and get hit with a stick of rhubarb, stood in a bucket of cod!" (Mark Steel)

On the one hand, I try to have some sympathy for people caught up in sex scandals, but when someone goes so far out of their way to set up slayer irony, there's not much to be done, is there? Oh, well. I hear Mark Oaten and his wife are thawing their relationship through intensive counseling. Hopefully, Rep. Allen can put his life back together after this one.
_____________________

Notes:

Brown, Andrew. "A blow for posterity". GuardianUnlimited, August 9, 2007. See http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/08/a_blow_for_posterity.html

Steel, Mark. "Sexuality". The Mark Steel Solution #301. BBC Radio 4, August 4, 1995.

Nice try Tiassa, but you said "Minority groups tend to be more homophobic".

What minority groups are you speaking of, could you tell us?

Then you say, "I wouldn't proposition a black man in a public park bathroom because what frightens me is the prospective reaction.

What is it that "frightens" you about black men?

If I had witten what you wrote, I would get another infraction.

I wouldn't proposition a black man in a public park bathroom because what frightens me is the prospective reaction.

I wouldn't proposition a black man in a public park bathroom (as Allen did) because what frightens me is the prospective reaction if he's not gay. Consider the context of the discussion, Willy. After all, the rest of the paragraph makes that clear:

Of course, there are a few parks (e.g., Volunteer Park in Seattle) where that fear would be unfounded. Titusville is a growing waterfront city of 44,000+ due east of Orlando and across the Indian River from the Kennedy Space Center. The median income is below the rest of Florida, as is the median home value, but its poverty rate is lower than the rest of the state. Rep. Allen represents Merritt Island, the nearest city I can find to the Space Center. Now, in Seattle, Volunteer Park is known as a place where you can hire or score a lay, buy drugs, &c. In Salem, Oregon, a city of 140,000, the homeless hang out in Marion Square Park, and one can usually find someone willing to exchange sex for money. Puyallup, Washington, a town of 33,000, is one I've known at least something about for most of my life. I couldn't even begin to tell you, though, where to find the park-bathroom sexual gratification.

The question is whether the park bathroom in Titusville is a good place to go for loose gay sex.

Now, in general, homophobia lingers more strongly among minority groups; this is why minority men stay in the closet longer. Duh.

If I had witten what you wrote, I would get another infraction.

If you had written what you quoted of what I wrote, maybe you would have. If you had written what I actually wrote, some of us might have been impressed.

Tiassa,

You are only fooling yourself, your dishonesty is transparent and embarassing.

Tiassa,

You are only fooling yourself, your dishonesty is transparent and embarassing.

your really one to talk of dishonesty is that not the pot calling the kettle black?

Guilty!
Jury convicts Florida Republican

The jury deliberated for three hours and twenty minutes before convicting Florida state Rep. Bob Allen (R-Merritt Island) on charges that he attempted to solicit an undercover police officer.

Allen spoke briefly to reporters after the verdict, saying that he maintained his innocence.

"We are continuing to seek justice. I am innocent. My family, my God and my good constituents know that."

The jury delivered its verdict after considering the case for three hours and 20 minutes.

(Cervenka (http://floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071109/BREAKINGNEWS/71109011))

The defense did not present any witnesses.

So, Tiassa, what's up with trolling the internet to find obscure stories about obscure Republicans behaving badly? This has been your obvious trend for about two weeks now. Are you on the Democrats payroll or something?

So, Tiassa, what's up with trolling the internet to find obscure stories about obscure Republicans behaving badly? This has been your obvious trend for about two weeks now. Are you on the Democrats payroll or something?

Yummy, Conservative tears QQ are so tasty.

Is questioning someone's motives suddenly out of bounds? Especially when that someone continues to dig up obscure stories in effort to prove a trend? What about the trend the digging itself betrays? Does Tiassa spend even a fraction of the same amount of time combing the internet for stories about Democrats? I doubt it. So what's that make Tiassa?

Of course Tiassa is biased...so are most of the people who post here.

I see you posted an anti-Hollywood thread, are you ready to start threads busting on Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity any time soon?

Almost all of our threads in "politics" reflect our politics. That being said, it's fine to suggest that this does not represent a trend in Republican thought, despite the many recent examples. More likely it hits the press because it seems like it's so against type. Republican solicits gay sex has a more "man bites dog" quality to it.

Is questioning someone's motives suddenly out of bounds?

Only when those motives are yours, as I understand it.

Especially when that someone continues to dig up obscure stories in effort to prove a trend? What about the trend the digging itself betrays?

I would think that a journalist would understand that there's not a whole lot of "digging" involved when the stories come across an RSS feed.

Oh, right. Sorry.

Does Tiassa spend even a fraction of the same amount of time combing the internet for stories about Democrats?

When a Democrat with a homophobic voting record goes down for something gay (heh ... heh-heh), I'll pay attention.

More likely it hits the press because it seems like it's so against type. Republican solicits gay sex has a more "man bites dog" quality to it. Which is kind of strange. How do these stories keep their aura of "against type" for so many years ? Surely at some point the repetition forces the recognition that they exemplify a type ?

Only when those motives are yours, as I understand it.

There's a difference in questioning a person's motives for publishing something and personally attacking that person because you don't like their viewpoint on something. You're a smart person and you should be able to understand such a distinction. The fact you don't (or chose to ignore it) speaks volumes about what I would call your character.

I would think that a journalist would understand that there's not a whole lot of "digging" involved when the stories come across an RSS feed.

Oh, right. Sorry.

Once again: The shallow dig at my profession. You're so absolutely predictable, Tiassa. Rattle you for a few posts, question you somehow and you're dead certain to fall back on your usual methods.

When a Democrat with a homophobic voting record goes down for something gay (heh ... heh-heh), I'll pay attention.

You mean like Barney Frank?

No, don't answer that. It's immaterial as to why I bothered to post here. I've asked why you've spent the past two weeks doing nothing but dredging up obscure stories about obscure Republicans, and I'm still curious what you're doing all this for and what you hope to achieve? To prove something negative about Republicans? To achieve some sort of massive conversion among members to your way of thinking?

Of course Tiassa is biased...so are most of the people who post here.

So why shouldn't that bias be questioned?

I see you posted an anti-Hollywood thread, are you ready to start threads busting on Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity any time soon?

I fail see how you connect the above. Hollywood makes movies, which are largely for entertainment purposes. The other two (who I hold no specific warm feelings toward) are polemicists who specifically gab about politics. One expects them to engage in political issues. One does not expect Hollywood to do the same, and whenever they do, it's usually embarrassing, just as this latest round of films are, because they haven't the skill or appreciation to effectively be "political."

But if the point you're trying to make is that I am somehow "biased" because I came out swinging against Hollywood and haven't chastised a pair of conservative radio talk show hosts, I still fail to see the connection. One thread doesn't betray a bias (or even an inclination). Whereas Tiassa, as I've mentioned, seems to spend the majority of his/her time finding these obscure stories about Republicans. Why? What's the point? He/she still hasn't answered. Are these stories being posted, because as you put it, they have the whole dog bites man slant to them? I doubt it...

You mean like Barney Frank?

No, don't answer that. It's immaterial as to why I bothered to post here. I've asked why you've spent the past two weeks doing nothing but dredging up obscure stories about obscure Republicans, and I'm still curious what you're doing all this for and what you hope to achieve? To prove something negative about Republicans? To achieve some sort of massive conversion among members to your way of thinking?

Here's the difference with Barney Frank. So what If he had gay sex orgies at his house. Which the Republicans accused him of running a brothel out of his house. He's not throwing fire and brimstone at anyone for having a gay lifestyle. However, each and every one of your party leaders are. It's the height of hypocrisy, to preach against something you're not against.

I don't think Republican politicians are anti-gay, because Dennis Hastert and Roy Blunt, and many others knew that Mark Foley was gay. And the accusations surrounding Larry Craig have been circulating for years. And don't forget Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the gay male prostitute that had frequent visits to the whitehouse, and somehow was able to get into the White House press room. When most capital hill reporters will tell you that it takes YEARS of good service to make it into the elite whitehouse press core.

Even Rick Santorums chief of staff was outed as being gay. There's so many examples it's staggering. The Republicans need to move away from divisive politics. I know they feel the need to vilify something, or someone, but vilifying gays is only exposing their gross hypocrisy.

So why shouldn't that bias be questioned?

It can be, but bias in selecting topics is not the same thing as being wrong about the point she is making. Merely asserting bias is meaningless unless you can show that bias affects the actual conclusion...in which case why not attack the conclusion directly?

I fail see how you connect the above. Hollywood makes movies, which are largely for entertainment purposes. The other two (who I hold no specific warm feelings toward) are polemicists who specifically gab about politics. One expects them to engage in political issues. One does not expect Hollywood to do the same, and whenever they do, it's usually embarrassing, just as this latest round of films are, because they haven't the skill or appreciation to effectively be "political."

If one doesn't expect Hollywood to make political statements, then I would argue one hasn't been paying attention. You may wish Hollywood made movies solely for entertainment and not for didactic or propagandistic purposes, but that hasn't been the case. People have been making movies with a view towards pushing a point of view for a long time. WWII Hollywood was rife with pro-Allies propaganda, then it went for years with a lot of anti-Communist propaganda. MASH was clearly and deliberately anti-Vietnam propaganda, then there was Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, etc. etc. etc. There was a film called Intolerance from 1916 that was deliberately pro-pacifism, hoping to sway people against entering the the Great War (now known as WWI).

How I connect the two is: bias. You chose that topic because you dislike Hollywood and their liberal values. That's a bias. She chose her topic because she dislikes Republicans, also a bias. You both may be absolutely correct in your criticisms, because being biased doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, it merely suggests that you might have come to the wrong conclusion.

What's the point? He/she still hasn't answered. Are these stories being posted, because as you put it, they have the whole dog bites man slant to them? I doubt it...

I don't see that you've made any point worthy of rebuttal. If Tiassa has made some incorrect claim, point it out. If the best you have is: "well, all this is completely true, but I wish you'd picked something else to talk about" then why should anyone respond to that?

You tend to pick conservative leaning topics. Tiassa picks liberal ones. Tiassa doesn't give equal time to Democrat scandals. You don't give equal time to conservative foolishness. Why do you think only the liberals owe an explanation for their choices of conversation topics? (I don't think you owe anyone an explanation for the sorts of stories that interest you.)

If something Tiassa wrote or implied is wrong, point it out and explain it; otherwise a claim of bias is no more than an ad hominem attack. You focus on some perceived fault of the arguer, without making any direct refutation of the argument.

No, don't answer that. It's immaterial as to why I bothered to post here. I've asked why you've spent the past two weeks doing nothing but dredging up obscure stories about obscure Republicans, and I'm still curious what you're doing all this for and what you hope to achieve? To prove something negative about Republicans? To achieve some sort of massive conversion among members to your way of thinking?

Who can resist some shadenfreude when it is such blatant hypocrisy? If he weren't a Republican, I'd have to feel sorry for Larry Craig (I actually still do a bit). He might actually have himself convinced that he isn't gay! I watched his interview with Matt Lauer, and it was a sad affair.

After we all snigger about how the Republicans are really a bunch of closet cases, and instead of a "Big tent" they are actually the "big closet" party, and the joke gets stale... It happens again. And that one blows over. And it happens again.

If you find out about any Democrats who campaigned against gay rights and gay marriage, only to turn out to be spending a fair amount of time in the nearest cruising spot, feel free to post the gotcha thread. I seriously doubt that anyone here would have any sympathy for them.

It can be, but bias in selecting topics is not the same thing as being wrong about the point she is making.

I have no idea what point he/she is making, which is why I asked. This is the third or fourth thread in which Tiassa posted an obscure story about an obscure Republican misbehaving. Is there a point to all this? Or should we all just shut up and thank Tiassa for trolling the media and keeping us up-to-date on all these delicious Republican misdeeds?

Merely asserting bias is meaningless unless you can show that bias affects the actual conclusion...in which case why not attack the conclusion directly?

Again, I don't know what the conclusion is, which is why I asked. However, I'm not sure how "bias is meaningless," especially when one can document how the stories selected are all about Republicans, all the time. Perhaps I wouldn't have mentioned bias at all if there were a few stories about the Dems to break the pattern up. But there aren't any. So should I ignore what's staring me in the face and not question it? If nothing else, I've called attention to it, and can retire to let him/her (and whoever else wants to join in) engage in whatever the point of relishing these sort of stories is.

If one doesn't expect Hollywood to make political statements, then I would argue one hasn't been paying attention. You may wish Hollywood made movies solely for entertainment and not for didactic or propagandistic purposes, but that hasn't been the case. People have been making movies with a view towards pushing a point of view for a long time. WWII Hollywood was rife with pro-Allies propaganda, then it went for years with a lot of anti-Communist propaganda. MASH was clearly and deliberately anti-Vietnam propaganda, then there was Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, etc. etc. etc. There was a film called Intolerance from 1916 that was deliberately pro-pacifism, hoping to sway people against entering the the Great War (now known as WWI).

This is a wonderful paragraph that attempts to sieze on a few examples and cast them as being indicative of the whole. So yes, I'm not ignorant of the brief history you mention. However, Hollywood, for the large part, has not been interested in overt political statements. It especially has not made a slew of films about a war while that war was still being fought (The exception to this would be WW2, but those were all pro-war films, as you pointed out). And if you think Hollywood acts now the way it did in the past, you should compare and contrast statements from the lead performers of the various eras.

How I connect the two is: bias. You chose that topic because you dislike Hollywood and their liberal values. That's a bias. She chose her topic because she dislikes Republicans, also a bias. You both may be absolutely correct in your criticisms, because being biased doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, it merely suggests that you might have come to the wrong conclusion.

How you connect the two is suspect. We aren't talking about Hollywood here. We're talking about bias and the purpose of sharing this story. So I fail to see what I said elsewhere has to do with anything. I also think you're making some assumptions that I'd like to clear up. I did not attack Hollywood for its "liberal views." I attacked Hollywood for attempting to tackle topics it has no business (or skill) for tackling. It irks me just as much when conservative idiots in Hollywood run their mouths about topics they aren't qualified to speak about, too.

I don't see that you've made any point worthy of rebuttal. If Tiassa has made some incorrect claim, point it out. If the best you have is: "well, all this is completely true, but I wish you'd picked something else to talk about" then why should anyone respond to that?

My question (still unanswered) is what his/her purpose is in tracking down all these stories and posting them. I do not dispute the validity of the stories. Frankly, I don't care about the stories at all. But what some people choose to make of them can be interesting. Is what people do with facts or why they consider those facts important not worth considering?

You tend to pick conservative leaning topics. Tiassa picks liberal ones. Tiassa doesn't give equal time to Democrat scandals. You don't give equal time to conservative foolishness. Why do you think only the liberals owe an explanation for their choices of conversation topics? (I don't think you owe anyone an explanation for the sorts of stories that interest you.)

First, I think there's a difference in picking "conservative leaning topics" and not giving equal time to the other side. Second, I would dispute your opinion (I've openly criticized numerous "conservatives," and recently started a thread about at least one of them). But you're entitled to your views. To answer your question, I don't think liberals owe an explanation for their choices in topics. I also don't see how that restricts me from asking the question about why certain members keep choosing certain topics (over and over). Again, I'd like to know what the overall conclusion we're supposed to arrive at to be made plain. I think I know what it is, but I'm not going to speculate...

If something Tiassa wrote or implied is wrong, point it out and explain it; otherwise a claim of bias is no more than an ad hominem attack. You focus on some perceived fault of the arguer, without making any direct refutation of the argument.

I asked a question (still unanswered). How is that a personal attack?

There's a difference in questioning a person's motives for publishing something and personally attacking that person because you don't like their viewpoint on something. You're a smart person and you should be able to understand such a distinction. The fact you don't (or chose to ignore it) speaks volumes about what I would call your character.

I question your motives because you're not honest.

Once again: The shallow dig at my profession

Actually, it's a dig at your dishonesty. For some reason, you, who claim to be a journalist, seem to think that clicking a link out of an RSS feed constitutes, as you put it, spending "the majority of his/her time finding these obscure stories about Republicans". Given the research good journalism demands, I just find this argument of yours laughable.

I realize it's important to keep these irrelevant distractions alive because you have no better argument. After all, what you pointed out to Pandaemoni--

Why? What's the point? He/she still hasn't answered

--is fundamentally dishonest. What I haven't answered is a bogus question. It's an invention of your own obsession.

You seem to want me to answer for an investment of time that is not made.

You're so absolutely predictable, Tiassa. Rattle you for a few posts, question you somehow and you're dead certain to fall back on your usual methods.

Well, as a two-bit, semi-literate thug conservative shill pretending to be a journalist, you haven't given much else to work with. When you decide to be honest, decent, or in any way remotely respectable, you'll get that respect. Of course, I understand how that notion slips past you. Honesty, decency, and respectability are not among your attributes as a member of this community.

You mean like Barney Frank?

Barney Frank is a homophobe? I guess I could believe it. Why don't you use your supercalifragilistic journalistic powers to make the case. Because people have known Barney Frank is gay for years, dude. Unlike, say, Larry Craig or Bob Allen, who, like Rep. Dick Curtis, might simply be so heterosexual that they need to get penises shoved into their butts in order to satisfy their heterosexual needs (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=433857).

No, don't answer that. It's immaterial as to why I bothered to post here.

Actually, it's quite suggestive about your motives. I mean, I figure you can at least establish Barney Frank as a homophobe, right? It's not like you're actually raising a comparison that is only valid if we ignore the outright hypocrisy of these homophobic gay Republicans. Their own self-loathing is something they need to deal with, and something they'll find many people willing to help with. But like anything else, nobody can help these men come to terms with themselves until they're ready to try.

To prove something negative about Republicans? To achieve some sort of massive conversion among members to your way of thinking?

Actually, Republicans and their mouthpieces do a good enough job of casting themselves in a negative light. As you demonstrate, the only people they're fooling are themselves. Okay, I admit that you might not be a Republican, but it's really hard for me to believe you're actually so stupid as you make yourself out to be.

To the other, seek help. Playing the fool is one thing, but the effort you put into it just a little bit worrisome.

Back to your old tricks of behaving like an intellectual thug and attacking people again. Tiassa, you're an absolute joke.

(chortle!)

Troll.

:rolleyes: