[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 22, 1:46*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 22, 12:10*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 22, 12:12*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
After an investigation, the Ethics Committee found no evidence that
Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity
and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims.[18][19]

Attempts to expel or censure Frank, led by Republican member Larry
Craig (who himself was later embroiled in his own gay sex scandal),
failed.[20][21] Rather, the House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank who
later won re-election in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won
by larger margins ever since.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_...mmittee_action

He is an idiot and immoral for letting himself be used.

That means your buddy 2pid is likewise "immoral".

I didn't know that he was a Congressman and that he had
the moral responsibilities of a Congressman. It's news to me!!!!!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

I didn't know that he was a Congressman and that he had
the moral responsibilities of a Congressman.

You seem to be admitting that when you vote for a congressional candidate,
you expect him or her to hew to the highest possible standard of public
and private life. You must loooooove disappointment.

Bashed any Gays lately?

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 22, 1:16*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

I didn't know that he was a Congressman and that he had
the moral responsibilities of a Congressman.

You seem to be admitting that when you vote for a congressional candidate,
you expect him or her to hew to the highest possible standard of public
and private life. You must loooooove disappointment.

Bashed any Gays lately?


I wouldn't know, if so, they were in the closet, and my bashing would
have
been for some totally unrelated reason.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 22, 7:54*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 22, 1:46*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 22, 12:10*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 22, 12:12*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
After an investigation, the Ethics Committee found no evidence that
Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity
and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims.[18][19]

Attempts to expel or censure Frank, led by Republican member Larry
Craig (who himself was later embroiled in his own gay sex scandal),
failed.[20][21] Rather, the House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank who
later won re-election in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won
by larger margins ever since.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_...mmittee_action

He is an idiot and immoral for letting himself be used.

That means your buddy 2pid is likewise "immoral".

I didn't know that he was a Congressman and that he had
the moral responsibilities of a Congressman. It's news to me!!!!!

Oh, you said someone not knowing something was "immoral".

2pid is really, really "immoral" then.

What are the "moral responsibilities" of a Congressman or any other
politician?

Clinton had oral sex with that Lewinski woman. Frank had this
(although in Frank's case the "immoral" argument is pretty weak).

Both get re-elected by big margins. Perhaps the "moral" responsibility
of politicians is to be good at it.

I think narrowmindedness is what will keep the republicans out of
power for a long time.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

I think narrowmindedness is what will keep the republicans out of
power for a long time.

In a perfect world, their colossal hypocrisy would keep them on the
sidelines for the better part of a century.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 22, 1:51*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 22, 7:54*am, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Jun 22, 1:46*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 22, 12:10*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 22, 12:12*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
After an investigation, the Ethics Committee found no evidence that
Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity
and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims.[18][19]

Attempts to expel or censure Frank, led by Republican member Larry
Craig (who himself was later embroiled in his own gay sex scandal),
failed.[20][21] Rather, the House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank who
later won re-election in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won
by larger margins ever since.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_...mmittee_action

He is an idiot and immoral for letting himself be used.

That means your buddy 2pid is likewise "immoral".

I didn't know that he was a Congressman and that he had
the moral responsibilities of a Congressman. It's news to me!!!!!

Oh, you said someone not knowing something was "immoral".

2pid is really, really "immoral" then.

What are the "moral responsibilities" of a Congressman or any other
politician?

Clinton had oral sex with that Lewinski woman. Frank had this
(although in Frank's case the "immoral" argument is pretty weak).



His immorality is not because he "sucks dicks", it is because
he let a complete sleazebag into his life, and let him
have the run of his digs. This guy is a powerful senior
Congressman, and he lets some bum who would never be able
to get even a low level security clearance have the run of
his house. Its a breach of Frank's responsibility to
both his constituents, and to the rest of'
the country, because he has access to all
sorts of restricted information.

It s the same issue as if a male Congressman had
a female sleazebag entwined in his life.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 22, 3:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 22, 1:51*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 22, 7:54*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 22, 1:46*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 22, 12:10*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 22, 12:12*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
After an investigation, the Ethics Committee found no evidence that
Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity
and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims.[18][19]

Attempts to expel or censure Frank, led by Republican member Larry
Craig (who himself was later embroiled in his own gay sex scandal),
failed.[20][21] Rather, the House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank who
later won re-election in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won
by larger margins ever since.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_...mmittee_action

He is an idiot and immoral for letting himself be used.

That means your buddy 2pid is likewise "immoral".

I didn't know that he was a Congressman and that he had
the moral responsibilities of a Congressman. It's news to me!!!!!

Oh, you said someone not knowing something was "immoral".

2pid is really, really "immoral" then.

What are the "moral responsibilities" of a Congressman or any other
politician?

Clinton had oral sex with that Lewinski woman. Frank had this
(although in Frank's case the "immoral" argument is pretty weak).

His immorality is not because he "sucks dicks", it is because
he let a complete sleazebag into his life, and let him
have the run of his digs. This guy is a powerful senior
Congressman, and he lets some bum who would never be able
to get even a low level security clearance have the run of
his house.

It sounds just like you want to control the private lives of those in
Congress.

What a dumb idea.

Its a breach of Frank's responsibility to
both his constituents, and to the rest of'
the country, because he has access to all
sorts of restricted information.

LOL!

Search "government employees who bring classified information into
their home and what happens to them" and see what you get.

Christ, not even the "sleazebag" himself made this accusation. You're
reaching.

It s the same issue as if a male Congressman had
a female sleazebag entwined in his life.

It isn't an "issue" at all.

Your argument, therefore, is that the government needs to be "big
brother" to elected officials.

No, it's pretty clear your "immoral" arguments are more about sexual
preference.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 23, 12:33*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Jun 22, 1:51*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 22, 7:54*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 22, 1:46*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 22, 12:10*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 22, 12:12*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
After an investigation, the Ethics Committee found no evidence that
Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity
and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims.[18][19]

Attempts to expel or censure Frank, led by Republican member Larry
Craig (who himself was later embroiled in his own gay sex scandal),
failed.[20][21] Rather, the House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank who
later won re-election in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won
by larger margins ever since.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_...mmittee_action

He is an idiot and immoral for letting himself be used.

That means your buddy 2pid is likewise "immoral".

I didn't know that he was a Congressman and that he had
the moral responsibilities of a Congressman. It's news to me!!!!!

Oh, you said someone not knowing something was "immoral".

2pid is really, really "immoral" then.

What are the "moral responsibilities" of a Congressman or any other
politician?

Clinton had oral sex with that Lewinski woman. Frank had this
(although in Frank's case the "immoral" argument is pretty weak).

His immorality is not because he "sucks dicks", it is because
he let a complete sleazebag into his life, and let him
have the run of his digs. This guy is a powerful senior
Congressman, and he lets some bum who would never be able
to get even a low level security clearance have the run of
his house.

It sounds just like you want to control the private lives of those in
Congress.


Fine, if you want a crack whore as your Congressperson, fine with me.

What a dumb idea.

Until their clouded judgment leads to a security leak,
or extortion or blackmail.
If you like that risk, fine with me.


Its a breach of Frank's responsibility to
both his constituents, and to the rest of'
the country, because he has access to all
sorts of restricted information.

LOL!

Search "government employees who bring classified information into
their home and what happens to them" and see what you get.

Christ, not even the "sleazebag" himself made this accusation. You're
reaching.


It's a breach of his responsibility to put himself
in such a position of risk



It s the same issue as if a male Congressman had
a female sleazebag entwined in his life.

It isn't an "issue" at all.

Your argument, therefore, is that the government needs to be "big
brother" to elected officials.

No, it's pretty clear your "immoral" arguments are more about sexual
preference.

no, the constituents need to be the big brother.
I don't really are that Frank is gay.
I had no problem until his scandal and the home loan
issue came out.
I don't like Ted Kennedy, and he is straight.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 23, 8:53*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 23, 12:33*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

It sounds just like you want to control the private lives of those in
Congress.

Fine, if you want a crack whore as your Congressperson, fine with me.

I wasn't aware that Frank was a "crack whore".

If someone was a "crack whore" they probably wouldn't get elected. I
would suppose a "crack whore" would eventually get treatment.
Congreesmen have gotten treatment for drug abuse and alcohol abuse
before, buI'm not sure if any were "crack whores".

LMAO! Clyde reaches more and more.

What a dumb idea.

Until their clouded judgment leads to a security leak,
or extortion or blackmail.
If you like that risk, fine with me.

Who was accused of or admitted to that possibility?

Oh yes. Ensign. LOL!

Its a breach of Frank's responsibility to
both his constituents, and to the rest of'
the country, because he has access to all
sorts of restricted information.

LOL!

Search "government employees who bring classified information into
their home and what happens to them" and see what you get.

Christ, not even the "sleazebag" himself made this accusation. You're
reaching.

It's a breach of his responsibility to put himself
in such a position of risk

What "risk"? They don't (or shouldn't) bring classified documents home
with them. Anybody who did would put themselves at risk for every cat
burglar. Frank was not accused of that.

You're still reaching. Come up with a better line of logic.

It s the same issue as if a male Congressman had
a female sleazebag entwined in his life.

It isn't an "issue" at all.

Your argument, therefore, is that the government needs to be "big
brother" to elected officials.

No, it's pretty clear your "immoral" arguments are more about sexual
preference.

no, the constituents need to be the big brother.
I don't really are that Frank is gay.
I had no problem until his scandal and the home loan
issue came out.

Ah, the home loan "issue". So you're with 2pid: Frank caused the
housing meltdown. LOL!

And this wasn't a "scandal". He's single and can do as he wishes.

You're quite a pair, y'know. LOL!

I don't like Ted Kennedy, and he is straight.

And I suppose some of your best friends are gay too. Or is it just
people from Massachusetts you dislike?

LOL!