Writerbuckeye;770789 wrote:I'm not totally pro life in my views, but there is an argument to be made about your party NOT being very family friendly when you advocate the killing of babies in the womb at the whim of the mother...and being openly welcoming to women who game the system, don't get married and pop out children like they are a pan of Jiffy Pop...or talking a great game when it comes to racism but being the party that created a system of welfare that has all but destroyed black families in favor of single parent homes, most of which are wracked by the very poverty the party espouses to stop.

Writerbuckeye;770789 wrote:I'm not totally pro life in my views, but there is an argument to be made about your party NOT being very family friendly when you advocate the killing of babies in the womb at the whim of the mother...and being openly welcoming to women who game the system, don't get married and pop out children like they are a pan of Jiffy Pop...or talking a great game when it comes to racism but being the party that created a system of welfare that has all but destroyed black families in favor of single parent homes, most of which are wracked by the very poverty the party espouses to stop.

That's just for starters.

So smack Republicans who talk the family values schtick but are human beings and have their failings like all of us do...twisting words to suit political ends is a specialty of liberals and has been since Alinsky came on the scene.

With the backing of a media and popular culture machine that never questions anything they do -- especially now -- it pretty much allows liberals to set the tone and create the meme, even when it's a total figment of imagination; and that happens as often as not.

stlouiedipalma;770846 wrote:The typical Writer response: point the finger at the other side when you cannot defend your conservative heroes, and always, always blame all the ills of society on the media who don't share your morals.

stlouiedipalma;771484 wrote:I left something out:

Always resort to name-calling when you get upset. It really makes you look as if you know what you're talking about, even if you don't.


And it impresses the lemmings who wait with baited breath on your lofty pronouncements.

Writerbuckeye;771058 wrote:A simple response from a simple mind.

And not even accurate.

I didn't defend Ensign because I SAID VERY CLEARLY I want ANY member of Congress who oversteps the ethics laws to be GONE IMMEDIATELY.

What part of that don't you understand?

My response above (I guess I need to explain this to you so you understand) was ONLY in response to the patently stupid (of bumper sticker intellect) comment about Republicans being the party of family values who then fail. It had nothing to do with Ensign specifically -- which I had already addressed and you ignored.

And where exactly did I blame ALL THE ILLS OF SOCIETY on the media? Oh that's right -- nowhere. Only in your twisted little brain that can't seem to follow logic and reason during any discussion.

KnightRyder;773831 wrote:your first response was saying ensign was doing the right thing. then you went on to attack the dems. was this a thread discussing rangel and waters? and what do they have to with ensigns inability to keep his pants on? what kind of logic is that?

Writerbuckeye;773834 wrote: when liberals who reach this status (Congress) commit ethics infractions they should be able to stay however long they want and do whatever they want.
I'd say that's perfect logic.

Writerbuckeye;773834 wrote:Ensign got into trouble for an ethics violation and did the right thing (too late, but he did it) by resigning.

Rangel and Waters have both been in hot water for some time over ethics violations. I don't see them stepping down; or any of the others currently under ethics investigations, for that matter.

Read what I wrote earlier: when people who reach this status (Congress) commit ethics infractions I WANT THEM GONE IMMEDIATELY.

I'd say that's perfect logic.

Writerbuckeye;774216 wrote:Perhaps you didn't read the slam at Republicans in the title.

I was making note of some Democrats who HAVEN'T done the right thing in spite of on-going ethics violations.

I Wear Pants;774234 wrote:Nothing, although the OP did make a broad suggestion that this is a Republican problem which it isn't.

I still think Writer likely would have said the same thing (or someone else on here) and then I fully would have supported what you're saying KnightRyder, but as it stands the OP tried to demostrate this as a Republican problem so Writer bringing up Democrats who have also abused their positions isn't entirely irrelevant.

Writerbuckeye;774341 wrote:I don't have to try and make it a problem for Democrats -- they've done that all by themselves. But apparently, you haven't been paying attention...

KnightRyder;774275 wrote:i never said this was a republican problem, this is a ensign problem. its just that simple. whiner tried to make look like a democrat problem.

believer;774717 wrote:Is that so? Your thread title clearly reads, "John Ensign another great republican" Sounds to me like you are implying Ensign's issues are a uniquely Republican problem.

If you had posted a title that read something more like, "John Ensign another slimy douche bag politician" then your claim that Writer is trying to blame scum bag Dems like Waters, Rangel, Massa, Edwards, etc., etc. for Ensign also being a scum bag would have a lot more validity.

Bottom-line: This thread is stupid.

KnightRyder;774847 wrote:if i would have titled the thread "John Ensign another slimy douche bag politician" whiner would have called it a direct attack on the GOP. saying i was calling all republicans " slimy douche bag politicians".furthermore i like the concept whiner uses , its much like the policy fox news has in place. when a republican is a dirt bag, and gets found out. ignore it and complain about the wrong doinds of the dems. it seems whiner has gotten his mitts on the fox news handbook.

KnightRyder;774847 wrote:if i would have titled the thread "John Ensign another slimy douche bag politician" whiner would have called it a direct attack on the GOP. saying i was calling all republicans " slimy douche bag politicians".furthermore i like the concept whiner uses , its much like the policy fox news has in place. when a republican is a dirt bag, and gets found out. ignore it and complain about the wrong doinds of the dems. it seems whiner has gotten his mitts on the fox news handbook.

KnightRyder;774847 wrote:if i would have titled the thread "John Ensign another slimy douche bag politician" whiner would have called it a direct attack on the GOP. saying i was calling all republicans " slimy douche bag politicians".furthermore i like the concept whiner uses , its much like the policy fox news has in place. when a republican is a dirt bag, and gets found out. ignore it and complain about the wrong doinds of the dems. it seems whiner has gotten his mitts on the fox news handbook.