›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Outing politicians personal sex lives.

N15PCAN15PCA
edited June 2007 in Politics
What Who does this guy think he is to decide what people should be like in the their lives, professionally and personally.
null

Comments

  • CramitCramit
    Mr. Period, Mr. Period, Mr. Period!
  • N15PCAN15PCA
    edited June 2007
    Who the heck are you Cramit. Let Mr. Period do what he does and leave it at that.
    Post edited by N15PCA on
  • ThaedThaed
    I find Mr. Flint's actions, in this instance, to be Hi-larious.
  • CramitCramit
    Mr. Rogers has a good idea, it is important to show off how hypocritical politicians are. I think that his methods are definitely questionable. I'm not sure if exposing politicians sexual orientation is right or not, but at least he targets those politicians who are behind strong anti-gay laws.
  • ErwinErwin
    If you are to represent people you should be transparent and not hide anything to avoid any mistrust.
  • N15PCAN15PCA
    edited June 2007
    That’s a good point chronocross. I still don't think that guy's right in what he's doing.
    Post edited by N15PCA on
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    Very true Comrade ChronoCross. On another note, I believe that what Mr.Rogers is doing is great. He is being the proverbial whistle blower to D.C. (Oh my, i just made a gay sex reference didn't I?)

    Does anyone else find it kinda creepy calling him Mr.Rogers? I mean, I know that's his name, but... I dunno, maybe it's just me.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    Hmm. Let's consider this. An elected official is chosen to represent his constituents, right? So let's say his constituents want strong anti-gay laws. Let's also say this official happens to be gay. Is he wrong for voting what his people want?
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    Well, assuming this politician is only seeking personal gain and not to better society, he would be right for voting with his constituents.

    A wise man once said, "In the everlasting struggle to succeed in life, one fact remains true. Once you give up your integrity, the rest is cake."
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    A politician is elected to represent his constituents, not himself.
  • tuttle88tuttle88
    I think if politicians are going to be all, 'I'm so moral, I love my wife, I'm going to make laws that restrict the rights of women to get abortions, homosexual people to get married, etc' and then snort cocaine out of hooker's bellybuttons we have a right to know.

    P.s. I got my first US voting papers today! I can vote in the 37th Congressional District Special Election! Go me!
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    I feel that no matter what line of work you are your personal life should be off-limits. The only excpetion would be if you choose to mix the two.

    Look at Hugh Heffner, he is Playboy. His personal life is his business life, as far as we know.

    Politicians are the exception because they are a representative of the people. I elect a politician to represent me. I don't care if he is pro-life or pro-abortion, as long as he listens to the people who elected him and represents them. when it comes to politicians I am more interested in how well they keep their word than in what they belive in.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Jack Ryan anyone?
  • ErwinErwin
    Hmm. Let's consider this. An elected official is chosen to represent his constituents, right? So let's say his constituents want strong anti-gay laws. Let's also say this official happens to be gay. Is he wrong for voting what his people want?
    That is called demo"crazy" :P
  • HankHank
    edited June 2007
    A politician is elected to represent his constituents, not himself.
    Well, sort of. Unless his district is a creepy clone farm, a single politician cannot represent his constituents---there is too much diversity.

    The best we can hope for in a republic is to have a representative who is more or less honest about his views and his plans if elected. If there is enough agreement with the people, he gets elected. A politician does represent himself; he cannot represent anyone else. He must operate, however, under the proviso that he can't stray too far from the average view of his district, or he will cease to be a politician.
    Post edited by Hank on
  • JasonJason
    Hank speaks the truth. Politicians are not elected to represent their constituents. They balance popular moves versus what they believe is the best policy. Can you imagine the havoc that would ensue if elected officials always channeled the prevailing popular opinion when casting their legislative votes? Think about the crazy things that are popular but harmful.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Hank speaks the truth. Politicians are not elected to represent their constituents. They balance popular moves versus what they believe is the best policy. Can you imagine the havoc that would ensue if elected officials always channeled the prevailing popular opinion when casting their legislative votes? Think about the crazy things that are popular but harmful.
    Blind faith is not representation. A representative must be able to figure out which items the electorate wants but are not good for them. We can't just have bread and circuses can we?
  • JasonJason
    OK, let's say that the majority of Americans want the Bible taught in schools. Should a politician back that up with a vote?

    Let's say that the majority of Americans want to invade a Middle Eastern nation on the grounds that there are dangerous weapons there. Should a politician back that up with a vote?

    Let's say that the majority of Americans want to ban abortion. Should a politician back that up with a vote?

    Let's say that the majority of Americans want a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Should a politician back that up with a vote?

    The problem is that any given elected official represents many people with many conflicting views. What happens when he represents Christians, Muslims, and atheists? Who does he represent? If there are more Christians, should he always vote for legislation that caters to Christian ideals?
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    OK, let's say that the majority of Americans want the Bible taught in schools. Should a politician back that up with a vote?
    Look to the Constitution


    Let's say that the majority of Americans want to invade a Middle Eastern nation on the grounds that there are dangerous weapons there. Should a politician back that up with a vote?
    Look to the Constitution


    Let's say that the majority of Americans want to ban abortion. Should a politician back that up with a vote?
    Look to the Constitution


    Let's say that the majority of Americans want a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Should a politician back that up with a vote?
    Look to the Constitution


    The problem is that any given elected official represents many people with many conflicting views. What happens when he represents Christians, Muslims, and atheists? Who does he represent? If there are more Christians, should he always vote for legislation that caters to Christian ideals?
    Look to the Constitution.

    So many legal problems could be fixed if we looked at the basis of law rather than what case law suggests.

    Just look at the wi-fi stealing case. The law being used was never intended to be used for that!

    You already know that my opinion of the American government is that there are far too many laws on the books. States rights all the way!

    In the end it is up to the politician to decide if that vote is in both the best interest of the people he represents and in his own best interests in regards to getting re-elected.

    Granted you can't make blanket statements in regards to politics because someone is always going to throw something into the discussion that puts a whole in the blanket.

    Just look at the amnesty immigration bill that is working its way through Congress. Did anyone else notice how Democrats came out bashing it from the start so as to cast them in a better light when they eventualy "hold there nose" and pass it? Right now the American people do not want this amnesty bill to pass and the politicians are still trying to pass it! Even worse is when you see people being marked as anti-immigrant when the truth is they are anti-illegalimmigrant. It's a big difference but one that is casualy disregarded. Sort of like the way if you run someone over with a car the headline is, "driver kills pedestrian" but, if you drive an SUV it becomes "SUV kills pedestrian."

    What the heck was I talking about? I think I rambled across several trains of thought...
  • CorbinCorbin
    edited June 2007
    If my "Representative" in the House of Representatives or the Senate does not "represent" me, what is the point of them? Saying that they are not elected to represent their constituents defeats the purpose of their job, their position was created so that they can voice the will of the people to the government. In other words to "represent" us. Whether or not they do it well enough is why we have elections, so that we can find a person better suited to "represent" us.
    Post edited by Corbin on
  • rhinocerorhinocero
    This is the job of Congress.  That's what they're elected to do.  We choose different people because they promise to fulfill those duties in different ways, but their job is not to represent us; it is to preserve and defend the Constitution and the United States by doing all those things.
  • JasonJason
    edited June 2007
    You poor, naive bastards. Regardless of how you think it should work, or how founding documents say it should work, the U.S. government works the way I say it does. Your representatives screw you, mismanage your money, smear the reputation of honest Americans with their scandals, and vote through pork. They fuck with the system for personal gain, lie, cheat, steal, ignore the advice of education and IT experts, cater to big lobbies, sponsor terrorists, ignore economic theory, and vote themselves raises. They build border fences, delve ever further into insolvency, ban stem cell research, abuse government credit cards, overspend on Medicare, award no-bid contracts, and manipulate data.

    Do you honestly think your representative actually represents you? He/she doesn't. Our electoral process has become one during which we chose the candidate who will do the least harm.

    Checking the Constitution does no good when we've found ways to circumvent it. Unconstitutional laws are also perfectly legal until they are overruled by the Supreme Court, so good luck there.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • rhinocerorhinocero
    You poor, naive bastards. Regardless of how you think it should work, or how founding documents say it should work, the U.S. government works the way I say it does. Your representatives screw you, mismanage your money, smear the reputation of honest Americans with their scandals, and vote through pork. They fuck with the system for personal gain, lie, cheat, steal, ignore the advice of education and IT experts, cater to big lobbies, sponsor terrorists, ignore economic theory, and vote themselves raises. They build border fences, delve ever further into insolvency, ban stem cell research, abuse government credit cards, overspend on Medicare, award no-bid contracts, and manipulate data. Do you honestly think your representative actually represents you? He/she doesn't. Our electoral process has become one during which we chose the candidate who will do the least harm. Checking the Constitution does no good when we've found ways to circumvent it. Unconstitutional laws are also perfectly legal until they are overruled by the Supreme Court, so good luck there.


    Well, yeah, that's the practical way.  
  • N15PCAN15PCA
    edited June 2007
    When it comes to governments around the world were the closes thing your going to get to an Ideal government on this planet.
    Post edited by N15PCA on
Sign In or Register to comment.