- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,989
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Great point.
-
Features
A Closeted North Dakota Republican Had His Grindr Messages Leaked After He Voted Against an Anti-Discrimination Bill
- Thread starter Potoooooooo
- Start date
Great point.
Axulus
Veteran Member
Do you think what this Ugandan paper did was reprehensible, on the condition that what it is publishing is the truth?
That seems fair. After all, they were the ones too dumb to see his gayness from the start.
The GOP has a history of being fairly ambivalent about Congressmen and Senators who have been caught in moral offenses which would have pretty much prevented them from being elected. It's one thing for a candidate to be revealed to be gay, or a habitual adulterer, or child molester. It's quite another thing for them to face the prospect of losing a seat in the House or Senate.
Wyoming Senator Larry Craig was prepared to resign after a sheriff's deputy accused him of soliciting sex in an airport men's room, but the GOP leadership could not risk losing that seat when they were so close to gaining a majority. Craig had to stay, which meant the rest of his secret homosexual life would be exposed, making his lies about "not being gay," even more blatant. It sucks to be Larry.
Do you think what this Ugandan paper did was reprehensible, on the condition that what it is publishing is the truth?
How do you define a "top homo"? Thus how can we conclude they are telling the truth?
Do you think what this Ugandan paper did was reprehensible, on the condition that what it is publishing is the truth?
In a country where there is a clear and present danger to the bodily safety of such individuals, yes, it's reprehensible. The publication is clearly done maliciously and the physical harm of the named people is a goal of the publication.
But the fact that a Ugandan paper published this is simply a marker of the more obviously distorted, disgusting, reprehensible and immoral will of the Ugandan people.
Consider: in countries that are no collectively insane, there are dozens of lists of 'actors you didn't know were gay'. The publication of such lists is meant to celebrate the sexuality of those actors, not a malicious attempt to send a mob after them.
- - - Updated - - -
Do you think what this Ugandan paper did was reprehensible, on the condition that what it is publishing is the truth?
How do you define a "top homo"? Thus how can we conclude they are telling the truth?
I too am interested in how this list was formed.
It's been my experience that tops are in short supply.
Do you think what this Ugandan paper did was reprehensible, on the condition that what it is publishing is the truth?
In a country where there is a clear and present danger to the bodily safety of such individuals, yes, it's reprehensible. The publication is clearly done maliciously and the physical harm of the named people is a goal of the publication.
But the fact that a Ugandan paper published this is simply a marker of the more obviously distorted, disgusting, reprehensible and immoral will of the Ugandan people.
Consider: in countries that are no collectively insane, there are dozens of lists of 'actors you didn't know were gay'. The publication of such lists is meant to celebrate the sexuality of those actors, not a malicious attempt to send a mob after them.
- - - Updated - - -
Do you think what this Ugandan paper did was reprehensible, on the condition that what it is publishing is the truth?
How do you define a "top homo"? Thus how can we conclude they are telling the truth?
I too am interested in how this list was formed.
It's been my experience that tops are in short supply.
100 top implies an ordered list, not merely a top in the BSDM sense.
It has nothing to do with bdsm. It was a joke about the number of 'pitchers' vs 'catchers' in the gay male community.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,989
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Well, there are "tops" and then there are "bottoms"...
Alcoholic Actuary
Veteran Member
I guess I would be offended that he lied to me to get my vote. It's a simple irony: If he tells me the truth about who he is, I wouldn't trust him to vote in my interest. If he lies to me and portrays himself as someone else - but votes in line with his portrayal, then I do trust him - even though he is a liar.
If someone lies on their resume but ends up being a decent employee regardless, should the employer care about the former transgression?
aa
laughing dog
Contributor
Unlike your victim in your example, what real harm happened to this hypocrite?
I don't care at all if a person withholds something private in order to get elected. There's no reason the electors need to know his sexual orientation.
My electors don't know I'm an atheist, they would not elect me if they did. It's none of their business. I don't consider myself an untrustworthy liar over this.
However, if I were posting my picture here, and someone saw it and outed me, that would kinda be my problem, I think for posting my picture. AND if it started because another atheist saw me legislating to harm atheists... well, it would be pretty understandable.
I don't think it's lying to withhold personal information.
And it's not "private" if you post your picture on the web about what you were withholding.
Same problem--that doesn't provide a ranking and thus no way to have the top 100.
Oh yeah? What about RBIs, hunh? Did you think about that?
Somebody has 8,000 RBIs, I'd call that Hall of Fame material. definitely top 100.
In this game, there are no batters, because everyone on the field is playing for the same team, and RBI stands for real bad intentions.
It´s like if we broke into Derec´s Tinder account and found out that he was a black woman.
Ok, conceded, there could be the top 100. Sounds like a good list for the newspaper to publish--these are going to be major-league sluts, people should avoid them because of the disease risk.