Haha.

I thought every one was gay in that neck of the woods.

BAKERSFIELD??

Actually, they may want to keep this guy in office. Even though he finally admitted to being gay, he said that his voting record reflects the desires of his constituents (and went against his). How many other politicians can say that they made that kind of sacrifice?

Actually, they may want to keep this guy in office. Even though he finally admitted to being gay, he said that his voting record reflects the desires of his constituents (and went against his). How many other politicians can say that they made that kind of sacrifice?
#4 | Posted by hoser at 2010-03-08 11:11 PM

Right - I'm sure there were lots of women voting against equal rights. Thank God they lost to better judgement, right?

Good he's admitted this, now he needs to put a (D) after his name and all will be right in the political world.

But, he isn't a 'D'.

Neither were the other Republicans caught up in gay or hooker scandals

#7 - he would be more welcome in the liberal community if he had a (D) after his name - that's what I was implying. Then y'all would be more "tolerant" - yeah, I know - the "T" word!

Good he's admitted this, now he needs to put a (D) after his name and all will be right in the political world.

#6 | Posted by nanc at 2010-03-09 12:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

The world where people don't make careers out of flaming hypocrisy, or do you mean the world in which gays are not allowed, as in the Taliban and your ideal Republican Party?

No, Betelg - the world where being gay doesn't matter unless it has an (R) after its name. You cannot even smell the crap you're neck deep in.

The world where people don't make careers out of flaming hypocrisy...

Like the latest one? You know, the "hope and change" dude? LOL

NANC

It's being gay while voting against, and speaking out against, gay issues.

It's called 'hypocrisy'.

#7 - he would be more welcome in the liberal community if he had a (D) after his name - that's what I was implying. Then y'all would be more "tolerant" - yeah, I know - the "T" word!

#8 | Posted by nanc at 2010-03-09 12:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

He would be more welcome in the liberal world if he were honest about who he was. If he were so concerned about his constituents he wouldn't have lied to them. I doubt he asked their opinion. If he were sure that they wanted to discriminate against gays, he should have known they wouldn't want a gay Senator.

Hypocracy is on the side of the R's Nanc. The gay dems are open about it. They don't vote against gay rights while being gay.

Nance-
Why did Roy become gay today? Was he not welcome in the Republican Party? He had to get busted driving from a gay bar with a DUI first? There seem to be many instances of closeted gay Republicans who only come out when their cover is blown. What's wrong with the Republican Party?

Like the latest one? You know, the "hope and change" dude? LOL

#11 | Posted by goatman

Ya, the guy with higher approval ratings than Ronald Reagan had at this point in his Presidency.

That guy.

By the end of 1981, Reagan's job approval rating had drifted down to 49%.

Things got worse for Reagan in 1982. The public's view of the economy remained sour, and the president's ratings during 1982 stayed concomitantly low, in the 40% range, ending the year at 41%. The 1982 midterm elections were not good ones for Reagan and for the GOP. The Republicans lost about 25 seats in the House.

The big tent of the republican party just got a little smaller.

It's being gay while voting against, and speaking out against, gay issues.

It's called 'hypocrisy'

Actually it's not, AU. A member of congress is supposed to vote as his constituency wants him to, not how he personally feels on an issue.

If his constituency wanted their gay representative to vote against gay issues, and he does, he is doing his job as he is supposed to.

I wish all members of congress truly represented their constituency instead of voting as they personally feel. The arrogance of one man feeling he is worth 500,000 votes is appalling.

re: No, Betelg - the world where being gay doesn't matter unless it has an (R) after its name....

#10 | Posted by nanc at 2010-03-09 12:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

It seems as if you can't be gay and be elected on the Republican ticket.

If you have an example of an openly gay Republican in office, I'd like to see it.

1982 was Reagan's 2nd year in office BTW

Goatman-
re: If his constituency wanted their gay representative to vote against gay issues, and he does, he is doing his job as he is supposed to.

Dude, they didn't know he was gay. And now he is unelectable on the Republican ticket.

That guy.

Like all the other hypocrites, that guy needs to be booted out as well. I'm sick of them

It's very difficult to gain high rank in the Taliban, or in the Republican Party, if you are gay.

I can't see how anybody that is gay would ever choose to be a republican. He should have just run as a D and did what was right not only for himself but his constituents. His constituents may have thought they knew what was good for themselves but history has shown that conservatism is disastrous for America.

Dude, they didn't know he was gay.

???

So? According to you lefties, sexual orientation is not an issue. Indeed, y'all insist it not even be asked.

Please be consistent, boyd

Actually it's not, AU. A member of congress is supposed to vote as his constituency wants him to, not how he personally feels on an issue.

That's what the Rep's saying now

Funny he didn't come out until he got caught

Now that his fellow travelers know who he is he won't be welcome in the clubs anymore, that's for sure.

Indeed, y'all insist it not even be asked.

That's the old policy of DADT. Now the brass wants a more open policy, like every other modern western military.

On the other side you have the Taliban, Sudan, Nigeria, the Republican Party, etc.

Being gay is not a problem for the civilized Dem population but for the Neanderthal republican population it is a huge problem.

Why is that funny, AU? He's a liar - he'll fit in nicely with democrats. May he flourish!

Funny he didn't come out until he got caught

See post 25

BAKERSFIELD??

#3 | Posted by LetUsPrey at 2010-03-08 10:42 PM

He finally learned he should just Act Naturally.

Why is that funny, AU? He's a liar - he'll fit in nicely with democrats. May he flourish!

#31 | Posted by nanc

Nanc you are a fraud and liar, yet you call yourself a conservative.

'night y'all

On the other side you have the Taliban, Sudan, Nigeria, the Republican Party, etc.

No valid rebuttal so you predictibly descend into the broad brushing. Don't you find it embarrassing to resort to that childish tactic? Apparently not.

Later, boy(d)

That's what the Rep's saying now

Actually they've been saying it for over 200 years when they take the oath of office and swear to uphold the Constitution.

Why is that funny, AU? He's a liar - he'll fit in nicely with democrats.

NANC

Let's hear your examples. I have a long, long list of GOP liars and the lies they've told.

He finally learned he should just Act Naturally.

But who's gonna mow his grass?

But who's gonna mow his grass?

#39 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2010-03-09 12:59 AM

Maybe a Tall Dark Stranger?

Bakersfield is like rural Texas. He's toast.

As long as the sumbitch doesn't play A-11...

As long as the sumbitch doesn't play A-11...

#42 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2010-03-09 01:14 AM

Why? Every time he does, My Heart Skips A Beat.

Just did a little research:

Roy Ashburn is married with four children.

Why? Every time he does, My Heart Skips A Beat.

That's because you're under my spell again.

What can I say?

But my slow ass, Made in Japan system is pissing me off.

This Buckaroo is signing off.

Later Blog.

This Buckaroo is signing off.

Appropriate comment since Ashburn is from Buck Owen's district.

BTW, this site was loading slowly a few minutes ago. May not have been your computer.

Why didn't you buy American?

I should have phrased that "Ashburn represents Buck Owen's district"

Appropriate comment since Ashburn is from Buck Owen's district.

He was born in Sherman, Texas though. US 82 through Sherman is the Buck Owen's freeway. It's about 10 miles from my rent house in central Grayson County

You're a master of subtlety.

Nice that Texas honored Buck Owens.

Go Bearcats.

And not surprising Owens would stay in Bakersfield.

It reminds me of West Texas.

My FB's new birthing clinic is right behind Bearcat Stadium. Was helping her do the final painting on it last week.

This Buckaroo is signing off.

Enjoyed Pickin' and Grinnin' with ya.

Saaaa-Lute!

I'm surprised there are no 'assburn' jokes on this thread.

I was just thinking that.

His ass will burn once his wife divorces him and he has to pay child support for his four kids.

His ass will burn once his wife divorces him ....

I think I heard on the radio a couple of days ago that he is already divorced and has 4 daughters.

Every report I've read states he's married.

If he's divorced, it wouldn't be surprising considering his recent arrest-related revelations.

If you google [roy ashburn biography] you get these links on the first page that say he is divorced. I can't find any that say he's married, but maybe he is and these links are mistaken

Looks like he's divorced alright.

I was quoting Googled news results. Guess they didn't get the memo yet.

At least his ex wife won't have to do a Mrs. Larry Craig and act all stoic.

"Actually they've been saying it for over 200 years when they take the oath of office and swear to uphold the Constitution."

I'm confused. Are you saying their oath of office includes something about 'A member of congress is supposed to vote as his constituency wants him to, not how he personally feels on an issue' ...?

I'm confused.

Why? I clealy stated that they swore they would uphold the Constitution. (in fact, you C&Ped that part of my post) It doesn't seem confusing to me. Here is how the oath begins:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States...

No, Betelg - the world where being gay doesn't matter unless it has an (R) after its name. You cannot even smell the crap you're neck deep in.
#10 | Posted by nanc at 2010-03-09 12:33 AM

Black kettle, you miss the entire point of Roy's lifelong reluctance, serious concern and even "shame" at coming out - being a HOMOSEXUAL is obviously the antithesis to what his alleged constituents believed he represents. People are not naturally intolerant - they are taught that bigotry as devout Christians under pain of "excommunication" and everyone knows it - Ashburn is obviously all too aware of it, rightly fearing he will lose his position as Senator.

they are taught that bigotry as devout Christians under pain of "excommunication" and everyone knows it

???

I don't know it. In fact, I'll bet I could ask any Christian I know and they'll tell me they won't be excommunicated for not being a racist. I was raised a Christian and I was taught just the opposite. I was taught to tolerate all people.

Where do you come up with this shit?

" I clealy stated that they swore they would uphold the Constitution."

Read Posts #18, #26, and #37. They follow each other and lead to my post #62.

You seem to be suggesting congressmen are supposed to vote their constituency, and not their heart, based on the oath of office. But where in that oath, or the Constitution they're upholding, is the requirement to vote along constituency's lines?

Again, I may very well just be confused, It's late, been a long day, and I've got 7 tax clients tomorrow plus another 5 to finish on my "off" time, a call to the IRS, and a stage show at night.

But where in that oath, or the Constitution they're upholding, is the requirement to vote along constituency's lines?

Their oath of office (as I quoted) has them to affirm they'll support the Constitution. Article IV, section 4 states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...

republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law...

Ashburn's a California STATE Senator, not a holder of national office.

I was raised a Christian and I was taught just the opposite. I was taught to tolerate all people.

Your parents did a far better job than JAK's.

"a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law.."

Where does it say the voter is required to vote the way the majority of his constituents would? I don't see anything in what you posted forbidding a Congressman to vote his conscience, even if a majority of his constituents disagree.

Ashburn's a California STATE Senator, not a holder of national office

California's is also a republican form of government. Ashburn represents and votes for the people in his district albeit at a state level as you point out.

Where does it say the voter is required to vote the way the majority of his constituents would?

???

That's how a republic works, danforth. You honestly didn't know that? There are a small handful of people on the DR I expect such ignorance from, but frankly, you weren't one of them.

I don't see anything in what you posted forbidding a Congressman to vote his conscience...

(Again) Article IV, section 4 (read it) GUARANTEES every state a republican form of government. If one man votes as he feels and ignores his constituency, he is not participating in a republican form of government.

I'm very surprised at you on this one, danforth.

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

"That's how a republic works, danforth."

Again, where is it specifically in the oath that the congressman must vote the will of his constituents?

Well, GOP members of Congress railed against a "Public Option" despite it polling between 57-78% FOR a "Public Option" in every single poll.

When HCR is broken down to its key components and polled separately, same thing.

So much for them voting for the wishes of their constituency.

" If one man votes as he feels and ignores his constituency, he is not participating in a republican form of government."

But that means he can be voted out by his constituents, not that his vote is invalid.

Again, where is it specifically in the oath that the congressman must vote the will of his constituents?

Article IV, section 4. Read it.

If one rep votes against the will of his constituency, is he participating in a republican form of government? Clearly he isn't.

I am very sparing with the following words and they are largely reserved for bOoB, but they apply now, and I'll use them:

You are wrong, danforth. Anyone who got a C or better in HS Civics knows it. If you want to continue being obtuse, it's for you own benefit. I understand what a republic is even if you don't.

California Oath of Office all public officials take:

"I, ______________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter."

It seems #2 under #67 suggests the voters have the right to elect their representatives. It doesn't say the reps can then only vote what the constituents want.

Besides, that doesn't pass the smell test: many times, a congressperson will vote opposite of what the majority of his constituents want; other times, there's no clear-cut majority, and still others, the issue is so close the true majority may not be discernible.

GOP members of Congress railed against a "Public Option" despite it polling between 57-78% FOR a "Public Option" in every single poll. When HCR is broken down to its key components and polled separately, same thing. So much for them voting for the wishes of their constituency.

I'm sure there are many more examples.

Which constituents? Only those of their party?

But that means he can be voted out by his constituents...

Actually no, the article GUARANTEES a republic form of government. It doesn't say, "you might get one, but if you don't, vote the bum out". It explicity guarantees it:

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

I'm sure there are many more examples.

Of course there are. Unfortunately people don't always obey the laws and the Constitution.

"I understand what a republic is even if you don't."

Then explain the votes against constituency in post #74. Were those invalid votes? Were the reps supposedly barred from voting against their constituency's wishes fired, or their votes invalidated?

From IV, 4: "a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote..."

Okay, the voters elect the reps.

"...and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law..."

But the reps vote. The reps are exercising the "supreme power".

Nothing in the wording requiring a vote along constituency lines, and that still doesn't account for the link in post #74.

...a congressperson will vote opposite of what the majority of his constituents want...

Then the Constitutional guarantee of a republic isn't being upheld. What can I say? If I was a representative or a Senator, I would do my Constitutional duty.

I think what this boils down to is that you lefties want so badly to label Ashburn a hypocrite instead of praising him for doing his job as the Constitution dictates. It's sad the streets that blind partisanship takes people down

"It's beyond me how you came up with your interpretation of that section of the Constitution"

The second half of IV, 4. Nothing requires the rep to vote what the constituency wants.

The first half merely guarantees the voters will elect the representatives.

Which constituents? Only those who agree with them? Donors?

Politicians vote against the will of their constituents all the time. Every day, depending on which 'constituents' you're talking about.

Sadly, most politicians don't make much time for the 'voting' constituency. Oh, but big donors and lobbyists? Absolutely.

Defining what constitutes a 'constituency' is a nebulous presumption at best.

The second half of IV, 4. Nothing requires the rep to vote what the constituency wants.

Correct.

"Then the Constitutional guarantee of a republic isn't being upheld."

You've yet to show where the Constitution guarantees the representative will vote the will of his constituents.

Maybe you're conflating the first part of IV, 4, with the second part, and concluding the votes of the constituency MUST be the vote of the rep. As we've seen time and again, that doesn't always happen. And if it really were against the constitution, I've got to believe there would be a huge stink about it, much bigger than just the voters at home getting riled.

But the reps vote. The reps are exercising the "supreme power".

So if all 535 members of congress voted how they wanted, ignoring their constituency, then I guess the power of the people thing is big lie. The founding fathers sure would be pissed, wouldn't they?

Hey, the guy in the story Spud linked to a few days back actually came out the closet after getting caught DUI after leaving a gay club?

Cool.

Now will he change his previous gay bashing political positions or will he become even more fervent in order to show others that he's still a "good Republican"?

We shall see.

Be Well.

"So if all 535 members of congress voted how they wanted, ignoring their constituency, then I guess the power of the people thing is big lie."

That's not the issue at hand. Certainly, most of the reps vote what the majority of their constituents want. But it's not a requirement, especially not in their Oath of Office. Link #74 had pages of reps voting against their constituency, and not a one claiming their were violating their oath of office.

You've yet to show where the Constitution guarantees the representative will vote the will of his constituents.

???

Read Article IV, section 4

(how do you keep missing it?)

But it's not a requirement

Not for those who think the Constitution is just a goddamed piece of paper, I guess.

Anyway, I can read the Constitution. I know what a republic is. It's all yours dan. Run with it as you wish.

There's nothing requiring representatives to vote any which way but thoughts of reelection.

Take Rep. Cao (R) of New Orleans, who took office after Jefferson resigned. You think that GOP Representative is voting how his 90% Democrat district wants him to? NO. Have they hauled him off in cuffs? NO.

What about districts that are gerrymandered after a Census and the GOP Congressman suddenly finds himself in a majority Democrat district? You think he's going to vote for his constituency then. NO He's going to be claiming to vote 'his convictions'.

"I was raised a Christian and I was taught just the opposite. I was taught to tolerate all people."

Your parents did a far better job than JAK's.

Actually that whole Christian thing fucked me up for a while until I got smart and outgrew it. LOL

"(how do you keep missing it?)"

How do you keep conflating part one with part two?

The first part says voters will elect the reps.

The second part says reps will cast the actual votes on the issues.

Where does it say the rep must vote the same way as his locals?

What about districts that are gerrymandered after a Census and the GOP Congressman suddenly finds himself in a majority Democrat district? You think he's going to vote for his constituency then. NO He's going to be claiming to vote 'his convictions'.

See post 82

"Anyway, I can read the Constitution. I know what a republic is. "

Obviously, you don't. History is rife with reps voting a different way than their voters back home. If your take were correct, there would be mountainous cries of reps violating their oaths of office.

"Unfortunately people don't always obey the laws and the Constitution."

Then I'm sure there are scads of Congressmen removed from office for disobeying those laws and violating the Constitution, right?

#82?

There's nothing in the Constitution requiring elected officials from voting any way they want.

Obviously, you don't.

???

I presume you don't agree with this definition, then. I do. I guess you make your own definition, you win the argument. If you use the commonly accepted one you lose it. So be it. Ignore this definition and you win. Yea for danforth and his version of the English language!

republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens

The only power citizens have is the ability to vote a politician out of office when his term expires.

There's nothing in the Constitution requiring elected officials from voting any way they want.

???

The Constitution guarantees that the people hold the power. You didn't know that? If a rep ignores his constituency, the people have no power which is clearly unConstitutional.

SPUD

"We shall see."

We'll probably see him resign and drop off into obscurity.

Then I'm sure there are scads of Congressmen removed from office for disobeying those laws and violating the Constitution, right?

Not enough in my opinion

He's term limited. Out this fall. He may stick it out for the per diem and perks.

The Constitution guarantees that the people hold the power. You didn't know that?

Of course I know that.

I pointed out the only power the people have is whether or not to reelect a politician.

If he screws up in office, he's dealt with by Ethics Committees, prosecutors, or other law enforcement agencies, not the voters.

The only exceptions being a very small number of states like California that allow recall elections. I'm not sure, but California may be the only one that allows recall elections of statewide office holders.

There is no such recourse at the federal level or in the vast majority of states.

GOATMAN

" . .the people have no power which is clearly unConstitutional."

Come election day, or even before if they want to, the people DO have the power to boot the lout out of office for any reason they please.

The "people" always have the last word.

It's sad how few take advantage of the power of the vote, especially in midterms. I haven't missed a vote since I turned 18. Not even for dogcatcher.

Goat have you ever heard of an encoder going out on a DC motor? I had a Y axis motor that kept drifting from it's programmed coordinates. It would be fine for a day or two but would drift a little each day and after a week it wouldn't pick up objects off a conveyor belt. At first we thought the drive belts were stretched and needed to be replaced but that didn't fix it so we are hoping it is the encoder failing.

"The Constitution guarantees that the people hold the power."

To elect their Representative. Not to have the final say in every vote the representative makes.

"If one man votes as he wants and ignores the citizens, the citizens have no power. (right?)"

Wrong. The citizens can throw him out the next election.

Your theories are getting more cockamamie by the post. If it were actually the law, every opposition party AG would be arresting representatives left and right. You're interpretation of the Constitution giving the voters the right to instruct the reps on how to vote every time is way off.

You're interpretation...

Not much interpretation to do.

Tell me, danforth -- give me your "interpretation" of the word "republic". I would probably understand you position a lot better if I understood your definition of the word. If a citation exists that matches your definition, please provide that as well.

Goat have you ever heard of an encoder going out on a DC motor?

All the time. Is it digital or analog (variable resistance/potentiometer) type? The pot types are known for having 'dead' spots from a speck of dirt or something inside.

GOATMAN

Your fan club is requesting your attention.

JACKASS wants to know . . . "Goat have you ever heard of an encoder going out on a DC motor?"

LOL

If the machinery is initialized daily, encoder problems are generalliy kept at a minimum.

"Not much interpretation to do."

Enough, when you conflate part one with part two, and pretend the Oath of Office requires representatives to vote they way their constituency would.

"Tell me, danforth -- give me your "interpretation" of the word "republic"."

The one where the voters cast the votes for the representative, and then the representative casts the vote on the bill. Whether or not that vote agrees with the majority of his constituents.

If your theory was correct, there would be a spate of accusations of breaking the law and not upholding the oath. Why are there none? Why doesn't your theory have scores and scores of examples?

I'm done. If you want to continue to conflate two disparate ideas into one, obviously no logic, common sense, or examples will sway you. And my first clients arrive in 5 hours and 15 minutes.

Night, all.

GOAT

Are you denying your absence here coinciding with the goat-on-the-lamb's incarcertion in Odessa was mere coincidence?

Night, Danforth

The one where the voters cast the votes for the representative, and then the representative casts the vote on the bill. Whether or not that vote agrees with the majority of his constituents.

Therein lies the crux of the issue. You are using your own definition (I presume since you don't cite the source) I use a common one whose source is the Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Things change a lot when you get to make your own definitions -- especially when they are contrary to the commonly held ones.

I of course can't debate when you use a different definition of a word than I and the rest of the world uses. Therefore, using your definition of a republic, you are correct. Using the common definition, you are not.

Cite your definition and I will correct as neceessary

Cite your definition and I will correct as neceessary

Or is this a very convenient time to retire? LOL

GOATMAN

Danforth's right. There is no Constitutional requirement for an elected official to vote as his constituents desire.

#118

Constitutionally required answer. LOL

Danforth's right.

Yes, I concede that using his (uncited) definition of a republic, he is. Using the common one from the Merriam Webster Dictionary, he is not, however.

Main Entry: republic
Pronunciation: ri-ˈpə-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French rpublique, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public more at real, public
Date: 1604
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia

Where does it say the voter is required to vote the way the majority of his constituents would?

???

That's how a republic works, danforth.
...
#72 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-09 03:25 AM | Reply | Flag: Would have flunked Political Sci 101 if he had taken it.

If the country was ruled by the mob of popular demand, we would be in an even bigger sh!t hole than we are now.

"If the country was ruled by the mob of popular demand, we would be in an even bigger sh!t hole than we are now.

That's true. Also, if every Representative had to do a poll every time he voted on something, the State Legislature would be in permanant gridlock.

Representatives are elected by a majority vote because they're telling him they trust his judgment and it's his job to exersize that judgment for the best interest of all . . . not just the people who voted for him.

In theory, that's how it's supposed to work. That's why we have elections . . . or recall elections if the Rep turns out to be a dud.

That where the POWER OF THE PEOPLE comes into play.

Just because one is gay...

...it may not be concluded that they support special rights for gays.

...ditto for gay marriage.

That would be concluding that because one is Hispanic, they must support legalization of illegal immigrants.

Gays are not looking for special rights, just the same rights that are available to everyone else. Like marriage.

Given that most pols get elected by less than half of his or her constituents, Goat, wouldn't the correct thing for them to do would be abstain from voting on contentious issues? The assumption that any form of government requires consensus amongst the rep's electorate is just dumb. Most pols vote for what the party or minority of the electorate wants.

That's what elections are for.

#72 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-09 03:25 AM | Reply | Flag: Would have flunked Political Sci 101 if he had taken it.

#125 | Posted by nullifidian at 2010-03-09 08:47 AM | Reply | Flag: likes to make up his own definitions of words and expects the rest of the planet to use them, too

The elected officials should try to vote for what they think is best for the people they vote, not what is best for just themselves.

#72 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-09 03:25 AM | Reply | Flag: Would have flunked Political Sci 101 if he had taken it.

#125 | Posted by nullifidian at 2010-03-09 08:47 AM | Reply | Flag: Would have flunked HS Civics if he had made it past 7th grade

Gays are not looking for special rights, just the same rights that are available to everyone else. Like marriage.

#129 | Posted by NotMyRealName

You have the right to marry now. Just like everyone else does.

All he had to do was to admit that years ago and none of this would have been a big deal (DUI not withstanding), no one would have noticed or cared much. Its the lying and subterfuge that make it a story, nothing more.

As for his political career, well if those you align yourself with hate who you are on a fundamental level (whether they know it or not) then it's time to pick up your toys and go to a different sandbox. Plain and simple.

-M

It's being gay while voting against, and speaking out against, gay issues.

It's called 'hypocrisy'.

#12 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

It's about recognizing sin as sin, and voting in ways that do not bless it and turn it into a virtue.

If he was an alcoholic and voted in favor of laws that called to account the behavior, would he also be a hypocrite? Or would he rather be seen as one who recognized his own problem, and was thus not going to vote for laws that catered to and promoted the problem?

Conservative = Gay.

Ironic, eh?

It's about recognizing sin as sin, and voting in ways that do not bless it and turn it into a virtue.

If he was an alcoholic and voted in favor of laws that called to account the behavior, would he also be a hypocrite?
posted by SABBATAI

Comparing gay and alcoholic is asinine. There is freedom of religion, just because you believe that being gay is a sin does not make it so.

Why do gay people hate gay people so much?

Why do gay people hate gay people so much?

Because no two agree on the same window dressing

Who really cares one way or another what this guy said? So he's gay.

Comparing gay and alcoholic is asinine. There is freedom of religion, just because you believe that being gay is a sin does not make it so.

#139 | Posted by NotMyRealName

Sin is sin! Just because you don't want to acknowledge this does not make it so!

What is sin to some is not sin to all. As a Christian, you agreed to live your life according to a set of standards and rules. Not everyone agrees with those standards and rules; most don't actually. It is the narrow sighted man who holds others to his own standards, then gets upset to find they hold him to theirs.

That kind of logic is a non-starter, K.

non-starter?

Whether he realizes it or not this guy just
became an independent. Maybe the teabaggers
will embrace him.

non-starter?
#146 | Posted by kanrei

Meaning it isn't likely to yield any constructive dialogue, however correct you may be.

"What's wrong with the Republican Party?"
What's wrong? Republicans are cock suckers!

Danforth is exactly right Goatse. you are badly misinformed.

this is not a direct democracy, it is a representative one.

If he was an alcoholic and voted in favor of laws that called to account the behavior, would he also be a hypocrite?
posted by SABBATAI

i think you meant: if he was a drunk, right?

i can't figure it out, but you go ahead. just don't hurt anybody.

Danforth is exactly right Goatse.

I admitted that using his definition of a republic (which he cannot cite) instead of the commonly accepted one, he is correct.

But using the commonly used definition (which I cited in Merriam Webster) logic necessarily rules him in error.

Article IV section 4 clearly guarantees a republic. A republic by definition (well, not danforth's) is a government where one person represents many. If he does not vote as his constituency desires, he is not representing them as he is dictated by the Constitution.

Which part of my argument is not correct, ichiro? The definition of a republic or the Constitutional guarantee? I've cited both. Tell me which is wrong.

i think you meant: if he was a drunk, right?

i can't figure it out, but you go ahead. just don't hurt anybody.

#151 | Posted by ichiro

Nope, I meant alcoholic. I'm sorry you can't keep up!

@152...
Ok then...
In republics such as the United States the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy.

"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy ...", from James Madison. The Federalist, Number 10, The New York Packet, 23 Nov., 1787

I don't care about his orientation, but Ashburn has been a RINO since the beginning as he continually supported tax increases, spending increases and a myriad of pork in his district. People who call him conservative don't understand the meaning of the word.

I don't care whose anus you go balls deep in. But I do care when you spend MY money in such a cavalier way.

i think i get what you are trying to say, Goatse, sure.

but...
a) a rep has no way or i have never heard of any taking a pure and direct vote on issues from [all] their constituents (some of whom cannot vote for a myriad of reasons), so no way he knows what those numbers exactly are;
b) when you bring the Constitution and Oaths, etc., then we not talking about how things are (which i believe you were trying to discuss in context of this thread, re: hypocrisy or not), but we are then discussing how things were created.

some may believe we are currently "in" some kind of oligarchy, but the Constitution does not validate oligarchy, just as it does not validate pure (direct) democracy.

given the historically proven consequences, the "TP'ers", et al, don't really want to destroy the Constitution do they? mb they ought to join the Libertarian Party long enough to learn something, else they get tossed in the lunatic fringe bag.

good example of American and world political dummy: Palin.

#156 addendum at:
a) a rep has no way or i have never heard of any taking a pure and direct vote on issues from [all] their constituents (some of whom cannot vote for a myriad of reasons), so no way he knows what those numbers exactly are; and if one did do that, then you may, Goat, --probably not -- have point with your line: "If he does not vote as his constituency desires, he is not representing them as he is dictated by the Constitution."

"dictated", poor word choice, my man.

a) a rep has no way or i have never heard of any taking a pure and direct vote on issues from [all] their constituents (some of whom cannot vote for a myriad of reasons), so no way he knows what those numbers exactly are;

When it comes down to razor thin, hair splitting issues -- of course not. The pragmatic thing to do then is to assume what your constituents want and vote that way.

However, in the case of the story on this thread, Ashburn clearly represents a rural district who probably has more traditional values when it comes to homosexuality. Therefore it would not seem odd at all that a good representative, true to the Spirit of the Constitution, would put aside his own personal views and vote as his constituency desires.

Of course the left cannot accept this. They'd rather paint him as a closet queer than someone who acted with his constituency in mind.

yay. another gay republican...

see, he/she Represents ALL points of view and will, not ONLY the majority's.

But he can't vote for them all. He can only vote for one side. A pol who truly represented his constituency would vote with the majority. Otherwise, he doesn't represent them in true republc fashion, does he?

Busted California Repub: 'I Am Gay'
*
*
*
Busted California Gay: 'I am a Republican'

@158...
a good representative, true to the Spirit of the Constitution, would put aside his own personal views and vote as his constituency desires.

what if district was full of terrorists or neo-nazis or KKK?
how would YOU vote, with them?! you'd feel that was your Constitutional duty?

no, that would be your reelection "duty to your own pocketbook".
they elected him! they can vote him out!

no, the DUTY is to the virtues (civic and public) that made this country... THAT s what we they swear to protect and uphold.

if his constituency is a bunch of nuts with bombs and he votes as the d not like, they can vote him out.

in this instance, it appears as if this man HAS violated this greater good by being a hypocrite. but that is just my "mean" opinion.

his OATH is to the virtues that created and hold together, so far, his district, his State, and to this republic to which both are [good?] members.

THAT is the Spirit of the Constitution, my friend.
regardless of his vote OR the desire of any majority within his constituency.

peace

most people elect those who closet match the "virtues" they want in office; they may often disagree with the representative's stand on some issue.

look over some people in office, it's very common. Romney, Brown, Kucinich... on and on.

look at these new terms: RINO, etc.

closet, oops = closest!

"Actually it's not, AU. A member of congress is supposed to vote as his constituency wants him to, not how he personally feels on an issue.

If his constituency wanted their gay representative to vote against gay issues, and he does, he is doing his job as he is supposed to.

I wish all members of congress truly represented their constituency instead of voting as they personally feel. The arrogance of one man feeling he is worth 500,000 votes is appalling.

#18 | Posted by goatman"

No. A member of congress should vote for what is right. Sometimes that is in line with what his or her constituents want, sometimes it's not. If you were right about this, racial segregation would have continued for many more years than it did. Sometimes congressional reps need to make brave, bold stands for what is right, even if it is not politically popular at the time.

No. A member of congress should vote for what is right

Not according to the definition of a republic. Feel free to join the others who vainly attempt to change the language to suit what they think should be.

"than someone who acted with his constituency in mind."

The irony, of course, is that his constiuency would not have voted for him if they knew he was gay.

The irony, of course, is that his constiuency would not have voted for him if they knew he was gay.

They were saying that about the Houston Mayoral race a few months ago, too.

If this guy were really interested in his constituents feelings towrds gays, he would never have run. I doubt his constituents would want a gay Senator any more than they want a gay teacher. Otherwise he would have been honest with his constituents. He lied to them, and now claims to be voting according to their wishes? LOL--please. Only partisan hacks would buy such BS.

Facts are his constituents never entered the equation. He simply toed the party line for his own selfish agenda and power. His hypocrisy fits in well with the party of pedophiles and self hating gays.

He'd have been a 90 point underdog to win in Bakersfield had he let his constituency know

The founding fathers didn't have much faith in the common man---that's why we have the Electoral College. The common man was to be represented by someone who had enough sense to cast a worthy vote.
The government should vote for what is right. Left to represent constituents, you simply have mob rule. I doubt slavery would ever have been voted down by constituents in the Southern States. Representatives should vote for the betterment of the country---not what their constituents want. That's called leadership. Voting for what your constituents want is mob rule.

#172 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-10 05:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

So you have no problem with Bush acting without congressional approval as long as he thought he was doing something for the "betterment" of the country? Somehow I think you mean that it is ok for a simple majority to vote for what YOU think is a betterment for the country. If the shoe was on the other foot, I would bet any amount of money you would be screaming about the "will of the people".

Libtards - can't live with them, can't kill-em.

"Not according to the definition of a republic.
#167 | Posted by goatman"

Wrong. Nothing in the definition of republic commands that an elected representative must vote the way the majority of his or her constituents feel in every single case. For you to argue that it does displays extraordinary ignorance.

Nothing in the definition of republic commands that an elected representative must vote the way the majority of his or her constituents feel in every single case. For you to argue that it does displays extraordinary ignorance.

Take it up with that extraordainarily ignorant source known as the Merriam Webster dictionary. I'm not the lexicograpther:

Main Entry: republic

1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit

"For you to argue that it does displays extraordinary ignorance."

Amazing, isn't it? And yet PettyGoat continues to post a definition that refutes his claim.

And yet PettyGoat continues to post a definition that refutes his claim.

???

Who says exessive pot use doesn't cause brain damage? LOL

PettyGoat will find no definition of "republic" that supports his claim that representatives are obligated to vote as his constituents demand--which would be kind of impractical unless the constituents were unanimous on every issue. Anybody who passed basic American government classes should know this.

at will find no definition of "republic" that supports his claim that representatives are obligated to vote as his constituents demand

Put down the bong, dull. You only continue to worsen the argument to abandon the war on drugs.

#177 | Posted by goatman
#179 | Posted by goatman

PettyGoat has already been whacked over the head on this issue by a half dozen posters and all he has left is ad hominem.

PettyGoat has already been whacked over the head on this issue by a half dozen posters and all he has left is ad hominem

Says the guy who doesn't even attempt to poke holes in the definition I posted, yet continues to call me pettygoat.

Yes, I could make this shit up, despite what some say, but why bother when you are here to do it.

You're too funny, dull.

Dang did I miss another Goat gang bang?

How can one person be so dumb and still use a 'puter?

"This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."

Congressmen/women vote their conscious all the time. And they should do so more often. It would make for a better Republic.

Even the Electors of the Electoral College can vote their concious (unless otherwise prohibited by STATE law)?

Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. Some states have laws that require electors to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote, while other electors are bound by pledges to a specific political party. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, and there is no federal law or Constitutional provision against it.

1PettyGoat has already been whacked over the head on this issue by a half dozen posters

And not a single one of them have refuted the definition I put up. So please explain to me how how it is I who has been whacked? Is the "anyone but goat" syndrome so deeply ingrained that you actually are willing to say such stupid and obviously untrue things publicly?

I guess so! LOL Public self-humiliation must be California thing that I will never understand. Donny boy likes to engage in it as well with his "bragging" how he paid five times more for a house that is smaller than mine. You guys are something else. LOL

Oh, yes, this would be a great opportunity for you to parrot your "one line from me a jillion from goatman" thing again. We never tire of it. LOL You're welcome

"And not a single one of them have refuted the definition I put up"

--Pettygoat

There is nothing to refute. There is nothing in that definition that requires a representative to vote for what--a majority/super-majority/two-
thirds majority/unanimity--demand.

This is one of PettyGoat's dumbest arguments ever. You don't have to be a poli sci grad to understand that.

There is nothing in that definition that requires a representative to vote for what
???

Well except this part:

a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

But if that is your argument, go for it. I'll listen. This'll be good and you never fail to provide mirth in your squirmings and spinnings.

GO!

#185 | Posted by goatman

You can keep cutting and pasting that definition until you're blue in the face, dummy. It doesn't back you up. I'm bored with you. Bye.

p.s. In the PettyGoat "republic" does a representative have to have unanimous or super-majority or majority consent, etc., from his constituents before casting a vote?

I'm bored with you. Bye

IOW, you are unable to argue that zero power for the people (as would be the case if a rep voted against the will of his constituents) is the same as "supreme power" that the definition says. LOL

That was one of the sloppiest attempts at saving face and avoiding admitting you are wrong I've ever seen from you, dull. LOL

p.s. In the PettyGoat "republic" does a representative have to have unanimous or super-majority or majority consent, etc., from his constituents before casting a vote?

If I led a republic, I would go with the common definitions of one and not make one up as you do.

So if a congressman were to vote against the wishes of the majority of his constituents as measured by a public opinion poll, he is doing what? Committing a crime? Violating the constitution? Tell me all about it, Professor PettyGoat.

If I led a republic, I would go with the common definitions of one and not make one up as you do.

#189 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-10 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag: Ducking the question...Aflac!

#189 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-10 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag: still loses. Or can he prove that zero power = supreme power? LOL

So if a congressman were to vote against the wishes of the majority of his constituents as measured by a public opinion poll, he is doing what? Committing a crime? Violating the constitution?

I'm still waiting for you to either prove that zero power = supreme power or that you are wrong and are willing to accept the definition I posted. After you've done one of those two things, we'll move the goalposts around to whereever you desire, dull

"Take it up with that extraordainarily ignorant source known as the Merriam Webster dictionary. I'm not the lexicograpther:

Main Entry: republic

1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit

#175 | Posted by goatman"

Nothing in that def'n supports your assertion Goat. If 499,000 voters in a district oppose something, and 500,000 support it, you're saying the representative must support it? If so, you're a dumbass, because there is nothing in your def'n that says that. Fuck, dude.

"I'm still waiting for you to either prove that zero power = supreme power...."

Say what? I guess that Thai stick in the 70's really was good stuff. It seems to have done permanent damage.

Say what? I guess that Thai stick in the 70's really was good stuff. It seems to have done permanent damage.

Careful, dull would call that ad hominem and call you out for it. Well actually not since it's you and you said it against me. He's very mercurial and hypocritical when he has to play the "anyone but goatman" game.

Anyway, the definition is clear. Your denying it neither changes it nor lessens it. So be it

Goatlick's own def'n refutes his asinine assertion:

"(1) a government in which supreme power....is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

(The "them" is the voters.) So the supreme power is "exercised" by the elected officials, who are in turn "responsible" to the voters (who, of course, can vote them out if they are sufficiently unhappy with how the power was exercised), and the elected officials must govern "according to law."

It's a pretty good system, but neither the system nor Goatie's def'n require the elected official to vote with the will of 500,000 voters when 499,999 oppose.

(Of course, Goatfart knows this, but he can't help but let the BuffaloGoat part of his personality out sometimes. TeedleBob and TweedleGoat.)

Yes, take a line out of context. What's next, spamming? Whatever works for you, m'boor. Run with it

Out of context? Bullshit.

(Did the US Sup Ct take the words of the Second Amendment out of context when it found an individual right to bear arms? If you say no, please distinguish.)

It says "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers..." Are you trying to the "and" out of it? Are you trying to say the power is actually "exercised" by the body of citizens?

D'oh! "Are you trying to TAKE the "and" out of it?

Where'd you go, TweedleGoat? Are you licking something salty, and can't get away?

Are you licking something salty, and can't get away?

AAMOF I am

Good for him; I'm sure his life will be better now...

He'll just have to become a Democrat and work for the people, as opposed to trying to fit in to the closeted world of Republican politics, where the only constituent is the all-mighty dollar...

"Are you licking something salty, and can't get away?"

"AAMOF I am
#203 | Posted by goatman"

"Good for him; I'm sure his life will be better now...
#204 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus"

Not sure about that. Could lead to cardiac problems. Of course, his boy is probably well used to it.

Of course, his boy is probably well used to it.

Of course I am.

Hey, m'boor. I have a favor to ask since I see you haven't outgrown the gay fantasy dude thing you want me to be.

Can you just post all your attributes you want me to be or think I am (fat, gay, salt licker, whatever) so I can agree to them all at once? I find it tedious doing it one at a time for you. I think you'll benefit, too. You'd have 'em all on one page which would make your j/o sessions a lot easier. If you don't want to do it that way, you'll just have to pretend I confirmed your fantasy because I grow tired of doing it piecemeal. Your game is weary.

Thanks.

So you have no problem with Bush acting without congressional approval as long as he thought he was doing something for the "betterment" of the country?

That was a real stretch from a congressman voting for something that makes the country better, to a President usurping the power of congress. Did you hurt yourself?

Somehow I think you mean that it is ok for a simple majority to vote for what YOU think is a betterment for the country.

Not at all. I mean what I said. The congressman should vote for what HE thinks will be best for the country. In America, that means Liberty and Justice for ALL. Including gays and Nazis. ALL---get it?

If the shoe was on the other foot, I would bet any amount of money you would be screaming about the "will of the people".

If the vote was obviously anti-American---you would be correct. What I mean by anti-American is when the government goes against the principle of Liberty and Justice for ALL. All rights come from the government---when a country based on freedom goes against that concept, we should all protest. What you actually mean in your post is how YOU feel----not me. You only see one side. I see the American concept of FREEDOM. Try it--you'll like it.

Libtards - can't live with them, can't kill-em.

Not yet, but it's coming. Only thing is---we get to shoot back. Things weren't really settled in 1865. There are still people who don't understand America, and its basic stance. Unfortunately, many of them are in congress---we need to get them out. I'll give tham all to you in your new country. You can even use the same Constitution, and call yourself the Confederate States of America. It has a nice ring to it.

#173 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-03-10 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I find it tedious doing it one at a time for you... Your game is weary.

Thanks.

#206 | Posted by goatman"

Newsflash, TweedleGoat: You have the right, and the ability, to ignore any post you wish. Even without killfiles, there is no reason to grow weary, even at your age.

You're welcome.

It says "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers..." Are you trying to the "and" out of it? Are you trying to say the power is actually "exercised" by the body of citizens?

Posted by mOntecOre

Tweedle?

Tweedle?

Newsflash, TweedleGoat: You have the right, and the ability, to ignore any post you wish.

No shit? I"ve stated that many times. Keep up, m'boor.

Got your fantasy blogger properties list ready for me to affirm?

#205 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2010-03-10 07:14 PM
***"Not sure about that. Could lead to cardiac problems. Of course, his boy is probably well used to it"

Just incase there's any misunderstanding:
>#204 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus"
>"Good for him; I'm sure his life will be better now...

Was referring to the article...