Two Words for Paul Babeu

chbpod wrote:

Edwin Edwards

Scales wrote:

Edwin Edwards was a successful Louisiana politician who ended up being prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated for corruption...
Clark is saying that Paul should start stocking up his canteen account with soap-on-a-rope.

Scales wrote:

Edwin Edwards was a successful Louisiana politician who ended up being prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated for corruption...
Clark is saying that Paul should start stocking up his canteen account with soap-on-a-rope.

Scales wrote:

Edwin Edwards was a successful Louisiana politician who ended up being prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated for corruption...
Clark is saying that Paul should start stocking up his canteen account with soap-on-a-rope.

chbpod wrote:

<quoted text>
Edwards most famous quote

Praxis33 wrote:

<quoted text>
Scales, Paul is going to resign. It's only a matter of time. And, you still have not answered why you continue to refer to Jose as a woman. It seems you're having troubling accepting the fact that Paul is gay.

Section4x2 wrote:

There's nothing to this story. It's the first time the media has had an opportunity to attack an openly Gay Republican candidate. This issue is full of hypocracy by the Dems.

Robert Moses wrote:

<quoted text>
are you referring to:“The only way I can lose is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.”
although I like his reference to an opponent: "he's so slow it takes him an hours and a half to watch sixty minutes" (even though it doesn't apply here)

Praxis33 wrote:

<quoted text>
Like your story about Marie Haprin confirming the retard remark? Keep telling yourself that.
The media is attacking him for being gay? How? The issue is, much like Anthony Weiner's case, the lack of judgment in sending explicit pictures to someone Babeu knew to be a complete stranger. And then seeking a non-disclosure agreement. How can one consider themselves openly gay if they ask for a non-disclosure agreement? He was not forced to come out.

Praxis33 wrote:

The media is attacking him for being gay? How? The issue is, much like Anthony Weiner's case, the lack of judgment in sending explicit pictures to someone Babeu knew to be a complete stranger. And then seeking a non-disclosure agreement. How can one consider themselves openly gay if they ask for a non-disclosure agreement? He was not forced to come out.

Judged:

1

1

1

Scales wrote:

<quoted text>
You are a flunking retard. Paul allegedly sent one (1) allegedly explicit photo to a complete stranger (who has been acknowledged to be Jose) you imbecile. What was it that Jose's own lawyer said about Truth as a Defense -- the alleged stranger was not a "stranger" at all, it was Jose.
I’d really like to see Topix hold you to the same standard of “privacy” that you feel Paul isn’t entitled to. If Topix disclosed your identity to us, you’d be crying like sissy-boy Solons! You entered into a “non-disclosure agreement” with Topix – Why? You are the definition of Hypocrite.
Who decides when it’s time for Praxis to come-out? Me, Sher, Clark, Robert Moses, Section 4x2, Voix, your sister, your partner? We all say that it’s not our decision to make. Certainly, the appropriate answer isn’t that YOU are the one to decide when and how to come-out… So, who is it, Praxis, who decides when a gay person should come out?

Judged:

1

Scales wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you stalking me? I did answer your question, Jerkweed; pull your head out of your ass (or ask your mother to help you). Now, to continue where I left off...
Trust is the greatest treasure within any relationship. Resting on the laurels that Paul was “cheating” on Jose is a distraction from the issues. Jose’s visa was expiring, he wasn’t doing anything to renew it (very strange and curious in itself) and Paul was not confident that their relationship had a future.
By all accounts within the New Times article, there weren’t any episodes of betrayal or “abuse” during the relationship while Jose’s visa was still valid. Jose’s lawyer’s simplified statement that “their relationship went sour” is (statutorily) sufficient for Paul (or any person similarly situated) to pursue another partner.
Chronologically, at that time, Jose’s immigration status became “questionable” and he had already begun efforts to exact demise upon Paul – with Jose recklessly and maliciously reneging upon the previously agreed upon confidentiality of Paul’s sexuality (even to the extremes of engaging in various internet crimes).
Would it be a violation of that treasured Trust if a wife tells her [friends and co-workers] about her husband’s recent circumcision? Would a husband be betraying his wife if he discussed her labia-reduction surgery with his [friends and co-workers]?
Yes, there ARE reasonable and practical expectations of privacy within relationships (without formal “non-disclosure” agreements); in the examples given above, the fact that circumcision and labia-reduction surgeries did occur are insignificant to the Truth as a Defense clause.
The public disclosures would rest with the husband’s decision regarding his privacy and with the wife regarding her procedure; neither individual has any right to violate the privacy of the other.
Likewise, though already previously agreed upon by Jose, Paul had a fundamental “right” to decide when and how to publicly disclose his homosexuality, or to keep it private if he so chose (which is what Jose agreed to anyway at the onset of the relationship).
In retrospect, Jose does not have a Constitutionally-protected “right” or even a simple domestic “right” to have his evolving illegal immigrant status protected and concealed (unless, of course, he faced political persecution upon deportation – which isn’t the case).
Is there any evidence whatsoever during the month-long investigative reporting by New Times that Babeu (or anybody) ever “reported” Jose as now being illegal? No.

Judged:

2

Section4x2 wrote:

<quoted text>
I never said Harpin confirmed. I said she coud be heard on the open mike agreeing. There's a difference there between the words Confirming and agreeing. You can find that difference in the Dictonary or you could just Google it.

Judged:

2

1

1

Ozzie wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't leave me out of this. I hate that solons punk and am just waiting for him to make his move.He is a puke face phoney liberal who hates veterans and the military. He reminds me of certain mill rats with their sarcastic "what did you do" when asking about a veterans service. The guy is a fraud and a pervert.

Judged:

2

Praxis33 wrote:

<quoted text>
That is semantic nonsense. Marie denied it, and so has Lisa. And, now, a week later, this alleged tape of the meeting has yet to materialize.
Heard by who, you? Was there a camera on them when Blackmer said it? Obviously not. You don't know what you're talking about.