For some insane reason, tea-party Representative Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee taped himself pressuring his mistress into getting an abortion back in 2000, the Huffington Post reports today.
I guess for him to be a hypocrite we would have to know he was against abortion back in 2000. He could have evolved his thinking between then and now. Do we know for a fact that he is now pro-choice?
Not all Republicans are pro-choice.
0 Replies
mysteryman
1
Reply
Wed 10 Oct, 2012 03:51 pm
The article says that he is "now a pro-life republican".
So at the time he made the recording, he might not have been opposed to abortion.
Without knowing what his thinking was about abortion then, its silly to call him a hypocrite.
0 Replies
RABEL222
2
Reply
Wed 10 Oct, 2012 11:34 pm
The two of you fit right in with this hypocrite ass hole.
He recorded himself convincing his "mistress" to get an abortion?
What a strange thing to do!
I wonder what what other of his interactions he also recorded?
Maybe he recorded everything!
0 Replies
CoastalRat
2
Reply
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 11:05 am
@RABEL222,
Quote:
The two of you fit right in with this hypocrite ass hole
That witty comment was so much easier than actually coming up with any intelligent argument refuting their logic.
I don't much care if he was pro-choice or pro-life back then. Politicians have always said things publicly in order to get elected that they may not personally believe in. If you or anyone here thinks otherwise, you're simply naive.
I love to slam hypocrits as much as the next guy, but sometimes the process of getting an abortion changes people's view of it. Asking if his position has evolved since 2000 seems like a fair question. I wonder if he recorded it as a silly attempt to avoid child care payments.
Rabel, see how easy it is to actually come up with a good response.
Engineer, I agree that it would be a fair question to ask him. If I were in his district I would certainly be curious.
0 Replies
RABEL222
1
Reply
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 01:52 pm
@CoastalRat,
If you follow my posts you already know that I mostly agree with your last line. So what do you have against my saying I think those two are hypocritical ass holes?
I don't see how asking a question makes someone a hypocritical ass hole? It was a legit question. You know people change their minds about subjects all the time, I used to be against gay marriage but I have changed my stance. Being a hypocrite would mean I married a man and spoke out against gay marriage at the same time. The guy you are trying to slam could have been pro-abortion back in 2000 but has since changed his opinion. Didn't Obama change his mind about gay marriage? He was against it in 2008 but is now for it. See how that works. I figured you would have know the difference when I said maybe his opinion had "evolved".
Some say evolved (ironic considering they most likely DON'T believe in evolution) when I say the congressman politically devolved.
0 Replies
OmSigDAVID
3
Reply
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 04:18 pm
@tsarstepan,
I guess that he chose hypocrisy
as a calculated means to advancement of his political career.
Is that reminiscent of politicians who advocate gun control
while thay themselves carry concealed guns (e.g. Democrat Diane Feinstein) ?
0 Replies
OmSigDAVID
1
Reply
Thu 11 Oct, 2012 04:23 pm
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
The two of you fit right in with this hypocrite ass hole
CoastalRat wrote:
That witty comment was so much easier than actually coming up with any intelligent argument refuting their logic.
I don't much care if he was pro-choice or pro-life back then.
Politicians have always said things publicly in order to get elected
that they may not personally believe in. If you or anyone here thinks otherwise, you're simply naive.
SO STIPULATED!
David
0 Replies
RABEL222
1
Reply
Fri 12 Oct, 2012 09:25 am
@Baldimo,
Evolution occurs over a long period of time. To evolve in a week is suspicious to say the least. This is only expected of politicians who change their minds due to political advantage. It is also known as lying about their true beliefs.
Well, the congressman is not saying that he had a change of heart concerning abortion, he is claiming the woman he had a "romance" with never was pregnant nor was it an affair because he had been separated from his wife. Both claims go against the recorded conversation and court records.
Quote:
WASHINGTON -- Scott DesJarlais, a freshman GOP congressman from Tennessee and doctor, admitted a romance with a patient, but he denied it was out of bounds for his rocky marriage or that the woman got pregnant and had an abortion.
In an email to backers Friday evening, DesJarlais -- an anti-abortion, "family values" congressman -- acknowledged they had reason to think poorly of him. But he pleaded for understanding, claiming his fling with the patient occurred while he was legally separated from his then-wife.
"You have probably seen the recent media coverage regarding details of my divorce from over a decade ago. I had genuinely hoped this election would be about my record in Congress -– not a 12 year old divorce," DesJarlais wrote. He charged that his opponent in next month's election, Democratic state Sen. Eric Stewart, was using dirty tricks against him.
"I know that many of you were disappointed to hear the news regarding allegations of a relationship I had while separated during my divorce proceedings," DesJarlais said. "I am deeply sorry for that."
The Huffington Post on Wednesday revealed a transcript of DesJarlais and the woman discussing her purported pregnancy, and urging her to get an abortion. Sources familiar with the tape had said DesJarlais recorded the call himself, and played it for his wife, Susan, in a failed bid to save their faltering relationship.
In Friday's email, DesJarlais said details reported about the affair are wrong.
"First, there was never any pregnancy and there was no abortion," he said. "Second, my ex-wife and I had been separated for quite some time before this incident. There was an agreement in our separation that both she and I could see other people while finalizing the divorce. To say that I had a mistress or that I had an affair is inaccurate."
According to court records, the couple had a "written" agreement at some point regarding "dating" others. But the court records make clear that the pair had been trying to reconcile for a year when the call was recorded in September 2000, and that both had ceased making charges in court. It's unclear why the reconciliation collapsed, but it happened shortly after the call was recorded.
The article doesn't mention Romney or Ryan. It was about one dude who made a recording. So keep your faux rage to yourself, there was no reason for name calling.
of course there was, the topic is about politicians, they're all despicable scumbags
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
2
Reply
Mon 15 Oct, 2012 03:17 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:
1 week? The recording was made 12 years ago. 12 years is more then enough time for someone to have a change in position.
That's okay. I'm sure, he now thinks that sexual contacts between doctors and patients isn't really correct ... must have been 12 years ago, though ....
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace