Dem hypocrisy at its "finest"

Gee, Mysteryman, according to Wikipedia, the South Dakota Senate consists of 25 REPUBLICANS and 10 Democrats. REPUBLICANS are more than 2/3 of the Senate, so Democrats are essentially powerless. The REPUBLICANS can do pretty much what they want. They're in control. If they wanted to expel him they could. So your question should actually be, why are REPUBLICANS protecting him? But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your usual partisan rant.

username wrote:

Gee, Mysteryman, according to Wikipedia, the South Dakota Senate consists of 25 REPUBLICANS and 10 Democrats. REPUBLICANS are more than 2/3 of the Senate, so Democrats are essentially powerless. The REPUBLICANS can do pretty much what they want. They're in control. If they wanted to expel him they could. So your question should actually be, why are REPUBLICANS protecting him? But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your usual partisan rant.

So,since the dems are in the minority,they cant call for this man to resign?
They cant try to pressure him to quit?

That is the lamest excuse for hypocrisy I have seen.
REmember,the dems were in the minority when they demanded and got a repub in the US Senate to resign for essentially the same thing.
So,now only the majority party can demand that a pervert leave the Senate.

I do find it interesting that the left on here is so quick to defend this man.
That tells me a lot about many of you.

mysteryman wrote:

username wrote:

Gee, Mysteryman, according to Wikipedia, the South Dakota Senate consists of 25 REPUBLICANS and 10 Democrats. REPUBLICANS are more than 2/3 of the Senate, so Democrats are essentially powerless. The REPUBLICANS can do pretty much what they want. They're in control. If they wanted to expel him they could. So your question should actually be, why are REPUBLICANS protecting him? But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your usual partisan rant.

So,since the dems are in the minority,they cant call for this man to resign?
They cant try to pressure him to quit?

That is the lamest excuse for hypocrisy I have seen.
REmember,the dems were in the minority when they demanded and got a repub in the US Senate to resign for essentially the same thing.
So,now only the majority party can demand that a pervert leave the Senate.

I do find it interesting that the left on here is so quick to defend this man.
That tells me a lot about many of you.

No oh BMman these are not "essentially" the same thing, unless like Okie, you enjoy eating a dog turd and savor it as a tootsie roll simply because it is brown and sticks to your teeth

Shall we begin your education; normally done in kindergarten about "things-that-are-or-are-not-like-each-other"?" Your a$$-hole buddy from Florida Foley admitted he propositioned teenage boys, under the age of consent and evidence for such was produced that Foley admitted doing.

In this case a man was accused of doing something to another man, not an underage boy and the only evidence produced is one man's word against another's.

If you cannot see the difference you are also probably too stupid to breath.

btw: The act of discernment, present in most adults seems lacking in you and stating objectively that two different things are not equal is not a subjective or ethical opinion towards either thing.

I know that you are not a very smart or well-educated man but just to let you know, the very basis for the Western cultural ascendence you kow-tow to starts with Aristotelian logic and begins with the very simple equation:

A IS NOT EQUAL TO B

Now why don't you go back to sleep....and stay there....for a very, very long time and leave the adults alone.

What's even funnier is that it was 'your people' who brushed it off; the Dems are outnumbered by the Republicans on that board.

Cycloptichorn

physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment

So,just because there are more repubs,means the dems dont have to do anything about this man and his actions?

Are you saying that only the majority party can or should respond to a man like this?

That is silly,even for you.

So,even if the Former Page was willing,and even if he was over 18,it still constitutes sexual harrassment,and I find it interesting that you seem to be supporting it.

What's even funnier is that it was 'your people' who brushed it off; the Dems are outnumbered by the Republicans on that board.