Another one BUSTED!!

Gather App
Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

I LOVE THAT!

A-O-K KEEP IT COMING! The #2 form of hooking up is just sooo tempting and subversive that he was seduced! HA! TO THAT theory! Poor breederboy caught in fellatio......teee.

And I note I have never been discriminated against by any true heterosexual in my life! It's ALWAYS the closet boys that are the only and real trouble!
 
I know I've said it before......

.....but, YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!!! And it just doesn't get any dumber than this imbicil.
 
I'd put my money on the second of those two choices. It sounds like sour grapes from King's political enemies, although Mr. King does sound like a major case. How insecure does one have to be to feel threatened by a dildo?
 
One can be threatened only when it is holding a knife to you.
*LOL*

For heaven's sake get a motel room. The wife found him?
O M G! The married ones do truly get desperate.
 
a call to friends in 'bama

..and was told that it has long been known he is a closet case but the rumors and stories get buried pretty quick. Apparently when he is out of town so is boyfriend but after all he is supposedly his aide. There is talk about a pending divorce. A call to the AG Office there got nowhere. I was told they had heard the rumors but would not offer any official/unofficial comment. Of course, the stock answer from any gov. office. I had to ask, just to hear the tone of voice from the person answering. I could tell it was not the first time she had heard the question.

Sounds like a closet is not the only think he like to bury himself in. Sorry, had to say it.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out even if it is a planted story by King's enemies. King has every hallmark of the classic closet case.
 
Ah, but in Clinton's defense, it was a question that we should never have been asking him in the first place, because it was none of our business, and had absolutely nothing to do with his job performance. Strictly speaking, I suppose the same is true in this case, but it is good to see these hypocrites squirm when they get outed.

Think of the things we could accomplish if this country wasn't so goofed up about sex. A nation of people (present company excepted, of course) tut-tutting about what people do in the bedroom, yet with a thriving porn industry. If we didn't have these hang-ups, what would the politicians and journalists do with their time? Bill O'Reilly would have to go out of business - half of his show is him moralizing while they show footage of half-naked ladies.
 
dalangdon,
I will agree with you on the fact that the question should not be asked if it doesn't have an effect on the job, else JFK would have been impeached long before Dallas. The incident did, however, occur on property owned by the tax payers while he was receiving pay from the tax payers. When one is on the clock they should not be on the inturn.

This also goes to character. One in public office should uphold the standards that they speak of, and once they lie about one issue it calls into question everything else they do because it demonstrates their ability to decieve. Try telling Judge Judy a lie and see what happens.

In my meaning, if one is going to take a stand against or for something, they should then live by the same stick that they measure others by. If someone leads a crusade against porn, then is their largest consumer; we as voters are within our rights to doubt their job performance in all areas.

Just my opinion--don't light the torches, I'm leaving.
 
It goes to show: Politicians know they can manipulate their constituency by evoking the big, bad, gay bogeyman to gain financial support/votes from right-wing, conservative Christians/fundamentalists. Many of them obviously have no problem with gay sex---how many of them have been caught, now?---but they know if they bang the drum against it publicly (hollow as that drum may be), the Christian right will fall right in line.

Another thing I find astounding: How many politicians do you think really believe creationism is fact, and should be taught in schools as an alternative to science? They know better; They stump for it because it gets votes from those naive enough to believe the world is only 6,000 years old.
 
Nope not a fake...they were talking about it on OutQ this morning with the news guy Tim Curran. Not saying I believe everything I hear but they are pretty reliable.
Now onto Bill Clinton...he shoulda known Monica was a pig by not washing her dress after getting spooged on by Billy Boy. If it was me then i would have washed the dress and not kept it like a souvinier like...look what I got from the president. Certainly not a Hallmark Card moment, where you care to send the "very best". She certainly didnt swallow...just let it fly in the air and splat on her dress...gawd!
I just love it when the hippocrites get nailed...and I have always seen the ones that scream the loudest need some prodding out of the closet. Its much like Dina McGreavey...I didnt know my husband was gay....all women are not that numb. If he is swishing like a Maytag then here's your sign honey.
 
Strictly my opinion.....

I think that every good leader (and even a lot of the bad ones) have a healthy sexual appetite. It's part of their psychological makeup, and I personally don't care if they engage in it on "taxpayer property" or not.

As long as what they do is consensual, and no kids are involved, they can do as many people as they want, whenever they want, all I ask is that they do a good job running the country.

Of course, when they actively work against the civil rights of a group of citizens (like Senator Craig, or this King character) that is a different matter entirely, but as long as they aren't hurting anybody, who cares?
 
Clinton received bad legal advice...

The whole Monica scandal started when Clinton agreed to give a deposition in one of the bimbo civil cases brought against him (I forget the name of the bimbo at this time). During that deposition he was asked questions about Monica, and then he lied under oath and that's how he got into big trouble. The irony is that he was not obligated to give a deposition in the civil case, but one of his attorneys told him (I think) that he had to talk. Big mistake. He cold have simply stonewalled the subpoena and quite possibly he'd never have been impeached. So, in a sense, Clinton was sabotaged, deliberately or not, by one of his own. Maybe they were tired of seeing him cat around, I don't know.

The stuff about not being allowed to have relations in the White House, I think, is a bunch of BS. Sure, it's kind of gross, but it's most certainly not an impeachable offence. It was a witch hunt from start to finish.
 
True. Let's not forget filegate, travelgate and the dozen other "gates" during this period. A rabid Republican U.S. House did nothing else for 4+ years except try and remove Bill Clinton from office.

What's really disgusting is that none of the people who persecuted Clinton could have withstood the same level of inspection and scrutiny into their own lives. E.g. remember Senator Dan Burton, who called Clinton a "scumbag" for the Lewinsky matter? At the time Burton had an eighteen year-old SON by an extramarital affair, which he refused to even acknowledge the existence of.

Just astonishing hypocrisy.
 

Similar threads

J
Let's play, the FAAAAAAMILYYYY FEUUUUUUUUD!
Replies
2
Views
136
rp2813
rp2813
E
Eating in America and around the world
Replies
10
Views
173
frigilux
frigilux

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top