Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

So you are in favor of outing gay people? That's okay with liberals?

I'm not a liberal. But there is a big difference between outing someone and shaming them. You claimed that people on this thread are trying to shame him. Why would hiring sex workers of the same sex shame him? Either there is nothing wrong with this or there is. Which is it?

False dichotomy. Gay people don't owe you an explanation of their preferences. And given that the world is hostile to them, outing them as gay, against their wishes, is a violation. It's called consent.

I'm sorry but there is no legal basis for this "consent." You don't have to get someone's consent to say truthful things about them in public. You seem like you want to ironically throw liberal talking points into this discussion. But you aren't doing it right. And I'm not a liberal so I don't care about vague notions of "consent."

DP. Here's the thing. You have no idea whether ANY of these allegations are truthful - including the claim that he's gay. So right now, all this consists of is slander.

No one on this thread INCLUDING YOU has any idea if the allegations are true or false. It's been less than 24 hours. Let's see if additional allegations come up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You would be 100% wrong. If visiting a prostitute was a disqualifier for a security clearance, we're going to have to shut down the special operations command. The military has a ton of cleared people and it's not exactly a boy scout troop.

You cannot have a Top Secret security clearance if you routinely, knowingly break the law (i.e. prostitutes).

Oh, no. Did anyone tell Bill Clinton that?

+1. Sorry pp, but you obviously don't work anywhere near security clearance adjudications. There are people with clearances with felony convictions. It's about larger patterns and the average moron visiting a sex worker isn't a big concern. No one is going to commit a capital crime to cover that up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

+1. Not a single, specific example of LG voting to harm gay people. Lots of innuendo that he could be blackmailed since he is gay. Which interestingly! Used to be a justification for not allowing gay people to have security clearances until it was shot down as discriminatory. My take away: the left is now promoting discrimination against gays.

Lol. HE VISITED PROSTITUTES! I'm 100% sure this is automatic disqualification for security clearances. It is illegal and immoral. His constituents deserve to know that their lawmaker breaks the laws.

Again: DO YOU HAVE PROOF OF THIS? Or is some guy on Twitter now considered credible by you nitwits?
-DP

This is why no news sites are touching this story. But thank you for implicitly acknowledging that if Graham did visit prostitutes of any gender then the public needs to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

So you are in favor of outing gay people? That's okay with liberals?

I'm not a liberal. But there is a big difference between outing someone and shaming them. You claimed that people on this thread are trying to shame him. Why would hiring sex workers of the same sex shame him? Either there is nothing wrong with this or there is. Which is it?

False dichotomy. Gay people don't owe you an explanation of their preferences. And given that the world is hostile to them, outing them as gay, against their wishes, is a violation. It's called consent.

I'm sorry but there is no legal basis for this "consent." You don't have to get someone's consent to say truthful things about them in public. You seem like you want to ironically throw liberal talking points into this discussion. But you aren't doing it right. And I'm not a liberal so I don't care about vague notions of "consent."

DP. Here's the thing. You have no idea whether ANY of these allegations are truthful - including the claim that he's gay. So right now, all this consists of is slander.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You would be 100% wrong. If visiting a prostitute was a disqualifier for a security clearance, we're going to have to shut down the special operations command. The military has a ton of cleared people and it's not exactly a boy scout troop.

You cannot have a Top Secret security clearance if you routinely, knowingly break the law (i.e. prostitutes).

Oh, no. Did anyone tell Bill Clinton that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

So you are in favor of outing gay people? That's okay with liberals?

I'm not a liberal. But there is a big difference between outing someone and shaming them. You claimed that people on this thread are trying to shame him. Why would hiring sex workers of the same sex shame him? Either there is nothing wrong with this or there is. Which is it?

False dichotomy. Gay people don't owe you an explanation of their preferences. And given that the world is hostile to them, outing them as gay, against their wishes, is a violation. It's called consent.

I'm sorry but there is no legal basis for this "consent." You don't have to get someone's consent to say truthful things about them in public. You seem like you want to ironically throw liberal talking points into this discussion. But you aren't doing it right. And I'm not a liberal so I don't care about vague notions of "consent."

It's not a legal argument. I'm not an attorney. This is a moral argument. If people choose to keep an aspect of their lives secret, especially one that could cause them harm when they travel or interact with people (being gay is illegal in many countries) it's not for you to decide otherwise for them. I don't care if you don't see that. Liberals claim to respect these principles and that is the issue at hand.

Perhaps this would be true if he weren't breaking the law. Prostitution is illegal. Senators don't get to keep breaking the law secret.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

So you are in favor of outing gay people? That's okay with liberals?

I'm not a liberal. But there is a big difference between outing someone and shaming them. You claimed that people on this thread are trying to shame him. Why would hiring sex workers of the same sex shame him? Either there is nothing wrong with this or there is. Which is it?

False dichotomy. Gay people don't owe you an explanation of their preferences. And given that the world is hostile to them, outing them as gay, against their wishes, is a violation. It's called consent.

I'm sorry but there is no legal basis for this "consent." You don't have to get someone's consent to say truthful things about them in public. You seem like you want to ironically throw liberal talking points into this discussion. But you aren't doing it right. And I'm not a liberal so I don't care about vague notions of "consent."

It's not a legal argument. I'm not an attorney. This is a moral argument. If people choose to keep an aspect of their lives secret, especially one that could cause them harm when they travel or interact with people (being gay is illegal in many countries) it's not for you to decide otherwise for them. I don't care if you don't see that. Liberals claim to respect these principles and that is the issue at hand.

Perhaps this would be true if he weren't breaking the law. Prostitution is illegal. Senators don't get to keep breaking the law secret.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

+1. Not a single, specific example of LG voting to harm gay people. Lots of innuendo that he could be blackmailed since he is gay. Which interestingly! Used to be a justification for not allowing gay people to have security clearances until it was shot down as discriminatory. My take away: the left is now promoting discrimination against gays.

Lol. HE VISITED PROSTITUTES! I'm 100% sure this is automatic disqualification for security clearances. It is illegal and immoral. His constituents deserve to know that their lawmaker breaks the laws.

Again: DO YOU HAVE PROOF OF THIS? Or is some guy on Twitter now considered credible by you nitwits?
-DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

So you are in favor of outing gay people? That's okay with liberals?

I'm not a liberal. But there is a big difference between outing someone and shaming them. You claimed that people on this thread are trying to shame him. Why would hiring sex workers of the same sex shame him? Either there is nothing wrong with this or there is. Which is it?

False dichotomy. Gay people don't owe you an explanation of their preferences. And given that the world is hostile to them, outing them as gay, against their wishes, is a violation. It's called consent.

I'm sorry but there is no legal basis for this "consent." You don't have to get someone's consent to say truthful things about them in public. You seem like you want to ironically throw liberal talking points into this discussion. But you aren't doing it right. And I'm not a liberal so I don't care about vague notions of "consent."

You would be 100% wrong. If visiting a prostitute was a disqualifier for a security clearance, we're going to have to shut down the special operations command. The military has a ton of cleared people and it's not exactly a boy scout troop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

+1. Not a single, specific example of LG voting to harm gay people. Lots of innuendo that he could be blackmailed since he is gay. Which interestingly! Used to be a justification for not allowing gay people to have security clearances until it was shot down as discriminatory. My take away: the left is now promoting discrimination against gays.

Lol. HE VISITED PROSTITUTES! I'm 100% sure this is automatic disqualification for security clearances. It is illegal and immoral. His constituents deserve to know that their lawmaker breaks the laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

So you are in favor of outing gay people? That's okay with liberals?

I'm not a liberal. But there is a big difference between outing someone and shaming them. You claimed that people on this thread are trying to shame him. Why would hiring sex workers of the same sex shame him? Either there is nothing wrong with this or there is. Which is it?

False dichotomy. Gay people don't owe you an explanation of their preferences. And given that the world is hostile to them, outing them as gay, against their wishes, is a violation. It's called consent.

I'm sorry but there is no legal basis for this "consent." You don't have to get someone's consent to say truthful things about them in public. You seem like you want to ironically throw liberal talking points into this discussion. But you aren't doing it right. And I'm not a liberal so I don't care about vague notions of "consent."

It's not a legal argument. I'm not an attorney. This is a moral argument. If people choose to keep an aspect of their lives secret, especially one that could cause them harm when they travel or interact with people (being gay is illegal in many countries) it's not for you to decide otherwise for them. I don't care if you don't see that. Liberals claim to respect these principles and that is the issue at hand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

+1. Not a single, specific example of LG voting to harm gay people. Lots of innuendo that he could be blackmailed since he is gay. Which interestingly! Used to be a justification for not allowing gay people to have security clearances until it was shot down as discriminatory. My take away: the left is now promoting discrimination against gays.

+2

-4

He voted to confirm conservative Supreme Court Justices, who went on to rule that bakers can discrimimate against people based on their sexuality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

So you are in favor of outing gay people? That's okay with liberals?

I'm not a liberal. But there is a big difference between outing someone and shaming them. You claimed that people on this thread are trying to shame him. Why would hiring sex workers of the same sex shame him? Either there is nothing wrong with this or there is. Which is it?

False dichotomy. Gay people don't owe you an explanation of their preferences. And given that the world is hostile to them, outing them as gay, against their wishes, is a violation. It's called consent.

I'm sorry but there is no legal basis for this "consent." You don't have to get someone's consent to say truthful things about them in public. You seem like you want to ironically throw liberal talking points into this discussion. But you aren't doing it right. And I'm not a liberal so I don't care about vague notions of "consent."