Congressman AARON SCHOCK

[B_RedDude]

Who in the practice of politics are more strident and divisive, Republicans or Democrats?

And I dislike Republicans for a lot more than their stance on gay rights issues (and not all of them are opposed to gay rights)

There are a lot of people in this thread who think that being gay automatically requires a person to be a gay rights crusader. There are also a lot who think all people with political views opposite their own are assholes who have no good in them and deserve no respect. People who think either of those things are contributing to a divisive "us versus them" public mentality, and I thought the general consensus was that that's a bad thing.

 

[D_Ben Twilly]

Who in the practice of politics are more strident and divisive, Republicans or Democrats?

I suppose it depends on the context and the sample of people you're looking at. But it sure seems to be the Democrats in this thread.

 

[B_Nick8]

Republican = asshole.

It's funny. My gut reaction is the same way. My mother is a very wealthy (inheritance-wise) woman who somehow raised completely democratic children, primarily because she's a screaming liberal. We weren't allowed to be prejudiced against anyone and had black and Jewish friends in a community where no one else did in a time where that was unheard of. We learned that every one was the same. She was mad-crazy about women's rights and abortion the whole time. But there came a time when I was in college and I actually asked her how she was voting and it turned out she was voting Republican and I was totally--totally--shocked. And so was she that I was. She asked me how I turned out a democrat and I said "YOU!" and she was surprised. It was amazing for both of us.

Republicans, especially those born into it, vote with their pockebooks. But not all of their hearts are in it. That's the nicest thing I can say. And some of them, even those who leave trust funds, raise their children well.

 

[B_RedDude]

I was referring to elected political leaders, thus my phrase "the practice of politics". They actually make the broad policy determinations.

Is the answer perhaps a bit clearer now?

I suppose it depends on the context and the sample of people you're looking at. But it sure seems to be the Democrats in this thread.

 

[deleted213967]

Republicans, especially those born into it, vote with their pockebooks. But not all of their hearts are in it. That's the nicest thing I can say. And some of them, even those who leave trust funds, raise their children well.

Right, and your brand of Democrats prefers to vote with the pocketbooks of others...

It is very much this kind of gross, screamingly simplistic caricatures of the American electorate that caused me to distance myself from the unsavory Left so massively overrepresented here.

 

[CalmAndCreative]

For this post, I'll say for argument's sake that he's gay, just because it's simpler than qualifying each sentence with "If he is, as some claim, gay..." Because, after all, you never know.

Being gay does not necessarily mean a person's opinions and political stances have to forward traditional gay movements and agendas. To say that because he's gay, he must be for gay marriage, etc., is to look at it in a closed-minded, black and white way. It also suggests an assumption that everyone's thought process is entirely self-centered, with nothing more going on than "What is most beneficial to me personally?"

Compare this to Catholic politicians who don't vote according to the precepts of the Catholic Church. Do you think it destroys their credibility not to use their political power to advance their own beliefs? Or do you respect them more for putting their own background aside and trying to do their job without bias? Or do you think it's a non-issue because a politician's personal life and their political actions don't necessarily have to be linked? Of course, that's not a completely apt comparison since religion is a choice... how much less should something that's NOT a choice, such as being gay, matter?

There are a lot of people in this thread who think that being gay automatically requires a person to be a gay rights crusader. There are also a lot who think all people with political views opposite their own are assholes who have no good in them and deserve no respect. People who think either of those things are contributing to a divisive "us versus them" public mentality, and I thought the general consensus was that that's a bad thing.

THIS is the post I'd say "you rock" to. Thank you Vance88. The people I know who've been elected to political office are just as complex as any of the rest of us. Liberal or Conservative they are people trying to balance a variety of constituencies and belief sets in the attempt to do what they think is "the right thing to do". Projecting motives onto them is unfair. Arguing against views we disagree with and advocating for our views is what an involved citizen does. (Edmond405 I support your right to advocate for your views and oppose mine any day.)

For the whiners out there that don't like what they see happening with the issues they care about. Make it easy for the politician to "come out of the closet" and support these ideas... Give political cover to the politicians who agree with you by getting involved more often than once every 2 or 4 years.

As far as Aaron Schock goes... doesn't do it for me. :biggrin1:

 

[jenngirl1975]

you intolerant libs have made my dick go limp - i thought liberals were supposed to be civil and tolerant. Y'all can go jump in the lake with your hate

agreed!!

 

[B_Nick8]

Right, and your brand of Democrats prefers to vote with the pocketbooks of others...

It is very much this kind of gross, screamingly simplistic caricatures of the American electorate that caused me to distance myself from the unsavory Left so massively overrepresented here.

Your gross, screamingly simplistic caricature of the "unsavory" left is so massively skewed that I am hurt, and upset and appalled. But in some ways, you might possibly be correct. The point is, we all swing too far one way or another and we forget to talk to each other when it's the common good that it what it important. How we define it, how we accomplish that--and who pays for it--seems to me to be the issue.

Just so you know, I live on what I make for the most part, and I consistently vote for higher taxes to support the programs I believe in which will only "hurt" me in the long run. So, I'm no hypocrite. Money I have not made is not mine. It is a lovely gift but I don't deserve it; I will certainly enjoy it in the short term but I'm willing to part with it. My values and beliefs are far more important than it is.

Honestly, you sound bitter, for reasons I cannnot fathom. I've had massive problems in my life which have taken years to overcome; I hope you can come to terms with yours.

 

[deleted213967]

Your gross, screamingly simplistic caricature of the "unsavory" left is so massively skewed that I am hurt, and upset and appalled. But in some ways, you might possibly be correct. The point is, we all swing too far one way or another and we forget to talk to each other when it's the common good that it what it important. How we define it, how we accomplish that--and who pays for it--seems to me to be the issue.

Just so you know, I live on what I make for the most part, and I consistently vote for higher taxes to support the programs I believe in which will only "hurt" me in the long run. So, I'm no hypocrite. Money I have not made is not mine. It is a lovely gift but I don't deserve it; I will certainly enjoy it in the short term but I'm willing to part with it. My values and beliefs are far more important than it is.

Honestly, you sound bitter, for reasons I cannnot fathom. I've had massive problems in my life which have taken years to overcome; I hope you can come to terms with yours.

I don't know about "bitter", honestly, Nick8. This may be only place on Earth where most straight men are far more obsessed with dick than I've ever been. This cracks me up to no end, rather than embitters me.

Yes, I was squarely a moderate Democrat before (with donations, petitions and voting record to back it up). Since (perhaps) the 2008 Primaries, I have seen the Dark Side of the Left. It is quite possible that I am simply mad at myself for being blind all those years.

 

[Sklar]

And as a constituant of his home town, I can tell u he is 100% gay. Has a live in lover but is not out of the closet as the Republican party does not condone that perverted behavior!!!!:wink:

Trying to redirect this thread back to the original subject after I accidentally hijacked it. How about some proof to back up this statement. Proof, not hearsay.

Thanks,


Sklar

 

[deleted213967]

Trying to redirect this thread back to the original subject after I accidentally hijacked it. How about some proof to back up this statement. Proof, not hearsay.
Thanks,
Sklar

If the topic is indeed abdominal muscle and fitness, I fail to see how the man's political inclination and sexual orientation can be relevant.

Men's Health is a skin-deep glossy, not a pornographic publication.

 

[edonline]

I suppose whenever anyone posts photos of a politician, it's inevitable that politics rears its head. To some extent, it's true for other careers as well albeit on a smaller scale. (You name an actor you find hot and eventually someone will post, "I think his movies/show stinks as well".) My view is that finding someone good looking doesn't mean you have to agree with their politics or that you're going to vote for them. As I said before, even though I didn't with his policies, I can still consider George W. to have been a hot dad with a huge cock. And in the same thought, I can consider Joe Biden to be a hot daddy as well.

Just my $0.02

 

[Deno]

why do we have a political section

 

[houtx48]

I still consider W. Bush a no dick wonder and Jeff Gannon's favorite bottom client.

 

[Dirtypop8]

I am shocked people are saying he seems like a nice enough guy and questioning "why all the hate". The negative attacks against him have nothing to do with politics, it has to do with his morals. He votes for legislation that allows some americans to have rights that others do not. I am sick and tired of people saying that gay/human rights are a left wing or right wing political conversation instead of saying it is human rights issue. If Men's health put on the cover of this magazine a man that said women should not have the same rights as men or a minority group should not be able to serve in the military men's health would be torn to shreds. Just because someone has good physical health doesn't mean their moral and mental health are just as good...

 

[deleted213967]

IJust because someone has good physical health doesn't mean their moral and mental health are just as good...

It bears repeating that Men's Health is a skin-deep glossy, not a powerhouse of ideas. The greatest man mankind has ever seen may not look too good shirtless. Conversely a man you disagree with may still look better than you, to most.

Tight abs are tight abs are tight abs.

 

[bearvwe]

Seems like all the comments about Mr Schock come from guys in the US - well no-one in Britain has ever heard of him. Until today. This from today's Guardian newspaper in the UK:
The soft underbelly of the right's hard abs | Amanda Marcotte | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

[MrToolhung]

Well, all of the politics aside, he's hot - damn hot! I'd do him.

That said, I'll say this about the politics - just because one identifies as Republican doesn't mean one endorses EVERY bit of supposed Republican legislation. It is entirely possible to be both gay and conservative - in fact I don't understand the confusion some people have about it. Yes, I'm gay. Yes, I'm Republican. I want LESS government, WAY WAY WAY less government. The government doesn't have a place in my personal life. Nor, does it have the right to define marriage, tell me what to eat or when or how much, redistribute my income or make me get health insurance, control education or legislate sham environmentalism.

What the government should do is operate 100% tranparently to provide for a strong defense, be aggressive in the development and maintenance of infrastructure, encourage states rights, treat all legal citizens equally, provide for those less fortunate by teaching them how to become independent and not rely on the government. The government should encourage our nation to be independent of other nations in as many ways as is possible (yes, drill baby drill) and provide accountable assistance to other nations when they are in need. That's pretty much it. I'll even get a bit more extreme and really freak some people out - in these days of fiscal crisis, I think we should defund the NEA, the EPA and the Dept of Education (education is the states' responsibility not the fed's).

Now, others may disagree and I will respectfully and passionately defend your right to do so. There's no need to attack someone else for their position. Would a true Liberal get that - wouldn't a true Liberal say, "I respect your right to have your view and while I may disagree with you, I support your freedom to think for yourself." It just very curious to me why so many on the left appear to get so worked up with those that express different points of view.

Very well said!

 

[edonline]

It bears repeating that Men's Health is a skin-deep glossy, not a powerhouse of ideas. The greatest man mankind has ever seen may not look too good shirtless. Conversely a man you disagree with may still look better than you, to most.

Tight abs are tight abs are tight abs.

If I may paraphrase, "A nice cock is a nice cock is a nice cock". :wink:

 

[D_Ben Twilly]

He votes for legislation that allows some americans to have rights that others do not.

The dessert cart at your favorite restaurant only has chocolate cake. For people who want cookies, it's a disappointing arrangement, but everyone has the same menu and no one is being prevented from ordering the cake if they wish. Just because the dessert on offer doesn't do jack shit for some customers doesn't mean the people who like cake are being afforded a privilege the cookie fans are being denied.