GOP Lawmaker admits giving man $80 but doesn't know why...

Almost like the president saying rich folks like him should pay more in taxes and then taking advantage of every tax break available to lower their tax bill.

You are against taxpayers taking every tax break available to lower their bill?

When they say the taxes are too low, isn't it a bit hypocritical of them to do this?

When has that ever stopped a politician?

Imagine that - hypocrisy doesn't stop politicians from engaging in behavior contrary to their political stance on an issue. Isn't that what this GOP lawmaker did as well? Is it only GOP politicians whose hypocrisy you plan on bringing to our attention, or can we count on you to not be hypocritical yourself and bring the hypocrisy of the Democrats to our attention with equal zeal?

PrintSmith wrote: Is it only GOP politicians whose hypocrisy you plan on bringing to our attention, or can we count on you to not be hypocritical yourself and bring the hypocrisy of the Democrats to our attention with equal zeal?

Hence the MASSIVE flaw we've continually had with the 2 party system. Each side always points at the other, thus making NO steps forward to a viable solution. "It's the Dems fault, It's the Rep's fault, the Right screwed it up, the Lefts screwed it up...." What the hell happened to "We the People?".... and of course this is sadly the reason why many of us are just sitting back..... waiting for the right moment.







Badger

WayneH wrote: I'll take that as Outdoor condoning the lawmaker's actions.

Like I said when I first posted this, I believe the poor guy when he said he was set up. Sure, he paid the kid $80 for a good time at a motel room but it was a set up. And, for heaven's sake, he's a very moral anti-gay lawmaker so obviously he's not interested in sex with men. It's all a big misunderstanding.

Somehow, you managed to convey all the sarcasm that often is not conveyable on the internet. Well done. You made me laugh out loud for real.

A good time - they were going to play board games, right? Surely not sex!

BadgerKustoms wrote: I probably shouldn't even voice an opinion, but what the hell.... here goes:

When I opened this, I was expecting to see $80 million, or $80 thousand..... we're not even talking $800 though, just $80 as in eighty dollars, meaning eight ten dollar bills or however you'd like to break that down.

Then I waited to see if it was $80 of stolen funds, tax payer's dollars (which inadvertently I suppose it is) etc. But it turns out its just from the lawmaker's own pocket. Again... $80. Not stolen, not embezzeled, or otherwise shady in terms of his possession there-of.

His political affiliation? At this point, COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.... the funds (all $80 of them) are legit.

His sexual preference? Really none of my business I just don't care. $80 from his own pocket he tried to pay to a young but legal adult. If anything I could see them slapping him with prostitution charges, but it seems the story is vague in areas.

So.... its only $80, of legitimate earned cash, from a politician regardless of political stance, to a gay prostitute who's upset the deal didn't go through, not enough cash, maybe the gay kid is scamming something, who knows, who cares, but the whole point is........ why is this even a story?

No offense Wayne, but reading that really was a waste of time. The fact that I added to it now doesn't help either, so that makes us now both guilty of wasting everyone's time.

Just saying,

Badger

"Hinkle acknowledged he picked up Kameryn Gibson and drove him to the hotel, giving him $80 in the car. But when they arrived, Hinkle said, they simply made small talk about baseball and the view from the hotel -- nothing further."

It's all a big misunderstanding over baseball, apparently...

But the House speaker of his own party thought what happened was serious enough to strip him of his committee chairmanships and to ask him to resign from the legislature.

Apparently the House speaker takes what the lawmaker did more seriously than you do and did not consider it a "waste of time."

Just saying...

And he shouldn't consider it a waste of time because its his job. Its in his field of employment.

But to us... its news and I'm just conveying that its news not really enlightening or enraging us - thus time wasting.

Let them fire him, let them praise him, investigate him, sweep the whole thing under a rug.... really makes no difference to any of us being it wasn't OUR money, wasn't on OUR time.

Make sense now?



Badger

BadgerKustoms wrote: Hence the MASSIVE flaw we've continually had with the 2 party system. Each side always points at the other, thus making NO steps forward to a viable solution. "It's the Dems fault, It's the Rep's fault, the Right screwed it up, the Lefts screwed it up...." What the hell happened to "We the People?".... and of course this is sadly the reason why many of us are just sitting back..... waiting for the right moment.

Badger

The people are not a homogenous mass who all have the same opinion, hence the rise of political parties and the decision to primarily align oneself with one or the other. The party system, and the pendulum swings of which of them primarily hold power at any given time, are a necessary component of the adversarial relationship that protects our individual liberties. It is the abandoning of this adversarial nature in favor of seeking to consolidate power within primarily the federal government, and to lesser degrees the state and local ones as well, by both parties to one extent or another that form the nucleus of our current problem. We need the constant conflict, it was, I believe, purposefully placed into the system to prevent any level of government here from becoming corrupt, despotic and tyrannical. There is supposed to be a constant and ongoing struggle for power between the state and federal governments, there is supposed to be a constant struggle between consolidationists and those that seek to decentralize the power of government. That never ending struggle is what is supposed to be the primary check and balance against a powerful central government emerging that becomes as corrupt, despotic and tyrannical as the one the War for Independence was fought to shed.

Don't bemoan the partisan battle of ideologies, celebrate it - bipartisanship is for wimps. If George III had accepted the original bipartisan offer of allowing the colonies to self govern to a large degree while still pledging their fidelity to the crown there never would have been a United States of America and we might all still be subjects of the Queen Mum.