Flynts Got The Goods On Another GOP Senator

[Nbadan]

http://bigheaddc.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/larry-flint.JPG

Flynt Teases New “Huge” GOP Senate Sex Scandal
Friday October 26th, 2007 7:49 PM by BHDC Staff


Larry Flynt, editor and publisher of Hustler magazine, just told FOX Business Network’s Neil Cavuto that he’s “hoping to expose a bombshell” that will stand “Washington and the country on its head.” Within the next week or two, he says his magazine will expose a sex scandal of huge proportions involving a prominent United States Senator. Flynt refused to comment on the Senator’s political affiliation, but alluded that he or she is a Republican.

Link (http://bigheaddc.com/2007/10/26/larry-flynt-teases-new-huge-gop-senate-sex-scandal/)


Let it be Cornyn....let it be Cornyn.....

[ChumpDumper]

Leave it to Fox News.

[xrayzebra]

Leave it to Larry Flynt. Now you just got to believe everything
that a "my life as a vagina" magazine publishes.

I would have thought he would wait a little closer to the elections
to publish anything.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow... real accurate portrayal Dan. The story says he alludes to a republican, but that's subject to interpretation. Then there are other things to consider. Who would care if he alludes to a democrat? The morals between the two parties are so different, it's not newsworthy if it's a democrat. Republicans however, stress family values more, making it a newsworthy issue.

Now a question. Why is he saying anything now? He apparently has no proof, or he would have worded things different rather than "hoping to expose."

I remember an account where he said he had 30 names. Of course, this was after he offered $1,000,000 for proof to women having sex with a congressman. How many of these 30 incident are just dingbats trying to cash in?

Too early for any newsworthy story here. Flynt isn't even stating it as fact yet. I guess he misses being in a news cycle.

[Yonivore]

OMG! It was on FOX. How the fuck did that happen?

In other news, Democrats may put a sex addict (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/28/2007-10-28_newsers_book_ford_saw_clinton_as_a_sex_a.html) in the White House.

[FromWayDowntown]

OMG! It was on FOX. How the fuck did that happen?

In other news, Democrats may put a sex addict (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/28/2007-10-28_newsers_book_ford_saw_clinton_as_a_sex_a.html) in the White House.
Aside from my uncertainties about Gerald Ford's qualifications to diagnose addiction in those he knows only at a distance, assuming that President Ford's diagnosis is somehow reputable, I would think that your "in other news" tidbit would be that "Democrats have already put a sex addict in the White House." There's not really any uncertainty at this point about whether Bill Clinton will serve as President of the United States -- and I see no report that a present candidate for that office on the Democratic side is reputed by a former President to be a sex addict.

[George Gervin's Afro]

OMG! It was on FOX. How the fuck did that happen?

In other news, Democrats may put a sex addict (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/28/2007-10-28_newsers_book_ford_saw_clinton_as_a_sex_a.html) in the White House.


WELL THAT CERTAINLY IS A DISQUALIFER.. :rolleyes

[xrayzebra]

Wow... real accurate portrayal Dan. The story says he alludes to a republican, but that's subject to interpretation. Then there are other things to consider. Who would care if he alludes to a democrat? The morals between the two parties are so different, it's not newsworthy if it's a democrat. Republicans however, stress family values more, making it a newsworthy issue.

Now a question. Why is he saying anything now? He apparently has no proof, or he would have worded things different rather than "hoping to expose."

I remember an account where he said he had 30 names. Of course, this was after he offered $1,000,000 for proof to women having sex with a congressman. How many of these 30 incident are just dingbats trying to cash in?

Too early for any newsworthy story here. Flynt isn't even stating it as fact yet. I guess he misses being in a news cycle.


Yep you are right WC, when it is a Republican it is news.
When it is a dimm-o-crap, oh-hum, just another one of
the boys doing his thing, like all the dimm-o-craps.

[Yonivore]

Aside from my uncertainties about Gerald Ford's qualifications to diagnose addiction in those he knows only at a distance, assuming that President Ford's diagnosis is somehow reputable, I would think that your "in other news" tidbit would be that "Democrats have already put a sex addict in the White House." There's not really any uncertainty at this point about whether Bill Clinton will serve as President of the United States -- and I see no report that a present candidate for that office on the Democratic side is reputed by a former President to be a sex addict.
You suggest Bill Clinton won't be residing at the White House should his wife be elected.

And, my uncertainties about Gerald Ford's diagnotic capabilities aside, as well; his wife (an addiction expert) concurred. Plus, I believe their relationship -- being members of a rather exclusive club (that of the U. S. Presidency) -- placed them in proximity to one another on quite a few occasions. In fact, I believe, President Ford served with President Clinton on more than one board or another.

[Yonivore]

WELL THAT CERTAINLY IS A DISQUALIFER.. :rolleyes
I didn't say it was a disqualifier. There are many things about Hillary and her husband that should preclude any decent American -- no matter their political ideology -- from actually voting for her in 2008.

[Yonivore]

Oh, and it's not just Gerald Ford and his wife;

How to Cure a Sex Addict (http://slate.com/id/2156023/)

What kind of counseling did Bill Clinton get?

[FromWayDowntown]

You suggest Bill Clinton won't be residing at the White House should his wife be elected.
Putting someone "in the White House" usually connotes empowering such a person with constitutional authority. Bill Clinton will not be so empowered if his wife is elected, even if he's living in the White House during her term of office.

I would never say that the American people put Laura Bush or Hilary Clinton or Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan in the White House. The American people put their husbands into the White House -- their husbands took them along.

[Yonivore]

Putting someone "in the White House" usually connotes empowering such a person with constitutional authority. Bill Clinton will not be so empowered if his wife is elected, even if he's living in the White House during her term of office.
I'm sorry you have such a limited grasp on vocabulary and the meaning of words.

But, using your understanding, let's explore.

When he was elected in 1991, Bill Clinton promised us a co-presidency with his wife, Hillary.

Now, I can perfectly understand why Hillary would shy away from making any such claim about her presidency but, do you, in fact, believe a former president, living under the same roof with Hillary, won't have any influence whatsoever?

Carl Bernstein was on KLBJ-AM, in Austin, this morning. He's just finished a biography of Hillary -- a friendly one, at that (he's obviously a fan) -- in which he reveals that family and religion are what most shaped the Senator's life and ideology. :::snicker:::

Anyway, in the interview this morning, he -- a fan, mind you -- gleefully asserted that it would, indeed, be another co-presidency if Hillary were elected. He even said it as if it were a good thing.


I would never say that the American people put Laura Bush or Hilary Clinton or Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan in the White House.
Well, they wouldn't have been there if the American people hadn't elected their husbands president.


The American people put their husbands into the White House -- their husbands took them along.
So, the husbands had a choice in the matter? I see.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm sorry you have such a limited grasp on vocabulary and the meaning of words.Ah! Here we go with the resort to ad hominem. Right out of the Yonivore argument playbook.

I explained in some detail precisely what I understand the phrase "put someone in the White House." You take a more expansive view of that phrase, as is your prerogative. I don't ever vote to elect a First Lady or a First Daughter or First Son or a First Dog. That all of those people might live in the White House as a result of an election is far different than saying that voters are choosing to put those people there. If your view of Presidential voting encompasses consideration of the entire First Family, well then, I guess you're just a better patriot than me.


But, using your understanding, let's explore.

When he was elected in 1991, Bill Clinton promised us a co-presidency with his wife, Hillary.

Now, I can perfectly understand why Hillary would shy away from making any such claim about her presidency but, do you, in fact, believe a former president, living under the same roof with Hillary, won't have any influence whatsoever?

Carl Bernstein was on KLBJ-AM, in Austin, this morning. He's just finished a biography of Hillary -- a friendly one, at that (he's obviously a fan) -- in which he reveals that family and religion are what most shaped the Senator's life and ideology. :::snicker:::

Anyway, in the interview this morning, he -- a fan, mind you -- gleefully asserted that it would, indeed, be another co-presidency if Hillary were elected. He even said it as if it were a good thing.Two things: (1) my point was confined to vesting a person with constitutional authority to act as a President -- a nominee can say he or she offers a co-Presidency, but that doesn't vest the co-President with any constitutional authority whatsoever; and (2) I'm not particularly concerned with what Hillary Clinton is promising to do, because I'm unlikely to vote for her, at least in the primaries.


Well, they wouldn't have been there if the American people hadn't elected their husbands president.Right, but people aren't voting for the First Family -- at least not many people that I know cast votes on that basis.

If you socialize with people who decide whom they'll vote for based on the characteristics of his or her family, we're clearly involved with very different sorts of people. The people that I talk to consider policies of the potential nominee to be a paramount concern and tend to cast votes on that basis.


So, the husbands had a choice in the matter? I see.I guess they were compelled to get married?

[Yonivore]

Ah! Here we go with the resort to ad hominem. Right out of the Yonivore argument playbook.
You should see the royalties I receive.


I explained in some detail precisely what I understand the phrase "put someone in the White House." You take a more expansive view of that phrase, as is your prerogative.
It's not just me. I can't think of a presidential election since Johnson and Chicago Democrats stole the election for Kennedy, where the presidents' spouses weren't vetted almost as harshly as were the candidates themselves.

Who you choose to marry, whether you want to believe it or not, says a lot about your character and judgement -- just as your spouses judgement and character also says a lot about your own.

Considering Bill Clinton appointed Hillary to oversee what became one of the biggest FUBAR's in Government history -- with her HillaryCare nonsense -- I took the "co-presidency" pledge to heart.

So, where the Clintons are concerned, the American public should take their spouse into consideration...because, it is exceedingly clear they are a political team and electing one is electing the other.


I don't ever vote to elect a First Lady or a First Daughter or First Son or a First Dog.
Nor do I if I don't believe the wife, daughter, son or dog isn't going to factor heavily into decisions made by the executive.

Unfortunately, in this case, that's a forgone conclusion. With one, you get the other. The only difference between Democrats and everyone else on this issue is that Democrats think that's a good thing.


That all of those people might live in the White House as a result of an election is far different than saying that voters are choosing to put those people there. If your view of Presidential voting encompasses consideration of the entire First Family, well then, I guess you're just a better patriot than me.
No guessing to it.

But, frankly, I don't consider Chelsea a factor. And, since Hillary jettisoned Socks The Cat (poor kitty) when he became a political liability, I'm not too concerned about him either.

I still think the Clinton's silenced the dog to keep secrets.


Two things: (1) my point was confined to vesting a person with constitutional authority to act as a President -- a nominee can say he or she offers a co-Presidency, but that doesn't vest the co-President with any constitutional authority whatsoever;
The only thing a president can't proxy to their spouse is responsibility for their constitutional obligations and authority. Other than that, as was clearly demonstrated in 1992, the president can share the largesse and perks of their office with just about anyone they please.


...and (2) I'm not particularly concerned with what Hillary Clinton is promising to do, because I'm unlikely to vote for her, at least in the primaries.
Well, I'm not sure how representative you are of the average Democratic voter so, you'll excuse me if that doesn't allay my concerns.


Right, but people aren't voting for the First Family -- at least not many people that I know cast votes on that basis.
Well, I think even you'd have to admit the Clintons were the first to actually advertise themselves as a co-presidency.


If you socialize with people who decide whom they'll vote for based on the characteristics of his or her family, we're clearly involved with very different sorts of people.
Oh, I think we clearly run in different social and political circles.


The people that I talk to consider policies of the potential nominee to be a paramount concern and tend to cast votes on that basis.
I'm not concerned about any of the Republican spouses.

So, maybe, this concern is due to how this particular candidate and her spouse have sold their relationship and executive responsibility in the past.

Could that be?


I guess they were compelled to get married?
Hey, in Bill Clinton's case -- can we be so sure?

[George Gervin's Afro]

You should see the royalties I receive.


It's not just me. I can't think of a presidential election since Johnson and Chicago Democrats stole the election for Kennedy, where the presidents' spouses weren't vetted almost as harshly as were the candidates themselves.

Who you choose to marry, whether you want to believe it or not, says a lot about your character and judgement -- just as your spouses judgement and character also says a lot about your own.

Considering Bill Clinton appointed Hillary to oversee what became one of the biggest FUBAR's in Government history -- with her HillaryCare nonsense -- I took the "co-presidency" pledge to heart.

So, where the Clintons are concerned, the American public should take their spouse into consideration...because, it is exceedingly clear they are a political team and electing one is electing the other.


Nor do I if I don't believe the wife, daughter, son or dog isn't going to factor heavily into decisions made by the executive.

Unfortunately, in this case, that's a forgone conclusion. With one, you get the other. The only difference between Democrats and everyone else on this issue is that Democrats think that's a good thing.


No guessing to it.

But, frankly, I don't consider Chelsea a factor. And, since Hillary jettisoned Socks The Cat (poor kitty) when he became a political liability, I'm not too concerned about him either.

I still think the Clinton's silenced the dog to keep secrets.


The only thing a president can't proxy to their spouse is responsibility for their constitutional obligations and authority. Other than that, as was clearly demonstrated in 1992, the president can share the largesse and perks of their office with just about anyone they please.


Well, I'm not sure how representative you are of the average Democratic voter so, you'll excuse me if that doesn't allay my concerns.


Well, I think even you'd have to admit the Clintons were the first to actually advertise themselves as a co-presidency.


Oh, I think we clearly run in different social and political circles.


I'm not concerned about any of the Republican spouses.

So, maybe, this concern is due to how this particular candidate and her spouse have sold their relationship and executive responsibility in the past.

Could that be?


Hey, in Bill Clinton's case -- can we be so sure?


It's amazing to me that yoni is only concerned about democrats and their spouses..



So, where the Clintons are concerned, the American public should take their spouse into consideration...because, it is exceedingly clear they are a political team and electing one is electing the other.


exceedingly clear.. like bush talking to God is a good thing? I am not sure where you come from but anyone who claims they talk to God is not qualified to lead this country..

[Yonivore]

It's amazing to me that yoni is only concerned about democrats and their spouses..
Actually, I'm only concerned with the Clintons. They're the only married couple that claimed to give America a "two-for-the-price-of-one" co-presidency.

None of the other Democrats concern me in the least. None of them are married to former presidents and none of them -- with the exception of John Edwards -- have their spouses carrying political water for them.

President Bush didn't appoint Laura to oversee a mammoth government bureaucracy that tried to grab hold of 17% of the GDP. Did he? Did he claim Laura was his co-president? No.

And, I know of no current Republican or Democratic candidate that is suggesting they'll do the same with their spouses.


exceedingly clear.. like bush talking to God is a good thing? I am not sure where you come from but anyone who claims they talk to God is not qualified to lead this country..
I think Hussein Obama would disagree...but, maybe you and he have a different understanding of what "talking to God," means.

If you pray, you talk to God and, in America, that's not a minority. So, you don't talk to God...oh well.

[ChumpDumper]

But Hussein prays to that other god, doesn't he?

[smeagol]

Hussein Obama

Huh?

What is that supposed to mean?

[ChumpDumper]

It's code for "terraist sleeper agent."

[smeagol]

It's code for "terraist sleeper agent."

So potentially the President of the United States could be a terrorist?

Like Marty McFly would say, "That's heavy!"

[Yonivore]

Huh?

What is that supposed to mean?
Isn't that his name?

Barak Hussein Obama?

Anyway, I was wondering a week or so ago, why the media -- and this forum, for that matter -- let Hussein off the hook when he was playing up his relationship with God and how that would affect his policy decisions, if president.

[Yonivore]

So potentially the President of the United States could be a terrorist?
There's people claiming that now.


Like Marty McFly would say, "That's heavy!"
Yeah. One has to wonder why Hussein tries to obscure his Muslim past while talking up his Christian God all of a sudden.

[ChumpDumper]

There's people claiming that now.So what do YOU believe?
Yeah. One has to wonder why Hussein tries to obscure his Muslim past while talking up his Christian God all of a sudden.More Yoninnuendo.

[smeagol]

Yeah. One has to wonder why Hussein tries to obscure his Muslim past while talking up his Christian God all of a sudden.

On top of that, it has been proven how unpatriotic he is by not covering his heart during the Natrinal Anthem.

That is two strikes on Obama.

Yoni, send this dude to the pen, I know you can come up up with stike # 3.

[George Gervin's Afro]

There's people claiming that now.


Yeah. One has to wonder why Hussein tries to obscure his Muslim past while talking up his Christian God all of a sudden.



because he's not a muslim.. maybe that's why?

well I must say I can't blame him because with people like you who would twist and turn his past and use it against him..... like now... " a potential terrorist winning the White House"..

paranoia will destroy ya...

[Yonivore]

First of all, I believe in God and I share Hussein's sentiment but, for those who claim -- from a rather dubious source -- that President Bush claimed God told him to go to war, you should be apoplectic at what Hussein is spouting:


"Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics. Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power’s sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God . . . We’re going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
I tried to find a link to a source nutter would accept but, CNN cleared their cache on this one.

[ChumpDumper]

Hussein!

[Yonivore]

because he's not a muslim.. maybe that's why?
But, he has a Muslim past. So, why isn't he building bridges to the religion instead of distancing himself from his own upbringing?


well I must say I can't blame him because with people like you who would twist and turn his past and use it against him..... like now... " a potential terrorist winning the White House"..
Actually my comment, "There's people claiming that now;" was a reference to the nutters that call President Bush a terrorist. I'm not calling Hussein a terrorist...I'm calling him a politician that will kow tow to the political winds.


paranoia will destroy ya...
Tell me about it. Look what it's done to Nbadan, boutons, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, et. al.

[Yonivore]

Here's one that's close: It's from MSNBC.

OBAMA EMPHASIZES FAITH IN S.C. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/07/400809.aspx)

They've lost the "kingdom on earth" quote but, I'll keep looking...I understand there's video of it as well. CNN and another source have already pulled the video from their websites.

[George Gervin's Afro]

But, he has a Muslim past. So, why isn't he building bridges to the religion instead of distancing himself from his own upbringing?


Actually my comment, "There's people claiming that now;" was a reference to the nutters that call President Bush a terrorist. I'm not calling Hussein a terrorist...I'm calling him a politician that will kow tow to the political winds.


Tell me about it. Look what it's done to Nbadan, boutons, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, et. al.


Why do Democrat politicians have to meet yours and hush limbaugh's litmus tests? Why does he have to answer to your questions?

[ChumpDumper]

From my "Barak HUSSEIN Obama" thread, 11-29-2006:

You'll be hearing alot more of it in the future. Bank on it.
Gutless, fear-mongering bigots are so predictable.

[Yonivore]

Why do Democrat politicians have to meet yours and hush limbaugh's litmus tests?
Presumably because they want my vote. But, seriously, they don't have to meet any expectation I have.

And, they, are not entitled to any expectation I'll not raise questions about the propriety of voting for them.


Why does he have to answer to your questions?
Who said he did? But, who also said I can't state my opinions?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Presumably because they want my vote. But, seriously, they don't have to meet any expectation I have.

And, they, are not entitled to any expectation I'll not raise questions about the propriety of voting for them.


Who said he did? But, who also said I can't state my opinions?



Your vote? :lol

[smeagol]

Ahh . . . the important issues!

[Yonivore]

Your vote? :lol
Yeah, if they want my vote, they need to meet my expectations.

Why's that a hard concept to understand?

You asked a simple question. It's a simple answer.

Do I expect them to be worried about my expectations? No. Do I expect them to change their political stripes so we'll be more in line? Again, no. Do I even expect they're capable of adopting a political strategy that could attract my vote? Nope.

But, you asked why they "have to," and I answered.

Obviously, some people hold more sway than others. I'm sure you have influence in some small universe in which you live...maybe more so for you, in yours than for me in mine but, we both do, to some degree, have influence. Even if, ultimately, it's only over our own vote.

Now, "hush" Limbaugh, is another matter. He has a bully pulpit from which to exert considerable influence. But, there again, it's generally over an audience -- quite huge, I understand -- that agrees with him. So, you could ask why Democratic candidates have to meet their expectations and, I dare say, their election prospects would be much better if they could convince Rush Limbaugh's audience to cast their vote for a Democrat.

[Wild Cobra]

Hussein Obama
Huh?

What is that supposed to mean?
Obama's full name is Barack Hussein Obama. His father is a muslim.

[Holt's Cat]

Ahh . . . the important issues!

Yeah, we're maxing out the federal credit card issued by China Express and dammit, Billy C got a blowjob in the Oral Office.

[ChumpDumper]

Hussein! Muslim!

[George Gervin's Afro]

hussein obama = osama

why do want the terrorists to win?


sincerely,

the 2008 GOP

[Holt's Cat]

Only WASP males for president. Nobody else can be trusted. Muslims will answer the call of Mecca and al Qaeda. Women will answer their menstrual cycles and shopping. Catholics....oops.

[smeagol]

Yeah, we're maxing out the federal credit card issued by China Express and dammit, Billy C got a blowjob in the Oral Office.
There is a war in Iraq . . .

. . . but Obama disrespected the National Anthem. A thread about this topic should be started . . . Oh wait . . . !

[Yonivore]

Only WASP males for president. Nobody else can be trusted. Muslims will answer the call of Mecca and al Qaeda. Women will answer their menstrual cycles and shopping. Catholics....oops.
I'd settle for not electing a Democrat.

[smeagol]

Catholics

They only respond to the Vatican. Will probably send the American youth into another crusade . . . Oh wait!

[ChumpDumper]

They only respond to the Vatican. Will probably send the American youth into another crusade . . . Oh wait!Still one of the best examples of neocon idiocy ever.

Who the hell thought using the word "crusade" in the war on terra was a good idea?

[Nbadan]

Who the hell thought using the word "crusade" in the war on terra was a good idea?

Dubya? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br_70Kbdpow)

[smeagol]

Who the hell thought using the word "crusade" in the war on terra was a good idea?

Rummy