[StBernard] Jindal says Craig should resign but not Vitter?

[Westley Annis]

Oh God John; now that I find funny.  If only poor ole Dave had gotten his
poon-tang in Nevada!  No crime!  

The thing that is oh-so-funny to me is how these people are going to
"protect" us from the bad old world and its evil ways yet they don't
practice what they preach.  Of course the fact that they have been all
Republicans lately just yields to me a certain degree of schadenfreude.  If
you can't (or don't) practice what you preach...SHUT UP!  For me personally
it's just something to giggle at:  Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Newt
Gingrich, with his yet additional affair, Ted Haggard and now Sen. Craig.

Further, when the news broke about Vitter, I was waiting to see what the
members of this list would have to say/write.  I don't recall seeing
anything.  I didn't post anything because this list seems to be made up of
mostly Republicans (note-I did not say conservatives).  But; not a peep.  

Also, I was really surprised not to see more references to this with Vitter:

    the fact that David Vitter visited the DC Madam's prostitutes was bad
enough.     But now we are learning that Vitter was shelling out $300 a pop
to wear             diapers while he was being unfaithful to his wife and
living the life of an               extreme hypocrite.

    Diaper Dave Vitter and his wife's hypocrisy knows no bounds. As several
other     New Orleans Madam's have now linked Diaper Dave to frequenting
prostitutes. 

    Hey, isn't that a crime ? 

    Some of you may say as I initially did that this is not an issue worthy
of             discussion. I mean, so what if the cat got out of the bag
about another kinky     Republican congress person who in this case likes to
pay women to dress         him up in Pampers (or is he a Huggie man?).

    But the hypocrisy in this case is so extreme that it needs to be
exposed.           Check out his 2004 campaign ad:

On a blog I read, I saw a link to this article on a conservative website:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889601/posts

It's from the freeper website free republic.  It's an interesting read,
though I doubt most republicans will buy what the writer puts forth.

Honestly John, it makes no difference to me.  Both were playing around
outside of their marriages and whether it was with a guy or a gal I just get
a kick out of the phoniness of it all.

Jim





	-----------------------------------------------------
	Jim,
	
	You're right, there's always a political motivation behind
everything.
	True, both can be called hypocrites, but even with that there's
different
	degrees of hypocricy. When the story broke on Vitter one of the
first
	thoughts that occurred to me was "gee, too bad this didn't happen to
Vitter
	in Neveda." Ahhhh, would that have made things different? There
would have
	been no legal implications had Vitter's action taken place in Vegas
or Reno.
	Sure, you still could have called him a hypocrite, but no legal
violation
	would have been committed. So, is Vitter most guilty of having a bad
sense
	of location and geography?
	
	My point is there are different levels of severity to crimes
committed - and
	that's why people don't always look down on some acts as much as
others.
	That's why I brought up my Catholic history of the priest teaching
me there
	were "little" sins compared to "big" sins. Thus, that's why we're
able to
	forgive some acts and not others.
	
	- John Scurich