Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

CA State Senator DUI (with bonus *** nightclub hijinks)Follow

#1 Mar 04 2010 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
YouTube of the story from CBS13.

From TPM:

Quote:
A California Republican family values legislator who was arrested early Wednesday morning for drunk driving had recently left a *** club, sources tell a local news channel.

State senator Roy Ashburn was pulled over by the California Highway Patrol on Wednesday at 2am in Sacramento, after police saw the car he was driving swerving erratically. An unidentified male passenger was in the car with Ashburn.

The sources told CBS13 that Ashburn, a father of four, had that night been at Faces, which touts itself as "Sacramento's premier GLBTI Nightclub since 1985."

Ashburn was arrested and charged with driving under the influence, and driving with a blood alcohol level higher than .08 percent -- both misdemeanors. He was released from jail on $1400 bond.

Ashburn, who has a history of opposing *** rights, issued a contrite apology for the drunk driving arrest yesterday. "I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment," he said in a statement. "I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did."

Ashburn's Senate term ends this year. He represents parts of Kern and Tulare counties, in the central part of the state.


Considering the track record of men who are vehemently opposed to *** rights, my default position on them now is that they're in the closet and in denial.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#2 Mar 04 2010 at 1:43 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Either in the closet or trying to distract from their own hetero infidelities.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Mar 04 2010 at 4:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
You forgot "guess which party" in the thread title :(
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#4 Mar 04 2010 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
It wouldn't fit.

Besides, these sorts of wacky hijinks are amusing no matter whether it's a D R or I after the name, so long as the person has been loudly outspoken against *** rights in the past.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#5 Mar 04 2010 at 6:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Yeah. Cause when I think "anti-*** crusader", I immediately think of... what's his name again? Could we come up with a more tenuous connection here?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#6 Mar 04 2010 at 6:40 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. Cause when I think "anti-*** crusader", I immediately think of... what's his name again? Could we come up with a more tenuous connection here?

you're right, we can completely ignore his hypocrisy because he isn't the forerunner of ***-hating douchebags.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#7 Mar 04 2010 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
It's humorous any time someone comes out violently on one side of an issue politically but is suddenly living real life on the other.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#8 Mar 04 2010 at 7:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
It's humorous any time someone comes out violently on one side of an issue politically but is suddenly living real life on the other.


What's humorous is how people will re-interpret what they read into what they want it to say.

The article in the OP said he "has a history of opposing *** rights". Catwho turned that into "has been loudly outspoken against *** rights". And now you've completed the transformation by claiming he is "violently on one one side" (of *** rights).

Yup. That's funny...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Mar 04 2010 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Loudly outspoken is a polite way of saying violently on one side.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#10 Mar 04 2010 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
gbaji wrote:
The article in the OP said he "has a history of opposing *** rights". Catwho turned that into "has been loudly outspoken against *** rights". And now you've completed the transformation by claiming he is "violently on one one side" (of *** rights).

You do realize that Catwho was offering her own opinion of the senator and not asserting that the author felt the senator was "loudly outspoken against *** rights," and therefore not re-interpreting anything because she was offering her own thoughts right?
#11 Mar 04 2010 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The article in the OP said he "has a history of opposing *** rights". Catwho turned that into "has been loudly outspoken against *** rights". And now you've completed the transformation by claiming he is "violently on one one side" (of *** rights).

You do realize that Catwho was offering her own opinion of the senator and not asserting that the author felt the senator was "loudly outspoken against *** rights," and therefore not re-interpreting anything because she was offering her own thoughts right?


gbaji is just looking for a way to defend the guy, regardless of whether or not it holds up to logic.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#12 Mar 04 2010 at 8:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Loudly outspoken is a polite way of saying violently on one side.


I guess so...

It would be interesting to discover if the original statement "has a history of opposing *** rights" was itself an exaggeration. For all we know, his entire "history" could consist of failing to condemn prop8. I guess the point I'm getting at here is that unless someone is running around trying to push for legislation to make it actually illegal to be *** (or to engage in homosexual activity), any claim of hypocrisy are going to be false.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Mar 04 2010 at 8:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Allegory wrote:
You do realize that Catwho was offering her own opinion of the senator and not asserting that the author felt the senator was "loudly outspoken against *** rights," and therefore not re-interpreting anything because she was offering her own thoughts right?


You're kidding, right? Want to lay odds that Catwho's entire knowledge of the senator prior to making that post consisted of what was written in the article?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Mar 04 2010 at 9:04 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're kidding, right? Want to lay odds that Catwho's entire knowledge of the senator prior to making that post consisted of what was written in the article?

Probably the article, doesn't matter. She isn't re-interpreting anything because she isn't asserting the article/author says anything. Look, I'm fine with you trying to distract from yet another anti *** Republican being a closet case, but could you not butcher English while doing it?
#15 Mar 04 2010 at 9:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
the Examiner wrote:
Ashburn's voting record shows he repeatedly voted against every *** rights bill in the State Senate since taking office in 2002.


Didn't verify it independently but that's what a five-minute Google netted me.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#16 Mar 04 2010 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Samira wrote:
the Examiner wrote:
Ashburn's voting record shows he repeatedly voted against every *** rights bill in the State Senate since taking office in 2002.


Didn't verify it independently but that's what a five-minute Google netted me.
But he's not a real hypocrite 'cause he ain't no Reverend Phelps.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#17 Mar 04 2010 at 9:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Allegory wrote:
She isn't re-interpreting anything because she isn't asserting the article/author says anything.


I'm not even sure how to respond to this. You are being about as dense as someone can be here. Doesn't matter what we call it, it's wrong to read something and then re-package, re-state, re-interpret, or otherwise pass the information on to someone else with a slightly changed meaning. Which is exactly what both Cat and Flea did.

That they both did it in ways specifically designed to make someone reading their posts assume this guy was more opposed to homosexuality than the article suggested was surely accidental. Lol. Yeah. Right...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Mar 04 2010 at 9:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Samira wrote:
the Examiner wrote:
Ashburn's voting record shows he repeatedly voted against every *** rights bill in the State Senate since taking office in 2002.


Didn't verify it independently but that's what a five-minute Google netted me.



Great! Which fits the wording of the article. Does it make him "vehement", or "loudly outspoken", or "violent" on the issue?

No. It doesn't. So... Why did two (technically three counting the OP itself) of the first 7 posts in this thread contain gross misrepresentations of the facts? What's really funny is I'll bet neither of them were even aware of what they were doing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Mar 04 2010 at 9:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
the Examiner wrote:
Ashburn's voting record shows he repeatedly voted against every *** rights bill in the State Senate since taking office in 2002.


Didn't verify it independently but that's what a five-minute Google netted me.



Great! Which fits the wording of the article. Does it make him "vehement", or "loudly outspoken", or "violent" on the issue?

No. It doesn't. So... Why did two (technically three counting the OP itself) of the first 7 posts in this thread contain gross misrepresentations of the facts? What's really funny is I'll bet neither of them were even aware of what they were doing.


Maybe he's a whisperer.

But the case stands that voting against something every time it is raised more than likely means you are firmly against it.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#20 Mar 04 2010 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
But the case stands that voting against something every time it is raised more than likely means you are firmly against it.


And if you aren't, you're just retarded. So take your pick, really.

I want to know who the stupid idiot was that was going home with him. He isn't exactly a looker...

And lol--as of today, his wikipedia page has been edited. He is now Roy "in the closet" Ashburn.

Other fun facts:

His BAC was .14.
He was driving a state-owned Chevy Tahoe.
Among those laws he voted against were ones expanding anti-discrimination laws, not just *** marriage votes. He also voted against Harvey Milk Day, and the bill that would allow Calif. to recognize out-of-state *** marriages.
He's divorced with 4 daughters, all of whom have names beginning with "S."



Edited, Mar 4th 2010 10:56pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#21 Mar 04 2010 at 10:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Why defend him Gbaji? I don't get it. It just makes you look like a partisan hack. Regardless of how loud he was, he's opposed it, voted against it, and then Real life got in the way. You look for reasons to defend him, but there is no reason too, yet you rabidly jump to his defense. Smiley: laugh

Sure people will overstate the case, what else is new, you overstate everything when criticizing the dems.

Edited, Mar 4th 2010 10:29pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#22 Mar 04 2010 at 11:35 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,246 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Why defend him Gbaji?

I think that the general perception among Republicans is that a totally different standard is typically applied to Republican figures caught in something like this (or any "social" SNAFU, for that matter) than is applied to Democrat/Liberal figures. In the same week we have a congressman from New York accused of sexually harassing a male aid. It's a married guy with kids. The allegations are sexual in nature. Why aren't they being more broadly scrutinized? Why didn't the largely liberal audience here @ the Zam decide to post about him?

He denied it? So what, everyone else does, too. That's no good reason not to dig in to it.

It's understandable that a group of people who holds itself up as the party of morality sets itself up as a target, but the complete double standard of reporting and the total lack of consistency in reaction from people with the bully pulpit is upsetting to some. That is why some on the right tend to look for the mitigation in things, or correct the overstatements.

Take Charlie Rangel for example. His dubious activity has been reported for over a year, at least, by the right wing talk hosts. Only now he's stepping down as the chair of the Ways & Means committee in congress? If it was Tom Delay the cries for his head would have been splashed across the evening news from the first day that there was even a sniff of scandal. The inequity of treatment is the basis for the reaction. Or, at least, I assume so.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#23 Mar 04 2010 at 11:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
gbaji's criticism of me reminds me of my English 3000 TA who gave me a 50 on a paper with an angry note scribbled in the margin, "How DARE you try to say what Shakespeare was thinking?!"

My answer to that was, "Isn't that exactly what literary analysis is . . . ? Trying to understand the sociopolitical context of an author's work, to try to understand what might have been running through his or her head when pen hit paper?"

Meh, that guy was a total ******** anyway. Everyone in the English department hated him.

Quote:
The allegations are sexual in nature. Why aren't they being more broadly scrutinized? Why didn't the largely liberal audience here @ the Zam decide to post about him?


Because it didn't involve a DUI and a *** bar. Not amusing enough. Duh.

Edited, Mar 5th 2010 12:42am by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#24 Mar 05 2010 at 1:36 AM Rating: Good
Well, the hypocritical part of course makes for more sensational news, and I would have to say the trend of the GOP to vilify these issues makes it even more sensational.

That being said, I really don't buy your argument. If right wing pundits, and presumably people from Fox are reporting or talking about it, it's clearly not missing the main stream media. If fox isn't reporting on it, then I'm going to have to assume it's really minor news. I think the difference is that so many people on the right vehemently jump to defend these people, which makes the issue that much bigger. If someone is so committed to defending someone, then maybe there is a real story. On the other hand, with Obama, the dems, and everyone else being vilified and compared to communists on a daily basis, yet another criticism just doesn't have the traction. There's also the fact that the Democrats aren't interested in controlling morality.

Admittedly I'm not really following this story, so I don't know how big it is, but I'd assume it'll be forgotten in a week just like pretty much all the others.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#25 Mar 05 2010 at 7:08 AM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Quote:
My answer to that was, "Isn't that exactly what literary analysis is . . . ? Trying to understand the sociopolitical context of an author's work, to try to understand what might have been running through his or her head when pen hit paper?"


No.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#26 Mar 05 2010 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,246 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
My answer to that was, "Isn't that exactly what literary analysis is . . . ? Trying to understand the sociopolitical context of an author's work, to try to understand what might have been running through his or her head when pen hit paper?"


No.


Shhh. She has, like, degrees & stuff. Plus she's in MENSA.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)