Post: #1

Not sure if this will make national news as so far Gawker seems to be the only one breaking the story.

I never heard of Aaron Schock until after Mandela's death, when he was chosen to lead the delegation of Congressional members traveling to his funeral in South Africa.

He has a strong anti-gay record apparently and has rejected widespread speculation that he's gay. I don't know much about him but the evidence in pictures looks pretty conclusive to me.

I guess G Manifesto had a point about those anti-gay Republicans.









At least he deadlifts

Post: #2

(01-04-2014 01:27 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  At least he deadlifts

Ya, but he does it in that shirt.

Post: #3

he definitely takes it in the butt if he can only deadlift 2 plates looking like that

Post: #4

(01-04-2014 01:45 PM)WesternCancer Wrote:  he definitely takes it in the butt if he can only deadlift 2 plates looking like that

If that's his max, he must be doing something right if he looks muscular while deadlifting only 2 plates and front squatting 95 lbs. I've seen guys in my gym who bench 2 plates and squat like 4 plates who don't look much different than the average guy in terms of muscle.

Post: #5

What has he done that is "anti-gay"? That loaded term gets thrown around far too easily.

Post: #6

(01-04-2014 02:05 PM)J.J. Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 01:45 PM)WesternCancer Wrote:  he definitely takes it in the butt if he can only deadlift 2 plates looking like that

If that's his max, he must be doing something right if he looks muscular while deadlifting only 2 plates and front squatting 95 lbs. I've seen guys in my gym who bench 2 plates and squat like 4 plates who don't look much different than the average guy in terms of muscle.

He's at a crossfit gym bros. He's doing reps with that.

Post: #7

This photo by far is the most damning. The fuchsia gingham and neon turquoise belt was pretty iffy, but it can be hard to pick fops apart from gays, eg like this dude



Mr. Schock does have gay face though.

The deadlifting is for a WOD, not a deadlifting session proper.

Post: #8

(01-04-2014 02:14 PM)Consul Wrote:  What has he done that is "anti-gay"? That loaded term gets thrown around far too easily.

Apparently he voted no against the enforcement of "anti-gay" hate crimes. AG was the term used in the legislation.

He's the only member of Congress born in the 1980s. Men's Health did a piece on him a few years ago.

http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/aaron-schock-fitness

Post: #9

Just because you vote against a piece of legislation doesn't mean you are against everything that is contained therein. That's how we get shitty legislation and sweetheart deals for special interests or kickbacks for specific districts/states.

Maybe he is opposed to hate crimes as constitutionally vague in general.

Maybe there was a lot of pork and unrelated bills stuffed in that bill by special interests and lobbyists (i.e. stuffing a military funding bill with banning online gambling, etc).

Could he be a gay and trying to protect himself? Absolutely.

But considering how much extra crap is packed into every bill that gets voted on in the U.S. Congress, Representatives and Senators should be given some room for explanation as to why they voted for/against a specific provision.

Post: #10

Post: #11

(01-04-2014 02:27 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 02:14 PM)Consul Wrote:  What has he done that is "anti-gay"? That loaded term gets thrown around far too easily.

Apparently he voted no against the enforcement of "anti-gay" hate crimes. AG was the term used in the legislation.

He's the only member of Congress born in the 1980s. Men's Health did a piece on him a few years ago.

http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/aaron-schock-fitness

Hate crime laws are stupid. If you murder a homosexual because he was homosexual, the problem is that you murdered someone, not your specific reason for murdering him. Plenty of people hate homosexuals and don't murder them.

The fact that the person you murder is homosexual, or black or Jewish doesn't make it any worse, unless you have a positive opinion of murder for some reason. "Oh, you didn't kill this guy because he was gay, you just killed him because you were bored? Terrific, let's reduce your sentence."

Calling someone anti-gay because they voted against an 'anti-gay hate crime' law is just a malicious lie. Same for the racial version. But hey, if you have hate crime laws on the books, that you can tote up all the hate crimes that happen every year, and then go on a crusade about the rising tide of hate, there were 17,235 incidents of hate crimes in the past year, and so on. If you don't, then you just have a bunch of assaults and murders, boring stuff that's not going to boost attendance at our gay pride parades. Not very fabulous at all.

Not directing this at Hencredible, just making the observation.

Post: #12

(01-04-2014 02:37 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  Just because you vote against a piece of legislation doesn't mean you are against everything that is contained therein. That's how we get shitty legislation and sweetheart deals for special interests or kickbacks for specific districts/states.

Maybe he is opposed to hate crimes as constitutionally vague in general.

Maybe there was a lot of pork and unrelated bills stuffed in that bill by special interests and lobbyists (i.e. stuffing a military funding bill with banning online gambling, etc).

Could he be a gay and trying to protect himself? Absolutely.

But considering how much extra crap is packed into every bill that gets voted on in the U.S. Congress, Representatives and Senators should be given some room for explanation as to why they voted for/against a specific provision.

Perhaps. They say this hate crime legislation was specifically regarding crimes where victims were targeted on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, and disability.

He also voted against the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and is against gay marriage, though I wouldn't say those votes mean he's anti-gay.

But when you take all of this into account with the way he looks and dresses, a compelling case can be made that he's a closet.

Now this story about him having showered with another man and hanging out in gay bars in DC, if true, seals the deal.

Post: #13

Fucking DC. Here even the straight bars (with their ratio) are gay bars.

Post: #14

Let's also be honest that if he was a Democrat, this story would have never been written.

The same way that Herman Cain was torn apart because he was Republican. Let's face it if B.O. had be subjected to a fraction of scrutiny that Herman Cain was, he'd never become president. That is the liberal double standard, it is okay to be racist, homophobic as long as the target is Republican.

Post: #15

(01-04-2014 02:50 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  it is okay to be racist, homophobic as long as the target is Republican.

So telling the truth is bigotry now...

Post: #16

(01-04-2014 02:58 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 02:50 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  it is okay to be racist, homophobic as long as the target is Republican.

So telling the truth is bigotry now...

Telling the truth is fine. But telling the truth only against certain individuals is not.

Post: #17

(01-04-2014 02:46 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Hate crime laws are stupid. If you murder a homosexual because he was homosexual, the problem is that you murdered someone, not your specific reason for murdering him. Plenty of people hate homosexuals and don't murder them.

The fact that the person you murder is homosexual, or black or Jewish doesn't make it any worse, unless you have a positive opinion of murder for some reason. "Oh, you didn't kill this guy because he was gay, you just killed him because you were bored? Terrific, let's reduce your sentence."

I think hate crime laws are important for the simple fact that the vast majority of murder victims have some relation to the person that murdered them.

Hate crime legislation became a big issue after that gay dude died in Wyoming. He literally went to a bar, happened to meet a couple of guys who offered him a ride home and killed him because he was gay.

I think if you kill a stranger just because the person has an identity that you don't like (ethnic/religious/cultural/etc), the sentence should be more severe.

I think the public policy implications otherwise would be problematic.

Post: #18

(01-04-2014 02:50 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  Let's also be honest that if he was a Democrat, this story would have never been written.

I think if he was a Democrat, he probably wouldn't have the same voting record on the gay rights issues, so there wouldn't be a bunch of gay activists lining up to take him down. Because this Congressman is rumored to be gay, and has a voting record at odds with that community, there are people clamoring to see his downfall.

Post: #19

Leading evidence that he's gay: He praised the DC singles scene

Quote:"I think D.C. is becoming kind of a cool place to be, and so as a young person coming to Congress last year, it's been fun for me," he said in an interview in his fifth-floor suite in the Cannon House Office Building. "I'm not only getting to do the job that I ran for office to do, but I think I'm also getting to participate in the new D.C., if you will." [...]

http://gawker.com/5582403/congressman-aa...ty-machine

"I enjoy the new restaurants, I enjoy some of the social events I've been invited to, and I think my age has allowed me into some of those activities," he said. "I'm on people's minds."

More gay face:

(01-04-2014 03:01 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 02:58 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 02:50 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  it is okay to be racist, homophobic as long as the target is Republican.

So telling the truth is bigotry now...

Telling the truth is fine. But telling the truth only against certain individuals is not.

I get what you're saying but you can't expect a man to shoot himself in the foot.

Post: #20

(01-04-2014 03:05 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 02:50 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  Let's also be honest that if he was a Democrat, this story would have never been written.

I think if he was a Democrat, he probably wouldn't have the same voting record on the gay rights issues, so there wouldn't be a bunch of gay activists lining up to take him down. Because this Congressman is rumored to be gay, and has a voting record at odds with that community, there are people clamoring to see his downfall.

Its not a gay rights issue. What right did he vote to prevent gays from having? He didn't vote legalize murder against gays, he didn't vote to ship gays off to Russia to be slaughtered, he didn't vote to prohibit gays from voting. At most you could claim his stance on DADT is questionable, however, DADT doesn't PREVENT gays from serving, just OPENLY serving, which who cares.

Post: #21

(01-04-2014 03:03 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 02:46 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Hate crime laws are stupid. If you murder a homosexual because he was homosexual, the problem is that you murdered someone, not your specific reason for murdering him. Plenty of people hate homosexuals and don't murder them.

The fact that the person you murder is homosexual, or black or Jewish doesn't make it any worse, unless you have a positive opinion of murder for some reason. "Oh, you didn't kill this guy because he was gay, you just killed him because you were bored? Terrific, let's reduce your sentence."

I think hate crime laws are important for the simple fact that the vast majority of murder victims have some relation to the person that murdered them.

Hate crime legislation became a big issue after that gay dude died in Wyoming. He literally went to a bar, happened to meet a couple of guys who offered him a ride home and killed him because he was gay.

I think if you kill a stranger just because the person has an identity that you don't like (ethnic/religious/cultural/etc), the sentence should be more severe.

I think the public policy implications otherwise would be problematic.

For one, the story you raise is a lot murkier than you've been led to believe. If anything, it was a murder induced by drugs. http://www.advocate.com/print-issue/curr...?page=full

"I think hate crime laws are important for the simple fact that the vast majority of murder victims have some relation to the person that murdered them. "

I don't understand why that matters.

What's an example of problematic policy implications from keeping hate crime laws off the books? Pretty simple to me - prosecute murder as murder, assault as assault. Hate crime laws are notoriously hard to implement, so if anything, the policy implications are worse for having hate crime laws - you have to prove that there was hate, which you can't really do unless the guy is screaming epithets beforehand or something.

Post: #22

(01-04-2014 02:27 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 02:14 PM)Consul Wrote:  What has he done that is "anti-gay"? That loaded term gets thrown around far too easily.

Apparently he voted no against the enforcement of "anti-gay" hate crimes. AG was the term used in the legislation.

He's the only member of Congress born in the 1980s. Men's Health did a piece on him a few years ago.

http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/aaron-schock-fitness

Voting against that legislation doesn't seem "anti-gay" to me. The law gave special protections to gays from crime--protections that would not apply to everyone else. Is anyone who opposes special rights or special protections for gays being "anti-gay"? Under that view, merely being in favor of equality is "anti-gay."

I know that Shock is in favor of gendered marriage and opposes gay-genderless marriage. But Obama himself had the same position for his entire first term, and nobody called him "anti-gay" as a result. There are respectable reasons--other than "anti-gay" emotion--for wanting marriage to be gendered.

At this point, there is no evidence that Shock is "anti-gay."

Post: #23

(01-04-2014 03:03 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Hate crime legislation became a big issue after that gay dude died in Wyoming. He literally went to a bar, happened to meet a couple of guys who offered him a ride home and killed him because he was gay.

I think if you kill a stranger just because the person has an identity that you don't like (ethnic/religious/cultural/etc), the sentence should be more severe.

I think the public policy implications otherwise would be problematic.

Is the Wyoming fellow that you are referring to Matthew Shepard? The media retracted their report that it was a hate crime. Shepard was into drugs and was murdered by his drug-dealing associates. It had nothing to do with him being gay. A new book is out on this subject:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oc...oming-book

Post: #24

Who cares if the guy is gay. If he's representing the values of his constituency he's doing better than most politicians.

Or are you saying that gays are incapable of representing straights because they have opposing values?

This is a homophobic thread posing as a gay white-knighting thread hiding behind an anti-Christian values thread clothed in a liberal thread.

I'm against gay politics in all its forms but if a guy can leave it to his bedroom, I don't really have a political reason to give a shit.

Post: #25

Wow. Those Matthew Shepard articles were awesome shares, thanks guys.

I had been believing the official narrative, but they have managed to cast a lot of doubt over that now.

---------------

As an aside, I am also against "hate crime" legislation.

I just don't think you can legislate what is in someone's head. That is a real dicey area to get into.