Indiana Republican NOT gay


Locutus
#1
Ok then, maybe you're bi-curious; who cares...you're still a creepy lying Fail Poster Boy.


State Rep. Phil Hinkle admitted Tuesday that he paid a young man $80 to have a good time. But Hinkle insisted he isn't gay and doesn't know why he did it.


He said that he understood why he's being stripped of his committee chairmanships and that he won't seek re-election. But he said he will not resign, despite House Speaker Brian Bosma's call Tuesday to do so.


And he said he did nothing illegal with -- or to -- the young man and that he himself was the victim of a crime. But he said he would not file a police report. (Thank god for that)



Hinkle offered his first public comments Tuesday since The Indianapolis Star (external - login to view) revealed that the lawmaker used Craigslist to arrange to pay a young man to spend time with him Aug. 6 at a Downtown hotel.


But if Hinkle's comments seemed at times short of full disclosure or even contradictory, that's far from where the contradiction ends.
Hinkle's version of what happened that night in Room 2610 at the JW Marriott hotel differs greatly from the version provided by the young man and his sister.


Kameryn Gibson, the 18-year-old who said he was looking for a "sugga daddy" in the Craigslist posting, told The Star that he tried to leave the room that night and called his sister Megan after Hinkle identified himself as a lawmaker. He also said Hinkle tried to keep him from leaving, exposed himself and then -- after his sister arrived -- offered them $100 cash, an iPad and a Blackberry to keep quiet.




more...


www.indystar.com/article/20110824/LOCAL1804/108240311/Rep-Hinkle-paid-young-man-80-encounter-hotel?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com (external - login to view)
 
55Mercury
#2
lol Gotta love Locutus - always rummaging around in the bottom of the barrel.
 
SLM
#3
I guess denial really isn't just a river in Egypt then huh?
 
55Mercury
#4
Have you been dethroned, my Queen?

:?P
 
Locutus
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by 55MercuryView Post

lol Gotta love Locutus - always rummaging around in the bottom of the barrel.

This is harmless flotsam. Gritty bits that most never see. Consider yourselves blessed.

Most are IV-fed the disinfected soup presented by MSM and their ilk.

But if you think this is the 'bottom' you ain't never been on /b/.

 
mentalfloss
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

But if you think this is the 'bottom' you ain't never been on /b/.

For the love of anything that is holy, please do not do that to us.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#7
Tickle fights do not constitute being gay. At least that's what I heard.

Don't condone tickle fights much myself.
 
petros
#8
It's none of our business who plays bum-darts and who doesn't.
 
In Between Man
#9
I can believe that he's possibly not gay.

Lust (external - login to view)

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It's none of our business who plays bum-darts and who doesn't.

When it comes to politicians it does. Every aspect of their lives matter, and it should be scrutinized.
 
mentalfloss
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

When it comes to politicians it does. Every aspect of their lives matter, and it should be scrutinized.

Not really, no.
 
In Between Man
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Not really, no.

So you don't scrutinize all the candidates before you decide who you support? Of course you do.
 
Locutus
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

Tickle fights do not constitute being gay. At least that's what I heard.

Don't condone tickle fights much myself.


Anyone remember a 'sword fight' with glow-in-the-dark condoms in some movie (Nightshift or Nightmoves or night-something?) with John Ritter and the Fonz. Quite amusing it was.
 
TenPenny
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

I can believe that he's possibly not gay.

Lust (external - login to view)



When it comes to politicians it does. Every aspect of their lives matter, and it should be scrutinized.

That would only apply if you CARE about a politician's sexuality.

I don't.

I care about their integrity and honesty, but not orientation. It's not part of the job description.
 
mentalfloss
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

So you don't scrutinize all the candidates before you decide who you support? Of course you do.

Of course I scrutinize the politicians - on every aspect that is actually relevant to their occupation.
 
Cliffy
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

Anyone remember a 'sword fight' with glow-in-the-dark condoms in some movie (Nightshift or Nightmoves or night-something?) with John Ritter and the Fonz. Quite amusing it was.

I remember the scene but not the name of the movie. I think it was the only scene in the movie worth remembering.

Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

So you don't scrutinize all the candidates before you decide who you support? Of course you do.

I bet you wouldn't vote for a gay, Muslim abortionist.
 
In Between Man
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

That would only apply if you CARE about a politician's sexuality.

I don't.

I care about their integrity and honesty, but not orientation. It's not part of the job description.

Well, I do. I care about every single aspect of their lives. Their sexuality is only a small part.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

I bet you wouldn't vote for a gay, Muslim abortionist.

Never. Just like you wouldn't vote for a pro-life, evangelical Christian.
 
Cliffy
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

Well, I do. I care about every single aspect of their lives. Their sexuality is only a small part.



Never. Just like you wouldn't vote for a pro-life, evangelical Christian.

Well, I might. I voted for the NDP because of Jack, and he was supposedly Catholic, and everybody knows there is no love lost between me and the RC church. I evaluate the integrity of the person, not their religious affiliations or sexual orientation. I am actually anti-abortion because I believe all life is sacred but I also believe it is none of my business what other people do with their bodies. That is between them and their god.
 
In Between Man
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Well, I might. I voted for the NDP because of Jack, and he was supposedly Catholic, and everybody knows there is no love lost between me and the RC church.

According to Wikipedia he was part of the United Church, which is protestant.

Quote:

I evaluate the integrity of the person, not their religious affiliations or sexual orientation.

I prefer to evaluate everything.

Quote:

I am actually anti-abortion because I believe all life is sacred

Good for you.

Quote:

but I also believe it is none of my business what other people do with their bodies. That is between them and their god.

Well, when it comes to abortion the baby is NOT the woman's body, it belongs to the child. When it comes to sexual orientation, you're right, it's between them and God. But that doesn't mean one can't evaluate it when deciding who you want to lead the nation.
 
DurkaDurka
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

Well, I do. I care about every single aspect of their lives. Their sexuality is only a small part.

Where do you get this right to be privy to every single aspect of a politicians life? That's just nuts.
 
Cliffy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Where do you get this right to be privy to every single aspect of a politicians life? That's just nuts.

Whose nuts? His or the politician's?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#21
There is a definite link that binds all these politicians who have gone over to the gay way.

They have all consumed this food surce made by Heinz.

 
petros
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

When it comes to politicians it does. Every aspect of their lives matter, and it should be scrutinized.

Do you feel you should vote for who gets to play bum darts and who doesn't? Who picks your boyfriends?
 
In Between Man
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Where do you get this right to be privy to every single aspect of a politicians life? That's just nuts.

Why not? If a politician was harboring love for Christ while claiming to be atheist would you be okay with it?

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Do you feel you should vote for who gets to play bum darts and who doesn't? Who picks your boyfriends?

"who gets" to play bum darts? A person can play bum darts all they want - and I can base my vote however I want. I can take their sexuality into consideration with other factors, or leave it out, or base my vote solely on their sexuality. Or I may choose to vote for a gay candidate because I like other things about them. What's the problem here?
 
Cliffy
+2
#24  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

"who gets" to play bum darts? A person can play bum darts all they want - and I can base my vote however I want. I can take their sexuality into consideration with other factors, or leave it out, or base my vote solely on their sexuality. Or I may choose to vote for a gay candidate because I like other things about them. What's the problem here?

I think Petros just likes to say "bum darts".
 
SLM
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

I think Petros just likes to say "bum darts".

I think you're right.
 
petros
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

"who gets" to play bum darts? A person can play bum darts all they want - and I can base my vote however I want. I can take their sexuality into consideration with other factors, or leave it out, or base my vote solely on their sexuality. Or I may choose to vote for a gay candidate because I like other things about them. What's the problem here?

Then what's the beef? You can play bum darts with your boyfriend all you want and so can a politician. They aren't going to kick in your door slap a dick out of your mouth so why should it be any of your business what anyone else does regardless of what they do for a living?
 
gopher
#27
Another Republican sex scandal - nothing new when you think about it. As far as I'm concerned his lifestyle is his own goddamn business and no one else's. But the problem is his public attacks on gays along with his efforts to thwart gay rights, while living a lie. That should disqualify him from office, not his lifestyle.
 
petros
+1
#28
 
shadowshiv
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

Anyone remember a 'sword fight' with glow-in-the-dark condoms in some movie (Nightshift or Nightmoves or night-something?) with John Ritter and the Fonz. Quite amusing it was.

I believe the name of the movie was 'Skin Deep'. I remember watching it a loooooong time ago.

Regarding the OT, I don't care what his sexuality is, nor do I care what sexual shenanigans he gets into so long as it isn't illegal or overly disgusting(beastiality and such).
 
In Between Man
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Then what's the beef? You can play bum darts with your boyfriend all you want and so can a politician. They aren't going to kick in your door slap a dick out of your mouth so why should it be any of your business what anyone else does regardless of what they do for a living?

I just think that the politician is in a unique position because we scrutinize every aspect about them, their positions, their past, their background etc. Why bother to overlook anything? You don't think it matters, but some have a fundamentally different view of sexuality than you. They can take it into consideration if they wish, that's the beauty of living in free world with free thought. But your notion that *I* shouldn't take it into consideration BECAUSE *YOU* DON'T, is nothing more than you trying to impose your beliefs on me - and that's beyond intolerant.
 

Similar Threads

9
Indiana Jones movie, The Crystal Skull
by #juan | Jul 18th, 2008
0
Indiana teen clocked doing almost 230 km/h
by sanctus | Dec 14th, 2006
5
Twister Kills 15 in Indiana/Kentucky
by Nascar_James | Nov 6th, 2005
no new posts