Isn't it convenient...
-
Henize wrote:
Why don't you try to convence me that homosexuality is not a mental illness.
Mental illness is defined, in part, by society as it's basically a deviation of what is considered to be "normal" brain function. As recently as 27 years ago, homosexuality was indeed considered by the psychiatric community as a dysfunction. A propaganda campaign was initiated by the left, so it is no longer considered a dysfunction. This campaign has heightened dramatically over the past decade to the point that considering it a dysfunction is viewed as...dysfunctional. Strange world we live in, isn't it?
"You act like jew." -Score: 1.0 (3 votes).
What you said makes perfect sence and I agree with it %100. People's views on homosexuality have become very laxed do to what is on TV, what is tought in schools, ect... I don't believe homos are really bad people who diserve to be punished. Homosexuality is just a really awfull mental condition.
=====Brain melting code=====
static int Sqrt(int x){ if (x<0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); int temp, y=0, b=0x8000, bshft=15, v=x; do { if (v>=(temp=(y<<1)+b<>=1)>0); return y; :omg:====TSI TLFL EEOOLHTG===== ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Decode that and you will win.;P ============Hint=========== cout << "33 20 57 4F 52 44 53 62 63 6B 77 6F 72 64 73"; -
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only thing the republicans knew was that Foley was suspected of being gay, and had sent an "overly friendly" email to a former page.
The fact that he is gay is not relavent. Only Republicans seem to think that is an issue which shows how out of touch they are. The issue is that he was making moves on underaged boys. That should have prompted them to do something. If you said you are investigating Foley for sending explicit e-mails to underage boys nobody would accuse you of gay bashing because most people know that there is a difference. The issue is one of age, not gender. If he had sent explicit e-mails to underage girls would you have not investigated for fear of being labeled a "hetero-basher"? Newt's argument that an investigation would have been seen as gay bashing is nonsense. There was no investigation because they want to hold on to power at all costs.
Wjousts wrote:
The fact that he is gay is not relavent.
Than what is? It is you and the dems doing the gay bashing here, not the republicans. Here [^] is the complete content of the emails in question. You are telling me that on this basis, they were supposed to launch an investigation of a congressman and/or ask him to resign? For asking a former page for a picture, and becuase the pages thought he was 'sick' - meaning gay? So I ask agian, are the republicans supposed to investigate every congressman who has ever sent a friendly email to a former page and who has 'questionable' sexual preferences based upon rumors among pages (who themselvers referred to Foley as a 'fag'). Should the republican leadership monitor every communication of all congressman? Should they allow juvenile rumors to be the basis for repremanding congressman? And why the fuck don't you hold your own party to task for openly supporting the sexual abuse of pages by democratic congressman? -- modified at 14:08 Wednesday 4th October, 2006
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
What you said makes perfect sence and I agree with it %100. People's views on homosexuality have become very laxed do to what is on TV, what is tought in schools, ect... I don't believe homos are really bad people who diserve to be punished. Homosexuality is just a really awfull mental condition.
=====Brain melting code=====
static int Sqrt(int x){ if (x<0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); int temp, y=0, b=0x8000, bshft=15, v=x; do { if (v>=(temp=(y<<1)+b<>=1)>0); return y; :omg:====TSI TLFL EEOOLHTG===== ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Decode that and you will win.;P ============Hint=========== cout << "33 20 57 4F 52 44 53 62 63 6B 77 6F 72 64 73";Henize wrote:
Homosexuality is just a really awfull mental condition.
Perhaps, but as long as it is between consenting adults who cares? Is it really more perverse for a man to give another man a blow job than it is for a women to do the same thing? In a world were there are real pedophiles harming real children it is silly to worry about what consenting adults are doing to one another
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Two Republican pedophiles, defended by Republicans
Hi, dennisd45. Have you noticed the way righties are using the ungrammatical "Democrat Party" recently in an effort to demean Democrats? I've decided to start using the terms "Republick Party" and "Republicks" (the k is important, because they lick big time) as an appropriately ungrammatical response.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Have you noticed the way righties are using the ungrammatical "Democrat Party"
As dumb as dennis is, even he probably isn't bothered by such trivialities.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Henize wrote:
Homosexuality is just a really awfull mental condition.
Perhaps, but as long as it is between consenting adults who cares? Is it really more perverse for a man to give another man a blow job than it is for a women to do the same thing? In a world were there are real pedophiles harming real children it is silly to worry about what consenting adults are doing to one another
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Perhaps, but as long as it is between consenting adults who cares? Is it really more perverse for a man to give another man a blow job than it is for a women to do the same thing?
If they are messed up in the head sexually I think it is important to suspect that it is possible for them to do other dysfunctional sexual behaviors. What if the guy starts to get a crush on you or something like that. I would be extrememly unconfterable and I would feel threatend by it becuase I have always seen men as compitition and a homosexual move on me would be like an attack. Also I do not like all the homosexual crap on TV these days. Its almost hard to avoid. Although girl sex is very interesting;P, I still think it is grose after I think about it. Thats why I like good old Star Trek and some of the other older shows.
=====Brain melting code=====
static int Sqrt(int x){ if (x<0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); int temp, y=0, b=0x8000, bshft=15, v=x; do { if (v>=(temp=(y<<1)+b<>=1)>0); return y; :omg:====TSI TLFL EEOOLHTG===== ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Decode that and you will win.;P ============Hint=========== cout << "33 20 57 4F 52 44 53 62 63 6B 77 6F 72 64 73"; -
Stan Shannon wrote:
Perhaps, but as long as it is between consenting adults who cares? Is it really more perverse for a man to give another man a blow job than it is for a women to do the same thing?
If they are messed up in the head sexually I think it is important to suspect that it is possible for them to do other dysfunctional sexual behaviors. What if the guy starts to get a crush on you or something like that. I would be extrememly unconfterable and I would feel threatend by it becuase I have always seen men as compitition and a homosexual move on me would be like an attack. Also I do not like all the homosexual crap on TV these days. Its almost hard to avoid. Although girl sex is very interesting;P, I still think it is grose after I think about it. Thats why I like good old Star Trek and some of the other older shows.
=====Brain melting code=====
static int Sqrt(int x){ if (x<0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); int temp, y=0, b=0x8000, bshft=15, v=x; do { if (v>=(temp=(y<<1)+b<>=1)>0); return y; :omg:====TSI TLFL EEOOLHTG===== ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Decode that and you will win.;P ============Hint=========== cout << "33 20 57 4F 52 44 53 62 63 6B 77 6F 72 64 73";Henize wrote:
Also I do not like all the homosexual crap on TV these days. Its almost hard to avoid. Although girl sex is very interesting, I still think it is grose after I think about it. Thats why I like good old Star Trek and some of the other older shows.
I agree on that. Homosexuality, just as abortion, is fundamentally important to the left precisely because it is an issue that directly challanges traditional moral values in our society, and undermining the strengh of American culture is the goal, not the homosexuality itself. Therefor, it is something they work to promote as a perfectly 'normal' element of our culture.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Henize wrote:
Also I do not like all the homosexual crap on TV these days. Its almost hard to avoid. Although girl sex is very interesting, I still think it is grose after I think about it. Thats why I like good old Star Trek and some of the other older shows.
I agree on that. Homosexuality, just as abortion, is fundamentally important to the left precisely because it is an issue that directly challanges traditional moral values in our society, and undermining the strengh of American culture is the goal, not the homosexuality itself. Therefor, it is something they work to promote as a perfectly 'normal' element of our culture.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I agree on that. Homosexuality, just as abortion, is fundamentally important to the left precisely because it is an issue that directly challanges traditional moral values in our society, and undermining the strengh of American culture is the goal, not the homosexuality itself. Therefor, it is something they work to promote as a perfectly 'normal' element of our culture.
YEAH! Finnally somone agrees with me! I was starting to think everyone was crazy or evil or something:laugh:
=====Brain melting code=====
static int Sqrt(int x){ if (x<0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); int temp, y=0, b=0x8000, bshft=15, v=x; do { if (v>=(temp=(y<<1)+b<>=1)>0); return y; :omg:====TSI TLFL EEOOLHTG===== ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Decode that and you will win.;P ============Hint=========== cout << "33 20 57 4F 52 44 53 62 63 6B 77 6F 72 64 73"; -
Wjousts wrote:
The fact that he is gay is not relavent.
Than what is? It is you and the dems doing the gay bashing here, not the republicans. Here [^] is the complete content of the emails in question. You are telling me that on this basis, they were supposed to launch an investigation of a congressman and/or ask him to resign? For asking a former page for a picture, and becuase the pages thought he was 'sick' - meaning gay? So I ask agian, are the republicans supposed to investigate every congressman who has ever sent a friendly email to a former page and who has 'questionable' sexual preferences based upon rumors among pages (who themselvers referred to Foley as a 'fag'). Should the republican leadership monitor every communication of all congressman? Should they allow juvenile rumors to be the basis for repremanding congressman? And why the fuck don't you hold your own party to task for openly supporting the sexual abuse of pages by democratic congressman? -- modified at 14:08 Wednesday 4th October, 2006
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Have you noticed the way righties are using the ungrammatical "Democrat Party"
As dumb as dennis is, even he probably isn't bothered by such trivialities.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As dumb as dennis is, even he probably isn't bothered by such trivialities.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Jesse Evans wrote:
It's not just the emails, it's the IMs[^] (Before you click on that, be aware it's not worksafe!)
No, it is just the emails. The emails were the only information the republicans had available to act on. The IMs were not made available to the republicans until last week. The question is, who had them, and why were they not released until so close to the election?
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Every time you try to blame it on the Democrats for this, you defend pedophilia.
Actually Stan and I are both blaming the Democrats for concealing the pedophilia. Of course, in Bizarro World, that translates into defending pedophilia.
"You act like jew." -Score: 1.0 (3 votes).
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Every time you try to blame it on the Democrats for this, you defend pedophilia.
Firstly, there was no pedophilia - even if Foley did everthing alleged. The worst thing you might call it is virtual statutory rape. But even that isn't valid becuase 16 is the age of consent in Washington DC. So not only is FOley not a pedophile, he isn't even a criminal - just a creep. Secondly, if it is pedophilia, the dems have a long history of defending it. All Foley had to do was change parties, and he would have been right at home. So excuse me if I politely tell you to kiss my ass you hypocritic.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Bizarre, bizarre.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the dems have a long history of defending it
Prove it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So excuse me if I politely tell you to kiss my ass you hypocritic.
You do get so worked up defending the indefensible. :laugh::laugh::laugh:
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
Wjousts wrote:
The fact that he is gay is not relavent.
Than what is? It is you and the dems doing the gay bashing here, not the republicans. Here [^] is the complete content of the emails in question. You are telling me that on this basis, they were supposed to launch an investigation of a congressman and/or ask him to resign? For asking a former page for a picture, and becuase the pages thought he was 'sick' - meaning gay? So I ask agian, are the republicans supposed to investigate every congressman who has ever sent a friendly email to a former page and who has 'questionable' sexual preferences based upon rumors among pages (who themselvers referred to Foley as a 'fag'). Should the republican leadership monitor every communication of all congressman? Should they allow juvenile rumors to be the basis for repremanding congressman? And why the fuck don't you hold your own party to task for openly supporting the sexual abuse of pages by democratic congressman? -- modified at 14:08 Wednesday 4th October, 2006
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are telling me that on this basis, they were supposed to launch an investigation
Yeah, they show he has a real problem. But instead they cover it up and fail to discover he has done the same thing before. Disgusting!
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are telling me that on this basis, they were supposed to launch an investigation
Yeah, they show he has a real problem. But instead they cover it up and fail to discover he has done the same thing before. Disgusting!
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
they show he has a real problem
How?
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Bizarre, bizarre.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the dems have a long history of defending it
Prove it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So excuse me if I politely tell you to kiss my ass you hypocritic.
You do get so worked up defending the indefensible. :laugh::laugh::laugh:
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
Prove it.
In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds [^]of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with. Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996. In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds [^], who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.) Suck on that, creep. Why can't you bastards just try winning an election on the issues. Oh, I forgot - you can't. What fucking cheating lieing assholes you people are.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Wjousts wrote:
The grown ups are talking here.
Is that all you have to say? Why don't you try to convence me that homosexuality is not a mental illness.
=====Brain melting code=====
static int Sqrt(int x){ if (x<0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); int temp, y=0, b=0x8000, bshft=15, v=x; do { if (v>=(temp=(y<<1)+b<>=1)>0); return y; :omg:====TSI TLFL EEOOLHTG===== ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Decode that and you will win.;P ============Hint=========== cout << "33 20 57 4F 52 44 53 62 63 6B 77 6F 72 64 73";Henize wrote:
Is that all you have to say? Why don't you try to convence me that homosexuality is not a mental illness.
Because there is no point arguing with bigots. You've made up your mind out of your own fear and self-rightousness. I'm trying not to feed trolls like you.
-
Wjousts wrote:
The fact that he is gay is not relavent.
Than what is? It is you and the dems doing the gay bashing here, not the republicans. Here [^] is the complete content of the emails in question. You are telling me that on this basis, they were supposed to launch an investigation of a congressman and/or ask him to resign? For asking a former page for a picture, and becuase the pages thought he was 'sick' - meaning gay? So I ask agian, are the republicans supposed to investigate every congressman who has ever sent a friendly email to a former page and who has 'questionable' sexual preferences based upon rumors among pages (who themselvers referred to Foley as a 'fag'). Should the republican leadership monitor every communication of all congressman? Should they allow juvenile rumors to be the basis for repremanding congressman? And why the fuck don't you hold your own party to task for openly supporting the sexual abuse of pages by democratic congressman? -- modified at 14:08 Wednesday 4th October, 2006
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than what is? It is you and the dems doing the gay bashing here, not the republicans.
And black is white...
Stan Shannon wrote:
And why the f*** don't you hold your own party to task for openly supporting the sexual abuse of pages by democratic congressman?
Are you hoping to start a rumor here to try and defend the Republicans for sheltering of pedophiles or do you have something to back that up with? (silly question, I know)
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than what is? It is you and the dems doing the gay bashing here, not the republicans.
And black is white...
Stan Shannon wrote:
And why the f*** don't you hold your own party to task for openly supporting the sexual abuse of pages by democratic congressman?
Are you hoping to start a rumor here to try and defend the Republicans for sheltering of pedophiles or do you have something to back that up with? (silly question, I know)
Wjousts wrote:
And black is white...
Again what other basis was there for the republicans to condemn Foley for aside from the possbility he was gay? Please post your evidence.
Wjousts wrote:
Are you hoping to start a rumor here to try and defend the Republicans for sheltering of pedophiles or do you have something to back that up with? (silly question, I know)
How many times do I have to post it before you lieing, cheating cretins read it? In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with. Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996. In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.) Suck on that, creep. Why can't you bastards just try winning an election on the issues. Oh, I forgot - you can't. What f****ing cheating lieing assholes you people are.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Wjousts wrote:
And black is white...
Again what other basis was there for the republicans to condemn Foley for aside from the possbility he was gay? Please post your evidence.
Wjousts wrote:
Are you hoping to start a rumor here to try and defend the Republicans for sheltering of pedophiles or do you have something to back that up with? (silly question, I know)
How many times do I have to post it before you lieing, cheating cretins read it? In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with. Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996. In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.) Suck on that, creep. Why can't you bastards just try winning an election on the issues. Oh, I forgot - you can't. What f****ing cheating lieing assholes you people are.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Again what other basis was there for the republicans to condemn Foley for aside from the possbility he was gay?
The fact he was trying to get in the pants of underage boys! FFS!!
Stan Shannon wrote:
In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.
A teenage boy who was over the age of consent (which was 17 at the time) and consented to the relationship. Nice of you to leave that out.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem
A consensual relationship with an ADULT!
Stan Shannon wrote:
commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.)
And he was pardon on the bank fraud charges having already served his sentence for the sexual assault. Again, nice of you to leave that out too. Looks like you are the cretin here. But you keep trying to defend a pedophile, must be part of the Republicans much vaulted "family values"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Again what other basis was there for the republicans to condemn Foley for aside from the possbility he was gay?
The fact he was trying to get in the pants of underage boys! FFS!!
Stan Shannon wrote:
In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.
A teenage boy who was over the age of consent (which was 17 at the time) and consented to the relationship. Nice of you to leave that out.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem
A consensual relationship with an ADULT!
Stan Shannon wrote:
commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.)
And he was pardon on the bank fraud charges having already served his sentence for the sexual assault. Again, nice of you to leave that out too. Looks like you are the cretin here. But you keep trying to defend a pedophile, must be part of the Republicans much vaulted "family values"
Good god, what utter fucking assholes you people are.
Wjousts wrote:
And he was pardon on the bank fraud charges having already served his sentence for the sexual assault. Again, nice of you to leave that out too.
Wjousts wrote:
A teenage boy who was over the age of consent (which was 17 at the time) and consented to the relationship. Nice of you to leave that out.
The point is that neither of this men were required to resign. In fact, they continued to recive funds from the democratic party to wage their campaigns and be reelected. They were defended by the democrats, and apparetnly, still are. Foley, on the other hand, has resigned, and is still be treated far worse for doing far less. And not only that, but the entire Reppublican leadership is expected to resign for not forcing Foley out of office sooner for doing nothing more than sending an email to a 16 year old (also above the age of consent). Could you people be any more loathsome, hypocritical, desperate and contemtable?
Wjousts wrote:
But you keep trying to defend a pedophile, must be part of the Republicans much vaulted "family values"
Pedophilia [^] Pedophilia or paedophilia (see spelling differences) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. Persons with this attraction are called pedophiles. COuld you please explain when Foley did any such thing?
Thank God for disproportional force.