Isn't it convenient...
-
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.
-
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
sending an email to a 16 year old (also above the age of consent).
Depends on the state, but not in Washington D.C. . Actually I'm wrong on D.C., however federal law may apply: {Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties are within the same state, but uses an instant messenger program whose servers are in another state. Depending on who was where at the time. I believe Louisiana (they said the kid was from New Orleans) has an age of consent of 17. -- modified at 20:22 Wednesday 4th October, 2006
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
sending an email to a 16 year old (also above the age of consent).
Depends on the state, but not in Washington D.C. . Actually I'm wrong on D.C., however federal law may apply: {Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties are within the same state, but uses an instant messenger program whose servers are in another state. Depending on who was where at the time. I believe Louisiana (they said the kid was from New Orleans) has an age of consent of 17. -- modified at 20:22 Wednesday 4th October, 2006
Wjousts wrote:
but not in Washington D.C.
Where are you getting your information from? Everything I've seen says otherwise.
Thank God for disproportional force.