Another Pervert Republican Exposed...

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

We all know Pabst won't keep his word...

I agree with your comments about the actions of Foley, they are cut and dried.

It is the defense of Foley, or the treatment of Foley by the right that is the issue for the left, and what cover-ups there may have been that were politically generated.

Hannity is pissed off with the timing of the "outing" of Foley, thinking it is political.

He may be right, but wouldn't it be political to wait until after the election?

Face it, when an individual who represents the party does something, it damages or helps the entire party, and the party is going to do the maximum to try to enhance or spin down the effect on the voters.

Quote from ElCubano:

its incredible how both parties use this as a political move...it doesnt matter who that fag hag represented...it only matters that he stepped down and should be further investigated and punished to the fullest extent if can be...who the hell cares what hapaboy thinks of the left or Zzzzz thinks of the right...all that matters is what pabst will do when $spx hits 1348. or 10 above that for his cushion...:eek:

 

[jem]

foley may have been a perv was one of the proper ways to frame the sentence zzz, It was not used to question whether he was a perv or not. I was using it in the auxillary fashion which expresses purpose or expectation.

Now for those of you who think I brought Barney Frank into this because he is Gay, you ought to look up his past scandals.

Perhaps you should withdraw your typical right bashing comment.

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

This is "Politics & Religion" forum. $spx is off-topic here.

Move along, nothing to see here...

I know the forum..im refering to this particular situation...what a man sending emails to young boys has to do with either side of politics is beyond me...the man not the parties are to blame..peace

 

[neophyte321]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

It is the defense of Foley, or the treatment of Foley by the right that is the issue for the left, and what cover-ups there may have been that were politically generated.

What coverups are you talking about? Who cares about Hannity ...

The guy resigned in shame, he is an embarrasement, and if he had any honor, he'd do what the Japanese would do, and gut himself. Frankly, sending emails to underage employees is not exactly luring children with candy off the playground and into your car ... Total inappropriate and vulgar, yes ...


You know what, on second thought, this might be the best thing that has happened to the Republicans ...

NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THIS, and most people associate this type of behavior with the left, yet it makes excellent cover for the larger issues ... I smell Karl Rove!

 

[Arnie]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

The one major and striking difference here, is that Foley may have broken the law. All others on your list, with the exception of William Jefferson, did not.

I don't believe any liberals would defend William Jefferson. Hey, Hastert was mad when the FBI raided Jefferson's office. Now it makes you wonder why he was so upset?

What?

*Clinton lied to a grand jury
*Franks knew about his boyfriend running a prostitiution ring out of Franks apartment and had tickets "fixed".
*Kennedy left the scene of a fatal accident.
*Studds had sex with an underage (17 yo) page. He skirted the law by taking the boy to Morocco.

You are dumber than a box of rocks. Professor my ass!

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Arnie:

What?

*Clinton lied to a grand jury
*Franks knew about his boyfriend running a prostitiution ring out of Franks apartment and had tickets "fixed".
*Kennedy left the scene of a fatal accident.
*Studds had sex with an underage (17 yo) page. He skirted the law by taking the boy to Morocco.

You are dumber than a box of rocks. Professor my ass!

Which one of them was convicted in a court of law?

Why are you still defending a pedophile? "Family value" my ass!

 

[jem]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

One of the strategies of the Republican defenders of Foley is to confuse gay sex with underage sex. It looks like their message is finding resonance with their "family values" base.

To them, the "travesty" and "disgusting" thing is the male part (otherwise why bring up Barney Frank?). It would be perfectly fine to them if it were underage girls instead of boys. That's what they mean by "family values."

First of all on behalf of all true conservatives (not neocons) - we defend your right to be an unthinking lunatic and we are glad you can spew your drivel in a public forum. It is those rights that we fought for and continue to fight for against lefties and neocons whom believe big govt is good.

Secondly, jump in a lake. Traditional values do not condone adults having sex or soliciting sex from minors male or female.

Third since you brought up gays proclivity for molestation. Do all activists for gay rights condemn Nambla or do Gays themselves as a group condemn males having sex with minors?

Try answering that professor. You know you will have problems answering because I have even scene reps from the ACLU fall apart when asked the question.

By the way I am friends with Gays, I just like to point out when brain dead comments are made.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from jem:

First of all on behalf of all true conservatives (not neocons) - we defend your right to be an unthinking lunatic and we are glad you can spew your drivel in a public forum. It is those rights that we fought for and continue to fight for against lefties and neocons whom believe big govt is good.

Secondly, jump in a lake. Traditional values do not condone adults having sex or soliciting sex from minors male or female.

Third since you brought up gays proclivity for molestation. Do all activists for gay rights condemn Nambla or do Gays themselves as a group condemn males having sex with minors?

Try answering that professor. You know you will have problems answering because I have even scene reps from the ACLU fall apart when asked the question.

By the way I am friends with Gays, I just like to point out when brain dead comments are made.

If you know the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile, then why do you bring up Barney Frank when we're discussing a Republican pedophile? Are you trying to find an excuse to forgive Foley?

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from Arnie:

You are dumber than a box of rocks. Professor my ass!

Yeah, the more he posts the less inclined I am to believe that he is actually holds a PhD let alone teaches at a university.

But then again I see things like the recent Vanderbilt U. 9/11 Blame America panel and have to reconsider.

Segue to the "professor" saying that by attacking him, I am defending Foley despite my posts to the contrary....yeah, that's a real holder of a PhD talking....

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

If you know the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile, then why do you bring up Barney Frank when we're discussing a Republican pedophile? Are you trying to find an excuse to forgive Foley?

So your contention is that adult homo's avoid sex with teen age boys? I think the weight of the eividence would indicate otherwise.

It's already been noted that these were hardly children. They were very mature, savvy high school students. They had to be to get the job. They regarded Foley as creepy, not a threat. No one had sex with him, that we know of.

It seems to me if the Republicans are at fault for letting Foley interact with pages, then liberals need to reconsider their position on gay scoutmasters, gay teachers, gay priests, etc. Of course not all of them will try to take advantage of young boys, but, as liberals love to say, if it saves one child isn't it worth it?