Hey Rob... How does it look under the Democrat Bus?

And while we are noticing "red flags" let's have a complete look at Harry Reid's financial dealings! Since we can apparently launch investigations and ruin people's political careers on suspicion alone, let's not be selective in our moral outrage!
 
I believe the "sic, sic, sic" thing was about the IMs, Care. To be fair to Dix he is talking about a different group of missives.
 
Damocles said:
I believe the "sic, sic, sic" thing was about the IMs, Care. To be fair to Dix he is talking about a different group of missives.
Click to expand...

She knows this, they all know it. Like usciti said, it's not whether or not an investigation could be legitimately justified, as long as they can make the Bible Belt folks stay at home in disgust. This is about trying to rub Republicans noses in something they had no knowledge of, purely for political gain, and it's going to bite Democrats in the ass when it's all said and done.

The Democrats would have done well to turn over the goods on Foley in time for Florida to put another candidate on the ballot, and then shut up about it. When Foley resigned, it took their thunder away, and they couldn't help but to go after Hastert, and make complete jackasses out of themselves. It's what they do! The fine upstanding conservative Bible Belt folks they were trying to steer, have watched this unfold, and although they were disgusted with Foley, they are more disgusted with the way Democrats have behaved since his departure.

Oh.... but The Polls! The Polls! :shock:
 
Another thing they failed to consider, is how their utter hypocrisy and willingness to use Foley's homosexuality, to infer this was supposed to be a warning he was a perverted pedophile, has back-lashed in the gay community. Several people who I have spoken to, who are gay, have indicated they do not plan to support Democrats now. This cinched it for them. They may not vote Republican, but they certainly don't support the Democrats after this.
 
adult men who have the hots for 17 year olds are not pedophiles.

When congressional staffers send up warning signals and the speakers office does nothing about it.... that is negligence.
 
Huh? What are you guys talking about?

IT WAS THE KID FROM :lOUISIANNA Who'd parents were involved in reporting the emails foley sent to their son THAT SAID FOLEY WAS sick,sick,sick,sick, sick......not the pages involved in the more explicit IM's with him?

Who has spread this propaganda to you that it was a page involved in the IM's? huh?

it was the kid from LouisianA that reported this email regarding foley asking him what he wanted for his birthday and that making comments about a another page's "body" that FREAKED HIM OUT....? THIS HAS BEEN REPORTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN...?

"The improper communications between Congressman Mark Foley and former House congressional pages is unacceptable and abhorrent. It is an obscene breach of trust," read the statement issued by Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois and Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri.

Earlier, the chairman of the House Page Board said Foley "was not honest about his conduct," referring to e-mail exchanges that a former page has called "sick, sick, sick."

The House leaders said in their statement that they had asked the House Page Board to review the incident and to propose measures to ensure the program is safe. They also have set up a toll-free number for pages and their relatives to confidentially report incidents, the statement said.

After the e-mails were publicized, ABC News released instant text messages allegedly sent by the congressman to other teenage male pages.
 
regarding foley asking him what he wanted for his birthday and that making comments about a another page's "body" that FREAKED HIM OUT

Okay, very slowly, once again.... you can not investigate, question, interrogate, lodge ethics complaints, censure, impeach, or otherwise boot out of elected office, any official who has made a comment about another person's body or asked about a birthday.

I fully understand that a straight guy was grossed out by Foley's gay gestures, but again, these are common among gay men and women, and unless we are going to pass laws against gay people acting gay, I don't see much that can be done here. When I look at this, and try to find a reasonable opportunity the Republicans had to take action on Foley, I just don't see it, there was no crime, other than being gay. This is why I've continued to ask you for some evidence they could have used. Certainly the IM's were enough, and action was swiftly taken, but before the IM's were known about, what did Foley do or say, that was actionable?

Are you just too dumb to imagine what would have happened, had Hastert launched investigations into Foley, based on the mere fact that he asked a page about his birthday and made a gay comment about someones body? Care, I don't think anyone is that ignorant, I don't know why you want to pretend you are. The "All Pubs Are Homophobes" crowd, would have ate Hasterts and the Republicans lunch, and you know it.

Even though, in retrospect, you can act like Blackflag and pretend the behavior creeps you out, there is a vast difference between what makes us uncomfortable as individuals and what society has established as legally actionable or ethically questionable. In the Foley case, you liberals are the victim of your own PC policy. We simply can't call Foley into question for behaving like a gay man, and that is precisely what you claim we should have done.
 
Dixie said:
Another thing they failed to consider, is how their utter hypocrisy and willingness to use Foley's homosexuality, to infer this was supposed to be a warning he was a perverted pedophile, has back-lashed in the gay community. Several people who I have spoken to, who are gay, have indicated they do not plan to support Democrats now. This cinched it for them. They may not vote Republican, but they certainly don't support the Democrats after this.
Click to expand...

Dixie, your collection of Ken dolls really doesn't count as a scientific poll of the gay community.

I'm sure the dolls were all up in arms though.
 
I merely asked you to define the difference between friendly homosexual behavior and perverted homosexual behavior,

Well, first you have to define 'perverted'.

What you might deem perverted, others might not...
 
Dixie said:
what they should have done is inquired FURTHER...

Based on WHAT?

You can't "inquire further" these days, without appearing to be a homohobe! The lame-ass argument that republicans should have taken action on nothing but the overly-friendly email correspondence, is just ludicrous! You are essentially saying, we should automatically suspect any homosexual of being a perverted pedophile! ....Tell you what, Care... let's have a look into Barney Frank's emails? Let's see if Barney has ever made any "friendly gay" comments to anyone, and if so, let's demand a full investigation into his personal life as a gay man! You wanna fucking do that? I didn't think so!

What you want is a double standard, as always! You want to have your gay Congressmen, or womanizing adulterer president, and we dare not mention anything about their private personal sex lives... but let a fucking Republican write a friendly email, and we are supposed to launch full-scale ethics investigations and ruin his political career!

This is about the most deceitful, disingenuous, bigoted, prejudiced, hypocritical bunch of partisan bullshit you've EVER come up with!
Click to expand...

You are all tangled in with this gay thing. EVEN if Foley had been sending the same email to 16 year old girls, they should have been looking further into it.

When a CONGRESS man sends creapy flirtatious emails to 16 year old pages, the Ethics Committee should look into it!
 
When a CONGRESS man sends creapy flirtatious emails to 16 year old pages, the Ethics Committee should look into it!
//

I think the FBI should look into it as a probable link to sexual predator behaviour.
Heck with an "ethics" comittee.
 
AnyOldIron said:
I merely asked you to define the difference between friendly homosexual behavior and perverted homosexual behavior,

Well, first you have to define 'perverted'.

What you might deem perverted, others might not...
Click to expand...

Well, that is the reason I asked Care to define it. Some people obviously find typical, routine, normal and friendly homosexual behavior to be "perverted".
 
uscitizen said:
LOL yep, most right wingers .
Click to expand...

Well, no, actually and ironically, it seems to be me, who is standing up and defending gay people for merely being gay, and it seems to be you, Care, Black and others, who want to define a gay man's routine behavior as perverted, or at least indicative of a "red flag."
 
uscitizen said:
well , Yes actually dixie.
Click to expand...

Yes what? Am I a "right winger"? Are you and Care?

There are two positions you can take on Foley....

A. He was a gay man, exhibiting perfectly normal and routine gay behavior when he sent emails to former pages.

B. He was a sick perverted pedophile preying on children when he sent emails to former pages.

Now... which one describes YOUR view, and which one describes MY view?
 
You need option 3. My stand.
3. It is questionable that Foley is a pedofile, but he is sick and perverted to message teenage pages in this manner. At the very least it is on the job sexual harrasment.
 
dixie your confusing (once again) pedophiles with homosexuality... not the same thing....

all people i know who are gay would find the actions of foley disgusting...
 
Rob has it figured out Dixie, Why are you unable to figure it out ? Does it have something to do with blind partisanship ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top