Hey Rob... How does it look under the Democrat Bus?
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
running away from proving your point dixie ?
I reply to childish behaviour with childish behaviour
Whatever. I didn't accuse a man of being perverted based on his normal gay behavior, you did. I've repeatedly asked for some evidence to back the argument that Foley was a "known pervert", or something actionable in the emails, and you have consistently avoided providing any. I hardly see where I am the one who has failed to make a point.
When you blatantly accuse a gay man of being obviously perverted, the burden of proof does not lie with me, I didn't make that charge. I am not the one who is being unreasonable and refusing to follow common principles of debate, that would be yourself. Either provide evidence to support your argument, or run along! I've already presented my case!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
They dont show a curiosity indicative of a gay man, they show a curiosity indicative of a sick man, two very different things.
Then, explain the difference, Jarhead?
That's all I am asking any of you to do. Tell me, what was in the email that show Foley was a pervert? Point it out! Let's take a look! From what I've read, nothing in the emails was indicative of pedophilia or sexual perversion, just generally "gay curious" comments from a gay man.
Look... try this experiment... Pretend that, instead of the IM's, we had some sort of definitive empirical evidence that Foley was not gay, he was straight. Now, read those emails, and tell me what was inappropriate about them, if you assume Foley is not gay? Is there anything? If not, you must admit that any indication of improper behavior, is predicated on the fact he is gay.
Then, explain the difference, Jarhead?
That's all I am asking any of you to do. Tell me, what was in the email that show Foley was a pervert? Point it out! Let's take a look! From what I've read, nothing in the emails was indicative of pedophilia or sexual perversion, just generally "gay curious" comments from a gay man.
Look... try this experiment... Pretend that, instead of the IM's, we had some sort of definitive empirical evidence that Foley was not gay, he was straight. Now, read those emails, and tell me what was inappropriate about them, if you assume Foley is not gay? Is there anything? If not, you must admit that any indication of improper behavior, is predicated on the fact he is gay.
EASY, he was flirting with a 16 year old! Its not that he is gay, its that he is flirting with a 16 year old....
If we knew he was not gay, and he was sending the same email to a 16 year old girl... it would warrant investigation to see if he were using the Congressional page program to troll for chicks....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
EASY, he was flirting with a 16 year old! Its not that he is gay, its that he is flirting with a 16 year old....
If we knew he was not gay, and he was sending the same email to a 16 year old girl... it would warrant investigation to see if he were using the Congressional page program to troll for chicks....
What do you mean by "flirting?" How can something be seen as "flirting" if you are not assuming he is homosexual? He asked the page for a photo.... that's not flirting. He asked about his birthday plans.... that's not flirting! He commented on a mutual friend's physical appearance... that is not flirting! It wouldn't matter if the page was male or female, the language in the emails was not sexual or predatory in nature, it was "gay curious", it was indicative of Foley being homosexual, but it was nothing actionable, and nothing worthy of launching an investigation over. When you take the man's sexuality out of the equation, and then consider what was said, there is nothing unethical or inappropriate in the emails. It is only AFTER you know he is a gay man, and you know what was said in the IM's, that you can make the determination that the emails were "uncomfortable" or "creepy" or whatever label you want to tag on.
This Democrat stance makes me very uncomfortable, because it's as if you are saying we should presume homosexuals are perverted pedophiles, if they show casual personal interest in another male.
If we knew he was not gay, and he was sending the same email to a 16 year old girl... it would warrant investigation to see if he were using the Congressional page program to troll for chicks....
What do you mean by "flirting?" How can something be seen as "flirting" if you are not assuming he is homosexual? He asked the page for a photo.... that's not flirting. He asked about his birthday plans.... that's not flirting! He commented on a mutual friend's physical appearance... that is not flirting! It wouldn't matter if the page was male or female, the language in the emails was not sexual or predatory in nature, it was "gay curious", it was indicative of Foley being homosexual, but it was nothing actionable, and nothing worthy of launching an investigation over. When you take the man's sexuality out of the equation, and then consider what was said, there is nothing unethical or inappropriate in the emails. It is only AFTER you know he is a gay man, and you know what was said in the IM's, that you can make the determination that the emails were "uncomfortable" or "creepy" or whatever label you want to tag on.
This Democrat stance makes me very uncomfortable, because it's as if you are saying we should presume homosexuals are perverted pedophiles, if they show casual personal interest in another male.
uscitizen
Villified User
This Democrat stance makes me very uncomfortable, because it's as if you are saying we should presume homosexuals are perverted pedophiles, if they show casual personal interest in another male.
ROTFLMAO, And all the right wing nut job homophobes worry you none ? this is a great projection attempt Dix.
ROTFLMAO, And all the right wing nut job homophobes worry you none ? this is a great projection attempt Dix.
If you cant see that the emails were creepy and flirtatous, regardless if the victim was a girl or boy... you are blind by partinsinship!
A grown person does not ask a 16 year old for a photo, does not give them birthday presents (unless they are related) and does not carry on email conversations unless they are interested in that person sexually... its creepy and should be investigated further.
If my teacher had asked for a photo or what I wanted for my birthday when I was 16 I would have been wearded out, just as this victim was!
When its between a man in his 40's and a 16 year old its clearly not "normal gay talk".
maineman
Banned
dixie is sweating bullets because he knows that this thing is not playing well to the republican base.....he is desperately looking for some way to spin it, but his efforts will have zero effect....the mom and pop republican baptists in Peoria are gonna stay home in disgust..... too damned bad, really.
$100 Dixie..... are you gonna renege on your wager or will you honor your debts?
$100 Dixie..... are you gonna renege on your wager or will you honor your debts?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I don't see anyone being homophobic about Foley, except Democrats.
My position is, what Foley did was wrong, based on the IM's, which weren't brought to light until the day he resigned. The emails that Democrats keep insisting Hastert should resign because he knew about, indicate that Foley might be gay, and nothing more. I am the one standing up for the gay man, making the point that you can't label him a pervert because he behaved like a typical gay man behaves, which is all that can be derived from the emails. How is that position homophobic?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
If you cant see that the emails were creepy and flirtatous, regardless if the victim was a girl or boy... you are blind by partinsinship!
As I have repeatedly said, post the part that you think is "creepy" or "flirtatious" and let's have a look! I am open-minded, maybe you can show me something I missed? From what I read, it looked to me like normal conversation that could ONLY be deemed "creepy" or "flirtatious" after knowing Foley was gay and reading the IM's. If you are basing your judgement of the emails, in any way, on Foley being a gay man, that is homophobic, it is as simple as that.
As I have repeatedly said, post the part that you think is "creepy" or "flirtatious" and let's have a look! I am open-minded, maybe you can show me something I missed? From what I read, it looked to me like normal conversation that could ONLY be deemed "creepy" or "flirtatious" after knowing Foley was gay and reading the IM's. If you are basing your judgement of the emails, in any way, on Foley being a gay man, that is homophobic, it is as simple as that.
40's? try 50's....
Its creapy for a man in his 40's to ask a 16 year old for a picturea and what he/she wants for his/her birthday!
You would not be susposous if a man in his 40's was asking those things of your 16 year old kid?
Foley is in his 50's not 40's
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Its creapy for a man in his 40's to ask a 16 year old for a picturea and what he/she wants for his/her birthday!
You would not be susposous if a man in his 40's was asking those things of your 16 year old kid?
Not if it was a U.S. Congressman my kid had worked for. Asking for a photo, doesn't mean anything sexual unless you make it sexual in your mind. Nothing in the emails is the least bit creepy, until you know Foley is a gay man who talked dirty to boys on the IM. That is when the emails become creepy to you. The reason none of you will post anything from the emails, is because you know I am right, there was nothing sexual about them, unless typical friendly gay behavior is sexual. Foley was nice, Foley was sweet, but that doesn't make him a pedophile or pervert, it makes him a gay man!
The challenge still stands, show me something from the emails that denotes certain perversion or pedophilia, or is even inappropriate sexual innuendo, because I have yet to see that. When you take Foley's sexuality out of the equation, the emails could be interpreted as nothing more than cordial and friendly emails from a mentor to a subordinate, which is done all the time in the real world. It's when you know that Foley is gay, and that he cybered with guys on the IM, that you form your opinion here, and being his homosexuality is the determining factor for you, it makes your viewpoint purely homophobic.
You would not be susposous if a man in his 40's was asking those things of your 16 year old kid?
Not if it was a U.S. Congressman my kid had worked for. Asking for a photo, doesn't mean anything sexual unless you make it sexual in your mind. Nothing in the emails is the least bit creepy, until you know Foley is a gay man who talked dirty to boys on the IM. That is when the emails become creepy to you. The reason none of you will post anything from the emails, is because you know I am right, there was nothing sexual about them, unless typical friendly gay behavior is sexual. Foley was nice, Foley was sweet, but that doesn't make him a pedophile or pervert, it makes him a gay man!
The challenge still stands, show me something from the emails that denotes certain perversion or pedophilia, or is even inappropriate sexual innuendo, because I have yet to see that. When you take Foley's sexuality out of the equation, the emails could be interpreted as nothing more than cordial and friendly emails from a mentor to a subordinate, which is done all the time in the real world. It's when you know that Foley is gay, and that he cybered with guys on the IM, that you form your opinion here, and being his homosexuality is the determining factor for you, it makes your viewpoint purely homophobic.