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

dix, I think your mistaken perception is that the Dems are stirring this all up. I think it is the republicans themselves. Or are you just doing a Rush and spinning for all you are worth ?
 
Every time I see the title I just want to say, "It looks like the underside of the Bus, what would you think it would look like?!"
 
Ok, even on that score the emails constituted inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, quite possibly sexual harrasment.

Not really. There was nothing sexual ever discussed in the emails that I read. Perhaps you have some portion you'd like to post, to illustrate your point? There is nothing inappropriate about a Congressman writing an email to a former page, they do this all the time. There is nothing inappropriate about asking for a picture or inquiring about birthday plans, people do this everyday and are never cited for sexual harassment.

Without the subsequent IM's, the emails appear perfectly innocent and harmless. Foley does seem to have a clear "gay" curiosity in them, but his sexuality shouldn't be used as a criteria for determining his intentions, or to make him into a pedophile. Unless we are supposed to judge typical gay behavior as being perverted, which seems to be the Democrat view these days.
 
But the demoncratic bus is moving so slow a quadrapelegic could crawl out of the way. One has to intentionally put himself in the path to get run over by the demoncratic bus right now.
 
You have proof that the demoncratic view is perversion just on the emails alone dixie ? put out or shut up.
and I am not just talking about a few demoncrats on here either.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

The minute I read the emails and ONLY THE EMAILS, I saw that there could be a real serious problem with this Congressman's conduct and immediately felt that he was PREYING on this young, under age boy.

I had not seen the instant messages and did not need to see the instant messages to KNOW that this behavior of a 52 year old congressman with a 16 year old was inappropriate and it sent off red flags that should have made Those in power look in to the matter further....whether it was a girl or a boy that he made these comments to....

In addition to this, YOUR LEADERSHIP HAD MORE THAN JUST AN EMAIL FROM FOLEY....Your leadership, Dennis Hastert, had complaints from Congressman Alexander, From Congressman Reynolds, and from Congressman Shimkus (sp?) along with a formal complaint from the capital police when Foley was trying to enter the Dorms of the Boy pages, in the middle of the night, while drunk as a skunk.

All of this was in the hands of the Speaker's office LONG BEFORE this set of emails to the Louisianna boy that was freaked out.

All of these complaints and concerns regarding Foley's inappropriate behavior HAPPENED BEFORE LAST AUGUST....when the Louisianna Boy's parents complained to Congress....

Now, your spin is just disgusting...on this...

you act as though there was only one email, you act as though this conversation that he had with this boy is nothing but normal gay talk...you act as though nothing could have or should have been done to see if there was reason to be concerned about Foley after the 5th complaint to the speaker's office....

you are being a real asshole and NO ONE ON THIS BOARD agrees with your distorting and lying account of what happened.

YOUR PARTY CHOSE to ignore some very well evident problems with Foley so that they could win this republican seat again in Florida...

That was and is wrong...most Human beings know this....

Give it up....you are wrong....there was PLENTY OF REASON to further an investigation of foley's behavior with the pages LONG BEFORE this one email in August.....the email last august should have been the straw that broke the camel's back...



care
 
Last edited:
I know of no democrat who has called Foley perverted. He is a gay man trolling for teenage boys..... and the inappropriateness lies in the page board and the speakers office for knowing about that trolling, and having been warned about it repeatedly and not only not doing anything positive to stop it, rather doing things to ignore it and to insure that Foley got reelected.
 
you act as though this conversation that he had with this boy is nothing but normal gay talk.

Everything I read was, maybe you can show me something to change my mind? Asking what he was planning to do on his birthday, asking for a picture, commenting on another guy's physique... sounds like typical gay talk to me, and it doesn't sound like a "red flag" the guy was perverted or preying on children, I am sorry.
 
So it would be ok for Rob to use normal gay talk to any other co worker in his office Dix ?
forgive me Rob , but unlike dixie , I really don't know what normal gay talk is.
 
uscitizen said:
So it would be ok for Rob to use normal gay talk to any other co worker in his office Dix ?
forgive me Rob , but unlike dixie , I really don't know what normal gay talk is.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what the whole "gay rights" thing is about?

Do you want to make a law against gay people acting gay?

Should we make a law that gay people can't serve in Congress?

Can we assume that any gay behavior is a "red flag" of perversion and pedophilia?

It seems this is the way you think we should go. I disagree.
 
Sexual talk among employees is inappropriate and illegal. No matter what the sexual orientation of the person initiating the sex related talk. It is especially bad when initiated by a boss to a subordinate.
 
uscitizen said:
Sexual talk among employees is inappropriate and illegal. No matter what the sexual orientation of the person initiating the sex related talk. It is especially bad when performen by a boss to a subordinate.
Click to expand...

I agree completely! Now... what part of the emails do you find "sexual" in nature? Asking for a picture or about birthday plans, is not sexual harrasment by any definition. Commenting on another person's appearance, is not sexual harrasment... so what exactly do you read in the emails, that could have been considered "sexual harassment?"
 
You are the one who said they were normal Gay talk Dixie, how could you tell that if they did not have sexual inuendo at least.
Squirm dixie Squirm ;)
 
uscitizen said:
You are the one who said they were normal Gay talk Dixie, how could you tell that if they did not have sexual inuendo at least.
Squirm dixie Squirm ;)
Click to expand...

Because they showed a level of curiosity indicative of a homosexual man. Listen, this is really easy for you, just go find the emails, I am sure they are posted all over the Inernet, and find the parts that you feel were "sexual harassment" or "perverted," and maybe I will change my opinion! This shouldn't be too much to ask, should it? I mean, if you have an argument here, present the facts to back your argument, or admit that I am correct in my assessment. I'm not squirming, I have no reason to squirm, I am right on this, and you haven't presented anything to refute what I have stated.
 
They dont show a curiosity indicative of a gay man, they show a curiosity indicative of a sick man, two very different things.
 
and it is all about perception at this point.... the truth of the matter is, only 25% of the public considers the foley matter to be as major issue in the upcoming election.

The big problem for the republicans is that the 25% all happen to be religious conservatives! HA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top