posted
This Foley crap is really politics at it's finest. The conservatives are supposed to be compassionate. The liberals are supposed to be accepting of all. But nobody wants Foley?
He's a disgrace to the conservs because he's queer and he likes young men. The libs won't accept him because he's a Republican and a pedophile.
But the fact is, the man is queer, so of course he's going to like young men. Just like straight men like younbg women. According to the libs, Foley was born gay, so how can he be shunned?
Both sides are hyopcrites and Foley is bringing out their true colors.
Posts: 348 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rimasco: I thought he was just an alcoholic who only became gay when drunk?
That's why my neighbor says when she wakes up hungover with another chick in her bed. But according to liberals, people are born gay, that's not a decision they make. So really, it's not Foley's fault he was cruising for young men in the page program. He was just doing what he was born to do, right?
Posts: 348 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
You kinda oversimplify things and manage to reach a wrong conclusion about a wrong thing.
If it were just that he was a fruit, I doubt that anyone but the really bone head republicans and the evangelicals would care.
If it were just because he was hiting on a guy, I still think only those two groups would care.
But he was hitting on a kid while that kid was effectively under his authority.
It's like a high school teacher banging their student and has nothing to do with the sex of either the banger or the bangee.....it's wrong.
Then there is the great big wrong you are ignoring.
Cover-up!
Just as is the case with the Catholic Church lying to protect sexual preditor priest, the people (and the Courts, eventually) are not going to put up with the responsible authority sweeping it under the rug to make themselves look like they run a clean house.
The democrats in the 92 lection had the saying, "It's the economy, stupid!", we paraphrase and get,
IT'S THE COVER-UP, STUPID!"Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the young studs he was cruising were 17 or older. The age of consent is 16, correct?
Anyway, my original question remains... the "compassionate" conservo's abandon him and the open-minded libs abandon him. But, there's no proof he ever committed any molestation or child rape acts?
Again, this just shows the hypocrisy on both sides of the political coin.
Posts: 348 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i want to keep my guns, i want my privacy, i want my daughter and my grandchildren to have reproductive choices. i want stem cell research to move forward....
who the heck am i supposed to vote for? LOL....
whoever hasn't screwed US over lately?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, Glass...., mostly I just want them to stay the hell outta my life too.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Democrats -- givers of entitlement programs -- controlling lives
Republicans -- moral guardians -- controlling lives
When you break it down, both parties seek life control in different ways. The Democrats want you to put your life in their hands, to depend on them. The Republicans want to police your life and act as your moral and social security guards.
If you want politicians to stay the hell out of your life, you guys are voting for the wrong people...
Posts: 348 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do you know the creep foley has not actually molested boys all we have is his word.
My solution to the pos in a ten minuet trial and a rope. And he becomes a good creep as for justice let him get that from god
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nirvana: But the fact is, the man is queer, so of course he's going to like young men.
and by young men you mean... kids?
At the age of 17, if a grown man asks you how big your ***** is, that should set off an alarm. At the age of 17, if a grown man describes his ***** and his sexual fantasies, that should raise a red flag... there should be no confusion here.
These page's were getting his sick and twisted emails and im's, yet they continued to dialoge with him and even visit his home. Something's not adding up.
When I was 17, if a dude asked me to dance around my bedroom in my boxers, I would call the police, block his email address, block his im's, tell my parents, and do everything within my power to bring about legal action.
It takes two to tango...
Posts: 348 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
agreed my point though is that you made it seem like when someone's gay he is automatically a pedophile. Not all gay people are into kids y'know, most aren't, just like most straight people aren't
Posts: 1091 | From: Brugge, Belgium / Dallas TX USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said Foley is queer so of course he's going to be into young men. I didn't say boys, I said men. I'm straight. I'm 30, and you better believe I'm into younger chicks. Most straight men are. This is not a myth or a stereotype. It's fact.
Posts: 348 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The conclusion you draw that when someone's "queer" it means he's into young men is a huge generalization that is... actually never true for any of the gay men that I know, but you didn't mean pedophiles so I won't take offense, that's why I asked after all
Posts: 1091 | From: Brugge, Belgium / Dallas TX USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My opinion...he should be treated the same and no different than these teachers that have sex with "consenting" under age boys. Granted the teachers victums were alot younger. I dont think genders should play a role. Even though it will. Foley had a position of power over this punk. Keep in mind this kid isnt your avg 17yr old. I think they also have to serioulsy hit the fact that he was giving alcohol to a minor
as a lubricant
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He should be afforded the Constitutional right of due process in a court of law by his peers. It should be proven he actually engaged in consensual or non consensual sex with underage males.
He should be taken into custody under suspicion of sexual molestation or sex crimes and should be put on trial to determine what actually happened. The emails and im's are enough evidence to convince a grand jury and bring him to trial.
But let's not do what Bush does and re-write the Constitution according to our emotions. Rule of law must prevail at all times and in all cases.
Posts: 348 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nirvana: Democrats -- givers of entitlement programs -- controlling lives
Republicans -- moral guardians -- controlling lives
When you break it down, both parties seek life control in different ways. The Democrats want you to put your life in their hands, to depend on them. The Republicans want to police your life and act as your moral and social security guards.
If you want politicians to stay the hell out of your life, you guys are voting for the wrong people...
The sad fact of the matter is our government will always be a two party system and therefore if we want our votes to count we have no choice but to vote for either party.So the fact of the matter is the Democrats are always the lesser of two evils and this is demonstrated time and time again in history. The worst Presidents always end up being a Republican (Nixon,both Bush's, Reagan etc.) & the best presidents always end up being the Democrats (Teddy and Frank Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc.).. thats not say there weren't bad Democrat presidents because of course there were but they are always the lesser then two evils and always do the most good... Reagan is considered a great president but for what? He didn't do anything really except crack jokes (I hated his guts but admitted he was the funniest President).. did he stop Communism in Russia etc. ? or was Communism failing and was going out the door anyways because it was a failed experiment no matter what President was in office? ... The economy was great for a short time during Reagan's term (well really only the rich got richer and the poor got poorer)but then it turned around and we ended up with high unemployment, double digit interest rates, farm failures etc.. etc.. Let's not forget Iran/Contra scandal and how he didn't take responsibility for it and let his cronies take the fall (memories of Nixon anyone?)... so really Reagan did NOTHING!! yet he gets a airport named after him lol Reagan should of stuck to his Chimp. Bush Sr. did the right thing about defending Kuwait but then he didn't finish the job and left Saadam Hussein in power and now the soldiers of present time are paying the price because we have to clean Bush Sr's mess (and that is the real reason for attacking Iraq along with oil and not WMD's)... everyone says Clinton was a terrible President but why they can't say. He had a affair but so do many people especially Republicans. We wasted tax dollars on trying to get him impeached for having a Affair? LOL oh excuse me for lying after the fact about a affair lol His affair should of been a issue between him and his wife not him and the country. It was a setup from the get go (why else would Monica Lewinsky keep a "stained" dress in storage and whats her name recording conversations). Anyways that is why Clinton is considered a bad President. Forget the economy was at it's best when he was in office those two times and it went to hell when Bush Jr. came into office. Forget that Workfare came into being during his term to end Welfare as we know it and get people working. And on and on. What has our current President done except have 2,000 + soldiers die in a foreign land to clean up his father's mess and make his oil friends richer. Let's forget that he was in bed with the biggest Corporation scandals and failures of all time (Enron anyone?)but then says something to the effect of : I did not have relations with that Company, Mr. Enron. LoL About the only thing I have agreed with Bush in his term was our involvement in Afghanistan but then again 5 years and we haven't captured or killed Bin Laden. We should be concentrating more in that country then Iraq. We also should be concentrating more on Iran and North Korea because they actually have WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION that can actually reach us unlike Iraq if they really had WMD's who could barely reach Israel much less us. Anyways the point of the matter is i could care less what affairs these politicians have in their private lives as long as it is not underage children. Their affairs should be a matter for their wives and not the nation as long as it doesn't affect how they run the Government. We live in a two party system of government (yes there are other obscured parties but they will never get the majority vote though I would like them to be) and as such so I will always vote the lesser of two evils: Democrats. (btw I believe Bush destroyed the Republicans chances in the next elections and im saying this not as a Democrat but just as a observer)
Btw Republicans are closet perverts that preach morals to us yet probably have the biggest porn collections in their homes, tend to be closet gays more and tend to be the ones who hire prostitutes more then the other party if you want to make a issue about sex scandals or sex lives of the two parties.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good post, Mach, particularly the point about there only being two choices because there are only two possible winners.
Those who preach disapproaval of both democrats and republicans (or the equivalent.....they are all bad, so protest vote) and conclude that you should not vote or vote for a candidate from some third or fourth party are telling you to not choose between the two that may win and, therefore, are telling you to support whichever one wins, even if you don't approve of their politics.
That is a looser's path and no a path to the betterment of the country.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
