As near as I can tell, rather than a direct party affiliation it has more to do with the religious aspect, hence making them more likely to be Republican?
Why are you assuming that religion makes one more likely to be a pediophile? Do you have some kind of academic research to back this up?[/quote]
There is plenty of research to back that up. Children brought up with overly strict views and constant negative associations with sex (like it’s dirty and your going to hell type stuff) are more likely to be sexually confused and sexually dysfunctional adults.
That’s a fairly common consensus among behaviorists who profile abusers.
That’s just my own personal opinion on why there seem to be so many more Republican vs Democrat pedophiles - and the thing is, political party SHOULD have nothing at all to do with an issue like this but there is a definite, UNDENIABLE pattern.
It’s also silly to think that if there really were just as many Democrats, that the list wouldn’t have already been compiled LONG, LONG AGO by Republicans.
That’s their M.O. for cryin’ out loud - they write books entitled “Godless” and point out liberal depravity at EVERY available opportunity - if there were a Dem list you would SURE AS HELL have already seen it. (and not just in some blog or forum either)
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Yes. Very much a left-wing bitch move I don’t care who the leaker works for. When was it leaked? How long was it sat on? I think the party affiliation of the reporter is more telling than which lever the staffer pulls.
One would have to be blind and stupid not to see the timing of this and do the math. [/quote]
When it comes to timing, the Dems are amateurs.
Pre-9/11 Tape Shows Bin Laden, Terrorists
The video released this weekend was found when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001. NBC News has obtained an analysis of the tape by U.S. intelligence experts, which scrutinizes every frame. http://www.nbc4.tv/news/9980625/detail.html
I asked why you assume religion makes one more likely to be a pedophile. I asked if you had academic research to back this up. You reply, in short…
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
There is plenty of research to back that up.
[/quote]
K, so where is it? Do you have a scientific study demonstrating that religious people are more inclined to pediophilia, than a same size sample of the non-religious?
As far as your list…I hardly count blog style lists as a scientific survey.
So a GOP staffer leaks these to media and it’s democratic shenanigans.
Oh the silliness rainjack.[/quote]
You forgot about the Democrat staffer.
“Two former pages ? one who had been sponsored by a Republican member of Congress and one by a Democrat ? offered ABC texts of sexually explicit instant messages purportedly sent by Mr. Foley. Mr. Ross said the network then tracked down the original recipients of those messages, using a page yearbook, and got firsthand confirmation of their authenticity. Mr. Ross said he thinks one of the original recipients was a Democrat and the other a Republican.” http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115991928869181847-ItSzBt2_3XmxCbazT5AE_ZThp_M_20061011.html?mod=blogs
[quote]rainjack wrote:
One would have to be blind and stupid not to see the timing of this and do the math. [/quote]
One would have to be a heartless POS to see this scandal and only care about winning the elections, more than right-and-wrong, protecting the kids who are involved, or disgracing the halls of Congress.
Typical of the ‘Bush Dead-Ender’, they will continue to resist an ugly truth even when it kicks them squarely in the nuts. Only an utter tool would think this scandal is a result of something that a Democrat did. I thought right wingers were supposed to care about personal responsibility, well so much for that, Mr. Integrity.
You guys are like some jackass sports fan rooting for ‘your team’ and screw ethics and screw anybody who might get hurt. So much for the Family Values Party, it’s really about holding on to power at all costs.
The FBI is investigating and Congress will investigate. There are some new laws on the books that Foley helped write. For instance you can’t even attempt to seduce a minor on the internet now, that is a crime.
Since Foley is intimately familiar with the new pedophile laws, being co-chairman of the house committee on exploited children, there’s a chance that he danced along the line of what is legal and what is illegal. On the other hand, he may have been thinking with his ‘small head’ as the saying goes.
Nobody knows what laws were broken, so in the meantime now it comes down to a matter of ethics, personal responsibility, honor and common sense. The implication is that Republican leaders knew full well that Foley was a perv but they kept it hidden in order to avoid a stir, to maintain Foley’s fundraising income, to avoid alienating the christian conservative base, etc.
MSNBC is reporting that one Congressional senior aide (not page, a senior aide) has come forward to report that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was told about Foley at least three years ago. Hastert apparently did nothing. And it’s being reported that Hastert even urged Foley into running again this Fall, seeing as how it’s very hard to defeat an incumbent and the GOP leadership wants desperately to avoid losing control of the House.
The coverup will possibly be worse than the actual offense although the details remain to be seen, as far as if Foley had sex with any pages and if so, how many. But even attempting to solicit a minor is now a crime, and Foley may be headed to jail. Then the question is what are the legal consequences for those who knew, but protected and enabled Foley.
Yet, another interesting article. Those who would rip Hastert apart should read this. This paper did not run the emails. Because the E-mails are not the damn sexual IM’s! Why do people keep combining the two? They are vastly different in content.
There are other issues the paper came up against when deciding if they had anything to act on. This is basically what Hastert had to deal with. Read the link above for the paper’s own experiences with the E-mails. My thoughts below consider how this relates to Hastert.
Hastert never had the IM’s. Hastert had the parents of a page claiming Foley was being “overfriendly” in E-mails (I repeat, E-mails) with their child. They never claimed the E-mails contained anything of a sexual or explicit nature. Hastert claims they were specifically asked about that. Apparently, the parents had a feeling (and happened to be right) that something was odd.
Maybe Foley was genuinely interested in getting to know the kid and mentoring him? When confronted, that was Foley’s explanation. Now having the IM’s, we know he was scum. Remember, even the FBI found nothing criminal about the E-mails. Of course, they also didn’t have the IM’s till the media did. The same IM’s Hastert didn’t have.
I’ve seen nothing demonstrating that Hastert had knowledge of the IM’s before we did. What actionable material was he suppossed to go on? E-mails with no sexual or explicit language? Parents who didn’t want to cooperate further? Remember, the parents requested that no action be taken.
What Foley did was sickening, but I’m lost as to why Hastert is being strung up. Hell, I think the guy absolutely sucks as the speaker. But, to pin him with being an enabler of this? I just don’t know about that. Hastert has called for a full FBI investigation (now that someone has finally produced the IM’s). Wait and see?
Edit: Hmm, the identity of the page involved in the IM’s may have been given away. I’ll just say J.E. for now. Going to wait to see this reported a bit more widely. The interesting part may be that the Kid wasn’t 16, but 17-18 at the time. Just floating it out there to see if anyone else has picked up on this yet.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
If you’ve ever wondered why the GOP logo has three pentagrams on it…
I thought this deserved it’s own thread in light of the most recent addition to a very long and consistently growing list of Republican pedophiles and degenerates. It would seem the louder one yells about God, abortion, or gays - the more likely they probably screwed a mule or a child…
I know you’re serious here but this paragraph is genuinely funny. I’m not flaming btw, your posts are cool and informative.
[/quote]
Yeah, that’s my sarcastic humor - of course I was
thinking of Neal Horsley when I wrote that.
The most radical, outspoken, religious anti-abortion activist who advocates violence - admits on the Alan Colmes Show that he had sex with mules while growing up on the farm. Then is totally bewildered when Colmes doesn’t understand that this is just “normal life” for a horny kid on a Georgia farm.
It’s hard to get your head around the thought of a young guy (named Horsley, of all things) growing up having ‘normal’ mule sex - eventually becoming the leader of a movement that demands people conform to HIS strict moral code.
Of course he did go back on Colmes show a second time to clarify that he did not rape the mule.
The Mule Consented
Horsley claimed that the mule consented and was a willing consultant in this match due to the fact that the mule was clearly a whore for accepting the gift of an ear of corn for the sexual act. http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/14/the_mule_consented.php
At this point I think any moderates and true conservatives have to speak out pretty heavily against their own party in order to save it.
[quote] “When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.”[/quote]
[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
So a GOP staffer leaks these to media and it’s democratic shenanigans.
Oh the silliness rainjack.
Yes. Very much a left-wing bitch move I don’t care who the leaker works for. When was it leaked? How long was it sat on? I think the party affiliation of the reporter is more telling than which lever the staffer pulls.
One would have to be blind and stupid not to see the timing of this and do the math. [/quote]
While 100meters is not stupid he certainly is blindly partisan.
So a GOP staffer leaks these to media and it’s democratic shenanigans.
Oh the silliness rainjack.
You forgot about the Democrat staffer.
“Two former pages ? one who had been sponsored by a Republican member of Congress and one by a Democrat ? offered ABC texts of sexually explicit instant messages purportedly sent by Mr. Foley. Mr. Ross said the network then tracked down the original recipients of those messages, using a page yearbook, and got firsthand confirmation of their authenticity. Mr. Ross said he thinks one of the original recipients was a Democrat and the other a Republican.” http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115991928869181847-ItSzBt2_3XmxCbazT5AE_ZThp_M_20061011.html?mod=blogs
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
So a GOP staffer leaks these to media and it’s democratic shenanigans.
Oh the silliness rainjack.
Yes. Very much a left-wing bitch move I don’t care who the leaker works for. When was it leaked? How long was it sat on? I think the party affiliation of the reporter is more telling than which lever the staffer pulls.
One would have to be blind and stupid not to see the timing of this and do the math.
While 100meters is not stupid he certainly is blindly partisan.
[/quote]
If by blindly partisan you mean addicted to reality then yes!
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
So a GOP staffer leaks these to media and it’s democratic shenanigans.
Oh the silliness rainjack.
Yes. Very much a left-wing bitch move I don’t care who the leaker works for. When was it leaked? How long was it sat on? I think the party affiliation of the reporter is more telling than which lever the staffer pulls.
One would have to be blind and stupid not to see the timing of this and do the math.
While 100meters is not stupid he certainly is blindly partisan.
If by blindly partisan you mean addicted to reality then yes![/quote]
[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
So a GOP staffer leaks these to media and it’s democratic shenanigans.
Oh the silliness rainjack.
Yes. Very much a left-wing bitch move I don’t care who the leaker works for. When was it leaked? How long was it sat on? I think the party affiliation of the reporter is more telling than which lever the staffer pulls.
One would have to be blind and stupid not to see the timing of this and do the math. [/quote]
I’m surprised you didn’t drag Clinton’s blowjob into this.
While 100meters is not stupid he certainly is blindly partisan.
Quite possibly the most blindly partisan person on this forum, left or right.
[/quote]
No, that would be the morons that had their briefs in a not over Clintons blowjob. Do you remember how old that young lady was at that time?
And now cry left wing bitch job when the tables are turned.
What are you saying? You’re moral outrage then was fake?
Or you hold democrats to higher standards then republicans.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
So a GOP staffer leaks these to media and it’s democratic shenanigans.
Oh the silliness rainjack.
Yes. Very much a left-wing bitch move I don’t care who the leaker works for. When was it leaked? How long was it sat on? I think the party affiliation of the reporter is more telling than which lever the staffer pulls.
One would have to be blind and stupid not to see the timing of this and do the math.
I’m surprised you didn’t drag Clinton’s blowjob into this.
Oooh, the outrage…
Remember that? Remember how good it felt?
But now the tables are turned.
Oooh, that must be a left-wint bitch move.
Haha, you’re a tool rainjack.[/quote]
You put words in my mouth then call me a tool?
Nice.
CLinton’s crime was not a blowjob, however. It was lying to a grand jury. That’s called perjury. That’s why Willie’s not a lawyer anymore. That’s why he was impeached.
Refresh my memory - did the Lewenski thing break out a month before the midterms? Or was it part of an ongoing investigation into a sexual harrassment lawsuit?
CLinton’s crime was not a blowjob, however. It was lying to a grand jury. That’s called perjury. That’s why Willie’s not a lawyer anymore. That’s why he was impeached. [/quote]
Note that’s the same crime for which a lot of folks would like to see Scooter Libby do jail time…
Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.
OUCH!!!
Hey, bradley. I’d ram this down your throat.
However, you never claimed to have any morals as a party.
While 100meters is not stupid he certainly is blindly partisan.
Quite possibly the most blindly partisan person on this forum, left or right.
No, that would be the morons that had their briefs in a not over Clintons blowjob. Do you remember how old that young lady was at that time?
And now cry left wing bitch job when the tables are turned.
What are you saying? You’re moral outrage then was fake?
Or you hold democrats to higher standards then republicans.
Which one do you choose? [/quote]
Both Lewinski and the boy are of legal age in Washington DC and Foley’s homestate of Florida.
Clinton had sex with his intern. Foley did not.
Foley resigned over his poor judgement.
Clinton did not.
Seems the low life Foley is still a more honorable person that Clinton.
The only way you could be more angry at Foley is if you are so partisan it makes you hypocritical and/or you are a homophobe.
CLinton’s crime was not a blowjob, however. It was lying to a grand jury. That’s called perjury. That’s why Willie’s not a lawyer anymore. That’s why he was impeached.
Note that’s the same crime for which a lot of folks would like to see Scooter Libby do jail time…[/quote]
Great point. Anyone that supported Clinton for his foolishness should extend the same support for Foley and Libby.