[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
He only wants to fuck teenagers…
Who doesn`t?
Boys or girls? Just kidding…
I’m around teenagers all day and, sure some of the girls are very attractive but they are KIDS. Even if you’re single, leave them alone. Most teens have enough trouble functioning without an adult trying to hit on 'em.
[/quote]
My personal limit age-wise is 18 though the Austrian age of consent is lower…
However, I occasionaly do want to fuck girls that are younger and everyone that says he doesn`t is a liar…
Or flamboyantly gay…
To make it sound as if only a pervert a PEDOPHILE (OMG, a CHILD molester) could want to have sex with a 16 year old may work as a sound bite but it is BS nonetheless…
As I said, the Barely Legal series is hardly child porn…
Plus, as a teacher, you know that there are even 13 year old having the body of a grown woman.
Anyone attracted to such a girl is not a pedophile, anyone acting on that impulse is at least dangerously immmature though…
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.
What Democrats knew???
The republican on the page program didn’t tell his democratic counterpart.
In other words, there is no evidence for this/ or evidence to the contrary.
Read more.
Drudge is breaking a story that this info was presented to the FBI in June. US News also has a story about the alleged predator website that was set up to “break the story”. Wanna bet is wasn’t set up by somone who had the best interest of the pages in mind?
Since no level of proof will convince a zealot with Bush derangment syndrome what’s the point in reading right?
Like I said, no evidence.
Republicans knew.
Republicans leaked.[/quote]
You’re such a partisan tool 100m, where is your proof of a republican cover up?
Oh, that’s right, there hasn’t even been an investigation yet. This doesn’t stop you however from projecting guilt though does it? You expose yourself as a partisan hack with shit like this. You do believe in someone being innocent until proven guilty right?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
When the story magically breaks a month before the elections, I think one would have to be either the definition of stupid not to see the intended political fallout of the story.
No one is giving a shit about any sexual abuse here - right or left. And why should they? The intent is to take an election, not out a sexual predator.
Even you should be able to see this. [/quote]
Strangely, Rainjack, you are the first to cry bullshit when somebody makes a claim without proof.
However, in defense of anything republican you are also the first to throw around accusations and conclusions without a single shred of anything resembling the proof you so often shout for.
Whether or not the timing is suspect isn’t really the issue, and rightly so most people are ignoring that issue. Now, if you can show that people KNEW and ignored it then you have something to talk about.
There’s been bullshit out in the press every week now for months and months. Stories break when they break, sometimes on purpose, sometimes by discovery, but until you have something known as evidence you are just pissing in the wind.
It might offer you a lot of relief, but it doesn’t have any significance.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Whether or not the timing is suspect isn’t really the issue, and rightly so most people are ignoring that issue. Now, if you can show that people KNEW and ignored it then you have something to talk about.[/quote]
Hassert talked about the timing. Most of the talking heads are talking about the timing. I think it is an issue - whether or not you got the memo out there at the ThinkinTree is another matter.
I guess you ARE too stupid to see the painfully obvious. That’s what I get for giving you too much credit.
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.
What Democrats knew???
The republican on the page program didn’t tell his democratic counterpart.
In other words, there is no evidence for this/ or evidence to the contrary.
Read more.
Drudge is breaking a story that this info was presented to the FBI in June. US News also has a story about the alleged predator website that was set up to “break the story”. Wanna bet is wasn’t set up by somone who had the best interest of the pages in mind?
Since no level of proof will convince a zealot with Bush derangment syndrome what’s the point in reading right?
Like I said, no evidence.
Republicans knew.
Republicans leaked.[/quote]
Covering your ears and chanting I’m a liberal does you no good on a public forum son.
You statements don’t even make sense for a wingbat.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Hassert talked about the timing. Most of the talking heads are talking about the timing. I think it is an issue - whether or not you got the memo out there at the ThinkinTree is another matter.[/quote]
Of course Hassert pointed the finger, and you are happy to eat it up. Why don’t you demand proof of some type of malfeasance before assuming it?
You would if the tables were turned and you know it.
Can’t resist taking a shot? Why don’t you wait for the results of the inquiry… isn’t that what 100m is being counselled to do? Or, do only democrats require proof these days?
Sometimes the hypocrisy is piled so high it actually stinks.
[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Hassert talked about the timing. Most of the talking heads are talking about the timing. I think it is an issue - whether or not you got the memo out there at the ThinkinTree is another matter.
Of course Hassert pointed the finger, and you are happy to eat it up. Why don’t you demand proof of some type of malfeasance before assuming it?
You would if the tables were turned and you know it.
I guess you ARE too stupid to see the painfully obvious. That’s what I get for giving you too much credit.
Can’t resist taking a shot? Why don’t you wait for the results of the inquiry… isn’t that what 100m is being counselled to do? Or, do only democrats require proof these days?
Sometimes the hypocrisy is piled so high it actually stinks.[/quote]
Sage advice, Vroom. Wait for the investigations to finish before laying blame. On anyone, besides Foley, that is. I support your statement!
[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Hassert talked about the timing. Most of the talking heads are talking about the timing. I think it is an issue - whether or not you got the memo out there at the ThinkinTree is another matter.
Of course Hassert pointed the finger, and you are happy to eat it up. Why don’t you demand proof of some type of malfeasance before assuming it?
You would if the tables were turned and you know it.
I guess you ARE too stupid to see the painfully obvious. That’s what I get for giving you too much credit.
Can’t resist taking a shot? Why don’t you wait for the results of the inquiry… isn’t that what 100m is being counselled to do? Or, do only democrats require proof these days?
Sometimes the hypocrisy is piled so high it actually stinks.[/quote]
What’s hypocritical about saying the timing of the story is suspect? SHow me where I have excused Foley.
My point - whether you want to see it or not has nothing to do with Foley - but the timing of the release this close to election time.
This is not the first time this has happened. To not at least nod a head in the direction of political motivation is just stupidity.
Aren’t you one of the Bush haters that said he waged a dirty campaign? Now you want to turn a deaf ear when it is the dems doing it.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
What’s hypocritical about saying the timing of the story is suspect? SHow me where I have excused Foley.
[/quote]
Of course the timing is suspect, and this is a lot “lighter” than what you were baiting me with a few statements ago.
Where you get it into your head that I don’t realize the timing is suspect I’ll never know. However, what I have said is that suspect is not enough, and you seem to be backpedalling a bit while trying to cover it with some blustery horseshit offense.
Anyway, what you fail to see is that I look for truth in information. Foley resigned, the situation or issue is true or factual, apparently. Many of the campaign shennanigans were simply wordplay and tricks, not actual facts.
How the hell do you get through life changing everything from what people actually say into what you wish they were saying?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Is that the same drudge which has tried to declare the issue a hoax?
And what’s all this “game” talk?
You guys have no concern for right and wrong, just winning? Seriously, just because the issue is politics doesn’t mean that principles shouldn’t be applied.
Perhaps that’s what is wrong with most modern politicians, they don’t actually have principles… or at least there isn’t much evidence of it lately.[/quote]
A hoax? The link I saw claimed it was more like entrapment, not a hoax.
Foley’s attraction to teenage boys seems very real.
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.
What Democrats knew???
The republican on the page program didn’t tell his democratic counterpart.
In other words, there is no evidence for this/ or evidence to the contrary.
Read more.
Drudge is breaking a story that this info was presented to the FBI in June. US News also has a story about the alleged predator website that was set up to “break the story”. Wanna bet is wasn’t set up by somone who had the best interest of the pages in mind?
Since no level of proof will convince a zealot with Bush derangment syndrome what’s the point in reading right?
Like I said, no evidence.
Republicans knew.
Republicans leaked.
Covering your ears and chanting I’m a liberal does you no good on a public forum son.
You statements don’t even make sense for a wingbat.
[/quote]
How many more republicans have to come foward saying they knew of Foley and reported it to leadership—till it starts to make sense?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
What’s hypocritical about saying the timing of the story is suspect? SHow me where I have excused Foley.
Of course the timing is suspect, …
Thank you![/quote]
So Brian Ross should have waited till after the election to have Foley respond to the emails given to them by republicans?
The Foley scandal is about the lack of GOP leadership that has manifested itself in too many ways.
If you think that the current GOP leadership has stuck to conservative ideals and kept spending down as well as kept us from paying for nation building than I am wrong.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Of course the timing is suspect, …
Thank you![/quote]
Yes, just don’t run into the end zone and make all kinds of unsupported conclusionary statements based on it…
Many things that are suspect don’t turn out to be conspiracies or partisan controlled events.
Who and why is certainly a fair question, but it shouldn’t be used to deflect attention away from the main issue, as it certainly has been.
At this point, there are many people who would be happy to help push the republicans out of office, including many conservatives, so it’s hard to say it must be some particular group of democrats who were also holding back knowledge.
There are very many plausible scenarios that have nothing to do with Clinton!
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.
What Democrats knew???
The republican on the page program didn’t tell his democratic counterpart.
In other words, there is no evidence for this/ or evidence to the contrary.
Read more.
Drudge is breaking a story that this info was presented to the FBI in June. US News also has a story about the alleged predator website that was set up to “break the story”. Wanna bet is wasn’t set up by somone who had the best interest of the pages in mind?
Since no level of proof will convince a zealot with Bush derangment syndrome what’s the point in reading right?
Like I said, no evidence.
Republicans knew.
Republicans leaked.
Covering your ears and chanting I’m a liberal does you no good on a public forum son.
You statements don’t even make sense for a wingbat.
How many more republicans have to come foward saying they knew of Foley and reported it to leadership—till it starts to make sense?
as you’ll remember I was responding to:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time.
Which there is no evidence of (the opposite)[/quote]
Your just making yourslef look like a bigger fool. You are either naive or dishonest take your pick.
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.
What Democrats knew???
The republican on the page program didn’t tell his democratic counterpart.
In other words, there is no evidence for this/ or evidence to the contrary.
Read more.
Drudge is breaking a story that this info was presented to the FBI in June. US News also has a story about the alleged predator website that was set up to “break the story”. Wanna bet is wasn’t set up by somone who had the best interest of the pages in mind?
Since no level of proof will convince a zealot with Bush derangment syndrome what’s the point in reading right?
Like I said, no evidence.
Republicans knew.
Republicans leaked.
Covering your ears and chanting I’m a liberal does you no good on a public forum son.
You statements don’t even make sense for a wingbat.
How many more republicans have to come foward saying they knew of Foley and reported it to leadership—till it starts to make sense?
as you’ll remember I was responding to:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time.
Which there is no evidence of (the opposite)
Your just making yourslef look like a bigger fool. You are either naive or dishonest take your pick.
Read more son.
[/quote]
Please back your s–t up or shut up.
Links to democrats KNEW.
"In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a “mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults.”
When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds ? not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men ? defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha’s Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: “It’s the outfit, stupid.”)
Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds’ affair with a teenage page as “a brief consenting homosexual relationship” and denounced Studds’ detractors for engaging in a “witch-hunt” against gays: “New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life.”
— Ann Coulter
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
… a bunch of Ann Coulter stuff…
[/quote]
H2, dude, why don’t you try finding some source information. Ann is known for twisting things.
However, given it happened over twenty years ago, if it is at least somewhat accurate, I don’t think it really has very much to say about the situation today.
Nice try though!
How desperate are some of you guys to dig up stuff from twenty years ago. Maybe you should go back to the civil war era, I hear there were bad things done back then…
