Quote :

"if they knew about it and kept a pedophile in office until now for political gain then they are just as wrong as any republicans that kept it hidden also"

Of course they are, but it's worthless to debate it and unfortunately, you don't have a good enough reputation around here for me to even conjecture about it based on "I heard it on the radio" as your only proof.

The internet travels just as fast, why isn't there a shred of any talk about this anywhere else? Which station were you listening to and who was the commentator?

10/5/2006 11:22:39 AM

So has anyone been able to find -any- credible evidence that this is even remotely true yet?

10/5/2006 11:23:58 AM

oh man, I didn't know my soap box street cred prevented me from making a topic when I hear something



I have no diea who or what I was listening to, I was flipping the dial and it caught my attention

10/5/2006 11:25:01 AM

...no...at least we can find some evidence...and this a big story thats developing...give it some time

10/5/2006 11:25:01 AM

So it's alright to accuse someone based on out of context hearsay?

10/5/2006 11:29:24 AM

And again, I'm calling bullshit. If Hastert and the pubs had actually followed through with any sort of investigation on Foley, I'd give them more of a pass. It was a big enough deal to tell the GOP members of the Page Committe of Foley's predilections towards the boys, but not tell the Dem members of the same committee? Come on, that's crap.

Boehner, Reynolds, and others have said they told Hastert about Foley. Hastert's saying they didn't. Someone's lying.

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 11:30 AM. Reason : .]

10/5/2006 11:29:28 AM

there is a shocker

people lie in DC

10/5/2006 11:30:07 AM

And when there are situations in which one party is lying much, much more than the other, let's just make up crap to even it out.

10/5/2006 11:32:25 AM

Quote :

"because homosexuality and pedophilia are two completely different things how many times has this been said? "

stating the blatantly obvious while ignoring that Foley only sent IMs to MALE pages, some of them "frowning on girlfriends" http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/breaking_news/15682019.htm doesn't really help your "argument"

10/5/2006 11:37:29 AM

Ok, so far I find it hard to believe a story that broke on radio at 8:30am hasnt broken on the internet yet.

Unless it has no credibility what-so-ever.

10/5/2006 11:45:13 AM

btw Duke... if you feel that this isn't a serious topic or whatever, feel free to delete it

I was only trying to get people talking about what was heard on the radio

I do ask however, if it needs to be deleted, that boonedocks has his thread deleted and that he be suspended for josh#s like activity


^ it was on the radio last night

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

10/5/2006 11:45:41 AM

^^^ but you do agree that homosexuality and pedophillia are two different things don't you?

I'd say his argument is fine. I'm not sure what point you are arguing now.

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 11:48 AM. Reason : a]

10/5/2006 11:46:19 AM

yeah... two completely different things


apples and oranges

10/5/2006 11:48:08 AM

of course they are two different things...and nobody has claimed they werent

but just because the guy is a pedophile that doesnt mean he cant be a homosexual

especially when every single on of the kids he hit on, had cyber sex with, IM'd, etc WAS A MALE

please explain to me how Foley is not a homosexual? I just figured since the Democratic party is typically more supportive of homosexuals than Republicans, the Democrats don't want to be seen as being discriminatory, so they completely avoid that Foley is apparently a homosexual

any response for that? or are you just going to once again misunderstand the argument?

10/5/2006 11:50:02 AM

the title of this thread should be "why did the republicans wait until now"

since like they knew about it a long time ago

10/5/2006 11:51:02 AM

I think both sides knew about it

10/5/2006 11:51:39 AM

i'm gonna go out on a limb and say the republicans knew first

and it looks like they were hoping it just was gonna go away

10/5/2006 11:53:18 AM

convenient that the libs exposed this right before the election. at this point....Foleys name cant be taken off balet (sp?) but there is enough timefor this to have maximum impact on the election...this is 90% politics...

well..the timing is 100% politics...

10/5/2006 11:55:09 AM

Quote :

"please explain to me how Foley is not a homosexual?"

Who said he wasn't?

Quote :

"I just figured since the Democratic party is typically more supportive of homosexuals than Republicans, the Democrats don't want to be seen as being discriminatory, so they completely avoid that Foley is apparently a homosexual"

I'm apparently misunderstanding the argument because I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. How are dems avoiding that he is a homosexual?

It's pretty hard to follow your train of thought when you quote what someone says, and state an argument completely unrelated to what you quoted. Then you get pissed and say people are stupid when they can't follow your reasoning because it makes sense in your head.

10/5/2006 11:57:04 AM

The libs did not expose it.

READ

10/5/2006 11:57:32 AM

I really like how republicans are shifting the blame in this situation from Mark Foley to the democrats.

"We Republicans fucked up, but it's the Democrats fault....."

10/5/2006 12:03:32 PM

^lol, i agree

10/5/2006 12:04:31 PM

Quote :

"I'm apparently misunderstanding the argument because I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. How are dems avoiding that he is a homosexual? "

I've mentioned a number of times that Foley is a homosexual...the textbook response I've gotten on here is "pedophiles and homosexuals are not the same thing"

in other words people are avoiding the FACT that he is a homosexual, probably because they don't want to seem like the "gay bashing Republicans"

10/5/2006 12:11:49 PM

He's gay and he's a pedophile. Being gay is not the issue here. It's him being a pedophile.

10/5/2006 12:15:14 PM

10/5/2006 12:16:29 PM

your spelling sucks.

10/5/2006 12:17:34 PM

yeah something told me pedofile was wrong

10/5/2006 12:18:15 PM

He's a Republican and he's a pedophile. Being a Republican is not the issue here. It's him being a pedophile.

10/5/2006 12:18:41 PM

well honestly though, like if this happened to a democrat think of how much shit the repubs woulda said

you know this woulda been all the ammo they needed against the demos...cause the demos are the ones most often associated with gays

10/5/2006 12:22:18 PM

Can you not see why people can't follow what you post?

Look at what you said first:

Quote :

"the Democrats don't want to be seen as being discriminatory, so they completely avoid that Foley is apparently a homosexual"

Then you said this

Quote :

"in other words people are avoiding the FACT that he is a homosexual, probably because they don't want to seem like the "gay bashing Republicans""

I'm serious man, I'm not trolling you when I say that you can't articulate your thoughts well. It's just a fact. Rather than resorting to name calling me, why don't you recognize you have a problem, and be a little more clear with whatever argument it is you are trying to make.

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 12:24 PM. Reason : a]

10/5/2006 12:24:00 PM

that would be fine

but the first half dozen times i even mentioned he was a homosexual and that Democrats TEND to be the choice party of homosexuals, ALL the responses I got were to the effect of "homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing"

aka I got typical selective answers that completely ignored my inquiries

also I don't see how you don't notice that his sexual orientation hasn't even been mentioned, since this is all just politicizing by both parties

10/5/2006 12:30:53 PM

if the dude is gay thats fine, he just wont get back into office for obvious reasons.

10/5/2006 12:33:15 PM

Quote :

"but the first half dozen times i even mentioned he was a homosexual and that Democrats TEND to be the choice party of homosexuals, ALL the responses I got were to the effect of "homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing" "

by doing so, you are painting homosexuals as pedophiles. And the fact remains that homosexuals hate pedophiles more than straight people do. gay pedophiles have as much in common with homosexuals as straight pedophiles have with heterosexuals.

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2006 12:33:56 PM

You didnt bash him for being gay, so no one accused you of it

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 12:34 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2006 12:34:04 PM

(to quote shitty song lyrics) It's like a match on a fire when you put the homosexuality peice of the puzzle up against the pedophilia peice.

Sure, there are going to be some repubs out there that are terrified of the HOMO CHILD LOVER, but this is generally about pedaphilia, which transcends sexual orientation. His homosexuality just isn't the issue.

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 12:35 PM. Reason : i like the way peice looks compared to piece, fuck grammar]

10/5/2006 12:34:46 PM

^x5 you were saying that you suspected dems would accus reps of "gay-bashing", but the point is, they wouldn't think it was gay bashing because the guy is a pedophile.

Or in different words: it's not cool if you punish him for liking men who are of age but it is ok to punish him for liking CHILDREN.

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 12:35 PM. Reason : 5]

10/5/2006 12:35:16 PM

why is it hard to understand that NO ONE was going to accuse the GOP of "gay-bashing" for outing a PEDOPHILE

i'm not sure what point you're trying to make, tree...

10/5/2006 12:40:22 PM

^But I think the Dems WOULD accuse the Republicans of "gay bashing" if they had exposed him early on, pedophile or not...why wouldn't they?

Quote :

"by doing so, you are painting homosexuals as pedophiles. And the fact remains that homosexuals hate pedophiles more than straight people do."

I'd really like to see ANY type of reference to the "fact" that 'homosexuals hate pedophiles more than straight people do'

Let alone that I'm not painting homosexuals as pedophiles, I'm simply pointing out that homosexuals, according to Democrats, tend to be portrayed as victims...pedophiles are obviously victimizers...seemed to me like a reasonable excuse to not mention his sexual orientation

V Hey look, its the pot calling the kettle black

10/5/2006 12:41:49 PM

^^He's trying to point out that he enjoys posting a lot of nonsensical garbage on TWW

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2006 12:42:07 PM

when you assume you make an ass of you and me.

tnx

10/5/2006 12:42:48 PM

I mean they could have done like the Democrats did and put Gerry Studds up for re-election year after year.

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 12:43 PM. Reason : er]

[Edited on October 5, 2006 at 12:50 PM. Reason : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds]

10/5/2006 12:43:09 PM

Quote :

"But I think the Dems WOULD accuse the Republicans of "gay bashing" if they had exposed him early on, pedophile or not...why wouldn't they?"

that makes no sense, because he's NOT BEING OUTED FOR BEING GAY

he was outed for being a PEDOPHILE

10/5/2006 12:45:34 PM

it doesnt matter if it makes sense or not

some Democrat was bound to accuse the entire Republican party of hating gays if they ousted hiim

Its a month before elections, you think the Democrats are too high and mighty to make those accusations or something??

10/5/2006 12:47:28 PM

No, they wouldn't have.

Because they have the cognitive ability to distinguish between pedophilia and homosexuality.

Thus they'd be able to realize that he was being fired for being pedo, not for being gay.

10/5/2006 12:50:11 PM

so are you saying that politicians are dirty bastards?

NOOO!!!!!!!!!

10/5/2006 12:50:22 PM

Quote :

"you think the Democrats are too high and mighty to make those accusations or something?? "

uh, yes, one, because it doesnt MAKE SENSE

and two, they'd, in essence, be defending a pedophile, which of course, no politician, or anyone really, would do

10/5/2006 12:51:10 PM

Quote :

"Because they have the cognitive ability to distinguish between pedophilia and homosexuality."

That doesn't mean they'd choose to distinguish between "a man facing consequences for being a sicko pedophile" and "a chance to talk more shit about their opposing party in the public spotlight"

10/5/2006 12:51:18 PM

LET ME ASSUME ALL THE TIME B/C I CAN DREAM UP RETARDED SITUATIONS!

10/5/2006 12:55:03 PM

you are wrong. give it up.

Quote :

"a chance to talk more shit about their opposing party"

this is what you're doing. you are making an issue (that doesnt even make sense) out of NOTHING

10/5/2006 12:55:32 PM

^^LET ME BE DENTALDAMN AND ASSUME THAT THE DEMOCRATS WOULD NEVER EVEN CONSIDER DOING ANYTHING TO HURT THE OTHER PARTY

^i'm not wrong...its my opinion...why you think either party is so sound in their decisions that they'd never consider it shows extreme naivete on your part

10/5/2006 12:55:50 PM