{OT} Hey, Liberals and Democrats! A Question.

How come it's OK to be gay, unless you're in Congress?

All I have heard about (esp here in Mass) is Gay this and Gay that, and we
need to raise 'toleance levels' for Gays, "Queer Eye for the Straight
Guy", Gay marriage in Massachusetts, GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY Until I want
to freaking SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!

But it comes out Foley wants Gay Sex (um, actually STILL not proven, BTW)
that all of a sudden, it's an Outrage! An OUTRAGE!!!

And, most Pages are 17, which in most jurisdictions, is acceptable age for
Consensual Sex.

Don't get me wrong. What he did wasn't right (note, not saying it's WRONG,
because I've had Gay this and Gay that CRAP shoved down my throat so much
that I suppose if he wanted to have sex with a DOG it wouldn't phase me
anymore...), but technically, he wasn't wrong.

Hachiroku, 10/5/2006, 12:15:16 PM, <ocaVg.15$2i.7@trndny09> wrote:
[color=blue]
> How come it's OK to be gay, unless you're in Congress?
>
> All I have heard about (esp here in Mass) is Gay this and Gay that,
> and we need to raise 'toleance levels' for Gays, "Queer Eye for the
> Straight Guy", Gay marriage in Massachusetts, GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY
> Until I want to freaking SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!
>
> But it comes out Foley wants Gay Sex (um, actually STILL not proven,
> BTW) that all of a sudden, it's an Outrage! An OUTRAGE!!!
>
> And, most Pages are 17, which in most jurisdictions, is acceptable
> age for Consensual Sex.
>
> Don't get me wrong. What he did wasn't right (note, not saying it's
> WRONG, because I've had Gay this and Gay that CRAP shoved down my
> throat so much that I suppose if he wanted to have sex with a DOG it
> wouldn't phase me anymore...), but technically, he wasn't wrong.[/color]

Liberals are only tolerant to people who agree with them.

This whole episode is not about Mark Foley anyway. It's about bringing
down Republican leadership and reacquiring power.

Gay is not the proper word. Homosexual is the term to use when
describing a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same
sex.

--
"I think gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a
woman." ~ California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Actually the issue is someone in the position of power soliciting sex from
an underling. And, as far as we know at this point, the interest in sex was
clearly not mutual so it can be distinquished from Clinton and his cigar.
And when the pages complained, the Republicans in charge did nothing about
it. If you are paying attention, there are many Republican congressmen
complaining about how their leadership handled it.... it is not just
democrats complaining. And, by the way, democrats and liberal does not mean
the same thing. There are many democrats far more conservative than many
Republicans. And the Republicans clearly dumped true conservative values
long ago...... look at the budget deficit for one thing.

Get a life. Get a brain. Think.



"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:ocaVg.15$2i.7@trndny09...[color=blue]
> How come it's OK to be gay, unless you're in Congress?
>
> All I have heard about (esp here in Mass) is Gay this and Gay that, and we
> need to raise 'toleance levels' for Gays, "Queer Eye for the Straight
> Guy", Gay marriage in Massachusetts, GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY Until I want
> to freaking SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!
>
> But it comes out Foley wants Gay Sex (um, actually STILL not proven, BTW)
> that all of a sudden, it's an Outrage! An OUTRAGE!!!
>
> And, most Pages are 17, which in most jurisdictions, is acceptable age for
> Consensual Sex.
>
> Don't get me wrong. What he did wasn't right (note, not saying it's WRONG,
> because I've had Gay this and Gay that CRAP shoved down my throat so much
> that I suppose if he wanted to have sex with a DOG it wouldn't phase me
> anymore...), but technically, he wasn't wrong.
>
>[/color]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:15:16 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
[color=blue]
>How come it's OK to be gay, unless you're in Congress?[/color]

I think it's only Foley's fellow Republicans that are upset about him
being gay. I know I don't care, I'm just concerned about the fact he
was preying on children.

[color=blue]
>
>And, most Pages are 17, which in most jurisdictions, is acceptable age for
>Consensual Sex.[/color]

In a lot of places it is statutory rape. Plus, Foley was crossing
state lines when he was doing his preying on children.

One of the pages was evidently 15 though, and I suspect you won't be
able to claim that's acceptable.
[color=blue]
>
>Don't get me wrong. What he did wasn't right (note, not saying it's WRONG,
>because I've had Gay this and Gay that CRAP shoved down my throat so much
>that I suppose if he wanted to have sex with a DOG it wouldn't phase me
>anymore...), but technically, he wasn't wrong.
>[/color]

Hmmm... "technically, he wasn't wrong."

He's a sexual predator, preying on children. What part of that are you
having trouble with?

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:54:01 +0000, badgolferman wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> How come it's OK to be gay, unless you're in Congress?
>>
>> All I have heard about (esp here in Mass) is Gay this and Gay that,
>> and we need to raise 'toleance levels' for Gays, "Queer Eye for the
>> Straight Guy", Gay marriage in Massachusetts, GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY
>> Until I want to freaking SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> But it comes out Foley wants Gay Sex (um, actually STILL not proven,
>> BTW) that all of a sudden, it's an Outrage! An OUTRAGE!!!
>>
>> And, most Pages are 17, which in most jurisdictions, is acceptable
>> age for Consensual Sex.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong. What he did wasn't right (note, not saying it's
>> WRONG, because I've had Gay this and Gay that CRAP shoved down my
>> throat so much that I suppose if he wanted to have sex with a DOG it
>> wouldn't phase me anymore...), but technically, he wasn't wrong.[/color]
>
> Liberals are only tolerant to people who agree with them.
>
> This whole episode is not about Mark Foley anyway. It's about bringing
> down Republican leadership and reacquiring power.[/color]


These are EXACTLY the two points I was driving at!

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:07:34 GMT, Vash the Stampede <Trigun@2AM.cn>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:54:01 +0000, badgolferman wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> How come it's OK to be gay, unless you're in Congress?
>>>
>>> All I have heard about (esp here in Mass) is Gay this and Gay that,
>>> and we need to raise 'toleance levels' for Gays, "Queer Eye for the
>>> Straight Guy", Gay marriage in Massachusetts, GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY
>>> Until I want to freaking SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> But it comes out Foley wants Gay Sex (um, actually STILL not proven,
>>> BTW) that all of a sudden, it's an Outrage! An OUTRAGE!!!
>>>
>>> And, most Pages are 17, which in most jurisdictions, is acceptable
>>> age for Consensual Sex.
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong. What he did wasn't right (note, not saying it's
>>> WRONG, because I've had Gay this and Gay that CRAP shoved down my
>>> throat so much that I suppose if he wanted to have sex with a DOG it
>>> wouldn't phase me anymore...), but technically, he wasn't wrong.[/color]
>>
>> Liberals are only tolerant to people who agree with them.
>>
>> This whole episode is not about Mark Foley anyway. It's about bringing
>> down Republican leadership and reacquiring power.[/color]
>
>
>These are EXACTLY the two points I was driving at!
>[/color]

I thought you were driving at the ideas that you don't like Gays, and
that it's ok to have sex with children.

Stuart Krivis wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:15:16 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
> able to claim that's acceptable.
>[color=green]
> >
> >Don't get me wrong. What he did wasn't right (note, not saying it's WRONG,
> >because I've had Gay this and Gay that CRAP shoved down my throat so much
> >that I suppose if he wanted to have sex with a DOG it wouldn't phase me
> >anymore...), but technically, he wasn't wrong.
> >[/color]
>
> Hmmm... "technically, he wasn't wrong."
>
> He's a sexual predator, preying on children. What part of that are you
> having trouble with?[/color]
Check out Gerry Studds from Mass. Had an affair with a page, walked
away clean and got re-elected. What a country. Foley didn't do anything
physical,did he? Looks like a double standard, democrat, actually have
an affair with a page, get re-elected, republican, send e-mails, oust
the speaker of the house.

Hachiroku wrote:[color=blue]
> How come it's OK to be gay, unless you're in Congress?
>[/color]

[color=blue]
> All I have heard about (esp here in Mass) is Gay this and Gay that, and we
> need to raise 'toleance levels' for Gays, "Queer Eye for the Straight
> Guy", Gay marriage in Massachusetts, GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY Until I want
> to freaking SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!
>
> But it comes out Foley wants Gay Sex (um, actually STILL not proven, BTW)
> that all of a sudden, it's an Outrage! An OUTRAGE!!!
>
> And, most Pages are 17, which in most jurisdictions, is acceptable age for
> Consensual Sex.
>
> Don't get me wrong. What he did wasn't right (note, not saying it's WRONG,
> because I've had Gay this and Gay that CRAP shoved down my throat so much
> that I suppose if he wanted to have sex with a DOG it wouldn't phase me
> anymore...), but technically, he wasn't wrong.[/color]

Get a clue. This is about preying on underage children. This has
nothing to do with being gay. He wasn't wrong? You have your head up
your ass?
Gee, I go away for a while and the conservatives here are still
cluesless as ever.
Also, there are gay members of congress, but if they're Republicans
they need to
suppress it like priests which then causes them to develope abnormal
sexual devient behavior, like preying on young boys.

All I found was the fake encyclopedia entry. According to that, the page
was 17 and it was consenual according to an open press conference. Also it
was 23 years ago. The world is much more sensitve to potential child, sex
and domestic abuse these days. I doubt he would get away with it now.
Plus, there is no information on a cover up to save his seat. By the way
you forgot to mention the Republican who was involved with a page at the
same time in 1983. How convenient:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Page_sex_scandal[/url]



"ronbon" <n877@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1160073628.712910.284060@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
>
> Stuart Krivis wrote:[color=green]
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:15:16 GMT, Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote:
>> able to claim that's acceptable.
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> >Don't get me wrong. What he did wasn't right (note, not saying it's
>> >WRONG,
>> >because I've had Gay this and Gay that CRAP shoved down my throat so
>> >much
>> >that I suppose if he wanted to have sex with a DOG it wouldn't phase me
>> >anymore...), but technically, he wasn't wrong.
>> >[/color]
>>
>> Hmmm... "technically, he wasn't wrong."
>>
>> He's a sexual predator, preying on children. What part of that are you
>> having trouble with?[/color]
> Check out Gerry Studds from Mass. Had an affair with a page, walked
> away clean and got re-elected. What a country. Foley didn't do anything
> physical,did he? Looks like a double standard, democrat, actually have
> an affair with a page, get re-elected, republican, send e-mails, oust
> the speaker of the house.
>[/color]

In article <DBbVg.3528$Lv3.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Actually the issue is someone in the position of power soliciting sex from
> an underling. And, as far as we know at this point, the interest in sex was
> clearly not mutual so it can be distinquished from Clinton and his cigar.
> And when the pages complained, the Republicans in charge did nothing about
> it. If you are paying attention, there are many Republican congressmen
> complaining about how their leadership handled it.... it is not just
> democrats complaining. And, by the way, democrats and liberal does not mean
> the same thing. There are many democrats far more conservative than many
> Republicans. And the Republicans clearly dumped true conservative values
> long ago...... look at the budget deficit for one thing.
>
> Get a life. Get a brain. Think.[/color]

some more bs from art. That's right art play cover for the dnc and
moveon.org, LOL. You are so transparent.
--

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Liberals are only tolerant to people who agree with them.
>[/color]
Unlike those ever so tolerent conservatives :)
[color=blue]
> This whole episode is not about Mark Foley anyway. It's about bringing
> down Republican leadership and reacquiring power.
>[/color]

Of course the Democrats are going to wring every ounce out of this,
just like the
Republicans do anytime they can. But let me ask you two questions:

Do you think Folley did anything wrong?

Should members of the Republican party be held responsible if it is
found that they
tried to sweep this under the rug, which allowed Folley to continue to
prey on under age children?

Your are right on point. I personally could not care less what gay men
chose to do in private. Where I have a problem is when they try to shove it
down somebody else's throat ;)


mike hunt


"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:ocaVg.15$2i.7@trndny09...[color=blue]
> How come it's OK to be gay, unless you're in Congress?
>
> All I have heard about (esp here in Mass) is Gay this and Gay that, and we
> need to raise 'toleance levels' for Gays, "Queer Eye for the Straight
> Guy", Gay marriage in Massachusetts, GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY Until I want
> to freaking SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!
>
> But it comes out Foley wants Gay Sex (um, actually STILL not proven, BTW)
> that all of a sudden, it's an Outrage! An OUTRAGE!!!
>
> And, most Pages are 17, which in most jurisdictions, is acceptable age for
> Consensual Sex.
>
> Don't get me wrong. What he did wasn't right (note, not saying it's WRONG,
> because I've had Gay this and Gay that CRAP shoved down my throat so much
> that I suppose if he wanted to have sex with a DOG it wouldn't phase me
> anymore...), but technically, he wasn't wrong.
>
>[/color]

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Liberals are only tolerant to people who agree with them.
>[/color]
Unlike those ever so tolerent conservatives :)
[color=blue]
> This whole episode is not about Mark Foley anyway. It's about bringing
> down Republican leadership and reacquiring power.
>[/color]

Of course the Democrats are going to wring every ounce out of this,
just like the
Republicans do anytime they can. But let me ask you two questions:

Do you think Folley did anything wrong?

Should members of the Republican party be held responsible if it is
found that they
tried to sweep this under the rug, which allowed Folley to continue to
prey on under age children?

ToMh, 10/5/2006, 3:03:15 PM,
<1160074994.861360.224080@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> badgolferman wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > Liberals are only tolerant to people who agree with them.
> >[/color]
> Unlike those ever so tolerent conservatives :)
>[color=green]
> > This whole episode is not about Mark Foley anyway. It's about
> > bringing down Republican leadership and reacquiring power.
> >[/color]
>
> Of course the Democrats are going to wring every ounce out of this,
> just like the
> Republicans do anytime they can. But let me ask you two questions:
>
> Do you think Folley did anything wrong?[/color]

I have already answered that in a previous thread.
[color=blue]
> Should members of the Republican party be held responsible if it is
> found that they
> tried to sweep this under the rug, which allowed Folley to continue to
> prey on under age children?[/color]

If there was a crime commited and a subsequent cover up to hide a crime
then all those involved should be punished.

--
"I do not belong to any organised political party: I'm a democrat." ~
Will Rogers

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:49:58 -0700, ToMh wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> Hachiroku wrote:[color=green]
>> How come it's OK to be gay, unless you're in Congress?
>>[/color]
>
>[color=green]
>> All I have heard about (esp here in Mass) is Gay this and Gay that, and we
>> need to raise 'toleance levels' for Gays, "Queer Eye for the Straight
>> Guy", Gay marriage in Massachusetts, GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY Until I want
>> to freaking SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> But it comes out Foley wants Gay Sex (um, actually STILL not proven, BTW)
>> that all of a sudden, it's an Outrage! An OUTRAGE!!!
>>
>> And, most Pages are 17, which in most jurisdictions, is acceptable age for
>> Consensual Sex.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong. What he did wasn't right (note, not saying it's WRONG,
>> because I've had Gay this and Gay that CRAP shoved down my throat so much
>> that I suppose if he wanted to have sex with a DOG it wouldn't phase me
>> anymore...), but technically, he wasn't wrong.[/color]
>
> Get a clue. This is about preying on underage children. This has
> nothing to do with being gay. He wasn't wrong? You have your head up
> your ass?[/color]

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Underage Children!! NOTHING!!!!!!
This has to do with getting the Democrats a majority in Congress. Why the
hell do you THINK it too so fucking long to get the 'News' out about it?!

And as far as heads up asses, LOOK at what I WROTE! I did NOT say it's not
wrong. I said it wasn't Right, but I didn't say it wasn't wrong!

What he wants to do behind closed doors is HIS business, NOT the
Democratic party's!

This is NOTHING more than Playing Politics. Period!


[color=blue]
> Gee, I go away for a while and the conservatives here are still
> cluesless as ever.[/color]

Perhaps not the only ones...
[color=blue]
> Also, there are gay members of congress, but if they're Republicans
> they need to
> suppress it like priests which then causes them to develope abnormal
> sexual devient behavior, like preying on young boys.[/color]

17 is legal age of consent most places in the US.
So, put that in your pipe and shove it...