NCclimber

Statistically speaking - - young black men are something like 50 times more likely to be involved in criminal activity than the rest of the population. - fewer women (than men) have genius level IQ. There are fewer women on the low end of the spectrum, too. I usually vote Republican. I have all my hair, I'm fit and I'm pretty clear about which team I play for. Your post was a nice use of across the board stereotypes to distract from another's point that there might be an overlap of pedophilia and homosexuality, that might be worth looking into. Instead, the media wont go near it. If the pages in this drama were over the age of consent, was Foley guitly of anything more than sexual harassment? if even that?

And let's not overlook that once Foley was exposed, he resigned immediately. In contrast, Studds symbolically told the House (and the US Constitution) to fuck off! The funny thing about this Foley drama is despite all the righteous indignation by those on the left, I've yet to hear whether or not Foley has broken a single law. On the other hand, we have the low profile dramas of William Jefferson and Alan Mollohan.

Kenneth Starr was appointed Special Prosecutor when the Democrats contolled the White House and both houses of Congress. Hmmm

There has to be someone to take the blame for the President and the VP..he was just the most likely to fall on his sword for their plausible deniability. I take it you still believe the outing of Valerie Plame was a malicious and intentional act of Bush & Co.

Tell that to Scouter Libby.

He got a "mandate" from the American people about two years ago. Was that before or after he commited those "impeachable" offenses?

All 4 of those things can be covered in a single thread. And I can't believe you are defending the guy. Humor wins again.

Sounds like half the posts in all the Foley threads (of which there are WAY too many). He's a homophobic, child predator who should be run out of Congress and put in prison for the rest of his life!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone who thinks different is a sick f%(k!

Could you provide a link. Here's one I found. http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

There's an active thread on Darfur. Do you think it would be appropriate to make a post about Columbus/Genocide in that thread? I don't.

Really? I've not seen anything debunking it yet... can you point me to a link? Guilty until proven innocent huh. How about this death list? Laura Bush: one ex-boyfriend. George W: http://iraqbodycount.org/ Or like this^^^? It would have been pretty easy to find a site that actually debunked the claims that Clinton is somehow directly tied to the deaths of 56 people - most of which where on his bad side. Instead to you try to change the subject. Maybe you should take it up with Lucky. He's the one who brought up the "Clinton Death list".

Sure, I think that GTAvercetti pointed out the link to the RNC memo that stated that it was the official campaign strategy of choice for them this fall Holy non sequitur, robin. WRONG. Very sequitur indeed. How is a story about the RNC's preference for negative ads relevant to ad hominem attacks by posters in this forum? Is this the old "Well, Johnny did it" rationale?

Sure, I think that GTAvercetti pointed out the link to the RNC memo that stated that it was the official campaign strategy of choice for them this fall Holy non sequitur, robin.

So if Pelosi knew about Foley's behavior a year ago and did nothing, then her lack of action would be irrelevant? I seem to recall Pelosi, Reid et al spouting off about the "Culture of Corruption" among the Republicans in DC. They kept up the vitriol all the way to the point when their own dirty laundry started being displayed. And then, quick as a wink, the public displays of outrage disappeared.

Some people lack the ability to recognize their own use of logical fallacies. Are you familiar with ad hominem attacks?

I've found changing the subject is always a good way to avoid the issue. Actually I wasn't changing any issue. You did change the subject. Are you saying none of those people on the "Clinton Death List" didn't die? Last I heard they were all dead. Is Vince Foster in the South Pacific somewhere... hangin' w/ Elvis and Jim Morrison? Let me guess - In your mind the current administration can do no right because the death of American soldiers trumps everything. See... I can play the tangential game, too.

Has the insertion of UN peacekeepers ever resulted in an improved situation in any country? Whatever happened to Kofi Annan's son, regarding that whole Iraqi oil for food scandal?

Really? I've not seen anything debunking it yet... can you point me to a link? Guilty until proven innocent huh. How about this death list? Laura Bush: one ex-boyfriend. George W: http://iraqbodycount.org/ I've found changing the subject is always a good way to avoid the issue.

You're quite the one trick pony, aren't you? Seems like about half of your posts in the "Speakers Corner" mention family values and taking personal responsibility. Using hot button phrases over and over and over again, isn't the same as making relevant points.

For the party that preens itself as "pro family values" and "pro personal responsibility", just pointing to the other party and saying "Look, they're just as bad as we are" won't cut it. Sorry. Is it your standard MO to make inflamatory statements and then when pressed on them, you ignore it and just make another inflamatory claim that doesn't hold much water. I'm still waiting to hear your definition of pedophile. Particularly, I'm interested what Foley did (specifically) that earned the label of pedophile (or as some have claimed - child predator). Is Foley really no different from someone who physically molests children?

I'm still not sure which of my "arguments" you blew out of the water. What is still pretty clear is you ducked my questions. As far as those five names I posted - all served as Democrats in Congress. Four of them were convicted of felonies (at least) and served time. Some are still in prison. At least one got a presidential "get out of jail free" card. And the fifth name - William "I always keep 100 grand in cash in my freezer" Jefferson. I'd say it's a safe bet that he's going to prison.

The president is under oath from the moment he is sworn in. Different oaths.

You believe Bloggers as sources? Say it ain't so! The homophobic gay pedophile WAS a Republican. What exactly is your definition of pedophile? God, will you guys quit defending Foley already? I'm not sure which of my "arguments" you blew out of the water. What is pretty clear is you ducked my questions. See, the problem I have with this whole drama is the rampant misuse of labels and assumption of facts (unknown). Do terms like pedophile and child predator really apply when the "victim" was nearly two years over the age of consent? Foley's behavior was undoubtedly inappropriate, unethical and completely disgusting, but I've seen nothing to indicate he's guilty of any sex crimes. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor? Probably. Sex crimes? Which ones? And to the witch hunt for Hastert - When did he actually read the e-mails and IMs. From what I've read, the former page sent an e-mail stating he had received messages that were "overly friendly", but not the actual messages or even the gist of those messages. You get word that a colleague is overly friendly, then you tell him to stop. You don't call for a Congressional Hearing! In hindsight, it's easy to say "You should have done more to investigate this!!!" harrumph harrumph harrumph, but my guess is reports of Congressmen acting "inappropriately" are all too common in DC, and 99% of the time they are settled with a simple "cut it out" by the right person. There's a whole lot of hysterics going on with this, that the facts have yet to support.

Seven posts in a row. WOW! I'm still waiting to hear what was debunked about the following people and fiascos? Dan Rostenkowski White House Coffees and Lincoln Bedroom sales Chinagate Walter R. Tucker Jim Traficant Robert Torricelli William Jefferson

A common claim by many liberals is the sexual mores of this country are victorian, puritanic, restrictive, up tight. They frequently make comparisons to the US and Europe. The oldest age of consent in Europe is sixteen. In most countries, it's less. Spain, for instance, sets the bar at age thirteen. It's okay in Spain for a 30 year old man to have sex with a thirteen year old girl. Meanwhile, here in the US, people are getting all bent out of shape because a grown man sent "dirty" e-mails to a young man, just shy of his 18th birthday. BTW I checked of the age of consent in DC and Louisiana. It's 16 and 17 respectively. Can somebody tell me which laws were broken, here?