Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Hi Ty! Glad you're still up. Hey, how come you mentioned Condi Rice in that post?

I was trying to pick someone who is generally well thought of and whom no one would say has an interest in youngsters. Before I edited it, the post referred to the Pope, but I realized that would be taken in the opposite way of what I meant, so I changed it to Condi. Without thinking about it nearly as much as you have. The lesbian thing is not the first thing I think of with her. Nor the second, third or fourth.

Thank you for translating your earlier post into English.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think the hypocricy in this one elevates it above the typical DC sex scandal.

I'm so utterly disgusted. And if the leadership knew about the IMs then they should all resign too (and probably be prosecuted).

And what's worse, is that this is now going to become a political debate. The DEMs should shut the fuck up and just let this one play out. But instead, what do they do? They call for investigations and go on every show to stir the pot. Fucking pathetic.

What's wrong with political debate? Aren't elections a good way to hold congressional leadership accountable?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was trying to pick someone who is generally well thought of and whom no one would say has an interest in youngsters. Before I edited it, the post referred to the Pope, but I realized that would be taken in the opposite way of what I meant, so I changed it to Condi. Without thinking about it nearly as much as you have. The lesbian thing is not the first thing I think of with her. Nor the second, third or fourth.

Thank you for translating your earlier post into English.

what lesbian thing ty?

And at first you grouped Burger with the Pope, then you defaulted to condi? NWTF?

"I was trying to pick someone who is generally well thought of and whom no one would say has an interest in youngsters. " hah! you are more full of shit than ggg himself. At least everyone seeks the holes in GGG, so he leaks- can't be full of anything.

Hate isn't a good thing Ty.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what lesbian thing ty?

And at first you grouped Burger with the Pope, then you defaulted to condi? NWTF?

"I was trying to pick someone who is generally well thought of and whom no one would say has an interest in youngsters. " hah! you are more full of shit than ggg himself. At least everyone seeks the holes in GGG, so he leaks- can't be full of anything.

Hate isn't a good thing Ty.

Now I'm sorry I responded. Back to virtual ignore for you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
lesbians are bad, and I'm slurring someone with an allegation she is one

do you ever look into your own heart? I bet its a scary place. rather than continuing to spread your slurs against political people here, why not take a break for a year and look at who you are?

We'll be okay w/o you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you ever look into your own heart? I bet its a scary place. rather than continuing to spread your slurs against political people here, why not take a break for a year and look at who you are?

Who said calling someone a lesbian is a slur? Look in your own heart, jackass.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who said calling someone a lesbian is a slur? Look in your own heart, jackass.

Well, whether that is or is not a slur depends on intent. Being a lesbian is a-okay in my book.

but you seem to have brought up Condi in your post in a style that implied she is a lesbian AND that there is something wrong with that. Why do you allege she is a lesbian otherwise? it seemed like a tongue in cheek reference. do you have lesbian neighbors? have you made known to them your insights on Condi?

I know you are smarter than me Ty. i'm sure you can explain why what you posted wasn't a small bit of hate-....please explain?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


My only point: Barney Frank wasn't involved with nubile boys.

That you know. And this boy was sixteen. That is not paedophelia. Youth is highly prized in the homosexual community. Sixteen year old boys are very popular in the homosexual community.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We have no more reason to think that he has an unhealthy interest in youngsters than we do with you or Condi Rice.

When is an interest in a sixteen year old unhealthy? You are so infected with PC bullshit it is incredible. Attraction to an eight year old is not normal. There are very few men, straight or Gay, that don't find a good looking sixteen year old attractive.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
That you know. And this boy was sixteen. That is not paedophelia. Youth is highly prized in the homosexual community. Sixteen year old boys are very popular in the homosexual community.

This sounds like it's from another talking points email from Rove et al?

[Spanky]

1) Foley, as far as we know, only posted emails with a sixteen year old male page.

2) Studds actually had sex with a sixteen year old page.

3) The Republicans forced Foley out. They did that because they knew that Foley could be used as a propaganda tool against them. The more they defended him the worse it would be for the party. So no one is defending Foley.

4) The Democrats protected and defended Studds and Frank.

5) Studds and Franks have been very helpful to the Republicans. They have helped paint the Democrats as extremists and morally challenged. Both of their scandals have been used in millions of hit pieces and have helped raise millions of dollars.

6) If the Democrats were smart they would have expelled both of them from the party. But in their idiocy they did not and thereby they helped the Republicans.

7) Any attacks made by the Democrats now just bring up the memory of Studds and Franks. Since they didn't expel those two guys they now can't fully take advantage of the gift that Foley just presented to them.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) Foley, as far as we know, only posted emails with a sixteen year old male page.

2) Studds actually had sex with a sixteen year old page.

3) The Republicans forced Foley out. They did that because they knew that Foley could be used as a propaganda tool against them. The more they defended him the worse it would be for the party. So no one is defending Foley.

4) The Democrats protected and defended Studds and Frank.

5) Studds and Franks have been very helpful to the Republicans. They have helped paint the Democrats as extremists and morally challenged. Both of their scandals have been used in millions of hit pieces and have helped raise millions of dollars.

6) If the Democrats were smart they would have expelled both of them from the party. But in their idiocy they did not and thereby they helped the Republicans.

7) Any attacks made by the Democrats now just bring up the memory of Studds and Franks. Since they didn't expel those two guys they now can't fully take advantage of the gift that Foley just presented to them.

8 ) The wise and dutiful Republicans looking out for our national morals and making the tough decisions were worried enough to warn pages to stay away from Foley since 2001. So any Democratic attacks will give us reason to bring up the memories of some guy noone remembers, plus Barney Frank from MA. Give us time, and we'll find a way to work in Teddy too.

9) So remember, Martha and Betsy and Phil, don't stay home! Tell your congregations to go out and vote Republican in November!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
This sounds like it's from another talking points email from Rove et al?

spanky's entire post is troubling, but what is most troubling is that he spelled paedophilia correctly, and used the British varient. those aren't in my Word Book.

[Hank Chinaski]

a young woman i know is voting for the first time next month. She asked me how she should decide her vote.

I explained one basic difference is how we balance "rights" vs. pratical realities.

Like Republicans balance our need to stop terrorism and think it is okay to kill terrorists and torture them to get information if likely to save innocent lives.

On the other hand Democrats put "rights " on a higher plane, even for people in al Queda who's only goal is to kill us. they take it to such an extent, I explained, that President Clinton passed on several opportunities to kill Osama because of his perceived human rights.

she said she got that, but then didn't understand how the Dems in the senate and President Clinton could then threaten ABC for wanting to show a movie about those decisions, even when the movie was clearly labeled as a docu-drama. She is asking whether the Dems put the rights of Al queda operativies to be free to kill Americans above ABC's right to free speech.

Can one of you answer this?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) Foley, as far as we know, only posted emails with a sixteen year old male page.

2) Studds actually had sex with a sixteen year old page.

3) The Republicans forced Foley out. They did that because they knew that Foley could be used as a propaganda tool against them. The more they defended him the worse it would be for the party. So no one is defending Foley.

4) The Democrats protected and defended Studds and Frank.

5) Studds and Franks have been very helpful to the Republicans. They have helped paint the Democrats as extremists and morally challenged. Both of their scandals have been used in millions of hit pieces and have helped raise millions of dollars.

6) If the Democrats were smart they would have expelled both of them from the party. But in their idiocy they did not and thereby they helped the Republicans.

7) Any attacks made by the Democrats now just bring up the memory of Studds and Franks. Since they didn't expel those two guys they now can't fully take advantage of the gift that Foley just presented to them.

You have a few facts wrong here. By the way, Studds and Crane (the republican who broke the law sleeping with a younger page) were both censored by the House, and Studds was disavowed by many Democrats, though not his district.

So, 23 year old scandals involving former Congressmen somehow justify the leadership keeping their mouths shut on Foley? Come on Spanky, you're better than this. I'm Catholic, but spoke out against the scandal in the Church and demanded accountability. This is not, of course, the same scope as that scandal, but it is the same type. We are once again dealing with the very guy who is responsible for the rules breaking them, something which could undermine the credibility of our system. And the very guys who are responsible for policing the system protecting him.