Ah. But it really wasn't about outing gay Republicans...Follow

To save you from ploughing through the manure that is gbaji's posts, here is the answer:

- They were not covering it up, because they have no problems with gays in the Republican party, especially those that fidle with 16-year-olds! So, no they didn't cover it up, not at all, and why would they since they have no problems with gay republicans fiddling with 16-year olds?! So no, no cover-up, no one in the Republican party knew about it, it's all just rumours from the liberal bla bla bla.

- In fact, it is the Democrats that are resposible for it all! Yes, thats right, they hate gays, and therefore "out" them, to make the Republicans look bad. But the Republicans couldn't care less since they love gays, and have no problems with gays, especially the ones fiddling with 16-year olds.

- Now please, stop talking about gays and Republicans, and 16-year-olds-fiddling, because the Republicans don't care, and in fact they don't care soo much that they want you to stop talking about it, you annoying gay-outer Liberal!

- Finally, despite the fact it's all rumours, this will hurt the Democrats, because everyone will realise they are nothing but a bunch of Gay-Republican-16-year-old-fiddler-outers!

Edited, Oct 16th 2006 at 8:11am PDT by RedPhoenixxxxxx

First off. They're enthralled with me because I'm vastly more interesting then most people (including you!). Sometimes, you just have to deal with not being nearly as cool as I am. I know. It's hard. But you'll get used to it.




Um... I've never heard of it. I'm serious. I don't form my views because I read or heard them somewhere.




Ah. So the litmus test for being a gay hater is whether or not you believe that gay couples should recieve state issued benefits for being couples?

Ever consider that many people don't agree with that position and are *not* hateful of gays? Ever consider that many people consider that just a plain waste of money? Ever consider that it does not actually address the real issues that gay couples need addressed? Heck. Ever consider that if most of the gay rights groups got off their obsession with redefining marriage, and went on to actually defining and establishing a common set of civil contracts needed by gay couples, they'd have resolved this whole issue 20 years ago?

I've argued this issue many many times. I've repeatedly explained why being opposed to "gay marriage" has nothing to do with whether you hate gays. Your position is just an extension of what I was talking about. Once you accept the supposition that the Republican agenda is inherently "anti-gay", it's pretty easy to step from that to assuming that any gay Republicans must be acting hypocritically. But again, you are assuming that in order to be "gay", one must adopt the agenda and ideology of the Liberals with regard to everything about being gay. But hey! Thanks for coming along and prooving what I was talking about.

For the record. Putting the quote tags around something you intend to double-quote is kinda silly... ;)




Ah. And you know this how? Or do you just assume it because you can't understand how any gay person would be opposed to the current gay marriage push? Talked to a lot of gay Republicans, have you?


Some interesting bits on this issue:

Seems that this guy thinks that gay Republicans are secretly Democrats. Dunno. Looks to me like in the closet gay Republicans are free to work in politics while ignoring their own sexuality, but once "outed" get sucked into every gay activist group out there (much as I already discussed).

And Kolbe apparently gets dragged into the whole Foley thing cause he's gay and he's Republican.

But hey. It's just about protecting pages, right?

Again. I just find it incredibly interesting that normally gay rights groups would fight tooth and nail to support a gay person's decision to stay in the closet and would condemn any group "outing" them. But apparently, that isn't the case if the closeted gay happens to be in the Republican party...

Well. Suck on this guy for awhile

Elegant rhetorical phrasing as allways.

Yeah, it's crazy-talk to ask someone who was on the board overseeing the page program what they knew about the pages, huh? Especially when a page says that he previously made a complaint to Kolbe and Kolbe admits to remembering the incident. There's no other reason than some hypocritical witch hunt why you'd ever want to talk to a guy like that.Are you calling the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Justice Department hypocritical? Because they opened the investigation based on claims made by the 'source'. Unless you have actual evidence to the effect that the source was some Democrat, you're just making shit up.I somehow find it a bit more likely that the source was one of the pages, Park Service employees or staffers who were present on the trip. I guess the National Park Service is probably full of Leftist hacks trying to take the Republican Party down though, huh? Let's go with that!

Joph. I'm talking about the selective nature of the reporting.

How many others in Congress, and how many other incidents has the Justice Department made a "preliminary assessment" of in regards to this issue? Do you know? Would you know about *any* of them if they weren't reported in papers like the Washington Post? How did they learn of this? Someone leaked it to them? Who? Did they leak just this information? Or more? In either case, you absolutely can't know that this is the "whole truth", and not just a small part of it.

Exactly how many camping trips, get togethers, parties, and late night work sessions do you think have involved pages over the last decade or two? Wouldn't it seem logical to assume that *all* of them are being looked over to some degree? Or at least have had a "preliminary assessment"? Why is it you've only heard about this one?


These events are only significant when highlighted by themselves. Put in the context of how many people may have known or suspected something about Foley (or may just be suspected of having known or suspectede), don't you find it even the tiniest bit odd that his name is the only one you're hearing about (except of course for Hastert, but the political motivation for that is obvious)? Apparently, his only crime is that he knew that a page had at some point complained about some emails Foley sent him, and that appropriate action had been taken and the issue had been resolved. Oh. That and he's gay...


It's almost comical.

Yeah, it is.

Defending a sexual predator that harrasses 16-year-olds, and then pretending that Republicans are a victim in all this, it's quite incredible.

Of course, has this been the other way round, you can bet all the morally righteous Republicans would've been up in arms about it.

Didn't they try to impeach some President who did not have sexual intercourse with some intern?

Thank God for the Asylum, I don't know where else I'd read such twisted rethorical diatribes.

Well, i guess there's always Fox News.

I give up, how many? Do you? Would you? I give up, how? Did they? Who? Did they? Was there?

Guess what. Asking leading questions isn't the same thing as having evidence of bias or selective reporting or whatever.Not really. Or certainly not to the extent that this one is after allegations were made that there was shady happenings going on.You need to buy a newspaper. You forgot about Boehner, Shimkus, Reynolds, Reynolds the lesser, staff from at least Foley's office and Hastert's office, etc. Or maybe I'm just better at reading than you are.

Again, how about instead of just asking these ever so innocent leading questions, you actually show us definatively where they lead to? Or is it that leading questions is all you've got?

Why is it pompous for the Christians to express their belief that homosexuality is a sin but not pompous for those who believe it is ok to claim it is ok and attack others who don't?

/channel Gbaji

It wasn't about the fact that he abused the kids, though. It's not even about the fact that he died. It's about the fact that he's gay! Isn't the fact that it's being reported that he hit a TRIANGLE suggestive? Do you think the reporter would have included that detail if the story weren't about him being gay?

/end channel

At age 54, it at least makes you one creepy *** motherfucker. I'm 20 years younger than him and the thought of actually trying to hit on a 16 year old gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Which, I fully realize isn't illegal or anything else and I'm not arguing otherwise or even putting this into the context of Foley. But, yeah, flirting with 16 year olds, male or female, while you're in your mid-50's is some creepy *** shit.

Ah. So the litmus test for being a gay hater is whether or not you believe that gay couples should recieve state issued benefits for being couples?

Ever consider that many people don't agree with that position and are *not* hateful of gays? Ever consider that many people consider that just a plain waste of money? Ever consider that it does not actually address the real issues that gay couples need addressed? Heck. Ever consider that if most of the gay rights groups got off their obsession with redefining marriage, and went on to actually defining and establishing a common set of civil contracts needed by gay couples, they'd have resolved this whole issue 20 years ago?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

there was a time when people who didnt think blacks should be able to intermingle with whites, but didnt "really" hate them.

just thought they were better than them.

and no one stated that right wingers are gay haters. just stated that right wingers discriminate against gays because they feel they are immoral.

and the hoopla is all about hyprocacy. not about foley. not about "gays". but solely about the fire calling the kettle black. kind of like "who the hell are you to tell me how to clean up my house when you cant even clean up your own...." type of thing.

and as usual, gbaji missed that point all together as he sifted through the enemys media to filter out bashing points to satisfy his own sence of creating God in his own immage, and just couldnt see the whole picture.

but gbaji is not alone. we all do it to some extent or another. thats how we are controlled. as long as we are fighting each other, they can do anything they damn please. as long as they can toss out sound bites the home team crowd can rally around, ireguardless of how out of context they may be, or how much of a lie they are, we sheep will keep hacking away at each other while the wolves rob us of our country.

the moral majority working for you.

still looking for an answer by some of you "worldly educated" people.