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

Those who demean *sp* are passing the same moral judgement.



Truer statment couldn't be said.



Demonizing Christians for their beliefs (which is also part of equal right since everyone has the right to believe as they wish) is also pompous.

As a Christian, I don't go around brow beating every **** I see. If asked my opinion, I express my belief (very tactfully so) that it is a sin. I don't believe anyone, on either side of the issue, should demean the other side.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that society calls Christians biggots b/c they don't agree w/ the homosexual lifestyle, but don't call homosexuals biggots for not agreeing w/ the Christian lifestyle.

By in large, society calls Christians bigots when said Christians belong to the faction attempting to alientate homosexuals through social or legislative action. Even Jawbox does not make a blanket accusation of all Christians, but rather those belonging to the "Christian Right", i.e. those who attempt to influence politics to suit their religious agenda.

If you have a problem with that, you should probably ask your fellow Christians to stop making you look bad

No, he clearly doesn't.

No, they don't.

Nothing the homosexuals (by in large) would like to pass would prevent you from living your own life nor practicing your own faith.

Although I do have to wonder how we got from the origional post to this point. Both sides have a valid argument. Both sides are biggots if pc rules are applied eveny across the board. But such is life.

Captain, yes, captain!



Which, taking my example, reads as:



See?

Also, what exactly is the "gay lifestyle"? Watching Will & Grace? Or sticking one's ***** into another man's poohole?

I'm just curious,since it's not the first time I hear a reference to the "gay lifestyle".

Not that that does anything to excuse the actions of the Religious Right, of course.

Well the age of Consent in Florida is 18, so yeah he just might be.

Asking a minor over the internet for explicit sexual pictures is still a crime right BarkingTurtle?

Easy. Fair game. It doesn't take a genius to realize the majority of people hate Bush and all his partisan fanboys. And it's all thanks to the war and Bush's @#%^ed up ways of supporting it. He lied to get us there, and he's already stated that as long as he's president, they're not coming home. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

you are mistaken.

while it might be true the majority of people in the world really dont like Bush, it is not true here. the polls for the midterm tell a differant story. even after all that has happened, the polls are split right down the middle so close no one can call it.

they vote the party line. then they go about their lives totally ignorant of what is going on, or puff their chests out with american pride and support whatever our leader does reguardless.

this is america. we dont vote on issues. we vote for the "team". we dont judge on the issues, we stick by the "team". our team. left or right, its us against.......us.

yes, we really are that ignorant, arrogant, and outright....stupid as a whole. we DESERVE to be in this mess. hell, we EARNED the right to be in this mess. this mess is exactly where we belong.

we are reeping what we sowed.

Therefore, to deny homosexuals equal rights, or claim that they should be denied equal rights, based on an antiquated belief system, is not only illogical but (dare I say it?) un-American.

Nah, denying a balmeless minority who has done nothing to harm the majority in any way basic human rights is really pretty much directly in keeping with American tradition.

Ya, I know, but I was trying to refer to the American ideal rather than the American reality.

Um. He didn't ask for explicit sexual pictures. So aside from that, you've got a point. Oh wait! You don't have anything more then that.

The email conversation with the 16 year old contained the following things:

1. He asked him how he was doing after the hurricane.

2. He asked him how old he was now (in context to him just having a birthday).

3. He asked him to send him a photo (no mention of anything sexual).

4. He asked him what he'd like to get for his birthday.


Um... This is the kind of content a grandparent might have with a child in the same situation. Show me where the sexual content is. If you didn't know that Foley was gay, and this email wasn't presented to you in the context of a gay congressman hitting up young pages, would you think anything unusual about it?


Any takers? The only reason this email is anything at all is in the context of the situation. Clearly, that's how the 16 year old took it (and why his parents asked Foley not to email him any more). But the email(s) to the 16 y/o themselves are not explicitly sexual at all.

This is also assuming that 16 is below the age of consent in the state the page is located in, which it may not be, and he was at the time an ex page. The key is was he below the age of consent; if not, then the pink elephant did not have the intent to violate the law, and we know he did not actually go pillow biting with the ex-page and actually violate the law.

The question is 1) was it a crime to hookup with his expage, and therefore he commited or maybe commited conspiracy to commit statutory rape, which is a stretch. 2) Is asking out a former employee abuse of power, since they are no longer under your power or control? He does appear to have lied about someoof this stuff regardless and should be out of a job because of that.





Edited, Oct 18th 2006 at 6:04pm PDT by fhrugby