Foley's follies

Don't forget about their support for the killing of children, as evidenced by the lack of concern for gun control laws in the face of 3 school shootings in the past week.

 

Way to judge a whole party by the actions of three to four people at most. It's rediculous at best.

I'm also not aware of any national movement by Democrats to make this better either, so maybe I should assume that Democrats are willing accomplices of raping children? They did nothing to stop it, so they supported it.

Don't make such stupid statements.

Here in Florida, Charlie Crist, as attorney general, has done more to make my children safe than any Democrat (or any other politician for that matter) anywhere in the country. In a recent study Florida was the ONLY state to earn an A for the measures they have taken to protect children. This is the direct result of Republican measures. Florida has the strictest laws for preventing child predators from harming children. They were pushed through opposition faster only becuase of the Lundy and Brucia cases that were so big in the media.

What?!? Opposition to protecting children? Who could oppose that?

Do you know what Democrats did? They (not all, for many have some sense) argued against the bills on child predators, as they were concerned about the molesters rights. Using your thinking, I could infer that Republicans wanted to protect children and Democrats wanted to protect child rapists. Of course that would be stupid. What the opposition really was was an issue of denying basic civil liberties, which everyone is entitled to. But I could easily twist it using your brand of thinking and make it sound just as bad as your topic title.

Use your brain before posting this rediculous political rhetoric. It is because of your type of thinking that the political system is what it is. To use an old cliche, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Oct 3 2006, 05:34 AM) [snapback]327213[/snapback]</div>

I agree 100%

 

Well, looks like democrats actually rape children.

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds)

Gerry Studds

Regards,
Lev (libertarian)

 

:lol:

Awesome thread title though!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 2 2006, 09:35 PM) [snapback]327174[/snapback]</div>

And of course BOTH parties actively and vigorously support and even demand the killing of children every time they vote to go to war. I don't believe we've had a war in modern times that was not supported by both parties. Of course they say they don't want children to be killed, and they pretent that children are not being targeted. They say that the deaths of children are unintended and "inevitable."

But if the deaths of children in war are inevitable, then when you vote for war you know your vote will cause children to be killed. You are saying that the political goals of the war are worth killing children over.

Here's one where the two parties are peas in a pod: identical and equally evil. One party says it's better because it will rape the environment 5% less than the other. And it says it's better because it wants women to have 50% of the rights of men, as opposed to the 45% the other party would give them. The other party claims it's better because it would spend 5% more on defense than its opponent and because it would put 5% less constraint on the economic freedom of business than the other party would.

Do you really support a party because they advocate killing 95 children for every 100 the other party wants to kill? Both parties are evil, and both are composed of ruthless people who will stop at nothing to attain personal political power and wealth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 3 2006, 10:46 AM) [snapback]327316[/snapback]</div>

I have been against the Iraq war from the beginning, but not the hunt for OBL. Are you against all military action, period?

 

And the Dems are ok with Abortion, thats killing children too.... Isn't it? I mean its a human fetus its alive inside its mother. The mother has the right to kill (abort) it if she doesn't want it right? :huh:

sorry glanced off topic there,

I look at the extreme topics, and already know the starter is one of those Far out in Left field extremists..

Other wise known as a EXTREMIST BAITED TOPIC. <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Oct 3 2006, 02:34 AM) [snapback]327213[/snapback]</div>

But on another post the Doctor stated how uncouth it was to make personal attacks, exactly like this one.

Not just stupid but, as he writes, "rediculous." [sic]

He and his joined-at-the-hip sidekick "100% Agree PriusGuy" are making the rounds today telling us how guns are good and that the Democrats are at the bottom of every Republican scandal. Busy bees!

What's in the Florida water? Look at the stuff that comes out of there.

Ann Coulter could use you guys for research. (If you'd chip in for a spell-checker. PriusGuy has a full holster of emoticons, though. Makes up for a lot of reasoned writing.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lev @ Oct 3 2006, 05:39 AM) [snapback]327237[/snapback]</div>

Looks to me like there's plenty to go around:

On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages. In Crane's case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds's case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page. Both representatives immediately pleaded guilty to the charges and the committee decided to simply reprimand the two.

I wasn't aware, however that anyone in the current case was accused of child rape.

 

A blob of cancer tissue in my body is still alive and I have no problem cutting it out.

Unfortunately classifying a fetus as a child is something that is a religious / philosophical decision that is personal.

Oh, and get it straight: Dems support a mothers right to choose.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Oct 3 2006, 12:18 PM) [snapback]327330[/snapback]</div>

 

Really! I seem to remember Barney Frank and Gary Studs getting into similar trouble back in the 80's. They didn't have the decency to resign. At least when the GOP pulls this stuff they step down.

 

At least none of them have eaten a baby...

This is perhaps the second dumbest posting ever, if you are wondering about the first, just keep posting I am sure you will get there...

The Democrats lost the election twice, now quite your crying...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pault842 @ Oct 3 2006, 10:23 AM) [snapback]327368[/snapback]</div>

a. Barney Franks had a consensual relationship with an adult. The scandal was who/what that person turned out to be.
b. WRT Studds, have you read what's already been posted?
c. Do you honestly believe that either party has a franchise on decent behavior?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 2 2006, 04:47 PM) [snapback]327146[/snapback]</div>

I think it can be fairly stated that you did nothing yesterday that would put an end to all child rape. By your inaction, I also assume that you too are in favor of it.

There we have it folks, MarinJohn is a child rapist.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Oct 3 2006, 11:45 AM) [snapback]327351[/snapback]</div>

Counterpoints:

1) A blob of cancer tissue didn't come into being as a result of two people procreating. Cancer happens when your cells reproduce without control. This one is comparing apples to oranges.

2) It is interesting that people talk about a "fetus" when they don't want to defend it, as is the case when a pregnant woman wants to have an abortion. However, when there is a story in the news about Scott Peterson or someone hitting a pregnant woman in the belly with a bat, and the "fetus" dies, then it's murder! So, there is clearly a double standard at work here. No one would care if someone hit my tumor with a bat, now would they?

You are correct in saying that the issue is personal because that is what the current US law allows. It is only this way because the law has turned a blind eye to the truth.

3) Sure, supporting the right to "choose" is a noble pursuit and that is always the headline. But I don't know how anyone can support aborting a baby right until it is viable - abortions are performed into the third trimester. Yet, these little babies can survive even at that age:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2004/08/19/preemie040819.html

Again, a double standard. The real support is for being able to choose death for the child and avoiding responsibility for the mother.

 

How the abortion debate comes into play with this issue escapes me, so I'm going to try and get back on subject.

First, neither the Republicans or Democrats have a lock or monopoly on proper conduct, or improper for that matter. However when one group or individual tries to claim that they have the exclusive ties on proper behaviour and violate that standard, the fallout becomes much harder. And again, there is evidence from both sides of the political asile, take the Gary Hart fiasco from 1988 (Monkey Business), and now the current scandal.

What I do fine alarming with this situation however is the allegations that other people in his party knew about it for up to a year and did nothing. During the Watergate era the question was "What did he know and when did he know it", well, now we have Master-gate,and I think the same question applies. Thefact that there are many Republicans being quite vocal wanting answers.