| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"towelie" |
| Date: |
05 Oct 2006 01:01:54 AM |
| Object: |
Dear Fred Stone |
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal. I assume you
support his pedophilia.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 02:54:41 AM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ad2dnQqYQooaxLnYnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal. I assume you
support his pedophilia.
Wait a minute. Are you really saying that if someone doesn't specifically
make a newsgroup posting denouncing something which is pretty obviously a
bad thing, that they therefore support it?
Fred's said some *really* dumb things lately- I just couldn't respond to him
once he tried to equate the recruiting of radical islamist terror
organizations to the normal conscription process of a nation state at war
like Japan inWWII- but even desperately defending failed positions with
incredibly faulty logic doesn't make someone a defender of every scandal.
And, you know, not to get all technical or sound like *I'm* defending Foley,
but it's a real stretch to say he's a pedophile. The pages he was sexually
harassing were post-pubescent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 03:37:46 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:54:41 -0400, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
<j-Wdnf7Fsur_6bnYnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews.com>:
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ad2dnQqYQooaxLnYnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal. I assume you
support his pedophilia.
Wait a minute. Are you really saying that if someone doesn't specifically
make a newsgroup posting denouncing something which is pretty obviously a
bad thing, that they therefore support it?
Fred's said some *really* dumb things lately- I just couldn't respond to him
once he tried to equate the recruiting of radical islamist terror
organizations to the normal conscription process of a nation state at war
like Japan inWWII- but even desperately defending failed positions with
incredibly faulty logic doesn't make someone a defender of every scandal.
And, you know, not to get all technical or sound like *I'm* defending Foley,
but it's a real stretch to say he's a pedophile. The pages he was sexually
harassing were post-pubescent.
I agree, Foley's a sexual predator, but probably not a pedophile. Fred
HAS been defending him, however.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 05:47:03 PM |
|
|
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:0ev8i2t247d6a8h511gvpqhd1vaa3h72gh@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:54:41 -0400, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
<j-Wdnf7Fsur_6bnYnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews.com>:
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ad2dnQqYQooaxLnYnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal. I assume you
support his pedophilia.
Wait a minute. Are you really saying that if someone doesn't specifically
make a newsgroup posting denouncing something which is pretty obviously a
bad thing, that they therefore support it?
Fred's said some *really* dumb things lately- I just couldn't respond to
him
once he tried to equate the recruiting of radical islamist terror
organizations to the normal conscription process of a nation state at war
like Japan inWWII- but even desperately defending failed positions with
incredibly faulty logic doesn't make someone a defender of every scandal.
And, you know, not to get all technical or sound like *I'm* defending
Foley,
but it's a real stretch to say he's a pedophile. The pages he was sexually
harassing were post-pubescent.
I agree, Foley's a sexual predator, but probably not a pedophile. Fred
HAS been defending him, however.
What? Mad that he's stepping in on your turf? lol. I mean, defending
sexual predators is the work of Democrats.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 07:18:48 PM |
|
|
Fred Liken wrote:
I mean, defending sexual predators is the work
of Democrats.
You just hit the nail right on the head, whether you
meant to or not.
For years & years the Republicans could point to something
like the Studds affair and pretend that it represented a huge
difference between them and the Democrats.
But not any more.
Most Republicans aren't rich. And, contrary to how things
often seem, most aren't retarded. They know things were
better under Clinton than they are now, or were under
Reagan. They can admit (if only to themselves) that the
wealthy & large corporations tend to do better under
Republicans -- at the expense of the little guy. They
understand that their wallet, and the prosperity of their
children, would be better served voting for the Democrats.
....but there was always that "moral highground" they
thought they held.
Foley is the needle that bursts that fantasy bubble.
Yes, there are MAJOR differences between the parties,
but tolerance for someone like Gerry Studds isn't one
of them. Just the opposite. It's one of the few things both
parties have in common.
We did go to war on lies. The poor & middle class have
been hurt for the benefit of the screaming rich. And, the
Republicans were just as eager to tolerate a boy chaser
amongst themselves (going so far as to honor the man
at the Whitehouse).
All the "Bad" they thought the Democrats offered, with
absolutely NONE of the good.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 06:30:31 PM |
|
|
On 5 Oct 2006 12:47:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
<4525449b$0$60391$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:0ev8i2t247d6a8h511gvpqhd1vaa3h72gh@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:54:41 -0400, "Mark Stahl"
<stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
<j-Wdnf7Fsur_6bnYnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews.com>:
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ad2dnQqYQooaxLnYnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal. I assume you
support his pedophilia.
Wait a minute. Are you really saying that if someone doesn't specifically
make a newsgroup posting denouncing something which is pretty obviously a
bad thing, that they therefore support it?
Fred's said some *really* dumb things lately- I just couldn't respond to
him
once he tried to equate the recruiting of radical islamist terror
organizations to the normal conscription process of a nation state at war
like Japan inWWII- but even desperately defending failed positions with
incredibly faulty logic doesn't make someone a defender of every scandal.
And, you know, not to get all technical or sound like *I'm* defending
Foley,
but it's a real stretch to say he's a pedophile. The pages he was sexually
harassing were post-pubescent.
I agree, Foley's a sexual predator, but probably not a pedophile. Fred
HAS been defending him, however.
What? Mad that he's stepping in on your turf? lol. I mean, defending
sexual predators is the work of Democrats.
Now, if you could only find ONE instance of me defending a Democrat
(or, indeed, not condemning one for this sort of thing when it
happens).
Oh, wait. You can't, so STFU, and maybe you should stop trying to
minimize what Foley did.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Fred wants in on Foley's action. |
05 Oct 2006 01:21:10 AM |
|
|
An Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:01:54 -0500, towelie schreibt:
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal. I assume you
support his pedophilia.
Not only does he support it, he wants in on the action.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 04:03:24 AM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal.
Any time you miss his posts, just turn on right-wing AM
radio. You've be able to hear his opinion as it is beamed
into his head.
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 04:21:32 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
towelie wrote:
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal.
Any time you miss his posts, just turn on right-wing AM
radio. You've be able to hear his opinion as it is beamed
into his head.
Touche!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zooropa" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 11:51:43 PM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal. I assume you
support his pedophilia.
He's a Democrat! I saw it on Fox News! /sarcasm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 01:43:33 AM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal. I assume you
support his pedophilia.
I had hoped he would "draw a line" at pedophillia and covering it up to
save your skin - unfortunately there is no crime committed by his
"side" he will not deny, defend or excuse.
None.
I find that really depressing - I don't feel like "gloating" over it.
It diminishes us all as human beings.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 05:45:02 PM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1160012613.334972.320340@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
towelie wrote:
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal. I assume you
support his pedophilia.
I had hoped he would "draw a line" at pedophillia and covering it up to
save your skin - unfortunately there is no crime committed by his
"side" he will not deny, defend or excuse.
None.
The page was too old for it to be pedophilia, but none the less, if the page
was under the age of consent at the time of the sexual IMs, then it would
imperative that he be punished. His actions were already disgraceful and he
should never be elected again, but Republicans tend to handle those things
with votes. Stepping down was the best thing since he does not adhere to
traditionally accepted notions of what is right and wrong interactions
between people, like pages, interns, employees, etc.
But, I know, it's just sex why crucify him, right? I mean, we set the
precedence with Clinton and Stubbs, no? I'm sure you guys can explain to me
why talking is worse than actual sexual contact, and I'd appreciate it.
The hypocrisy here is that your ilk is crucifying him when the Republicans
don't like him either, yet completely are ok if Democrats do it...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
06 Oct 2006 03:16:32 AM |
|
|
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
news:4525441a$0$60351$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1160012613.334972.320340@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
towelie wrote:
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal. I assume you
support his pedophilia.
I had hoped he would "draw a line" at pedophillia and covering it up to
save your skin - unfortunately there is no crime committed by his
"side" he will not deny, defend or excuse.
None.
The page was too old for it to be pedophilia,
The pages were 16 and 17. Legally children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
06 Oct 2006 05:43:13 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eg4hqf$mu1$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
news:4525441a$0$60351$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1160012613.334972.320340@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
towelie wrote:
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal. I assume you
support his pedophilia.
I had hoped he would "draw a line" at pedophillia and covering it up to
save your skin - unfortunately there is no crime committed by his
"side" he will not deny, defend or excuse.
None.
The page was too old for it to be pedophilia,
The pages were 16 and 17. Legally children.
But post-pubescent. Psychologically it's a very different thing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Voracious" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 11:47:02 PM |
|
|
Fred Liken wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1160012613.334972.320340@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
towelie wrote:
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal. I assume you
support his pedophilia.
I had hoped he would "draw a line" at pedophillia and covering it up to
save your skin - unfortunately there is no crime committed by his
"side" he will not deny, defend or excuse.
None.
The page was too old for it to be pedophilia, but none the less, if the page
was under the age of consent at the time of the sexual IMs, then it would
imperative that he be punished. His actions were already disgraceful and he
should never be elected again, but Republicans tend to handle those things
with votes. Stepping down was the best thing since he does not adhere to
traditionally accepted notions of what is right and wrong interactions
between people, like pages, interns, employees, etc.
But, I know, it's just sex why crucify him, right? I mean, we set the
precedence with Clinton and Stubbs, no? I'm sure you guys can explain to me
why talking is worse than actual sexual contact, and I'd appreciate it.
The hypocrisy here is that your ilk is crucifying him when the Republicans
don't like him either, yet completely are ok if Democrats do it...
The hypocrisy is the former Rep's position on a committee to *protect*
children from sexual predators while being one himself.
Voracious
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 07:07:29 PM |
|
|
Fred Liken wrote:
I mean, we set the precedence with Clinton and Stubbs, no?
Oh, please. Your inclusion of Clinton invalidates your point.
The only difference between Clinton and other Presidents --
between Clinton and the congressional leadership that
impeached him at the time -- was the opposition.
A certified Republican operative recorded Monica's admission
to events WITHOUT HER CONSENT and then made them
public.
The three people in the house most closely associated with
the impeachment -- and instrumental in getting it -- were
Hyde, Barr and Gingrich: ALL GUILTY OF ADULTRY WHILE
HOLDING OFFICE.
The backlash forced Newt out of the Speaker's chair, which
prompted his resignation. His replacement never even served
a single day in the role as Speaker before himself resigning
FOR SUPPORTING THE IMPEACHMENT THOUGH HE
HIMSELF WAS GUILTY OF ADULTRY.
Seriosuly. You can't pretend that the current Foley scandal
is ANYTHING like the scam the Republicans pulled on
Clinton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
06 Oct 2006 02:30:38 PM |
|
|
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Seriosuly. You can't pretend that the current Foley scandal is ANYTHING
like the scam the Republicans pulled on Clinton.
Of course he doesn't. Fred's math couldn't be simpler:
Republican + pedophilia = politics as usual
Democrat + consensual affair = impeachable offense
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
08 Oct 2006 11:00:57 PM |
|
|
On 5 Oct 2006 12:07:29 -0700, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Fred Liken wrote:
I mean, we set the precedence with Clinton and Stubbs, no?
Oh, please. Your inclusion of Clinton invalidates your point.
The only difference between Clinton and other Presidents --
between Clinton and the congressional leadership that
impeached him at the time -- was the opposition.
A certified Republican operative recorded Monica's admission
to events WITHOUT HER CONSENT and then made them
public.
The three people in the house most closely associated with
the impeachment -- and instrumental in getting it -- were
Hyde, Barr and Gingrich: ALL GUILTY OF ADULTRY WHILE
HOLDING OFFICE.
The backlash forced Newt out of the Speaker's chair, which
prompted his resignation. His replacement never even served
a single day in the role as Speaker before himself resigning
FOR SUPPORTING THE IMPEACHMENT THOUGH HE
HIMSELF WAS GUILTY OF ADULTRY.
Seriosuly. You can't pretend that the current Foley scandal
is ANYTHING like the scam the Republicans pulled on
Clinton.
Likken's kind will pretend anything. It's quite pathetic.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Auntie Lib" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 06:47:42 PM |
|
|
Fred Liken wrote:
The page was too old for it to be pedophilia, but none the less, if the page
was under the age of consent at the time of the sexual IMs, then it would
imperative that he be punished.
According to the law that Foley helped sponsor (The Adam Walsh Child
Protection Act of 2006) a "minor" is anyone under the age of 18. So,
yep. He broke the law.
But, I know, it's just sex why crucify him, right? I mean, we set the
precedence with Clinton and Stubbs, no?
Even bleeding-heart liberals such as myself think asking anyone but
Foley to resign over this is going too far. Maybe it's my cynicism
(and the fact that I'm a woman in a man's world) but, yeah, it's just
sex. Those who knew what was going on but didn't do anything don't
think they did anything wrong because it's just part of the Old Boys
Network. It's what they do. They ogle the pretty female interns and
make lewd suggestions and pinch fannies and maybe try to coerce their
secretaries (or underlings) into having sex with them and generally
abuse the hell out of whatever power they possess. It's pathetic and
sad in grown men (and some women) but it's the way it's always been.
I'm sure you guys can explain to me why talking is worse than actual sexual contact,
and I'd appreciate it.
Because, if left unreported, it would've gone from just IM's to trying
to get some young page or other to actually remove his boxers and take
care of Mark's woody for him. It's what happens. The "talking" is
never enough. (Especially for someone in the closet who can't go about
openly trying to find a partner.) And it's "worse" because Foley was
soliciting 14-, 15- and 16-year-olds. Minors, according to the law he
wrote. Sex with a 22-year-old who can give informed consent is not
equivalent.
The hypocrisy here is that your ilk is crucifying him when the Republicans
don't like him either, yet completely are ok if Democrats do it...
It's not completely ok when Democrats do it. No one ever said it was.
And the *real* hypocrisy, which you seem to have missed, is that
Republicans have set themselves up as arbiters of morality for the
entire country. They've supposedly got a direct line to "God" and
those of us who disagree with anything they propose are going straight
to hell. Mark Foley put himself front and center (or right behind
Dubya's shoulder) while Bush signed a law which Foley then proceeded to
break. Spectacularly.
Even if you don't agree that what Foley did was so bad, it's such a
delicious irony.
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"I was born with a skeptical mind. Now I ask you, is that fair?
If God gives me a skeptical nature and you an accepting one, then
you're going to be a believer and I'm not. If belief is a ticket to
eternal happiness, I'm definitely handicapped. God gives me a mind
capable of asking questions and what? I'm damned if I use it?"
F. Paul Wilson "The Haunted Air"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
06 Oct 2006 03:56:16 AM |
|
|
"Auntie Lib" <wallenbrock@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1160074062.748609.164970@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
And the *real* hypocrisy, which you seem to have missed, is that
Republicans have set themselves up as arbiters of morality for the
entire country. They've supposedly got a direct line to "God" and
those of us who disagree with anything they propose are going straight
to hell.
And that to me is the crux of the matter when it comes to Republican sex
scandals (as opposed to Democratic ones), be they legal, illegal,
consensual, non-consensual, straight, gay, adult or pedophilic.
The Republicans proclaimed themselves the Party of Morality, dictating to
the rest of us what moral behavior should be. Thus anytime a Republican
individual falls short of the high moral standards the Republican Party
demands of the rest of us, he is guilty of hypocrisy and is fair game for
skewering.
The Democrats make no such claim, so I am far more forgiving of their
foibles, ceteris paribus, as long as nobody is harmed by them or no law is
broken.
Double standard? Not at all. I have exceedingly low tolerance for hypocrisy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
08 Oct 2006 11:00:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:56:16 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"Auntie Lib" <wallenbrock@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1160074062.748609.164970@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
And the *real* hypocrisy, which you seem to have missed, is that
Republicans have set themselves up as arbiters of morality for the
entire country. They've supposedly got a direct line to "God" and
those of us who disagree with anything they propose are going straight
to hell.
And that to me is the crux of the matter when it comes to Republican sex
scandals (as opposed to Democratic ones), be they legal, illegal,
consensual, non-consensual, straight, gay, adult or pedophilic.
The Republicans proclaimed themselves the Party of Morality, dictating to
the rest of us what moral behavior should be. Thus anytime a Republican
individual falls short of the high moral standards the Republican Party
demands of the rest of us, he is guilty of hypocrisy and is fair game for
skewering.
Exactly.
The Democrats make no such claim, so I am far more forgiving of their
foibles, ceteris paribus, as long as nobody is harmed by them or no law is
broken.
Double standard? Not at all. I have exceedingly low tolerance for hypocrisy.
Ditto.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
06 Oct 2006 12:02:42 AM |
|
|
Auntie Lib wrote:
Fred Liken wrote:
The page was too old for it to be pedophilia, but none the less, if the page
was under the age of consent at the time of the sexual IMs, then it would
imperative that he be punished.
According to the law that Foley helped sponsor (The Adam Walsh Child
Protection Act of 2006) a "minor" is anyone under the age of 18. So,
yep. He broke the law.
Just slightly offtopic: In several countries exist so-called "Child
Protection Acts". Yet I just don't see the necessity for such a law.
There already exist laws against assault coercion extortion etc. Why is
there so much support for an apparently unnecessary law? It seems quite
irrational to me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Auntie Lib" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Fred Stone |
05 Oct 2006 07:15:46 PM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
You've been awfully quiet about the Mark Foley scandal. I assume you
support his pedophilia.
Your assumption would most likely be wrong.
This post is a bit extreme, dontcha think? There are loads of people
who haven't responded to the scandal. Does that mean they ALL support
pedophilia? There are so many fallacies in your two lines that the EAC
is gonna have to put 'em in a book entitled: "Tactics The Enemy Uses
And How To Avoid Them."
Fred might be going to absurd lengths to toe the Party Line, as well as
demonizing every single person who disagrees with him as a Loony
Liberal Leftie, but that's the worst that can be said about him.
This thread is just nasty.
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"I was born with a skeptical mind. Now I ask you, is that fair?
If God gives me a skeptical nature and you an accepting one, then
you're going to be a believer and I'm not. If belief is a ticket to
eternal happiness, I'm definitely handicapped. God gives me a mind
capable of asking questions and what? I'm damned if I use it?"
F. Paul Wilson "The Haunted Air"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
