Text 2941, 144 rader
Skriven 2006-10-23 19:11:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av DAN CEPPA
Ärende: Enron crook gets off
============================
On 10-23-06, DAN CEPPA said to TIM RICHARDSON:


-> On 22 Oct 06  08:07:00, TIM RICHARDSON got back to DAN CEPPA
-> Re: Enron crook gets off


TR> But....."until Cheney's visitor list is released"......and it *proves*
TR> anything at all.....its still "....reputed to be.....", but there is
TR> no evidence to back up that wild-assed assumption.


DC>If there was nothing there out of the ordinary there wouldn't be any
DC>reason have the list subpoenaed, would there.


I don't `know' that..........and neither do *you*. Thats like saying someone
`must' be guilty of `something'...or they wouldn't be in court!


DC>That should happen this week.


Let it.


TR> Maybe.........and the next hurdle you have is that it proves anything.


DC>Care to bet that the list submitted is heavily redacted?


You are scarin' up a lynch mob over something *you* know little or nothing
about.


*You* would have no way of knowing what was or wasn't "heavily
redacted"....unless you had actual knowledge of what was in the original
material to begin with. Which you `don't'.


So.....right now all you're doing is waving your rope and trying to get the
mob worked up to a `lynch' fever.


Rather ridiculous, actually. And you recently thought to compare yourself to
Jesus! Lots o' luck.



You know.......it wasn't all that long ago that you were one of several people
who were cussin' me out, posting up far-ranging insults and put-downs at me
over the *homosexual* issue.


You were one of the more `vocal' opponents on the subject. But....the roles
were reversed.


I was against extending `special rights' to homosexuals.......based on the
fact of their `homosexuality'.


And *you* and several other people (at least two of whom are regular posters
in this echo) were loud and vicious in your protestations, the homosexuals
were just `people'.........and they just had a right to `their' sexual
preferences......and they just wanted school kids to know about the
`alternate' life style....and wasn't I just a low-ball SOB for protesting that
such stuff didn't belong in `schools'! And `how dare I' ...yadida yadida!


Now.......lets look at something interesting:


Some democrat fuck-head didn't just send Congressional Pages
`messages'......he butt-fucked one! And not only didn't he or the Speaker of
the House at that time (`Tip' O'Neal?) resign........but he deliberately and
insultingly `turned his back' on the podium and refused to listen to the
censure that was handed down to him!


Not only that........the son-of-a-bitch was `re'elected by his district
several times thereafter. Of course.....this was from the state of
Massachusetts, the place where pretty much anything a democrat politician does
gets a pass.


Fast forward to 2006, and Mark Foley.


So far.......it hasn't been proven positively that Foley even had sexual
relations with any Pages.


Not only that........in DC, the age of consent is 16! So......if Foley was
trying to `pick up' on Pages in DC......he wasn't doing anything illegal.


Disgusting? Yes. Acceptable? Not in a public official, and certainly not a
Congressman.


Foley resigned over this. Good. I'm glad he did........and if it turns out
that he brooke any laws I want to see him face the music. And I think that,
without stepping on anyone's rights to privacy and freedom of association with
whomever they choose.......there should be a little closer monitoring and
oversight of the Congressional Page program.


Not only that......you've come out in full attack mode on this, and I have not
said one single word of support for Foley, unless it was to advise waiting
till all the facts are out, and we see whats what.


But......I want to point out to you that you and your `friends' have abandoned
your position of support for homosexuals. Since the age of consent in DC is
16, Foley didn't really do anything more terrible than an older man trying to
pick up on 18 year old girls, in a jursidiction where the age of consent for
girls is 18.


Nobody would say a word about a man Foley's age trying to pick up on 18
year old girls if the age of consent was 18 where it took place. Wouldn't
think a thing about it, in fact.


Oh but wait! Foley's not a *democrat*..he's a republican! Yeah.....thats
right! So........out the window goes the `tolerance of homosexuality', and
`they have the right to *their* sexual preferences.........yadida yadida, and
its just time to `get a rope'! Because you got a `republican' in your sights!


If your hypocracy was any `louder' you'd go deaf!


"Rocky desert, according to a geology professor I contacted.".......Sauer





---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)