Text 3021, 142 rader
Skriven 2006-10-29 10:56:52 av Tim Richardson (1:123/789.0)
   Kommentar till text 3008 av Dan Ceppa (1:138/666.0)
Ärende: Foley, et al
====================
Dan Ceppa -> Tim Richardson wrote:

 TR>> was all this `moral outrage' of yours then?


 DC>> You probably never asked.


 TR>> I shouldn't have `had' to "ask". The point is (as you certainly
 TR>> know), you had no `moral outrage' then.....and your trumped-up
 TR>> `moral outrage' in Foley's case is rather hollow.



 DC> There is a large difference between what Cliton did and what Foley
 DC> did.  Or, haven't you noticed that?


There is every `bit' a large familiarity between what Stubbs (or
Studds, whatever his name was) did. Or, haven't you noticed? Except for
the fact that Foley has only so far been shown to have sent e-mails;
the democrat actually butt-fucked a page. Or hadn't you noticed?


 TR>> Clinton was the president of the United States....the Chief
 DC> Executive  TR> of America. However hard Lewinski "persued
 DC> Clinton"...it was Clinton's  TR> responsibility to do the proper
 DC> thing and not engage in  TR> reprehensible behavior right in the Oval
 DC> Office. He failed.


 DC> Had Lewinski been under aged or had been promised advancement in
 DC> her career I would agree.


The `age' of consent in Washington DC is `16'. The minimum age for a
Congressional Page is `16'.


 DC>> Yet, you make the claim that I defended him, didn't you.


 TR>> I made no such claim. Reading comprehension is a large problem
 DC> for  TR> you, isn't it?


 DC> Now, it's your problem.  You are the one claiming that I didn't
 DC> express outrage.


That wasn't `a claim'; I `pointed that out'! And it pissed you right
off.


 DC>> Of course not.  The incident is some 20 years old.  Get over it.


Interesting; You people toss out Nixon on a regular basis...and `he'
was thirty or more years ago. But when your own tactic of dredging up
old stuff is thrown right back at you.....suddenly its `oh...well!
`That' was twenty years ago!'


 DC>> The hypocrites are the leaders of the republican party.  They
 DC>> knew of Foley's indiscretions as much as 5 years ago and did
 DC>> nothing about it.  Hell, the assholes allowed him direct contact
 DC>> with the page group.


 TR>> You try again: The democrat pervert went so far as to butt fuck a
 TR>> Congressional Page........and bragged about it on-camera!


 DC> Yeah, some 20 years ago.  Stop living in the past.


By this criteria of `yours'.....I fully expect that neither you nor any
of your `friends' will ever again toss Nixon's name into an argument.
(yeah.......right!)


 TR>> So far.....all your lynch mob has been able to come up with on
 DC> Foley  TR> is a few disgusting e-mails, and hear-say accusations
 DC> about Foley maybe `cruisin' the Page dorm.


 DC> Too bad the 'hearsay' is from the page directly involved in the
 DC> incident.


Again: The age `16 years old' is the `age of consent' in Washington DC.


If Foley `did' anything illegal........cough it up and lets see him get
prosecuted for it. Its no more illegal to `cruise' the Page dorm than
it is to `cruise' bars. Did they pass a law against it? I didn't hear
about it; did you?


 DC>> All this from the Republicans that claims Family Values and
 DC>> a higher morality than the Pope.


 TR>> The democrac who butt-fucked a Congressional Page and bragged
 DC> about it on-camera, belongs to the party that tries to claim the
 DC> moral high ground, but continually falls into the gutter on its
 DC> face.


 DC> I didn't know he was a Republican.


He wasn't. He was a democrat.....and he was also from the same state as
John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.


 DC>> Like the Republican leadership, you are bitching about a
 DC>> 20 year old incident that was never discussed by you let
 DC>> alone me.


 TR>> I wasn't bitching about `anything' until you and your friends
 DC> started spouting off about Foley..as though the fuckin'
 DC> democrats `never' do anything as low as that.


 DC> So, in defense, you drag up a case that's 20 years old and try to
 DC> justify Foley's actions.


I wasn't `defending' nor trying to "justify" anything Foley did. If he
did anything illegal I want him prosecuted. You're just pissed off
because I dared to speak up to you, instead of letting you steamroller
all over the republicans with a lot of mis-information, half-baked
assumptions, wild-assed charges, and little or no hard evidence. But
then....thats a regular condition with your group, isn't it? You're so
fuckin' pissed off that your boy Clinton got impeached you just spew
bullshit in all directions hoping against hope that some of it hits
republicans.

--- XanaNews/1.18.1.3
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)