Florida Congressman sends dirty email to teens

[Flash Walken]

That other pages gossiped about foley doesn't mean that other members of congress knew.

The young man said that while serving as a page, he and his fellow pages gossiped frequently about Foley's overly friendly behavior but did not complain about him to program supervisors or other members of Congress. They nicknamed him "Triple F," for "Florida Fag Foley."

[Displaced Flames fan]

Lanny,

You said the article you posted established prior knowledge. Then you act incredulous when I question where but promptly reply with "Taken from another article"??? Are you losing your mind?

As for the second part, I said it has been suggested. Of course it was suggested by the GOP leadership. That doesn't make it true or false, it will all come out in the investigation. Do you honestly believe your beloved Pelosites are incapable of that kind of immoral behavior?

You shouldn't be because this isn't the first time a Congressman has had inappropriate contact with house pages. In fact, the prior time it was a democrat, he had sex with the page and was barely slapped on the wrist.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Lanny,

You said the article you posted established prior knowledge. Then you act incredulous when I question where but promptly reply with "Taken from another article"??? Are you losing your mind?

Sorry, I thought it was very clear from the first article. I was surprised that you couldn't see the link. You thought it wasn't so clear so I followed up with another article to support the claim. My bad. I really wonder what the hell people want in these discussions?

As for the second part, I said it has been suggested. Of course it was suggested by the GOP leadership. That doesn't make it true or false, it will all come out in the investigation. Do you honestly believe your beloved Pelosites are incapable of that kind of immoral behavior?

My beloved Pelosites? Wow, are you barking up the wrong tree. I hold both parties in contempt, than you very much. What I take most offense to is the fact that the Republicans are doing their best to spin this and hang it on the Democrats as it being their fault. They should NOT be circling the wagons and trying to deflect the criticsm onto the Democrats, they should be circling Foley and ripping him to pieces. This is another fine example of the corruption of American politics IMO. They (both parties) encourage this behavior by not crucifying this guy the way he should be. This isn't a matter of the President getting head in the Oval Office (a long standing tradition), this is about pedophilia.

You shouldn't be because this isn't the first time a Congressman has had inappropriate contact with house pages. In fact, the prior time it was a democrat, he had sex with the page and was barely slapped on the wrist.

Who was that, because I'm pretty certain there have been a lot more incidents involving the Republicans lately. That is really here nor there. I have no problem with a guy ****ing a page and people looking the other way, as long as it is legal and concentual. Where I have a problem is wherea guy is PEDOPHILE and people look the other way. This is a felony crime Dis. How can anyone justify this?

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

That other pages gossiped about foley doesn't mean that other members of congress knew.

Uh huh, because pages and congressmen never talk.

Foley is screwed and the criminal investigation is going to bring down a few more high ranking congressmen, possibly on both sides of the aisle. Any Republican with skeletons in their closet would be best served with taking a very long vacation. Sex crimes investigators are the best and most tenatious that law enforcement has to offer. There's going to be some crawling around orifices with flashlights for quite a few of these guys. Mind you, some of these scumbags might just like that!

[Displaced Flames fan]

I don't know Lanny, I certainly don't justify it.

There was only one link in your post so I have no idea what you think I missed. You jumped all over me so I was simply defending myself.

Gerry Studds (D) MA

In 1983 he had sex with an UNDERAGE male page. Consentual or not I find the distinction that Foley's acts are pedophilia while his are not because the actual sex was consentual to be a little bit off.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Uh huh, because pages and congressmen never talk.

I agree with you that 'they' knew, I was just pointing out that that link doesn't support your argument.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15129898/
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/oct...-knew-e-mails/
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=52580
http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/article...328023&sid=WOR

those links support what you're saying.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I don't know Lanny, I certainly don't justify it.

There was only one link in your post so I have no idea what you think I missed. You jumped all over me so I was simply defending myself.

Gerry Studds (D) MA

In 1983 he had sex with an UNDERAGE male page. Consentual or not I find the distinction that Foley's acts are pedophilia while his are not because the actual sex was consentual to be a little bit off.

Wow there big fella. I didn't know what case you were refering to. Having to go back to 1983 to find a simlar case? Oh my, I presented half a dozen that have happened to the Republicans and their mouthpieces in just the past three years. I think ANYONE should be taken out and flogged for these actions, regardless of political affiliation.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Wow there big fella. I didn't know what case you were refering to. Having to go back to 1983 to find a simlar case? Oh my, I presented half a dozen that have happened to the Republicans and their mouthpieces in just the past three years. I think ANYONE should be taken out and flogged for these actions, regardless of political affiliation.

Me too. The fact that Studds got off easy and served for 13 more years should have zero bearing on what happens/happened to Foley. Good freaking riddance to that POS. However, it does show some hypocrasy by the dems. I'm sure the same would be happening if the roles were reversed. A Republican Congressman, Dan Crane, also had an incident in the 80's.

You presented a half a dozen cases of predatory behavior by GOP members of Congress in the last 3 years? Can you point me to that post?

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Are you for real?

What in the hell are you talking about?

LMAO. I didn't say anything you siad I did. You might want to read the post again carefully because clearly you missed it.

I think it was established to further discuss this you need to define rapture as you attribute it to 20% of Americans. I need to know exactly what you mean.

I think he means he is a dweeb and this bozo couldn't understand my english? I wonder if the local loonie bin has had any escapees lately?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I think he means he is a dweeb and this bozo couldn't understand my english? I wonder if the local loonie bin has had any escapees lately?

What a great addition to this thread.

[Calgaryborn]

[quote=Lanny_MacDonald;583529]
Uh huh. Pat Robertson is such a great spokesmen for your "tolerant" religion. Gotta love it when a religion's leaders are complete chaletons and scumbags like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker and his whore Tammy Faye, Oral Roberts, Peter Popoff, Robert Tilton, Benny Hinn, and Jim Whittington.
[/ quote]

I'm familiar with most of those names and the ones I recognize are all Assemblies of God. They make a lot of noise just like your reverend Jackson and Shrapnel(sp) but who do they represent? I know this might be hard for a catholic boy to understand but, Fundamental Christians don't recognize a Pope. We do our thinking for ourselves based upon a book we hold as sacred and given by God.

The largest evangelical denomination in the states is Southern Baptist. Along side this denomination are a score of smaller Baptist denomination like the American Baptist and the Northwest ect. I am a member of an independent Baptist church which numbers would probably exceed most evangelical denominations in the states if they were counted. Because each church is independent there is no way of knowing how many exist.
None of those people you listed would have any influence over this large voting block. Most if not all of them wouldn't be allowed to speak in a church service. Jimmy Carter teaches Adult Sunday school in a Southern Baptist church; Clinton is Southern Baptist; Jesse Jackson is Baptist as well. That being said I doubt that most Baptists voted for the Democrats last election. Why? Because they don't represent them. The leadership in the Democrat's party seem to embrace religion as long as it doesn't influence your life beyond Sunday morning. You can believe that a unborn child is a human life worthy of protection under the law on Sunday morning but you better fall into the party line when you vote or are elected to public office. You can can believe that God designed the family to consist of a man and a women and whatever offspring that union produces but if your a Democrat you better bite your tongue as the special position that institution has had in society is abolished. Why would any free thinking individual want to embrace a party like that?

Better talk with Dumbya about that, Sparky. Seems he has no fear of bring about the Rapture.

How would the Presidents actions bring upon the Rapture? America has no significant role in the events recorded in Revelations and Daniel.

Uh huh. And who is circling the wagons to support this Cho-Mo and the Republican party? You're Born Again *******s, that's who. Say, care to comment on the following:

84% Christian Coalition support for Foley

http://ontheissues.org/FL/Mark_Foley.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/FL/Mark_Fo...+_Children.htm

Continued Republican support from the Christian media in the wake of the Foley scandal

http://news.christiansunite.com/Reli...shtml?from=rss
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/973281157.html

Republican biased and Christian based Washington Times saw one of their directors hammered for soliciting a 13 year old.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0906/364718.html

Republican Christian Coalition leader busted for sexual assault on minors.

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/Lou_Beres.htm

Republican judge busted for fondling a 10 year old!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A9629C8B63

Republican leader busted for having sex with a five year old boy!

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/Bobby_Stumbo.htm

Face it pal, you're so in over your head it isn't even funny. You continue to flog that garbage you like to call a religion like it is a shield against anything. You liike to call people arrogant and hateful, yet you don't bother to read what you write. Your posts speak of more hate and arrogance than any on the board. Keep up the good work, you're crucify yourself with each post.

First of all the support for the republican party isn't going to dry up because there are some scandals. Christians have the same low view of politicians as non- Christians. Christians actually have a lower view of human nature than secular society. If their Senator or Congressman isn't implicated in one of these scandals and still appears to vote on the right side of moral issues i am sure he will retain their votes.

Secondly many of those sites are political sites that try to solicit Christian votes for their Party. What they say doesn't represent what a Christian might think or vote.

Thirdly, It is you who have failed to show how a belief in the eminent return of Jesus Christ has caused war or is a threat to the world. In fact you haven't even shown that to be a belief that the President embraces. He is Methodist I believe.

Lastly, the rapture isn't followed immediately by Jesus' final judgment. There is a seven year period followed by a Millennium and a final short battle before the Judgment. Also Christians are not active participants in any battle prophesied to take place. If God is God he has no need for us to fight his battles.

[Flame On]

You can believe that a unborn child is a human life worthy of protection under the law on Sunday morning but you better fall into the party line when you vote or are elected to public office. You can can believe that God designed the family to consist of a man and a women and whatever offspring that union produces but if your a Democrat you better bite your tongue as the special position that institution has had in society is abolished. Why would any free thinking individual want to embrace a party like that?

Calgaryborn I guess believing in peace and forgiveness is alright for Republicans at church but you better follow party line the rest of the week and start unfounded wars and kill thousands of innocent civillians around the other side of the world.
I guess sentiment like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", i.e. the golden rule, doesn't apply after sunday when the republican President seeks to be able to personally interperet the Geneva articles, purely so he can allow toture.
I guess your candidates belief in preachings about helping the poor, and those less fortunate; you know the one about the meak shall inherit the earth, just as long as you get back in line on monday for the tax cuts to the wealthy. Which helps widen the gap between the haves and have nots.
Your hypocricy makes me sick! And for the record I don't believe anything that is "unborn" is a child and your religious belief in that, should have nothing to do with government policy IMO.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Calgaryborn I guess believing in peace and forgiveness is alright for Republicans at church but you better follow party line the rest of the week and start unfounded wars and kill thousands of innocent civillians around the other side of the world.
I guess sentiment like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", i.e. the golden rule, doesn't apply after Sunday when the republican President seeks to be able to personally interpret the Geneva articles, purely so he can allow toture.
I guess your candidates belief in preachings about helping the poor, and those less fortunate; you know the one about the meak shall inherit the earth, just as long as you get back in line on monday for the tax cuts to the wealthy. Which helps widen the gap between the haves and have nots.
Your hypocricy makes me sick! And for the record I don't believe anything that is "unborn" is a child and your religious belief in that, should have nothing to do with government policy IMO.

And that is the point. You and the democrats as a party have contempt for the positions of fundamental Christians. You hold scriptures as no authority in your life but try to interpret them for fundamental Christians. Such arrogance.

You don't believe that a unborn child is a human so therefore those who do are obviously wrong and need to change their opinion.
If you believed that an unborn child was a human being you would recognize that America yearly kills far more of its own citizen than its wars ever had.

But back to the point: Why would a fundamental Christian want to embrace a party who holds their beliefs in such high contempt? If the Republicans fail to always act with Christian morality at least they aren't openly hostile to Christian values when they are presented.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

My favourite part of the Bible is where it says "an unborn fetus is a child." I also like the part where it says "gay marriage is bad." I can't remember which part that is--maybe you can help me out, Calgaryborn?

All of this seems to be somewhat beside the point. This thread, like a number of others, has degenerated into a discussion of U.S. politics, which is a bit more complicated than people are giving it credit for being. But if you want to see "arrogance," then I'd point you to someone who pretends to have access to true knowledge of the divine will. A Fundamentalist is someone who has forgotten about the one constant rule in religious and philosophical thinking: that humans are imperfect--and that this imperfection extends to our understanding of the nature of the cosmos and of God.

The point is: no-one is telling you how to interpret scripture, or how it should be important in your life. I guarantee you don't follow every part of the scripture: my guess is that you eat pork, and don't mind sharing a tent with a woman who's menstruating. But more importantly, just because you read a certain book doesn't make you a more moral individual than anyone else. Morality comes from an exploration and an acceptance of your inner self, and from empathy for fellow human beings. It pretty much never comes from intolerance and hatred, which are the most morally empty philosophies that you can get. If you think "God hates X" is a true interpretation of Christian theology--or if you believe in a religious practice that includes hatred of others--then I'm sorry to say that you've been duped, because that's not Christianity at all.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

My favourite part of the Bible is where it says "an unborn fetus is a child." I also like the part where it says "gay marriage is bad." I can't remember which part that is--maybe you can help me out, Calgaryborn?

All of this seems to be somewhat beside the point. This thread, like a number of others, has degenerated into a discussion of U.S. politics, which is a bit more complicated than people are giving it credit for being. But if you want to see "arrogance," then I'd point you to someone who pretends to have access to true knowledge of the divine will. A Fundamentalist is someone who has forgotten about the one constant rule in religious and philosophical thinking: that humans are imperfect--and that this imperfection extends to our understanding of the nature of the cosmos and of God.

The point is: no-one is telling you how to interpret scripture, or how it should be important in your life. I guarantee you don't follow every part of the scripture: my guess is that you eat pork, and don't mind sharing a tent with a woman who's menstruating. But more importantly, just because you read a certain book doesn't make you a more moral individual than anyone else. Morality comes from an exploration and an acceptance of your inner self, and from empathy for fellow human beings. It pretty much never comes from intolerance and hatred, which are the most morally empty philosophies that you can get. If you think "God hates X" is a true interpretation of Christian theology--or if you believe in a religious practice that includes hatred of others--then I'm sorry to say that you've been duped, because that's not Christianity at all.

Good post IFF. Believe in what you will...if you don't like what someone else thinks fine....but respect their beliefs as long as it don't involve hatred.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And that is the point. You and the democrats as a party have contempt for the positions of fundamental Christians. You hold scriptures as no authority in your life but try to interpret them for fundamental Christians. Such arrogance.

You don't believe that a unborn child is a human so therefore those who do are obviously wrong and need to change their opinion.
If you believed that an unborn child was a human being you would recognize that America yearly kills far more of its own citizen than its wars ever had.

But back to the point: Why would a fundamental Christian want to embrace a party who holds their beliefs in such high contempt? If the Republicans fail to always act with Christian morality at least they aren't openly hostile to Christian values when they are presented.

I was going to say that you expertly dodged many of my points. But then it wasn't expert, it was blatant and conspicuously missing.
I guess I need to outright as a question.
Why Calgaryborn do you not follow the democrats because of conflicts with Christianity over the conflicts within christianity within the Republican party which you seem to forgive (no pun intended)?
I put it that it's because the republican's are better at campaining and you're following them exactly how they want you to.
Again, you and the political party you follow are no less arrogant then the rest.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But back to the point: Why would a fundamental Christian want to embrace a party who holds their beliefs in such high contempt? If the Republicans fail to always act with Christian morality at least they aren't openly hostile to Christian values when they are presented.

I thought values of being pro-social programs and helping out the less fortunate vs. Tax cuts, was a more christian value? - Yes, that is a bit of a generalization, but true for the most part.

Or maybe you are talking about democrats being more pro-gay marriage? Or did you forget that part in the bible where it talks about tolerence?

You talk about pro-life and pro-choice, but what exactly have the republicans done apart from pay a bit of lip service to the movement? They've done nothing for the most part. They give you false hope for change if anything.

I wouldn't mind you talking more about the values which the republicans support - and how the democrats greet you with open hosility.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But back to the point: Why would a fundamental Christian want to embrace a party who holds their beliefs in such high contempt?

I've always wondered that myself. Why do they embrace a party that holds their beliefs in such high contempt?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

My favourite part of the Bible is where it says "an unborn fetus is a child." I also like the part where it says "gay marriage is bad." I can't remember which part that is--maybe you can help me out, Calgaryborn?

Actually the Mosaic law tells us an unborn child is a human being. If a man accidentally hurts a pregnant women and she gave birth prematurely he was to be punished. If the child is stillborn then it was a life for a life. We are not under the Mosaic covenant but, the same God who instituted the Mosaic Covenant gave us the covenant of grace we are under today. If He considered an unborn child as a life then; He does today. The Mosaic covenant also called for the death of Sodomites. Again we are not under that covenant but, God's opinion of sodomy won't change.

But regarding marriage both the Old Testament and the New Testament identifies a marriage as a man and woman becoming one. Regarding the legal institution of marriage. Governments have traditionally held the family as a special institution that has had tax and other benefits to help it succeed.
When marriages succeed they more often then not produce the next generation of a country's citizens and in raising them passes on the values and traditions of their nation/community.

All of this seems to be somewhat beside the point. This thread, like a number of others, has degenerated into a discussion of U.S. politics, which is a bit more complicated than people are giving it credit for being. But if you want to see "arrogance," then I'd point you to someone who pretends to have access to true knowledge of the divine will. A Fundamentalist is someone who has forgotten about the one constant rule in religious and philosophical thinking: that humans are imperfect--and that this imperfection extends to our understanding of the nature of the cosmos and of God.

This thread is a discussion of U.S. politics. As far as fundamentalists forgetting that humans and their understanding are imperfect: I don't know where you get that. That fact is a Christian doctrine. Man is a fallen creature and left to his own understanding will fail. What you have a problem with is that fundamentalists are unwilling to surrender their own understanding based upon scriptures for your own ideology and beliefs.

The point is: no-one is telling you how to interpret scripture, or how it should be important in your life.

Actually people are telling me how to interpret scriptures including you. Just look below:

I guarantee you don't follow every part of the scripture: my guess is that you eat pork, and don't mind sharing a tent with a woman who's menstruating.But more importantly, just because you read a certain book doesn't make you a more moral individual than anyone else. Morality comes from an exploration and an acceptance of your inner self, and from empathy for fellow human beings. It pretty much never comes from intolerance and hatred, which are the most morally empty philosophies that you can get. If you think "God hates X" is a true interpretation of Christian theology--or if you believe in a religious practice that includes hatred of others--then I'm sorry to say that you've been duped, because that's not Christianity at all.

I have never said I hated Sodomites. I said God hates sodomy. He would have them turn from that sin. God hates adultery as well. Their both sins.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually the Mosaic law tells us an unborn child is a human being.

you mean this?

Mosaic law on the unborn
"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows [to the woman], the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." [Exodus 21:22.]



Is this the reason Tali-Baptists bomb abortion clinics?



Accidental abortion was punishable under Mosaic Law - Ex. 21 :22f.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Cheese

you mean this?

Mosaic law on the unborn
"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows [to the woman], the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." [Exodus 21:22.]



Is this the reason Tali-Baptists bomb abortion clinics?



Accidental abortion was punishable under Mosaic Law - Ex. 21 :22f.

Interesting Cheese, Reading that definition being as a miscarriage only results in a fine, it would appear that fetus's are being regarded as less than human via Mosaic law? But rather if any harm comes to the mother, that is punishable.

I haven't read the passages, but maybe CB, you could point me in the direction of the scripture you are talking about?