Text 2959, 165 rader
Skriven 2006-10-24 12:22:00 av BOB KLAHN (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av TIM RICHARDSON
Ärende: 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.

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

 Then Cheney could just release the list without the subpoena.

DC>>That should happen this week.

 TR> Let it.

 So say we all.

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

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

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

 And you know little or nothing about it. That's the problem,
 nobody outside the inner circle knows much if anything about it.

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

 Typically the redacted part must be identified, or he risks
 charges. Sooner or later it may come out, and Cheney could be
 facing charges.

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

 Sounds good to me.

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

 Anybody can be compared to Jesus. Only with conservatives it
 tends to be unfavorably.

 ...

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

 Good, so are the rest of us.

 TR> And *you* and several other people (at least two of whom
 TR> are regular posters in this echo) were loud and vicious in
 TR> your protestations, the homosexuals were just
 TR> `people'.........and they just had a right to `their'
 TR> sexual preferences......and they just wanted school kids to
 TR> know about the `alternate' life style....and wasn't I just

 And nothing there seems to be special rights.

 TR> a low-ball SOB for protesting that such stuff didn't belong
 TR> in `schools'! And `how dare I' ...yadida yadida!

 Well, that part is arguable.

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

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

 The fact that you go to that length, reaching back 30 years, to
 defend the failure of the current leadership to protect the
 young speaks poorly of your side of the debate.

 IOW, Hastert is too stupid to learn from the past? Ok, that
 alone is reason enough to fire him.

 TR> Not only that........the son-of-a-bitch was `re'elected by
 TR> his district several times thereafter. Of course.....this

 IOW, you have nothing but try to defend Hastert with it anyway.

 TR> was from the state of Massachusetts, the place where pretty
 TR> much anything a democrat politician does gets a pass.

 Oh, a great state indeed.

 TR> Fast forward to 2006, and Mark Foley.

 Yes, the present, where Hastert is so deep into it you have to
 reach back 30 years to defend him.

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

 He committed a crime. That part is clear. Why do you try to
 minimize it?

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

 How many times do you have to be told. He was emailing and
 instant messaging former pages, who were minors, across state
 lines. Not only is that a crime, but Foley was instrumental in
 writing that law.

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

 And criminal.

 ...

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

 Well, if not, what is the poing of reaching back and comparing
 Foley to something that happened 30 years ago?

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

 Except that they were not 18, and he broke a law he helped
 write.

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

 Well, now that part is wrong. A lot of us would think a lot
 about it, and find it ... disturbing.

...

 TR> just time to `get a rope'! Because you got a `republican'
 TR> in your sights!

 A republican who was soliciting minors. And I find the idea of
 16 being the age of consent offensive also.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... To everything spin spin spin, there is a republican spin spin spin...
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)