View Single Post
Old 10-03-2006, 10:30 AM   #31
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

the problem hasert faces is the fact several people told him (and apparently reynolds) their concerns about foley, and the decision seems to have been made to not investigate. the most damaging admission they have made is their not involving the democrat counterpart to reynolds, leaving him totally in the dark about the accusations/e mails of foley. that just looks like their decisions on foley were made in a political connotation.

the issue seems to center around why that decision was made.

it is fair to say that the conduct of foley is reprehensible to everybody, no matter what sexual orientation they have. homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, at least those who are not stricken by pathological issues, see the acts of foley as predatory. unfortunately in our world today there is no place, including our congress, which is immune to this type of threat.

Quote:
The funny thing is that you would think the left - particularly the gay left - would be a bit more interested in not having 16 and 17 year old teenagers classified as young children for legal/sexual/political purposes. If that were the case, then a whole lot of dirty old men would need to be prosecuted for felonies when they pick up street hustlers
a very odd comment to say the least...why is it this authors opinion that the "left-particularly the gay left" lacks the moral clarity to take the position that those under 18 do not need legal protection from these type of predators? this position by the author is one of clear prejudice, and uninformed prejudice imho. are there not any conservatives who are "dirty old men"? the answer is yes.

as it relates to the boy scouts and their position on gays as scout leaders, this has nothing to do with that issue. there is no proven study that shows gay americans are more likely to be pediphiles or ephebophiles (that's a new one for me btw, never heard of it) than heterosexuals are. for all we know, the use of heterosexuals as scout leaders could place the female siblings of scouts in greater danger than having a gay scout leader places the scouts in danger.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote