The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly
guy. Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly guy.
Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Hawke

I thought liberals were all about gay rights? It's OK in the military but
not as a Senator? How liberal of you!

RogerN

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly guy.
Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Hawke

Rumor has it he is in a bipartisan relationship with Barny Frank,
now if obama reaches out across party lines there could be a 3way.

Best Regards
Tom.

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly guy.
Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Hawke

Don't get excited, he won't date anybody like you.

On 2010-04-22, Hawke wrote:
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly
guy. Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Oddly enough, he was outed by a fellow Republican.

i

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:29:20 -0500, Ignoramus9512
wrote:

On 2010-04-22, Hawke wrote:
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly
guy. Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Oddly enough, he was outed by a fellow Republican.

i
Which just goes to show the honesty of the other Republican,


Now if he were a Democrat like...Gary Studds... who took a 17 yr old
male page and raped him..he would have gotten a standing ovation from
his fellow Democrats.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8336

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds


During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds
publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to
a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his
constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a
simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either
public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made
substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public
official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to
engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions
represented "a very serious error in judgment."[2]

The House voted to censure Studds, on July 20, 1983, by a vote of 420-3.
Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his
back to the other members.[3]

Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home
district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

He served 4 MORE terms as Congressman.


At 17 yrs old..it was rape, as a matter of law.

Then of course..we have Barney Frank..who ran a gay whore house in his
apartment.

Which is why Im fascinated by all the Leftwingers who point fingers in
horror at gay Republicans.

Hypocrits each and every one of them. But then..Leftwingers are
mentally ill..so its not surprising that they have issues......

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:29:20 -0500, Ignoramus9512
wrote:

On 2010-04-22, Hawke wrote:
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly
guy. Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Oddly enough, he was outed by a fellow Republican.

i
Which just goes to show the honesty of the other Republican,


Now if he were a Democrat like...Gary Studds... who took a 17 yr old
male page and raped him..he would have gotten a standing ovation from
his fellow Democrats.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8336

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds


During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds
publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to
a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his
constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a
simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either
public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made
substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public
official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to
engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions
represented "a very serious error in judgment."[2]

The House voted to censure Studds, on July 20, 1983, by a vote of 420-3.
Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his
back to the other members.[3]

Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home
district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

He served 4 MORE terms as Congressman.

My Mother was in Gary Studds district, and she *did* know.

When the story about the page broke, she was appalled. But when the next
election arrived, she was even more appalled by Studds' opponents, all good
family men, with happy-family campaign photos to prove it, but dumb as an oyster.

She voted for Studds.

Joe Gwinn

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:09:26 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:29:20 -0500, Ignoramus9512
wrote:

On 2010-04-22, Hawke wrote:
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly
guy. Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Oddly enough, he was outed by a fellow Republican.

i
Which just goes to show the honesty of the other Republican,


Now if he were a Democrat like...Gary Studds... who took a 17 yr old
male page and raped him..he would have gotten a standing ovation from
his fellow Democrats.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8336

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds


During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds
publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to
a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his
constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a
simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either
public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made
substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public
official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to
engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions
represented "a very serious error in judgment."[2]

The House voted to censure Studds, on July 20, 1983, by a vote of 420-3.
Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his
back to the other members.[3]

Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home
district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

He served 4 MORE terms as Congressman.

My Mother was in Gary Studds district, and she *did* know.

When the story about the page broke, she was appalled. But when the next
election arrived, she was even more appalled by Studds' opponents, all good
family men, with happy-family campaign photos to prove it, but dumb as an oyster.

She voted for Studds.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voted for a raper of boys.

Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

Any time you see a man sucking cock, you can feel safe betting it's a
Democrat. But, as Hawke pointed out, it could be a RINO (A Democrat
cocksucker that ran as a Republican).

RogerN

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:29:20 -0500, Ignoramus9512
wrote:

On 2010-04-22, Hawke wrote:
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly
guy. Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Oddly enough, he was outed by a fellow Republican.

i
Which just goes to show the honesty of the other Republican,


Now if he were a Democrat like...Gary Studds... who took a 17 yr old
male page and raped him..he would have gotten a standing ovation from
his fellow Democrats.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8336

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds


During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds
publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to
a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his
constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a
simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either
public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made
substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public
official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to
engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions
represented "a very serious error in judgment."[2]

The House voted to censure Studds, on July 20, 1983, by a vote of 420-3.
Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his
back to the other members.[3]

Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home
district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

He served 4 MORE terms as Congressman.


At 17 yrs old..it was rape, as a matter of law.

Then of course..we have Barney Frank..who ran a gay whore house in his
apartment.

Which is why Im fascinated by all the Leftwingers who point fingers in
horror at gay Republicans.

Hypocrits each and every one of them. But then..Leftwingers are
mentally ill..so its not surprising that they have issues......

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On 2010-04-22, RogerN wrote:
Any time you see a man sucking cock, you can feel safe betting it's a
Democrat. But, as Hawke pointed out, it could be a RINO (A Democrat
cocksucker that ran as a Republican).

Just curious, do you think the same applies to women sucking cock, or
not.

i

RogerN

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:29:20 -0500, Ignoramus9512
wrote:

On 2010-04-22, Hawke wrote:
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly
guy. Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Oddly enough, he was outed by a fellow Republican.

i
Which just goes to show the honesty of the other Republican,


Now if he were a Democrat like...Gary Studds... who took a 17 yr old
male page and raped him..he would have gotten a standing ovation from
his fellow Democrats.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8336

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds


During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds
publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to
a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his
constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a
simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either
public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made
substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public
official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to
engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions
represented "a very serious error in judgment."[2]

The House voted to censure Studds, on July 20, 1983, by a vote of 420-3.
Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his
back to the other members.[3]

Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home
district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

He served 4 MORE terms as Congressman.


At 17 yrs old..it was rape, as a matter of law.

Then of course..we have Barney Frank..who ran a gay whore house in his
apartment.

Which is why Im fascinated by all the Leftwingers who point fingers in
horror at gay Republicans.

Hypocrits each and every one of them. But then..Leftwingers are
mentally ill..so its not surprising that they have issues......

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"Ignoramus10488" wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-22, RogerN wrote:
Any time you see a man sucking cock, you can feel safe betting it's a
Democrat. But, as Hawke pointed out, it could be a RINO (A Democrat
cocksucker that ran as a Republican).

Just curious, do you think the same applies to women sucking cock, or
not.

Na, that's how you can tell a woman is single. VBG

Karl

"RogerN" wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly guy.
Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Hawke

I thought liberals were all about gay rights? It's OK in the military but
not as a Senator? How liberal of you!

I just checked the Wiki after noticing that Drudge hadn't picked up on this and I'm
beginning to believe the accusation of being gay is bull chit.

Sounds like a center right politician to me. One of the minority that served in our armed
forces. A bit too close to center but hey, I'm not a liberal.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"RogerN" wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly
guy.
Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Hawke

I thought liberals were all about gay rights? It's OK in the military but
not as a Senator? How liberal of you!

I just checked the Wiki after noticing that Drudge hadn't picked up on
this and I'm
beginning to believe the accusation of being gay is bull chit.

Sounds like a center right politician to me. One of the minority that
served in our armed
forces. A bit too close to center but hey, I'm not a liberal.

Wes

The rumor has been passed around for years, by everyone who opposes him on
any political issue.

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/22/2010 3:49 PM, Karl Townsend wrote:
id wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-22, wrote:
Any time you see a man sucking cock, you can feel safe betting it's a
Democrat. But, as Hawke pointed out, it could be a RINO (A Democrat
cocksucker that ran as a Republican).

Just curious, do you think the same applies to women sucking cock, or
not.

Na, that's how you can tell a woman is single.VBG


Yeah, isn't that a rule of some kind that women give that up once they
get married?

What is interesting is the response by the right wing crowd to the news
that another republican senator is a homosexual None of them had
anything bad to say about Graham. The idea that one of their republican
senators was hiding his homosexuality didn't seem to phase them one bit.
The idea that a secret like that could be used to blackmail a senator
hiding something like that didn't phase them either. Instead of being
outraged that another republican senator was gay, all the right wingers
responded by saying something negative about Democrats. That is very
illuminating. No matter what the news right wingers always respond the
same way, by attacking Democrats. It doesn't matter what the republican
did they always respond by attacking Democrats even if they had nothing
to do with anything, like in this case. Democrats have nothing to do
with Graham being gay yet every winger commented negatively about the
Democrats. That explains why it's impossible to have a rational
discussion with right wingers.

Hawke

"Ignoramus10488" wrote in message
...
On 2010-04-22, RogerN wrote:
Any time you see a man sucking cock, you can feel safe betting it's a
Democrat. But, as Hawke pointed out, it could be a RINO (A Democrat
cocksucker that ran as a Republican).

Just curious, do you think the same applies to women sucking cock, or
not.

i

RogerN


Actually, I think most Democrat women have a cock! Or at least a strap-on..

All I know is the difference between a job and a wife is that the job still
sucks after a few years. :-)

RogerN

On Apr 21, 8:14*pm, Hawke wrote:
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly
guy. Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Hawke

Libel is the written defamation of character. You need to be more
careful.

Dan

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:09:26 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:29:20 -0500, Ignoramus9512
wrote:

On 2010-04-22, Hawke wrote:
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted
homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a
fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly
guy. Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Oddly enough, he was outed by a fellow Republican.

i
Which just goes to show the honesty of the other Republican,


Now if he were a Democrat like...Gary Studds... who took a 17 yr old
male page and raped him..he would have gotten a standing ovation from
his fellow Democrats.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8336

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds


During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds
publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to
a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his
constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a
simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either
public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made
substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public
official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to
engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions
represented "a very serious error in judgment."[2]

The House voted to censure Studds, on July 20, 1983, by a vote of 420-3.
Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his
back to the other members.[3]

Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home
district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

He served 4 MORE terms as Congressman.

My Mother was in Gary Studds district, and she *did* know.

When the story about the page broke, she was appalled. But when the next
election arrived, she was even more appalled by Studds' opponents, all good
family men, with happy-family campaign photos to prove it, but dumb as an
oyster.

She voted for Studds.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voted for a raper of boys.

As I recall, it was not forcible, it was statutory.


Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

It was the lesser of the evils.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
She voted for Studds.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voted for a raper of boys.

As I recall, it was not forcible, it was statutory.


Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

It was the lesser of the evils.

Joe Gwinn

Apparently, it wasn't even statutory.
A quick web check shows that the age of consent in DC is 16 and has been 16
for over 100 years.
It may have been poor judgment, but that was between him and the page.

Paul K. Dickman

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:50:59 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:09:26 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:29:20 -0500, Ignoramus9512
wrote:

On 2010-04-22, Hawke wrote:
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted
homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a
fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly
guy. Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Oddly enough, he was outed by a fellow Republican.

i
Which just goes to show the honesty of the other Republican,


Now if he were a Democrat like...Gary Studds... who took a 17 yr old
male page and raped him..he would have gotten a standing ovation from
his fellow Democrats.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8336

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds


During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds
publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to
a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his
constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a
simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either
public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made
substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public
official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to
engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions
represented "a very serious error in judgment."[2]

The House voted to censure Studds, on July 20, 1983, by a vote of 420-3.
Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his
back to the other members.[3]

Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home
district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

He served 4 MORE terms as Congressman.

My Mother was in Gary Studds district, and she *did* know.

When the story about the page broke, she was appalled. But when the next
election arrived, she was even more appalled by Studds' opponents, all good
family men, with happy-family campaign photos to prove it, but dumb as an
oyster.

She voted for Studds.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voted for a raper of boys.

As I recall, it was not forcible, it was statutory.

Was it rape? yes/no


Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

It was the lesser of the evils.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voluntarily voted for a rapist.



Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:09:09 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
She voted for Studds.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voted for a raper of boys.

As I recall, it was not forcible, it was statutory.


Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

It was the lesser of the evils.

Joe Gwinn

Apparently, it wasn't even statutory.
A quick web check shows that the age of consent in DC is 16 and has been 16
for over 100 years.
It may have been poor judgment, but that was between him and the page.

Paul K. Dickman


Hint..they werent in DC when it happened.

Check the facts.

Gunner



"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:09:09 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
She voted for Studds.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voted for a raper of boys.

As I recall, it was not forcible, it was statutory.


Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

It was the lesser of the evils.

Joe Gwinn

Apparently, it wasn't even statutory.
A quick web check shows that the age of consent in DC is 16 and has been
16
for over 100 years.
It may have been poor judgment, but that was between him and the page.

Paul K. Dickman


Hint..they werent in DC when it happened.

Check the facts.

Gunner


Check your own facts, Gunner.

According to the special counsel's report, Studds first invited the page to
his Georgetown apartment, and then later that summer took the boy on a
two-week trip to Portugal. The ex-page testified that he bore no ill will
toward Studds.

Read mo
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz0lwq3b1Qq

Unless you're talking about Portugal.

Paul K. Dickman

On 4/22/2010 6:09 PM, wrote:
On Apr 21, 8:14 pm, wrote:
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it? Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a weaselly
guy. Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Hawke

Libel is the written defamation of character. You need to be more
careful.

Dan


No I don't. I'm not legally liable because all I did is relate what I
heard Mr. Donatelli say on the Lars Larsen radio show. He's the one that
has to worry, but then only if what he said is a lie. Actually, I was
surprised to hear that accusation because I never heard it before. What
really surprised me was to hear that it was supposedly a well known
charge against Graham. In all the years I've known of Graham I'd never
heard that one until the other day. I don't know how I could have missed
it if it was so commonly known.

Hawke

On 4/23/2010 8:09 AM, Paul K. Dickman wrote:
"Joseph wrote in message
...
She voted for Studds.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voted for a raper of boys.

As I recall, it was not forcible, it was statutory.


Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

It was the lesser of the evils.

Joe Gwinn

Apparently, it wasn't even statutory.
A quick web check shows that the age of consent in DC is 16 and has been 16
for over 100 years.
It may have been poor judgment, but that was between him and the page.

Paul K. Dickman



It also happened over 25 years ago. That's really going to the bottom of
the barrel to try to find dirt on Democrats. Maybe that is because you
have to go back that far to find anything on a Democrat while you can
find even worse behavior by republicans all the time.

Hawke

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:22:17 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:09:09 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
She voted for Studds.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voted for a raper of boys.

As I recall, it was not forcible, it was statutory.


Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

It was the lesser of the evils.

Joe Gwinn

Apparently, it wasn't even statutory.
A quick web check shows that the age of consent in DC is 16 and has been
16
for over 100 years.
It may have been poor judgment, but that was between him and the page.

Paul K. Dickman


Hint..they werent in DC when it happened.

Check the facts.

Gunner


Check your own facts, Gunner.

According to the special counsel's report, Studds first invited the page to
his Georgetown apartment, and then later that summer took the boy on a
two-week trip to Portugal. The ex-page testified that he bore no ill will
toward Studds.

Read mo
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz0lwq3b1Qq

Unless you're talking about Portugal.

Paul K. Dickman


Was it by law or not..statutory rape or not?

Be specific. Use as much whitespace as possible

And what is the age of consensual sex in Georgetown?

Hummm?

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:22:17 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:09:09 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
She voted for Studds.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voted for a raper of boys.

As I recall, it was not forcible, it was statutory.


Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

It was the lesser of the evils.

Joe Gwinn

Apparently, it wasn't even statutory.
A quick web check shows that the age of consent in DC is 16 and has been
16
for over 100 years.
It may have been poor judgment, but that was between him and the page.

Paul K. Dickman


Hint..they werent in DC when it happened.

Check the facts.

Gunner


Check your own facts, Gunner.

According to the special counsel's report, Studds first invited the page
to
his Georgetown apartment, and then later that summer took the boy on a
two-week trip to Portugal. The ex-page testified that he bore no ill will
toward Studds.

Read mo
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz0lwq3b1Qq

Unless you're talking about Portugal.

Paul K. Dickman


Was it by law or not..statutory rape or not?

Be specific. Use as much whitespace as possible

And what is the age of consensual sex in Georgetown?

Hummm?

Gunner


Gunner, you blow hard, I have already told you.
Georgetown is a neighborhood in Washington, DC.
The age of consent in DC is 16 and has been 16 for over 100 years.
Therefore it was not statutory rape, by law or otherwise.

It wasn't in illegal Portugal, either.

Paul K. Dickman

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:50:59 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:09:26 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:29:20 -0500, Ignoramus9512
wrote:

On 2010-04-22, Hawke wrote:
The news today is that another senator is in fact a closeted
homosexual.
He's also a republican, as you would probably guess. Who is it?
Lindsey
Graham. That's the word going around today. Graham is gay. Is it a
fact?
Right now it's only a rumor but he was outed by a Mr. Donatelli, a
republican campaign manager. I'm sure there will be more to this one
later. But it does explain why Graham has always been such a
weaselly
guy. Another gay republican politician, why am I not surprised?

Oddly enough, he was outed by a fellow Republican.

i
Which just goes to show the honesty of the other Republican,


Now if he were a Democrat like...Gary Studds... who took a 17 yr old
male page and raped him..he would have gotten a standing ovation from
his fellow Democrats.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8336

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds


During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds
publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according
to
a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his
constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a
simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either
public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made
substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public
official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to
engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions
represented "a very serious error in judgment."[2]

The House voted to censure Studds, on July 20, 1983, by a vote of
420-3.
Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his
back to the other members.[3]

Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home
district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

He served 4 MORE terms as Congressman.

My Mother was in Gary Studds district, and she *did* know.

When the story about the page broke, she was appalled. But when the next
election arrived, she was even more appalled by Studds' opponents, all
good
family men, with happy-family campaign photos to prove it, but dumb as an
oyster.

She voted for Studds.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voted for a raper of boys.

As I recall, it was not forcible, it was statutory.

Was it rape? yes/no

Apparently not, as discussed by other posters. I don't really recall the
details anymore, as I didn't live in Mass then.


Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

It was the lesser of the evils.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voluntarily voted for a rapist.

Seems pretty unlikely, doesn't it. I don't recall her ranting about rape. If
it were, I would have heard about it.


So, what's the point of this exchange? She was there. You were not.


Joe Gwinn



Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:51:25 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:22:17 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:09:09 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
She voted for Studds.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voted for a raper of boys.

As I recall, it was not forcible, it was statutory.


Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

It was the lesser of the evils.

Joe Gwinn

Apparently, it wasn't even statutory.
A quick web check shows that the age of consent in DC is 16 and has been
16
for over 100 years.
It may have been poor judgment, but that was between him and the page.

Paul K. Dickman


Hint..they werent in DC when it happened.

Check the facts.

Gunner


Check your own facts, Gunner.

According to the special counsel's report, Studds first invited the page
to
his Georgetown apartment, and then later that summer took the boy on a
two-week trip to Portugal. The ex-page testified that he bore no ill will
toward Studds.

Read mo
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz0lwq3b1Qq

Unless you're talking about Portugal.

Paul K. Dickman


Was it by law or not..statutory rape or not?

Be specific. Use as much whitespace as possible

And what is the age of consensual sex in Georgetown?

Hummm?

Gunner


Gunner, you blow hard, I have already told you.
Georgetown is a neighborhood in Washington, DC.
The age of consent in DC is 16 and has been 16 for over 100 years.
Therefore it was not statutory rape, by law or otherwise.

It wasn't in illegal Portugal, either.

Paul K. Dickman


Yet in 42 other states..its rape. And the drinking ages in Georgetown?

Studds got this kid drunk on numberous occasions and raped him.

Stand up for the pedophilia, if thats what you think Democrats are good
for.

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:10:03 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


As I recall, it was not forcible, it was statutory.

Was it rape? yes/no

Apparently not, as discussed by other posters. I don't really recall the
details anymore, as I didn't live in Mass then.


Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

It was the lesser of the evils.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voluntarily voted for a rapist.

Seems pretty unlikely, doesn't it. I don't recall her ranting about rape. If
it were, I would have heard about it.

Nope..not if it occured in an area where the age of consent is over 16.

And getting the kid drunk..is definately illegal.


So, what's the point of this exchange? She was there. You were not.

What is the point? Good question. Why DID you join in?

I used Studds as an example of Leftwing degeneracy..and you go defending
it.

So you approve of degeneracy..or do you simply give leftwingers a pass
on it?

Gunner



Joe Gwinn


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:10:03 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


As I recall, it was not forcible, it was statutory.

Was it rape? yes/no

Apparently not, as discussed by other posters. I don't really recall the
details anymore, as I didn't live in Mass then.


Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

It was the lesser of the evils.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voluntarily voted for a rapist.

Seems pretty unlikely, doesn't it. I don't recall her ranting about rape.
If it were, I would have heard about it.

Nope..not if it occured in an area where the age of consent is over 16.

And getting the kid drunk..is definately illegal.

But it isn't rape of any kind.


So, what's the point of this exchange? She was there. You were not.

What is the point? Good question. Why DID you join in?

I used Studds as an example of Leftwing degeneracy..and you go defending
it.

So you approve of degeneracy..or do you simply give leftwingers a pass
on it?

Well, in this particular case, I have direct information, which was in short
supply.

And the voters in Studds' district clearly didn't think it was as serious as you
do, and they were there, and had a direct stake in the outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

"Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district at
his first town meeting following his congressional censure." I actually recall
reading about this back then.


I have no idea why leftwing versus rightwing would matter in this 1973 case.
It's more a matter of all politics being local.

Joe Gwinn

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:51:25 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:22:17 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:09:09 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
She voted for Studds.

Joe Gwinn

So your mom voted for a raper of boys.

As I recall, it was not forcible, it was statutory.


Doesnt spell good things for your Mom, did it?

It was the lesser of the evils.

Joe Gwinn

Apparently, it wasn't even statutory.
A quick web check shows that the age of consent in DC is 16 and has
been
16
for over 100 years.
It may have been poor judgment, but that was between him and the page.

Paul K. Dickman


Hint..they werent in DC when it happened.

Check the facts.

Gunner


Check your own facts, Gunner.

According to the special counsel's report, Studds first invited the page
to
his Georgetown apartment, and then later that summer took the boy on a
two-week trip to Portugal. The ex-page testified that he bore no ill
will
toward Studds.

Read mo
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz0lwq3b1Qq

Unless you're talking about Portugal.

Paul K. Dickman


Was it by law or not..statutory rape or not?

Be specific. Use as much whitespace as possible

And what is the age of consensual sex in Georgetown?

Hummm?

Gunner


Gunner, you blow hard, I have already told you.
Georgetown is a neighborhood in Washington, DC.
The age of consent in DC is 16 and has been 16 for over 100 years.
Therefore it was not statutory rape, by law or otherwise.

It wasn't in illegal Portugal, either.

Paul K. Dickman


Yet in 42 other states..its rape. And the drinking ages in Georgetown?

Oh, so that's your philosophy. F*CK states rights.
Diana Moon-Gunner as the Handicapper General of American Jurisprudence
decides that the most restrictive state laws apply to all states. Perhaps we
should apply this to the gun control laws.

For the record only 12 states have an age of consent over 17.


Studds got this kid drunk on numberous occasions and raped him.

So, now you say that it is not statutory rape, but date rape?
Your new evidence begs the question, "How drunk?".
?
DC statute defines it like this;
by rendering the other person unconscious or by administering to that
person - either by force or without the person's knowledge - some type of
intoxicant that would substantially impair the people's ability to appraise
or control his/her conduct.
Unless the page was passed out, forced fed, or told it was "soda pop", it
wasn't rape


Stand up for the pedophilia, if thats what you think Democrats are good
for.

Gunner

That's the best you can come up with?
What is next, "I know you are, but what am I"?
Don't bring your beanshooter to a battle of wits.

Even against a dead man, an unsubstantiated charge of rape is a serious
business.
So far, all you have for evidence is the noise rattling around in your head.
I don't expect you to admit you're full of it, but I do expect you to shut
the F*ck up.
Paul K. Dickman

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:10 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


Nope..not if it occured in an area where the age of consent is over 16.

And getting the kid drunk..is definately illegal.

But it isn't rape of any kind.

Actually..in most states..it most certainly was/is.

So its ok to rape a boy that you got drunk, right?


So, what's the point of this exchange? She was there. You were not.

What is the point? Good question. Why DID you join in?

I used Studds as an example of Leftwing degeneracy..and you go defending
it.

So you approve of degeneracy..or do you simply give leftwingers a pass
on it?

Well, in this particular case, I have direct information, which was in short
supply.

And the voters in Studds' district clearly didn't think it was as serious as you
do, and they were there, and had a direct stake in the outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

"Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district at
his first town meeting following his congressional censure." I actually recall
reading about this back then.


Notice the part "following his congressional censure"

Why did Congress censure him? Jealousy??

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:37:34 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
wrote:


Stand up for the pedophilia, if thats what you think Democrats are good
for.

Gunner

That's the best you can come up with?
What is next, "I know you are, but what am I"?
Don't bring your beanshooter to a battle of wits.


If it wasnt a big deal...why did the US Congress censure him?


Hummmm????


Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On 2010-04-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:10 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


Nope..not if it occured in an area where the age of consent is over 16.

And getting the kid drunk..is definately illegal.

But it isn't rape of any kind.

Actually..in most states..it most certainly was/is.

So its ok to rape a boy that you got drunk, right?

If the boy was a legal age and it was consensual, it was not rape.

i

In article , Ignoramus31606 wrote:
On 2010-04-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:10 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


Nope..not if it occured in an area where the age of consent is over 16.

And getting the kid drunk..is definately illegal.

But it isn't rape of any kind.

Actually..in most states..it most certainly was/is.

So its ok to rape a boy that you got drunk, right?

If the boy was a legal age and it was consensual, it was not rape.

If he was drunk, then it certainly was -- a drunk person, whether adult or
minor, is not legally able to consent to *anything*.

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:10 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


Nope..not if it occured in an area where the age of consent is over 16.

And getting the kid drunk..is definately illegal.

But it isn't rape of any kind.

Actually..in most states..it most certainly was/is.

So its ok to rape a boy that you got drunk, right?


So, what's the point of this exchange? She was there. You were not.

What is the point? Good question. Why DID you join in?

I used Studds as an example of Leftwing degeneracy..and you go defending
it.

So you approve of degeneracy..or do you simply give leftwingers a pass
on it?

Well, in this particular case, I have direct information, which was in short
supply.

And the voters in Studds' district clearly didn't think it was as serious as
you
do, and they were there, and had a direct stake in the outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

"Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district
at
his first town meeting following his congressional censure." I actually
recall
reading about this back then.


Notice the part "following his congressional censure"

Why did Congress censure him? Jealousy??

For embarrassing them, one assumes.

Anyway, read the whole Wiki article.

Joe Gwinn

On 2010-04-24, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Ignoramus31606 wrote:
On 2010-04-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:10 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


Nope..not if it occured in an area where the age of consent is over 16.

And getting the kid drunk..is definately illegal.

But it isn't rape of any kind.

Actually..in most states..it most certainly was/is.

So its ok to rape a boy that you got drunk, right?

If the boy was a legal age and it was consensual, it was not rape.

If he was drunk, then it certainly was -- a drunk person, whether adult or
minor, is not legally able to consent to *anything*.

It is not true. It highly depends on how drunk the person was. Tomes
of legal opinions are written about it. Just because one of two people
was somewhat drunk, does not make it a rape. Otherwise we would have
to say that I was "raped" by my spouse a couple of times very
recently

i

On Apr 23, 3:05*pm, Hawke wrote:

Libel is the written defamation of character. *You need to be more
careful.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

No I don't. I'm not legally liable because all I did is relate what I
heard Mr. Donatelli say on the Lars Larsen radio show.

Hawke

The words you used went beyond relating what you heard. You made a
couple of statements that indicated that you believed that Graham is
gay. Now your lawyer might convince a jury that you were not defaming
Mr Graham, but then again he might not.

Dan

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:15:42 -0500, Ignoramus31606
wrote:

On 2010-04-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:10 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


Nope..not if it occured in an area where the age of consent is over 16.

And getting the kid drunk..is definately illegal.

But it isn't rape of any kind.

Actually..in most states..it most certainly was/is.

So its ok to rape a boy that you got drunk, right?

If the boy was a legal age and it was consensual, it was not rape.

i
Then why did both Democrats And Republicans censure him in public
setting..in Congress?

Hummmm?

Oh..and you seemed to have missed the drunk part as well. Drinking ages
are 16 where you live?

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:22:49 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:10 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


Nope..not if it occured in an area where the age of consent is over 16.

And getting the kid drunk..is definately illegal.

But it isn't rape of any kind.

Actually..in most states..it most certainly was/is.

So its ok to rape a boy that you got drunk, right?


So, what's the point of this exchange? She was there. You were not.

What is the point? Good question. Why DID you join in?

I used Studds as an example of Leftwing degeneracy..and you go defending
it.

So you approve of degeneracy..or do you simply give leftwingers a pass
on it?

Well, in this particular case, I have direct information, which was in short
supply.

And the voters in Studds' district clearly didn't think it was as serious as
you
do, and they were there, and had a direct stake in the outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

"Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district
at
his first town meeting following his congressional censure." I actually
recall
reading about this back then.


Notice the part "following his congressional censure"

Why did Congress censure him? Jealousy??

For embarrassing them, one assumes.

How could they be embarressed if the kid was sober and of legal age?

Hummm?



Anyway, read the whole Wiki article.

Ive read EVERY article on this now fortunately dead, piece of ****.

Joe Gwinn


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 3:05 pm, Hawke wrote:

Libel is the written defamation of character. You need to be more
careful.

Dan

No I don't. I'm not legally liable because all I did is relate what I
heard Mr. Donatelli say on the Lars Larsen radio show.

Hawke
/
/The words you used went beyond relating what you heard. You made a
/couple of statements that indicated that you believed that Graham is
/gay. Now your lawyer might convince a jury that you were not defaming
/Mr Graham, but then again he might not.
/
/ Dan

Is stating you think someone is gay defamation of character? Seems gay is
nearly equal rights with heterosexual these days, or at least on the way of
getting there. I'm not sure but what a gay group might try to accuse a
politician of defaming them if he claimed he was gay :-) Getting to be a
pretty twisted world.

RogerN