 | |
| 
Sponsor |  nicky187 | Oct 4, 2006 1:57pm | | Sounds fair to me. Are they going to get Ken Starr to investigate? |
|
| 
Sponsor | |
| 
Sponsor | | ntltrmllgnc | Oct 5, 2006 7:51am | Your attempt to minimize the threat is noted. If there were a democrat in some competing position of power with the same issues I would say that were relevant.
But we've already forgotten Dyncorp and KBR's UN protected sex trafficking in Kosovo. Oh wait yeah you never heard about that did you? |
|
|
Sponsor | |
| |  1653060 | Oct 6, 2006 7:09pm | Democrats do it to, but they aren't the one's claiming they have the moral authority of God ..They aren't the one's that 'pretend' shit doesn't exist ..Like homosexuality, Evolution, and Teen Sex.
And lastly, Democrats aren't the one's who's leaders decided not to addrress the situation.
Republicans don't even want to talk about the root causes of deviant behavior, just about how to punish it. Republicans don't want to use scientific data when creating legislation and policy, they want to use their own theological beliefs, and naive idealism, ignoring reality.
Honeslty, i don't think it's that big of a deal. This 'kid' was months away from consentiual age, and If you become a congressman, I think you should ba able to use that to get chics, guys, or anything else, as long as it doesn't viiolate the law, or interfere with performance.
, if the democrats even thought of having a discussion on the reality of human sexual behavior, they would be called deviants and perverts.
Two instances, backed by verified scientific research, is the fact that homosexuality exists in nature, and if not for the percieved social factor, it would have no bearing on the real welfare of society. The same has been proven true, by a scientific study, which was quickly bombarded as perversion by all government enteties, that it is perfectly natural for first consentual sexual contact for a 'teen' is with an adult. The study was not talking about pedophilia or child rape, but natural affection young people sometimes develope for an adult.
Don't freak on me, I don't like young girls, or boys ...In Fact, i am sort of into older women, who know how to role play, etc... ..Youtful sexual partners have always proven a dissapointment, and I am not referring to anyone under (well, even 22)
Republicans want to control NATURE, in order to run a civil society, Democrats want to control BEHAVIOR.
The latter, is obviously the much more logical, intelligent choice for maintaing civil society, but Republicans exploit and abuse this, by labeling any kind of thought of admitting nature, and formulating actions to control it's behavior, as devient itself, or at the very least 'soft' or 'wimpy'.
If the democrats ran things, Mark Foley wouldn't have had to be in the closet for 25 years, and could have hit on 18 year olds in public.
If anyone has read this far, please think of an appropriate ending, cuz, i am hungry, and I'm done. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Thomas-Jefferson | Oct 7, 2006 3:23am | Your right about most of that, except all the partisan stuff about democracts and republicans. It is indeed true that young people desire to have sex w older people, and that many a limp-wristed political science major would have done himself a service by doing mr. foley one. I certainly don't feel very outraged about foleys conduct, he performed his duties in the classical tradition of a roman senator. Our society is sick and twisted, and our crazed blend of puritanical WASP and degenerate hollywood values has resulted in horror after horror, the recent amish school massacre being only one of which.
Democrats have no special insight regarding human behavior however, as their cornocopia of failed social(ist) programs and poor performance in recent elections underscores. |
|
| | | 1653060 | Oct 7, 2006 3:16pm | Actually, I'm dead on about the partisan stuff. The democrats (less so lately due to the gross shift of the country to the right, which is de-evolution) have always wanted to legislate by controlling BEHAVIOR, while the Republicans are intent on controlling NATURE.
I did not say the democrats had special knowledge of 'behavior', I said, that is where the focus of their legislation comes from, which is logical.
Republicans focus their legislation on 'Nature' ...They want to legislate human nature.
It has been proven throughout history, that it is in fact possible to control peoples' behavior, but NOT their NATURE!
Drunk driving, for instance, has been greatly decreased due to alterations in BEHAVIOR, however, I'm 100% sure that the human NATURE of wanting to be inebriated, has not decreased!
This is an example of how legislation is more effective, when you accept human NATURE, and focus on BEHAVIOR!There is no doubt, that overwhelmingly, stupid fucking republicans continue to try and legislate human NATURE, instead of the human BEHAVIOR.
EXAMPLE: Drug Crimes;
Lets assume, most mainstream Liberals & Conservatives both want the same end result concerning drugs:
For drugs not to disrupt personal lives, or be detrimental to society.
Liberals know it is human nature to 'do drugs' and would legislate from that standpoint, while conservatives will deny this empirical science, and focus on changing nature.
Not only in theory, does this approach seems stupid, illogical, and en-effective, but has been proven so, in actual practice.
I dig your name TJ, but you cannot sit there and tell me that conservatives respect science and logic in legislation as much as democrats, it just ain't so!
If you REALLY think that, they have somehow effected your ability to think logically.
Thanks for the reluctant review, I consider you to be a pretty above-average fellow.
Now, I may take the majority of this post, and post it in another pertinant group, and (this isn't to you TJ)
...And if any MFK'r writes me saying I am a spammer for doing it, I will fucking kill you, get a godam life!
It's called being efficient, you guys are so godam gay with your anal retentive 'spam' accusation bullshit.
Again, no reference to you TJ, this is about something else. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Thomas-Jefferson | Oct 14, 2006 6:00am | "the gross shift of the country to the right, which is de-evolution"
Whoah, careful with those lefts and rights! If "Right" equals "de-evolution" then we arn't speaking the same language :) How about you define what left and right mean to you? For me, people on the Right are... right (like Thomas Jefferson), and people on the Left... their left behind....(like that fat bastard michal moore ;) |
|
| 
Sponsor | | Laukev7 | Oct 14, 2006 3:04pm | | Bah, Michael Moore is just an establishment mainstream leftist to me. He doesn't challenge the things that are reakky wrong. |
| |
| |
What Really Happened → Discussion