A question about Mark Foley?

[Tigermike 3,066]

Call him what you like. There's no 'tap dance' going on here. This subject has been addressed on many threads before. You always want to paint homosexuals as pedophiles and you did it with Foley on another thread. To answer your question again: I don't think any adult, gay or straight, male or female, has any business associating with kids in a sexually improper manner, be it in person, over the phone or on the internet. Is that clear enough for you?

You are the one (for this thread) who put the label on him as a pedophile. Foley has said he is a homosexual. You also said "Foley is sick and needs to get psychological help". I asked a question to find out where you were going. You never get tired of lying do you? Don't put words in my mouth. I have never said homosexuals were pedophiles, never. I have said that many pedophiles are homosexuals. There is a difference in what I have said and how you want to portray it.

BTW we are not on other thread, we are on this thread.

BTW again - I have absolutely no doubts that if this had happened to a dimocrat he would still be in office and you would be screaming about intolerant Republicans and the Republican attack machine.

What have I lied about? I say he's a pedophile, you post an article defining 'pedophile.' Call him what you want. If you don't want to call him a pedophile, then call him what you want.

Your memory is fading. You are always right there to make the connection between homosexuals and pedophiles.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

In all those links I saw you trying to change what I was saying. You tried to change the meaning of what I was saying then just as you are now. I never said homosexuals are pedophiles. I made the point that many pedophiles are homosexuals. You want to make pedophiles completely separate from homosexuals. I think your reasoning is to separate the two in order to make the fudgepacker political agenda a little more easy to take.

BTW you are the one who called Foley a pedophile. I have been trying to get you to follow up on that since and the tap dance continues. As usual.

You fail to ever mention that the number of heterosexuals that are pedophiles far, far outnumber those that are homosexual. You're always right there linking gays with pedophiles.

Oh yeah while you are making all your changes put NAMBLA in charge of Sex Education and require all males over the age of 6 years old to attend queer nation "feelings" classes.

Are the members of NAMBLA pedophile's or just homosexuals?

Yes, I called a 52yr. old preying on 16yr. olds a pedophile. As I said, you may call him whatever you like.

Ahhhh the leftist attack maneuver. Attack and point PC fingers at anyone who does not agree with you. You can take quotes from where you wish and use them out of context all you wish Al (and you know you are doing that, admit it Al, confession is good for the soul). But that does not change the fact that you look and sound like a left wing McCarthy while you are doing it. But to get back on the subject that you want to pursue.

When did 16 year olds become prepubescent children? Looking at the definition that I provided (from a random Google search, BTW) it would seem that you don't want to get away from the label you put on Foley.

Do you get your instructions from the daily kos or directly from the DNC?

You say that those e-mails and IM"s are preying on 16yr. olds. I haven't read the messages BTW and don't care to. Have you read the messages? If so are any messages from pages to Foley provided? Is there any context given?

Yes, I called a 52yr. old preying on 16yr. olds a pedophile. As I said, you may call him whatever you like.

I call him gone, you can obsess on him all you wish.

[AUman43 5]

If this is the paragon of morality (Republican party) then I would hate to see the party of immorality!

[Tiger Al 0]

Call him what you like. There's no 'tap dance' going on here. This subject has been addressed on many threads before. You always want to paint homosexuals as pedophiles and you did it with Foley on another thread. To answer your question again: I don't think any adult, gay or straight, male or female, has any business associating with kids in a sexually improper manner, be it in person, over the phone or on the internet. Is that clear enough for you?

You are the one (for this thread) who put the label on him as a pedophile. Foley has said he is a homosexual. You also said "Foley is sick and needs to get psychological help". I asked a question to find out where you were going. You never get tired of lying do you? Don't put words in my mouth. I have never said homosexuals were pedophiles, never. I have said that many pedophiles are homosexuals. There is a difference in what I have said and how you want to portray it.

BTW we are not on other thread, we are on this thread.

BTW again - I have absolutely no doubts that if this had happened to a dimocrat he would still be in office and you would be screaming about intolerant Republicans and the Republican attack machine.

What have I lied about? I say he's a pedophile, you post an article defining 'pedophile.' Call him what you want. If you don't want to call him a pedophile, then call him what you want.

Your memory is fading. You are always right there to make the connection between homosexuals and pedophiles.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

In all those links I saw you trying to change what I was saying. You tried to change the meaning of what I was saying then just as you are now. I never said homosexuals are pedophiles. I made the point that many pedophiles are homosexuals. You want to make pedophiles completely separate from homosexuals. I think your reasoning is to separate the two in order to make the fudgepacker political agenda a little more easy to take.

BTW you are the one who called Foley a pedophile. I have been trying to get you to follow up on that since and the tap dance continues. As usual.

You fail to ever mention that the number of heterosexuals that are pedophiles far, far outnumber those that are homosexual. You're always right there linking gays with pedophiles.

Oh yeah while you are making all your changes put NAMBLA in charge of Sex Education and require all males over the age of 6 years old to attend queer nation "feelings" classes.

Are the members of NAMBLA pedophile's or just homosexuals?

Yes, I called a 52yr. old preying on 16yr. olds a pedophile. As I said, you may call him whatever you like.

Ahhhh the leftist attack maneuver. Attack and point PC fingers at anyone who does not agree with you. They're your words, not mine. You seem to have a problem with yourself and your many posts on this subject. Again, you made your position very clear. You can take quotes from where you wish and use them out of context all you wish Al (and you know you are doing that, admit it Al, confession is good for the soul). I provided the links to the context. If you have a problem with the clarity of your past remarks, address it now, but, please don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth. But that does not change the fact that you look and sound like a left wing McCarthy while you are doing it. But to get back on the subject that you want to pursue.

When did 16 year olds become prepubescent children? Looking at the definition that I provided (from a random Google search, BTW) it would seem that you don't want to get away from the label you put on Foley. If that label offends you, please tell me what you would prefer that I call him. You seem overly defensive on this point.

Do you get your instructions from the daily kos or directly from the DNC?

You say that those e-mails and IM"s are preying on 16yr. olds. I haven't read the messages BTW and don't care to. Have you read the messages? If so are any messages from pages to Foley provided? Is there any context given?You have no idea what you're talking about on this, do you?

Yes, I called a 52yr. old preying on 16yr. olds a pedophile. As I said, you may call him whatever you like.

I call him gone, you can obsess on him all you wish.

[Tigermike 3,066]

No Al, I don't have a problem with what I have posted in the past on this. You both now and then have gone off the deep end to take my words and turn them into something that was not said. You know that is the truth of the matter.

[Tiger Al 0]

No Al, I don't have a problem with what I have posted in the past on this. You both now and then have gone off the deep end to take my words and turn them into something that was not said. You know that is the truth of the matter.

The links and the entire threads are there. That IS the context. Please clarify your position if you misstated it earlier, or, own what you said before. That's simple enough.