TOMIKA! Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 We've all known it for a long time, but are now being slapped in the face (or a$s) with it. How much more can this country take??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 some details would sure help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I predict a merger of threads here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy76 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 And democrats are poopie heads!!!!good thread TOMIKA!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMIKA! Posted October 5, 2006 Author Share Posted October 5, 2006 some details would sure help.What kind of details are really necessary at this point? I mean, the list goes on and on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 What kind of details are really necessary at this point? I mean, the list goes on and on!where is the list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 We've all known it for a long time, but are now being slapped in the face (or a$s) with it. How much more can this country take???What's wrong with a gay Republican? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 and now they are saying that the age of the congressional page is 18, a legal adult....hmmmm......it definitely is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 and now they are saying that the age of the congressional page is 18, a legal adult....hmmmm......it definitely is interesting.Who is "they". Hush Bimbo?What's wrong with a gay Republican?Nothing. Who said there was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Who is "they". Hush Bimbo?It was on abc. There definitely needs to be an investigation so the FACTS will be understood. Right now it seems too many rumors have started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 It was on abc. There definitely needs to be an investigation so the FACTS will be understood. Right now it seems too many rumors have started.Weren't the original emails that were questionable (before the really nasty IM's came to light) to a 16 year old page? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Page eligibility is limited to juniors in high school who will be 16 or 17 on or before the date of appointment. http://stabenow.senate.gov/services/page.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 It was on abc. There definitely needs to be an investigation so the FACTS will be understood. Right now it seems too many rumors have started.I strongly get the sense that facts don't matter here and never will. It's been politicized...just like everything else does when we're approaching every other November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torvald Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 ...but are now being slapped in the face (or a$s) with it. perhaps this question should be set up as a poll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I strongly get the sense that facts don't matter here and never will. It's been politicized...just like everything else does when we're approaching every other November.Yeah facts like the Studds scandal occurred in '73 (he was censured in '83 and most news reports lead you to beleive the scandal occured in '83 as well), Monica suddenly became 19 (she was 22) when she had her "thing" w/Clinton and most remarkable Fox's recent graphics show Foley as a "D", not once, not twice but three times. Anyway, the only relevant info to discover is if the GOP leadership knew about this and did nothing to save one of their seats. If finding that out is "political", oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heights2Bastrop Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 We've all known it for a long time, but are now being slapped in the face (or a$s) with it.Before you throw too many stones, just make sure you don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I predict a merger of threads here.I agree. Someone just blurting out "Republicans are scum!" doesn't make for enlightened discusion.If you want to talk about who knew what and when...go to http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...?showtopic=8061Moderator? Can you merge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Before you throw too many stones, just make sure you don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 the title of this thread is whack. if republicans are scum because of foley then: gay people are scum because of jeffrey dahmer, democrats are scum because of bill clinton, white people are scum because of the unabomber, arabic people are scum because of osama bin ladin (sp?), and so on. ever heard of a republican environmentalist? or how about a democratic evangelical, pro lifer? as someone said earlier........."what's wrong with a gay republican?"). it is inflammatory (and i'm guilty of it too) to generalize about a group of people based on a bad apple (or two, or ten ). this foley guy is simply a dirty old man. if this were female pages it wouldn't have half the attention it's getting. the media and the democrats homophobia is showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 what's wrong with a gay republicanWhy anyone would want to be in a political party that actively insures that gays will never have equal rights? Low or no self esteem? Self loathing? Wanting to keep the status quo which equals special rights for straights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Why anyone would want to be in a political party that actively insures that gays will never have equal rights? Low or no self esteem? Self loathing? Wanting to keep the status quo which equals special rights for straights? I dunno either, you should ask my bf that question, it still boggles my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Why anyone would want to be in a political party that actively insures that gays will never have equal rights? Low or no self esteem? Self loathing? Wanting to keep the status quo which equals special rights for straights?I think it probably has to do with the problems inherent to a two-party system. People come in more than two flavors, but American politics do not. So folks have to prioritize and compromise on various issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I think it probably has to do with the problems inherent to a two-party system. People come in more than two flavors, but American politics do not. So folks have to prioritize and compromise on various issues. Exactly. Just like Robert Byrd, huge KKK member, yet he is a Democrat, which is supposedly the party that embraces the Black and Hispanic races, while "George Bush hates black people !" yet, it is his party that freed the slaves and gives immunity to illegal immigrants. How does that happen ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 "Excuse me, will there be a movie shown with this flight?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 I dunno either, you should ask my bf that question, it still boggles my mind.Same here. I just can't imagine what could be more important than my own self-esteem. It seems it would almost be like prostitution for a lower cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 I agree. Someone just blurting out "Republicans are scum!" doesn't make for enlightened discusion.concur....perhaps the moderators should send out a group reminder on thread protocol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danax Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 concur....perhaps the moderators should send out a group reminder on thread protocol. Just my opinion but we mods have touched on this before. My opinion is that, with our rapid growth, we've seen an increase in off-topic topics and topics that are more National Enquirer than The Architectural Review. Not that HAIF was ever a purely architectural forum but, "in the old days", the majority of the topics were well thought out discussions of developments, culture and architecture around town. I think our philosophy as mods is very hands-off. HAIF is a group mural and everyone from anywhere is allowed to dip their brush and have a go at it, within some easy guidelines. As for this topic.....just another damn Democratic trying to demonize and stir things up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ V Lawrence Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 the title of this thread is whack. if republicans are scum because of foley then:gay people are scum because of jeffrey dahmer, democrats are scum because of bill clinton, white people are scum because of the unabomber, arabic people are scum because of osama bin ladin (sp?), and so on. ever heard of a republican environmentalist? or how about a democratic evangelical, pro lifer? as someone said earlier........."what's wrong with a gay republican?"). it is inflammatory (and i'm guilty of it too) to generalize about a group of people based on a bad apple (or two, or ten ). this foley guy is simply a dirty old man. if this were female pages it wouldn't have half the attention it's getting. the media and the democrats homophobia is showing. Whoa, slow down there, Bach. U 2, Tomika. U gotta show some examples on the thread if you're gonna call someone out. Back to Bach. There's a problem with your examples of scum. It's one thing to have people do what your examples did (and Clinton was just being a Democrat), but it's ANOTHER thing to do what happened in the Foley case. Why? Because other Republicans actually TRIED TO COVER IT UP. Gay people never tried to deny Dahmer. Arabs never tried to deny Bin Laden. No white dude I knew tried to cover up the unabomber. And I'm sure another Democrat was taping Clinton's latest film "The Whiter House". But Foley? C'mon, man! First, people in the Republican party and in office tried to cover up the scandal for their political survival, THEN turn their backs on him as if they didn't know him once the story came out to the media, just so other Republicans wouldn't have to answer Foley questions when Election Day came. It's not about the bad apple in the tree. It's about the fact that other people tried to paint the rotten apple red in order to show that there were no bad apples in the tree. If a Republican came out and turned Foley in AS SOON AS THEY KNEW something was wrong, this story would have turned out much differently, and the entire party wouldn't have looked so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 I just heard on the news last night, that those emails are closely monitored, so who is doing the monitoring ? DJ, just like what was said earlier, I believe it is gonna come out that BOTH parties are guilty of covering it up or holding back on this info in order to gain political leverage. It is gonna be messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.