| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 Location: seoul
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh Neil...... may I take this moment to welcome you fully to America.....
Welcome to a truly American thread.....you may have wanted to immigrate there when you were younger....well, here is your chance. You are not trapped in Korea.......you are free to move around the (temperate) parts of the North American Continent. Make your choice, will it be spicy New Mexico? Intellectual Rhode Island? How about prairie Iowa??? Or maybe mountainous Tennessee is more your style? You could of course check out totally and live on the beach in the middle of the Pacific (Hawaii) or up north in Alaska?
It's all good.....it's all good....
Pick one of 50 states, make it your own. Defend your state and regional culture with all of your strength.
But please leave your British (fishy)chip on shoulder.......well on that side of the pond.
For we have a very loooong history of both defeating and defending you folks.....
for what it's worth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Neil
Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Location: Tokyo
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ohh I've been there a couple of time before.....very nice, jolly nice people.
But I think I'll go to Japan next....they have robots and the PS3 will be out earlier.
You can't compete with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sundubuman,
After that brilliant prose, I would like to thank you. Thank you for inspiring Stephen Colbert. If it were not for people like you, there would be no "The Colbert Report". There would be much less humor for me on weekday evenings.
So once again: thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 Location: seoul
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
you are oh so welcome....
I don't watch much TV, although I heard Colbert is quite funny....
Glad I can do my part.....like the Amish who never heard of the guy.....
Wonder where Hollywood is heading when virtually everybody is ignoring them.......
except bucheon, who references me and his favorite Hollywood-produced show...
care to talk about reality instead of referencing banality????
let me know when you are up for it.....
meanwhile, the majority of us are moving on...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jaganath69

Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rather than resorting to an Ad-hominem, you could explain to us why you are still supporting the grooming of minors for paedophile sex. And as for your, 'what are you, peez off outta our business rant', I'll do the same, my son, when you stop butting into Europe's business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
Wonder where Hollywood is heading when virtually everybody is ignoring them.......
except bucheon, who references me and his favorite Hollywood-produced show...
care to talk about reality instead of referencing banality????
let me know when you are up for it.....
meanwhile, the majority of us are moving on...... |
a) it is produced in NY, but nice try. You love to generalize just about everything huh?
b) the sex scandal you mentioned in the OP is a red herring. It's called politics. If the GOP didn't capitalize on that scandal back then, tough.. I also wouldn't be surprised if the dems would have been as dumb as Hastert was this time.
Regardless, GOP leadership screwed up this time. And unlike the Dems, they pride themselves on "family values" hence the charges of hypocriscy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 Location: seoul
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Trust me,
the hypocrisy if it resides anywhere is fully that of the Democrats.
In 83, they poo-pooed a similar story where the sex was CONSUMATED.....
in the 90's they tried to make Clinton's lying about having not shoved cigars up an interns vag-ina as an issue of mere prudishness....
And now, after a Republican teen-chaser, who never had sex with the young government worker as did the aforementioned, and only sent salacious IMS.... actually steps down from his position in government (as opposed to the 2 Dems who felt no need to do so)...
It is the Republicans who are the hypocrites!!!!
friggin astounding.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
First, sundubuman, try to get your facts straight.
The 1983 scandal was due to Studds (D-MASS) 1973 sex with a male page and Dan Crane's (R-ILL) 1980 sex with a female page.
Both behaviors were despicably unethical, if not immoral and/or illegal.
Secondly, to accuse one party or another of having a monopoly on hypocrisy, partisanship, or election year pandering is to be completely ignorant of political history.
That the Republicans got caught with their pants down one month before a mid-term election is the fault of the Republicans. While trying to shift the issue on to the Democrat's is admittedly part of the political process, it completely ignores the despicable behavior of Foley and the GOP.
In the end, the American people will decide which one they consider worse. Foley preying on young boys and the GOP covering it up, or the Dems for making an issue out of it. Come November 7, we'll have our answer.
In short, don't hate the player. Hate the game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's hard to take someone seriously who starts a thread about moral equivalency on one topic then resorts to it to begin a new thread on another topic. There is just something so...., um...hypocritical about it. Especially when the second topic is allegedly about the opposition being hypocritical.
I'm really curious why the OP made NO posts on the Foley thread expressing any reaction at all, much less moral outrage at an adult sexually preying on a teenager while party officials knew and said nothing, but gets all excited about a perceived hypocritical stance by a political party.
It makes me wonder just what his values are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 Location: seoul
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
"preying on young boys"????
a 17 year-old openly talking with someone via IM's is a "young boy"???
check out the following list....
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
In the vast majority of countries, a 17 year-old is considered responsible for his/her own actions when it comes to sex.
Question for ya Huff...
Is a 17 year-old a "young boy"?
And should a 17-year-old be free to have sex? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003 Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
a 17 year-old openly talking with someone via IM's is a "young boy"???
|
16. Don't forget that the minimum age for House pages is also 16, so he went for the youngest ones he could find. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 Location: seoul
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
and for the record,
I think Foley did the right thing by stepping down......unlike Clinton who chose to drag the country through the mud for years......
Both behaviors were wrong.
Yet you on the left who seem so worked up over this (non-sex...ie no sex happened) are bar none
the GREATEST FRIGGIN HYPOCRITES I've ever seen!!
Why do you care what a Congressman IM'd a willing IM'er???? yet feign total disconcern for what Clinton did???
If one of you can enlighten me as to why Foley is so much more despicable than Studds/Clinton/Jesse Jackson........ (and remember the latter 3 had sex with young folks, never felt the need to step down from their office/position......while the former, checked himself into rehab, apologized, and quit his job in disgrace)
please do so..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
In the vast majority of countries, a 17 year-old is considered responsible for his/her own actions when it comes to sex.
|
In Canada, the age of consent used to be 14, but the Conservatives just raised it to 16.
However...
Whatever the age, everything changes when an adult is in a position of authority over someone under the age of 18, even if he's over the age of consent. At least according to Canadian law. Not sure what the laws in D.C. or Florida say about that.
It's beginning to look to me, though, as if Foley might have planned his actions carefully to avoid actually breaking any laws. The boys were all 16, so he wasn't breaking the age of consent laws, and since he doesn't seem to have used the internet to solicit actual sex, they can't get him under that internet stalking law that he helped co-author.
Last edited by On the other hand on Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Question for ya Huff...
|
Question for ya, dubu:
What is the minimum age you think is OK for an adult male to solicit sex with a minor male?
17 seems to be OK with you. What about a 15 year old? They are sexually mature. Maybe a 13 year old? Is that OK?
More importantly, how old does the kid have to be before other adults who know the sexual preying is going on are no longer obligated, morally or legally, to step in and protect the kid? I realize from what you've said that at some point it is more important that adults protect other adults from the consequences of their actions, but I'd really like to know what you consider that cut-off point to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| More importantly, how old does the kid have to be before other adults who know the sexual preying is going on are no longer obligated, morally or legally, to step in and protect the kid? |
But here's the thing. If Foley WASN'T breaking any laws, what exactly could the GOP leadership have done, besides asking him to stop? If Foley continued to ignore their entreaties to cease his behavior, I don't know that they had any other options left, besides informally warning pages to stay away from him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|