If Hastert Knew About Foley A Year Ago ....

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

So... I assume you believe that homosexuality is something that is treatable?

I would LOVE to see any indication that you represent "the people" on that matter.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

(since I represent "the People" on this subject)

You do not represent the 'people' on this or any subject, and neither do I. In a free and democratic society you as an individual do not have a right to claim you represent anyone other than yourself.

then allow me to restate:  At least for now, I represent the voting majority's opinion of "the People" on this subject.

Once again, you do not. You represent yourself and while others may agree with you, there are others who will vehemently disagree with you. Man only represents himself (and his children if they are below majority)unless he is given the power of representation under 'contract' from the people in the form of election or appointment to a position.

Come on, afleitch.  

There is absolutely nothing wrong in my usage of the word "represent" ("9 : to serve as a specimen, example, or instance of").  You are merely trying to narrow the definition of the word to fit your argument (6a 1“to take the place of in some respect”), and in doing so, if you don’t mind me saying, you are speaking in my place, the very thing you are falsely accusing me of doing.

Main Entry: rep•re•sent
Pronunciation: "re-pri-'zent
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French representer, from Latin repraesentare, from re- + praesentare to present
transitive verb
1 : to bring clearly before the mind : PRESENT <a book which represents the character of early America>
2 : to serve as a sign or symbol of <the flag represents our country>
3 : to portray or exhibit in art : DEPICT
4 : to serve as the counterpart or image of : TYPIFY <a movie hero who represents the ideals of the culture>
5 a : to produce on the stage b : to act the part or role of
6 a (1) : to take the place of in some respect (2) : to act in the place of or for usually by legal right (3) : to manage the legal and business affairs of <athletes represented by top lawyers and agents> b : to serve especially in a legislative body by delegated authority usually resulting from election
7 : to describe as having a specified character or quality <represents himself as a friend>
8 a : to give one's impression and judgment of : state in a manner intended to affect action or judgment b : to point out in protest or remonstrance
9 : to serve as a specimen, example, or instance of
10 a : to form an image or representation of in the mind b (1) : to apprehend (an object) by means of an idea (2) : to recall in memory
11 : to correspond to in essence : CONSTITUTE

[nlm]

dude, wake up.  the much lower life-expectancy in black homosexuals has to do with the fact that STDs and AIDS are more widespread in the black community.  It has nothing to do with persecution of homosexuals.

And the ills of the black community are almost always a harbinger of what will overtake white suburbs.

Which was my point earlier that you missed completely. You are misrepresenting facts when you say gay people live a shorter life span. The fact is that the more sexual relationships a person has (gay or straight) the more likely they are to get HIV. Which is why I made the point you where making (and still are making) a good case for allowing gay marriage.

And where the heck do you get that crap about your approval...

Smoking, drinking, high stress jobs, heck - very active heterosexuals that have multiple partners, etc. all increase a persons chance of early death. What's your point. You seem to be making a good case for allowing homosexuals to marry - because limiting their partners to one if they so choose would be less "destructive". Or are you saying we should abolish CEO's because the stress of their jobs could lead to early death.

so, you are saying that not having my approval (since I represent "the People" on this subject) lowers the life expectancy of homosexuals?!

In that case, if I were to approve of drunkenness, would that also raise the life-expectancy of alcoholics?  What about smokers, would their life-spans benefit from my approval?  

logic dude - try it some time. That's just ranting.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So... I assume you believe that homosexuality is something that is treatable?

(Why is it when non-believers are faced with the facts, they immediately turn to religion in an attempt to ignore facts?)

Depends on what you mean by "treatable".  If you mean merely "reformed" as in an alcoholic attending AA, then I guess any 12 step program could have limited success.

But I do NOT believe that all alcoholics have to remain once-an-alcoholic-always-an-alcoholic.  I believe if they can get in touch a someone that has the power to completely wash away their addiction to alcohol.

---

I would LOVE to see any indication that you represent "the people" on that matter.

I said that I represent (serve as an example of) the majority opinion that is unwilling to place their stamp of approval on gay marriage.  

I never claimed that my belief in the cleansing power of the blood of Christ represented the majority.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

dude, wake up.  the much lower life-expectancy in black homosexuals has to do with the fact that STDs and AIDS are more widespread in the black community.  It has nothing to do with persecution of homosexuals.

And the ills of the black community are almost always a harbinger of what will overtake white suburbs.

Which was my point earlier that you missed completely. You are misrepresenting facts when you say gay people live a shorter life span. The fact is that the more sexual relationships a person has (gay or straight) the more likely they are to get HIV. Which is why I made the point you where making (and still are making) a good case for allowing gay marriage.

see below...

---

Smoking, drinking, high stress jobs, heck - very active heterosexuals that have multiple partners, etc. all increase a persons chance of early death. What's your point. You seem to be making a good case for allowing homosexuals to marry - because limiting their partners to one if they so choose would be less "destructive". Or are you saying we should abolish CEO's because the stress of their jobs could lead to early death.

so, you are saying that not having my approval (since I represent "the People" on this subject) lowers the life expectancy of homosexuals?!

In that case, if I were to approve of drunkenness, would that also raise the life-expectancy of alcoholics?  What about smokers, would their life-spans benefit from my approval? 

logic dude - try it some time. That's just ranting.

No, it is not ranting, it is specific examples of the innate falsehood of your argument that approving of an action makes the action less risky.

The fact is there is NOTHING keeping homosexuals from committing to each other in marriage.  The government simply will not recognize it.  But, since when is marriage about government recognition?

Your argument is tantamount to saying that the value of marriage is in a slip of paper, instead of the value being contained within an honest commitment between two people.

If government approval helps people stay together, then why do the majority of government recognized marriages end in divorce?

If homosexuals think my approval is key to them keeping their word to others, then it just proves how delusional they are.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why can't we just have everyone get civil unions and leave "marriages" to the churches and get the state out of it?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why can't we just have everyone get civil unions and leave "marriages" to the churches and get the state out of it?

probably wouldn't be that bad of an idea.  On that note, I hope to leave this conversation.

[Wakie]

If it isn’t destructive, then why don’t they live as long?

You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that bigots target homosexuals do ya?  That often if you are gay you have to hide it out of fear that some bigoted idiot will target you for violence or that your family or friends could reject you.  I'd say that would raise your stress level just a little bit.

It would probably being like being a Christian living in a country where Christianity is outlawed.  You could probably have a conversation with someone who would argue that a Christian lifestyle is "destructive".

dude, wake up.  the much lower life-expectancy in black homosexuals has to do with the fact that STDs and AIDS are more widespread in the black community.  It has nothing to do with persecution of homosexuals.

And the ills of the black community are almost always a harbinger of what will overtake white suburbs.

Dude, wake up.  Heterosexual African-Americans have a lower life expectancy than Heterosexual Caucasians for the very reasons you cited (increased level of STDs and AIDS).

Now add in the increased level of stress that is imposed by bigots on Homosexuals and you see a lower life expectancy.

[Wakie]

Why can't we just have everyone get civil unions and leave "marriages" to the churches and get the state out of it?

I agree with that.  It would also mean that anyone in a civil union would be afforded the same rights (which is EXACTLY what those pushing for gay marriage want).  Labels are unimportant.

A gay couple in a civil union should be able to enjoy all the same benefits a straight couple in a civil union enjoys.

[nlm]

No, it is not ranting, it is specific examples of the innate falsehood of your argument that approving of an action makes the action less risky.

The fact is there is NOTHING keeping homosexuals from committing to each other in marriage.  The government simply will not recognize it.  But, since when is marriage about government recognition?

Your argument is tantamount to saying that the value of marriage is in a slip of paper, instead of the value being contained within an honest commitment between two people.

If government approval helps people stay together, then why do the majority of government recognized marriages end in divorce?

If homosexuals think my approval is key to them keeping their word to others, then it just proves how delusional they are.

That's about as sideways an arguement as can be made.

First you used stats about a group that you strongly advocate not allowing to marry to show they that they were more likely to get HIV in an effort to somehow show them as bad or stupid or whatever.

Then you argue that a legally binding marriage has nothing (nothing - are you kidding) to do with keeping people from sleeping around. Do you actually think a legal marriage and the cost of breaking a marriage contract doesn't make a lot folks think twice before they screw around on their partners. Are you saying you think people that are dating are as likely to stay with one other faithfully for life as married people? Do you really think something that stupid?

Then you go on to make the case that essentially marriage is valueless because a large number of marriages (in this oh so Christian country) end in divorce - utterly ignoring the legal benefits provided by the government for marriage.

Heck - most folks that divorce in this country are Christian - I'm sure I could come up with some wild contrivance of that stat and make a case as good as yours (which ain't saying much) that Christians shouldn't be allowed to marry. Thankfully I'm not that silly.

And some how you come through all that and still conclude that marriage must be denied to gays. If it's so valueless to you - why the heck do you care?

That said.......

Why can't we just have everyone get civil unions and leave "marriages" to the churches and get the state out of it?

I like this idea.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why can't we just have everyone get civil unions and leave "marriages" to the churches and get the state out of it?

probably wouldn't be that bad of an idea.  On that note, I hope to leave this conversation.

Wow. I think hell froze over. JMFCST *agreeing* with a pro-gay right suggestion?!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why can't we just have everyone get civil unions and leave "marriages" to the churches and get the state out of it?

I agree with that.

On topic - I read something which says that the reason for the higher infection rate amongst the African-American population is due to the much higher level of closetedness in that community - leading to more risky sexual behaviour.

From what I've heard it's MUCH harder being accepted in that community as gay than in white, latino, asian etc etc.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That's about as sideways an arguement as can be made.

First you used stats about a group that you strongly advocate not allowing to marry to show they that they were more likely to get HIV in an effort to somehow show them as bad or stupid or whatever.

Then you argue that a legally binding marriage has nothing (nothing - are you kidding) to do with keeping people from sleeping around. Do you actually think a legal marriage and the cost of breaking a marriage contract doesn't make a lot folks think twice before they screw around on their partners. Are you saying you think people that are dating are as likely to stay with one other faithfully for life as married people? Do you really think something that stupid?

Then you go on to make the case that essentially marriage is valueless because a large number of marriages (in this oh so Christian country) end in divorce - utterly ignoring the legal benefits provided by the government for marriage.

Heck - most folks that divorce in this country are Christian - I'm sure I could come up with some wild contrivance of that stat and make a case as good as yours (which ain't saying much) that Christians shouldn't be allowed to marry. Thankfully I'm not that silly.

And some how you come through all that and still conclude that marriage must be denied to gays. If it's so valueless to you - why the heck do you care?

you missed my point completely.  I NEVER said marriage was valueless, rather I said the government's stamp of approval was valueless in keeping marriages together.

There is absolutely NOTHING stopping any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, to committing to a marriage.  And they could draw up their own legal agreement that would be legally binding in case the relationship is broken off.

[Michael Z]

Wayne Madsen has a rather interesting take on the whole Foley affair in his 2 October entry:

The consensus of Washington insiders is that the Foley scandal is merely the "tip of the iceberg" and when all the facts become known there will be a political tsunami that could wash away as many as 60 to 70 incumbent Republicans in the House. There is also evidence that the scandal may soon spill over into the ranks of the Republicans in the Senate (particularly the Senate office of embattled Virginia Senator George Allen) [note: the Senate Page program is overseen by the political patronage Senate Sergeant-at-Arms office, not a member oversight board such as that which exists in the House], the White House, and the Republican National Committee.
(Source.)

Sure, Madsen isn't the most unbiased of commentators, but then neither is Drudge and he was on the ball a few times. Though it could well be wishful thinking on behalf of the Democrats. We shall see. Further down, it has more detailed extracts of the IMs Foley shared, in case you really want to read stuff like that, though it's not so much disgusting as rather quite pathetic.