2006-10-04 05:19:19 · 32 answers · asked by ? 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
NO. Where do you come up with this crap? He's a PEDOPHILE. MALE or FEMALE, it still applies numb nuts! Your view on homosexuality is really demented. I wouldn't doubt if you preyed on little kids on here.
2006-10-04 05:53:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I don't think so because he was sending messages to underage males.
It's sick.
It may not be classic pedophilia, though. The boys were post-pubescent, not pre-pubescent. Same with the Catholic priests - some of them were gay folks involved with underage men, not pedophiles. That may be one reason why the Boy Scouts have the bans they do, rightly or wrongly.
It makes Foley no less disgusting - I'm glad he's out of Congress and being investigated. Same with the priests.
But not being honest and thorough in describing things does no one any good.
2006-10-04 06:23:08 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Foley is a pedophile. He deserves to be vilified. It doesn't really matter whether the other person was male/female the crime is the same. I am more dismayed by Foley trying to make excuses for his behavior than by anything the Democrats are saying about him. Now having said that I must also say this. I think many Democrats are over reaching by trying to indict the entire party for Foley's actions, but alas this is just politics. I think this strategy is unworkable and will have a negative effect on public perception of the Democrats. In general moderate people in the country are tired of both sides politicizing everything. There is not proper evidence yet to support what the leadership did and didn't know. When the investigation is complete, anyone who knew and failed to act should be crucified.
2006-10-04 05:27:24 · answer #3 · answered by Bryan 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
First, it is HIGHLY unlikely that Foley IS gay, since most pedophiles are heterosexual! He's probably just using it as a pathetic excuse, for which actual gays should fry him!
No, I so NOT think Dems are gay-bashing (we're not called "Liberal" for nothing!)...they're just as disgusted by pedophilia as everyone else, and at the Republican "leadership", who KNEW, for covering up Foley's crimes!
See the study below, regarding # of gay pedophiles. Do some research!
2006-10-04 05:24:19 · answer #4 · answered by SieglindeDieNibelunge 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
A little. You hear a lot of loud protesting above. If it was a 16 year old girl the outcome would probably be the same. However, if it was a good looking FEMALE congressman and a 16 year old boy. There'd be a lot more chuckling and elbow nudging, that's for sure.
2006-10-04 05:26:21 · answer #5 · answered by MEL T 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I love the way people try to get some kind of positive out of a negative by saying that people who have come out against man boy sex are some how bashing gays .
2006-10-04 05:33:44 · answer #6 · answered by playtoofast 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, the attacks deal with his violation of the trust placed in him. As to his being a pedophile, that would come under "age of consent". Be that as it may, he was in a position of trust.
I just checked Jim W's link. My God are there any republican's with a clean slate. That is disgusting
2006-10-04 05:32:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. What makes it wrong is that it was a 16 year old, not the fact that it was another guy. Just ask Barney Frank. Oh, and by the way, I'm a hardcore conservative, so I have every reason to look at it like you did, but I used my brain. Come on, please don't be a lemming. We have too many of those as it is.
2006-10-04 05:26:13 · answer #8 · answered by letitcountry 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Probably not "gay bashing" Politicians tend to stay away from their strong views for or against gays. This is just good ol fashion mudslinging and political rhetoric. This recent news will be about as important as a Robin Williams movie in no time.
2006-10-04 05:24:42 · answer #9 · answered by BudLt 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No. A person's individual rights end when they infringe on someone else's. Supporting Gay lifestyle choices is not the same as condoning sexual relations with children.
2006-10-04 05:24:13 · answer #10 · answered by imnogeniusbutt 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋