ABC News: Pages ‘Sending All Sorts of Messages About Possible Other Members’

1356

Comments

  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Jeanwah wrote:
    I have a real problem with your signature.

    That's great and you have every right to be offended by it. I've had it for years. It's not meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor and some don't get it, others do.
    I have a daughter with Down syndrome. You're the kind of crap I have to deal with, when she might get picked on for being different.

    I hate to sound callous but that's human nature. Get used to it.

    I wish the best for you and your Daughter.
  • Milhouse VanHouten
    Milhouse VanHouten Posts: 755
    69charger wrote:
    It's a metaphor and some don't get it, others do.

    Do you even know the definition of the word "metaphor"?
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    Do you even know the definition of the word "metaphor"?

    it doesn't appear so. I will echo the thought of it being tasteless.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    69charger wrote:
    It's not meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor and some don't get it, others do.
    yeah, explain that metaphor. The quote implies that there is no greatness in one who has mental disabilities, and makes fun of them. It's not funny. It's ignorant and cruel.
    I hate to sound callous but that's human nature. Get used to it.
    Only for people who refuse to accept people for who they are (who usually are, in turn, hateful people). It's not human nature to pick on others for being different, it's called a lack of self-esteem in one's self, and insecurity.

    Ignorance is the real disability, here.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    yes, yes he does.


    so people really are allowed to say whatever they want about someone? someone in the porch said they got banned for calling someone a lair. rules dont seem to apply in here.
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    jlew24asu wrote:
    so people really are allowed to say whatever they want about someone? someone in the porch said they got banned for calling someone a lair. rules dont seem to apply in here.

    Who's namecalling? If someone tries to shift blame from a pedophile to the "liberals doing it as well, so that must make it okay" mentallity, is suggesting it is okay to be a pedophile
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Who's namecalling? If someone tries to shift blame from a pedophile to the "liberals doing it as well, so that must make it okay" mentallity, is suggesting it is okay to be a pedophile


    well then the person you asked the question to should answer for himself.

    edit not you. inmytree
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Who's namecalling? If someone tries to shift blame from a pedophile to the "liberals doing it as well, so that must make it okay" mentallity, is suggesting it is okay to be a pedophile


    that's my take on this, too...I was just asking for clarification...
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    inmytree wrote:
    that's my take on this, too...I was just asking for clarification...

    yea so he should clarify not someone else answering, yes he supports pedophillia.
  • Riverrunner
    Riverrunner Posts: 2,419
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Shimkus is a fucking twat anyway, I can't stand that man. I hope that in 2 years that area of Illinois gets split up (I mean seriously, look at the 17th), and Costello and Shimkus have to run against one another. Jerry would kick his ass.

    I totally agree with you. I despise Shimkus. I called his office a month or so ago to ask how he stood on the horse slaughter ban that was being voted on. (There are only three horse slaughter houses in the country - 2 in Texas and 1 in Illinois. Most of the meat is shipped to France and Belgium for restaurants). An aid answered the phone and said "I don't know how he stands on the issue - we are having a meeting this morning about it." Lo and behold he votes against the ban. This was a bi-partisan bill to ban the slaughter of horses in this country. Republican Congressman Whitfield of Kentucky (a conservative) was a co-sponsor of the bill. I can think of no reason to support a horse slaughterhouse that ships meat to a foreign country. I didn't like him before this issue come up and this sealed the deal. Now add the "teenage page scandal" to his list of bad actions (or lack of action) and my dislike turns to disgust and contempt.
    The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. Ghandi
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    jlew24asu wrote:
    yea so he should clarify not someone else answering, yes he supports pedophillia.

    well, if the evidence supports it, I don't see a problem with someone coming to that conclusion...
  • Taft
    Taft Posts: 457
    Breaking News: GOP CONGRESSIONAL AIDE KIRK FORDHAM FORCED OUT AMID QUESTIONS OVER WHETHER HE SUPPRESSED INFORMATION ABOUT FOLEY E-MAILS


    This is a classic tactic of the souless GOP. What will happen over the next few days is many aides and staff members of various GOP congressional members will be forced to resign in the wake of the Foley scandel, all under the guise that they supressed information from there bosses. This will allow the GOP to appear to be "cleaning house", without having any congressional members step down.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Taft wrote:
    Breaking News: GOP CONGRESSIONAL AIDE KIRK FORDHAM FORCED OUT AMID QUESTIONS OVER WHETHER HE SUPPRESSED INFORMATION ABOUT FOLEY E-MAILS


    This is a classic tactic of the souless GOP. What will happen over the next few days is many aides and staff members of various GOP congressional members will be forced to resign in the wake of the Foley scandel, all under the guise that they supressed information from there bosses. This will allow the GOP to appear to be "cleaning house", without having any congressional members step down.

    Are you against the aides being held accountable for actions that were solely their own? Many things like this would not be passed up to their bosses and you seem to be calling for the heads of innocent people? Is this really all politics to you?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    tongue in cheek, dude

    get a clue


    I do have a clue thanks. calling someone a pedophile isnt tongue and cheek
  • Taft
    Taft Posts: 457
    zstillings wrote:
    Are you against the aides being held accountable for actions that were solely their own? Many things like this would not be passed up to their bosses and you seem to be calling for the heads of innocent people? Is this really all politics to you?

    Even taking it in a light most favorable to those bosses, i.e. that they were not told about the information (which is hard to believe).

    That is STILL not an excuse, they hired their aides and the buck stops at the top, they need to be held accountable for hiring wholly inadequate aides. The fact is that kids were in danger here and it was surpressed BECAUSE of politics, whether the aides told their bosses or not does not excuse them.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Taft wrote:
    Breaking News: GOP CONGRESSIONAL AIDE KIRK FORDHAM FORCED OUT AMID QUESTIONS OVER WHETHER HE SUPPRESSED INFORMATION ABOUT FOLEY E-MAILS


    This is a classic tactic of the souless GOP. What will happen over the next few days is many aides and staff members of various GOP congressional members will be forced to resign in the wake of the Foley scandel, all under the guise that they supressed information from there bosses. This will allow the GOP to appear to be "cleaning house", without having any congressional members step down.

    according to the link orignally posted, alot of heads might roll.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Taft wrote:
    Even taking it in a light most favorable to those bosses, i.e. that they were not told about the information (which is hard to believe).

    That is STILL not an excuse, they hired their aides and the buck stops at the top, they need to be held accountable for hiring wholly inadequate aides. The fact is that kids were in danger here and it was surpressed BECAUSE of politics, whether the aides told their bosses or not does not excuse them.

    It's not that hard to believe when you think about the happenings of Congress. Does a Congressman see every single piece of mail that is received by his office?

    These kids were over the age of consent in the city in which this was occurring so there is not legal basis for that.

    Does every Member who fires an employee have to step down? There wouldn't be any Democrats left either if that were the case.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    zstillings wrote:
    It's not that hard to believe when you think about the happenings of Congress. Does a Congressman see every single piece of mail that is received by his office?

    These kids were over the age of consent in the city in which this was occurring so there is not legal basis for that.

    Does every Member who fires an employee have to step down? There wouldn't be any Democrats left either if that were the case.
    If you hired someone so abyssmally stupid that upon learning that a congressman was carrying on "naughty" correspondence with underage pages, and knowing that the congressman in question was the head of the committee on abused and exploited children, and knowing that the congressman in question was from the same party as you and could thus reflect badly on you, the president and other party members .... knowing ALL that, this genius does NOTHING ....

    .... I'm sorry, I can't even go on with this, because I don't think that any congressional aides are that dumb. If they knew, their bosses knew.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • Taft
    Taft Posts: 457
    zstillings wrote:
    It's not that hard to believe when you think about the happenings of Congress. Does a Congressman see every single piece of mail that is received by his office?

    These kids were over the age of consent in the city in which this was occurring so there is not legal basis for that.

    Does every Member who fires an employee have to step down? There wouldn't be any Democrats left either if that were the case.

    Wow. No, a congressman doesn't see every single piece of mail that comes to their office, nor should s/he. However, this particular information should have been presented to them and to argue otherwise is pathetic.

    Furthermore, yes in D.C. the age of consent is 16 yrs old, however, solicitation of sex from a child under the age of 18 is a crime under federal law. Regardless, having a congressman in his authoritative role soliciting teenage pages is a SERIOUS problem and there was a responsibility to act on this much sooner by those who knew. Their failure to do so was for political reasons and they should be held accountable with their jobs.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    i didn't call anyone anything

    i've been banned for stupid shit like that before, and i've seen the light


    right right. it's all "tongue in cheek" i got it

Categories