quote:
My read on your posts is pretty damn accurate, which is why I imagine you're resorting to playground name-calling instead of a legitimate rebuttal.
There is no rebuttal to be made to your bullshit. You're making stuff up and arguing with yourself, just like Donald Rumsfeld. As for the name-calling, fuck you! I've had enough of your crap and I'm not reading another sentence of your drivel.
In my very first post to you, I treated you with complete respect. I only addressed you directly once, to say that I thought you and many of the republicans were going overboard in calling for Hastert's resignation. I also said, about Foley:
That Congressman clearly abused his power and may have committed some other crimes, but I can't for one minute believe that any of those 16-year-old boys have been permanently scarred by the experience.
To which you responded with the condescending:
quote:
Oh? You talked to them? Assessed their mental status?
I tried to continue being respectful toward you in my next post, saying nothing harsher than:
Those are silly questions. I would've expected better from you, crash.
When I dared to aver that most kids of 16 are sexually aware and quite capable of handling an unwanted, even graphic soliticitation from someone much older without being permanently scarred by the experience, you insulted me with:
quote:
The enthusiasm for sex with minors that Holmes and now you seem to radiate is quite creepy.
You then assumed an argumentative stance in agreeing with me that the Foley case is an abuse of power. In light of your attitude I wanted to publicly laugh at you for that, but on the odd chance that some degree of civility might still reside in you I let it pass.
When I said that I felt parents should begin preparing their kids for dealing with potential predators by age 2 and the process should be complete by age 16, you gave me this bullshit:
quote:
Hey, here's a guy you might get along well with:
quote:
quote:"As for the alleged abuse, it's time to ask some tough questions. First, there is a huge difference between being groped and being raped, so which was it Mr. Foley? Second, why didn't you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn't allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?" - Catholic League president, Bill Donohue.
That bitch was just asking for it, wasn't she? If it had been rape she would have fought back. That slut. And the way she was dressed...
I had already said a number of times that my comments were based on the notion that no rape or even inappropriate touching had occurred. This also I regard as an outright lie, since it's a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my statements.
As it happened I ignored that post entirely, wishing you'd just go away. But of course you didn't.
In my very next post (to bren, by the way, not you), I said:
I said before that I was in no way defending Foley. What he did was a gross abuse of power. Why isn't that enough? When we have a perfectly reasoned, logical basis for outlawing something we consider bad, why must we resort to morality?
You responded:
quote:
Who has, Berb? I don't see anyone in this thread who has resorted to crucifying Foley on religious grounds.
I don't believe I've once said anything about religion in this thread, unless perhaps within some reference to the so-called "values voters". I certainly never brought it up as a basis for crucifying Foley. Or are you of the opinion that morality can only come from religion?
I began to get testy, but still tried to remain respectful in
this post, but by the next round I was sick of you. I may get suspended for what I said, but so be it. I stand by it.
You can respond to this if you wish, but I don't believe I'll read it.
Edited by berberry, : corrected a word
W.W.E.D.?