1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Dennis Hastert is a total stroke

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Pringle, Oct 5, 2006.

  2. I wouldn't have. ("I asked you not to tell me that!")
    This is not a story about being gay. It's a story about the corruption of power in a Congress that has utterly abandoned its oversight role in every single area. This is just a juicier example of it.
  3. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    But you'll never get an acknowledgement of that, from anyone who refuses to acknowledge
    the utter whoredom of this bunch.
  4. D-Backs Hack

    D-Backs Hack Guest

    You cannot be serious.

    Pelosi never said she didn't want an investigation, she said Hastert's proposed investigation run by Louis Freeh doesn't go far enough. Then again, considering Freeh spent most of the 1990s in Bill Clinton's pants instead of tracking Al Qaeda, he might be the best man for the job.

    And yes, when a Congressman is discovered to be embroiled in scandal, the first thing that needs to be done is get polygraphs on the leaders of the opposition party. Seriously, you're making this argument?

    ABC has said, repeatedly, that its sources on the Foley story were Republicans. But whether it's George Bush's drunk-driving arrest or Foley's getting off in his office between floor votes, when it gets out, the Democrats must have had something to do with it.

    Once again, ladies and gentlemen, the party of personal responsibility.

    You and I, though, at least can agree on the potential impact on the election, as I am making no bets. Because when it comes to getting elected, Republicans have million-dollar bodies. It's just too bad that they have 10-cent brains when it comes time to govern.
  5. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    What I love -- LOOOOOOOVE -- here is that dumb ol' Tony spent the top half of his post making excuses for Foley's child-loving ways and then concluded with a line about Dems only being in this for the politics.

    Irony at its finest.

    And by the way, from start to finish, when you add it all up and really think about what's being said here, this might be the sickest post in SportsJournalists.com history. For Christ's sakes, tony, in the interest of partisanship, has just defended pedophilia -- so long as it involves an "older" child.
  6. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    I knew I could count on you dog for a really stupid response. Now it's pedophilia if the other guy is 18 and you do it over the Internet and never lay a hand on him. Why, because Foley's a Republican? And if 18 makes Foley a pedophile, then why doesn't Monica being 21 make Clinton a pedophile? Really.

    You're such a dumb dog I bet fire hydrants pee on you.
  7. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    Seriously? You're arguing with the definition YOU posted? And you're following that by arguing with another line from your post: "some of the IMs were just before he turned 18 ..."?

    What an absolutely astounding display of stupidity.

    Tell us, old tony, how the Dems just don't understand how beautiful child love really is. Tell us, please, all the ways Foley and the Republican party have enriched this child's life.

    Right now, those are the only things you can post to make a bigger ass out of yourself.

  8. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Whoops. Another fire hydrant has pissed on you.

    Age of consent in Louisiana is 17. And -- and here's the kicker you've still never figured out -- THERE WAS NO SEX! No physical contact. I know you're dense, but I never guessed the depth of your density.

    Foley is a sicko. Now he's out. And idiots like you are trying to use it all for politics to take down anyone that Foley ever talked to. Please, please keep it up, though, because it's extremist idiots such as yourself that are going to cause the Dems to blow any chance they might have had to take control of congress.

    Look out, dog! Another fire hydrant is pissing on you.

    And trust me, the dems know just how "beautiful child love really is" (your words). Just ask Mel Reynolds.
  9. Norman Stansfield

    Norman Stansfield Active Member

    I heard Foley is light in the loafers.
  10. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    By all means, continue arguing with yourself.

  11. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    You're the one arguing with yourself, dog (and getting pissed on once again by another fire hydrant).

    First, 17 is not a child. I know that's hard for you to understand since you're still a child yourself and probably older than 17. But the fact that you're apparently retarded is why you still post like a child.

    The first quote of mine that you pulled is a glaring example of your inability to see sarcasm. Nice job on showing how stupid you are.

    The second quote you pulled says right in it "IMs." That means they weren't even in the same place. And, since 17 is the age of consent in Louisiana, it appears you're stupid on two accounts.

    The third quote again shows that the perversion was in CONVERSATION OVER THE INTERNET. Again, no sex. I don't know why you want to keep showing what a dumb f*** you are, but keep it up.

    The fourth quote is the definition of pedophilia, which clearly DOESN'T fit the page in question, since he's now 21 and was 18 at the time that the IMs that crossed the line were delivered.

    Funny thing is, dog, that deep hole you've dug for yourself is about to be filled by a fire hydrant pissing all over you.

    Please tell me your parents are out of town and that's how you got onto the computer. It's the only logical explanation.
  12. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    Allow me to explain your words to you ... AGAIN.

    This is you arguing that it's not pedophilia since the kid is 18:
    This is you contradicting the above statement:
    This is you arguing that it's not pedophilia since he didn't touch him:
    This is your definition, which clearly contradicts that statement, since actually touching someone isn't a requirement:
    But by all means, continue on explaining why I'm too stupid to understand what you're saying when it's rather obvious that you can't decipher your own idiotic ramblings.

    And by the way, the fire hydrant joke wasn't funny the first time. And it damn sure wasn't funny the 12th time. Continue using it if you like, up to you.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page