For weeks, Sen. John McCain's campaign has quietly resisted calls to dump one of his leading religious representatives who critics say is an inappropriate surrogate because of links to allegations of sexual impropriety.

At least three religious groups have asked the McCain campaign to remove Deal W. Hudson from its national Catholic-outreach group. The groups say Hudson, who quit President Bush's political team in 2004 amid similar calls, lacks the moral authority to represent the campaign on religious issues.

Hudson left a tenured professorship at Fordham University in New York after a 1994 incident in which he was accused of having sex with a freshman. He was never charged with a crime.

The controversy could hamper McCain's efforts to win over religious voters, who are wary of his candidacy.

The campaign declined to discuss the matter Wednesday and repeated an earlier statement.

"He's a name on a list, a volunteer. When are we going to start talking about gas prices, jobs and the issues facing Americans? The McCain campaign is all done with the 'gotcha' games," said Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman.

But those who are troubled by Hudson's background say he is more than a volunteer. Earlier this month, he was identified on a Catholic radio show as a McCain surrogate, and he also hosted a conference call with the deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee discussing the campaign with Catholic media.

"He just shouldn't be representing Catholics for the campaign. It's offensive," said a member of McCain's steering committee who did not want his name used. Catholics "reject him as a moral arbiter."

For McCain, it is the second time his supporters have upset at least some Catholics, a key voting group. In May, McCain rejected the support of the Rev. John Hagee, a Texas-based tel- evangelist who has made several anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish comments.

Hudson, a self-styled "theocon" who now lives in Fairfax, Va., left Fordham after one of his former students sued him, claiming he plied her with drinks and had sex with her when she was 18 years old. The case was later settled.

Hudson, who was a philosophy professor, declined to comment through a spokesman. In an earlier statement, Hudson said: "My past continues to be a source of shame to me and, unfortunately, my family. I'm not blaming anyone for this. It was my own fault. And while the revelation of my failing was deeply humiliating, it was also an important wake-up call for me. Over the past four years, I've tried to make amends with family, friends and supporters."

In 2000, Hudson served as a leading figure for Bush's efforts in courting Catholic voters. In August 2004, he quit Bush's re-election campaign after the National Catholic Reporter outlined the Fordham incident.

In March, Hudson found a home with the McCain campaign, when he was among a list of about 100 "prominent Catholics" supporting the presumptive Republican nominee.

Hudson is director of Inside Catholic.com, a Web site for faith, culture and politics. He has used that outlet to praise McCain for his opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage and attack Sen. Barack Obama for his support of abortion rights.

"There is no doubt that the dramatic progress made in reducing abortions over the last 30 years - now at their lowest number since 1974 - will be rapidly reversed under a President Obama," Hudson wrote this month. This week, he described Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, who is widely regarded as a potential Obama running mate, as a "pro-abortion Catholic."

Kaine, who is Catholic and spent a year in a Jesuit mission, has said he is personally opposed to abortion but would not restrict a woman's reproductive rights.

Religion has been a recurring issue in this year's presidential election for other candidates, as well.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, faced questions during his run for the Republican nomination about the role his faith would play. So, too, did former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who tried to allay concerns about his Mormon faith during his bid.

For more than a month, Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, faced heavy criticism for his initial unwillingness to distance himself from his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who made remarks seen as racially divisive from his Chicago pulpit. In April, Obama created another stir when he said small-town Americans cling to guns and religion out of bitterness in a deteriorating economy.

And throughout the campaign, Obama has faced untrue suggestions that he is a Muslim.

The same day McCain rejected Hagee, he also rejected the support of the Rev. Rod Parsley, an Ohio preacher who gave an anti-Muslim sermon.

"HUDSON ","DEAL ","052"," 9038","ASHMEADE ","DR","FAIRFAX ","VA","11/05/2001","EXPIRED STATE LIC PLATE"

"HUDSON ","DENL ","052"," 9038","ASHMEADE ","DR","FAIRFAX ","VA","11/05/2001","PASSING ON LEFT TO ONCOMING TRFC"

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 08:53PM by Alias.

"Hudson left a tenured professorship at Fordham University in New York after a 1994 incident in which he was accused of having sex with a freshman. He was never charged with a crime."

Is having sex with an 18 year old a crime ?

/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 08:55PM by Alias.

;



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 09:53PM by Alias.

Interesting term "a moral crime"....having sex with an adult is not a crime..period. It may be against employer policies...but not a crime. The fact you dont approve doesnt matter a bit.

Woke up to what? To support religious zealot..corporate supporting..war mongering conservatives?

Personally, I don't see any difference in morality between Republicans and Democrats. They're both equally sleezy, but the republicans try more to hide it, which makes them slightly worse.

I don't see any crime committed here,but clearly his poor moral choice was becoming a priest. Few professions are as slimy as the clergy, but when you add politics to the mix, your really deep in the gutter.

It's just a shining example of the underlying hypocrisy and carefully crafted phonyness of the conservative christian political ruse.

Ride around on a high horse long enough and fools will eventually follow.

And lest I be criticized for my opinion, I should point out that I think it's really wrong if this guy was cheating on his wife. Not because I think it's "immoral"- but because it is stupid to do things that hurt the people who trust you.


Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting term "a moral crime"....having sex
> with an adult is not a crime..period. It may be
> against employer policies...but not a crime. The
> fact you dont approve doesnt matter a bit.
>
> Woke up to what? To support religious
> zealot..corporate supporting..war mongering
> conservatives?

Actually, having sex can be considered a moral crime, when it happens without consent or one partner isn't in capacity of making that choice so the other partner makes it for them. This crime is called rape, and what this priest did certainely falls under that category

Implicit in my comment was "consentual" sex. Anything else is rape (as you pointed out)...and that is a legal crime. And most if not all legal crimes also pass the muster of being a moral issue...not a crime..an issue.

;



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 09:53PM by Alias.

> Meeper is an excellent example of the modern
> liberal. He does not think it is morally wrong to
> cheap on your spouse.


Modern conservatives would NEVER cheat on their spouses, right?

Divorce rates are higher in the more Christian (conservative) states.

For instance, VA is 3.9 divorces per 1000 residents, Maryland is 3.1 - that is a 20% different.

Cant get much more conservative than Oklahoma and much more liberal than NJ, according to some people. Oklahoma's divorce rate is nearly twice NJ's.

Massachusettes, the big daddy of Liberalism, has a divorce rate of 2.2 per 1000 residents. And Mass was beat out by the UBER liberal DC with 2.0 per 1000.

You will see similar trends for yourself http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html

So please, don't make assumptions about us "liberals. You "conservatives" live in some mighty big glass houses.

8 tenths of change is a 20 percent difference? I suck at maths, but that doesnt seem right. *scratches head*

It's 2008, many married couples have affairs and their wife or husbands don't care. I doubt this will even be an issue in the race.

,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 09:38PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile wrote:
>
> Divorce rates are higher in the more Christian
> (conservative) states.
>
> So please, don't make assumptions about us
> "liberals. You "conservatives" live in some mighty
> big glass houses.
> ___________________________________
>
> I have not studied the data, but apparently
> neither has Radiophile, who clearly has used
> statistics to support a political bias. It is not
> believable that political ideology has much to do
> with whether or not a couple divorces.
>
> The age when people marry and their level of
> education are the major factors contributing to
> the divorce rate.
>
> Of course, the states you mention with low divorce
> rates also have a high number of Catholics, so
> that might play a role. Also, the northeast is not
> known for its transient population. Its
> communities and villages have deep roots with
> families who have been living there for
> generations.
>
> Divorce is about instability, not political party
> affiliation.

I recommend that you go do what you GOP'ers do best; instant message young boys. I believe you call that "mentoring". -§

Divorce is about smarts and attitude. Stupid, self centered, and/or vindictive people file for divorce.

Smart people think things through before they get married and if the subject of divorce comes up while married. Stupid people think life will be a fairy tale with changed behavior after they get married, or after they get divorced.

It blows my mind when women have affairs with married men, and think they will eventually marry him. Even if it happens, he is most likely too self centered to not try to have another affair.

Timeline
You get married.
You get used to each other. You expect the other to change. Does he, does she? Is it an acceptable amount?
You have a kid. Focus changes, you are tired, frustrated, irritable.

You make a decision. Life is getting harder, do I stay or do I avoid home (Man), Do I bitch at him that life is too hard (woman)?

Smart people think and talk things through and accept the challenges.
Arrogant dumb asses yell and hurt each other, and maybe try to find "love" someplace else, or convince themselves that “love” is now gone.

There you have it; if you marry a stupid, self centered, and/or vindictive person, or you are one, you are more likely to get divorced down the road. Unfortunately, the so called “red” states have a higher percentage of these people than the “blue” states.

A decision was made a long time ago that there were to be no NASCAR races on Mothers’ Day so that stupid, self centered, and/or vindictive people wouldn’t have their fat asses planted in front of the TV that day, ignoring their mother.

Radiophile Wrote

> For instance, VA is 3.9 divorces per 1000 residents, Maryland is 3.1 - that is > a 20% different.

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 8 tenths of change is a 20 percent difference? I
> suck at maths, but that doesnt seem right.
> *scratches head*


Depending on your baseline. If you are starting with 3.1 and ending up with 3.9, then the percentage increase is 25.8%. If your baseline is 3.9 and you compare it to 3.1, that is a -20.512% (or simply stated 20.512% which will work for simple comparisons) difference.

I did say it was a 20% difference, not a 20% increase.

I erred on the conservative side giving you the lower number.

I hope I have cleared this up for you.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Divorce is about smarts and attitude. Stupid,
> self centered, and/or vindictive people file for
> divorce.
>
> Smart people think things through before they get
> married and if the subject of divorce comes up
> while married. Stupid people think life will be a
> fairy tale with changed behavior after they get
> married, or after they get divorced.
>
> It blows my mind when women have affairs with
> married men, and think they will eventually marry
> him. Even if it happens, he is most likely too
> self centered to not try to have another affair.
>
> Timeline
> You get married.
> You get used to each other. You expect the other
> to change. Does he, does she? Is it an acceptable
> amount?
> You have a kid. Focus changes, you are tired,
> frustrated, irritable.
>
> You make a decision. Life is getting harder, do I
> stay or do I avoid home (Man), Do I bitch at him
> that life is too hard (woman)?
>
> Smart people think and talk things through and
> accept the challenges.
> Arrogant dumb asses yell and hurt each other, and
> maybe try to find "love" someplace else, or
> convince themselves that “love” is now gone.
>
> There you have it; if you marry a stupid, self
> centered, and/or vindictive person, or you are
> one, you are more likely to get divorced down the
> road. Unfortunately, the so called “red” states
> have a higher percentage of these people than the
> “blue” states.
>
> A decision was made a long time ago that there
> were to be no NASCAR races on Mothers’ Day so that
> stupid, self centered, and/or vindictive people
> wouldn’t have their fat asses planted in front of
> the TV that day, ignoring their mother.

Sounds like you want to keep perpetuating the "two Americas." The liberal message of hope rings true in every sentence you write. Maybe they should impose a no FFFXU day a year so your fatass can peel yourself away from your computer chair.

Televisionphile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Sounds like you want to keep perpetuating the "two
> Americas." The liberal message of hope rings true
> in every sentence you write. Maybe they should
> impose a no FFFXU day a year so your fatass can
> peel yourself away from your computer chair.

Another lovely remark from an anonymous poster. I admire your negative use of the word "liberal". Since you are a conservative - you bash the liberals but have no plan of your own, right?

FYI - extremely unscientific I know, but every hard core Bush supporter I know - about 10 of them - has been divorced. The liberals I know - a greater number then 10 - are all happily married, except for the widow.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2008 01:57PM by Radiophile.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Televisionphile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >> Sounds like you want to keep perpetuating the
> "two
> > Americas." The liberal message of hope rings
> true
> > in every sentence you write. Maybe they should
> > impose a no FFFXU day a year so your fatass can
> > peel yourself away from your computer chair.
>
> Another lovely remark from an anonymous poster. I
> admire your negative use of the word "liberal".
> Since you are a conservative - you bash the
> liberals but have no plan of your own, right?
>
> FYI - extremely unscientific I know, but every
> hard core Bush supporter I know - about 10 of them
> - has been divorced. The liberals I know - a
> greater number then 10 - are all happily married,
> except for the widow.

Again, still perpetuating the "two Americas" thing. If you are morally superior as you claim to be, should you be simply attacking conservatives for their lack of morality or perhaps trying to solve the problem? I realize bitching online and attacking others is easy and that solving problems is hard. If you aren't part of the solution......

As for the anonymous thing, what is your name and address? Is Radiophile your given name? If not, you are a bit hypocritical and anonymous I might add.

Again, you use terminology without explaing what it is. In what way did I refer to the "two Americas" I refered to Red nd Blue states as referenced and defined by a Dept of State paper. The Dept of State is oversaw by our own Fearless Leader. Got a problem with that, deal with it you unpatriotic person who hates our Fearless Leader.

The divorrce rate numbers were taken from the US Census Bureau, oversaw by? You guessed it! Got a problem with that? Then again you are unpatriotic.


I did not attack conservatives for their moral infeority, I was simply pointing out facts as defined by our own US government, which right now is oversaw by our own Fearless Leader. Got a problem with that? Then move to Canada you unpatriotic American.

I will leavce the attacking to RNC, they do a pretty good job of it as we all know.

And go ahead and ask me how to solve a problem and I will tell you. If I just tell you, it is not problem solving, it is called Preaching.

And lastly, I do not hide behind made up names with every post. You got a problem with something I said, then fine - you know exactly where to PM or point it out by telling me.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, you use terminology without explaing what
> it is. In what way did I refer to the "two
> Americas" I refered to Red nd Blue states as
> referenced and defined by a Dept of State paper.
> The Dept of State is oversaw by our own Fearless
> Leader. Got a problem with that, deal with it you
> unpatriotic person who hates our Fearless Leader.

Whoa, not only are you an anonymous hypocrite, you are stupid as well. Thanks though, I did get a good chuckle out of your theory that the US State Department originated the red state/blue state dichotomy. I hadn't realized that Tim Russert or David Brinkley were employed by the State Department!


> The divorrce rate numbers were taken from the US
> Census Bureau, oversaw by? You guessed it! Got a
> problem with that? Then again you are unpatriotic.

I don't have a problem with the Census Bureau, but you have a problem with reading comprehension and embarassment over your own hypocracy.



> I did not attack conservatives for their moral
> infeority, I was simply pointing out facts as
> defined by our own US government, which right now
> is oversaw by our own Fearless Leader. Got a
> problem with that? Then move to Canada you
> unpatriotic American.

You used those facts to attack conservatives. Simply because the facts support your argument doens't mean it isn't an attack. If I say Bill Clinton is a dickwad for getting BJs from Monica in the oval office, it is an attack and it is a fact.

> I will leavce the attacking to RNC, they do a
> pretty good job of it as we all know.

"You "conservatives" live in some mighty big glass houses." That isn't an aspersion?


> And go ahead and ask me how to solve a problem and
> I will tell you. If I just tell you, it is not
> problem solving, it is called Preaching.

It isn't preaching, it is informing. If I ask you how to fix my tire and you tell me, it is preaching? Do you even understand yourself?

> And lastly, I do not hide behind made up names
> with every post. You got a problem with something
> I said, then fine - you know exactly where to PM
> or point it out by telling me.

So, your parents named you Radiophile??? Or did you make it up? Why would I want to PM you or have you PM me?

Proud to be Anonymous Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Again, you use terminology without explaing
> what
> > it is. In what way did I refer to the "two
> > Americas" I refered to Red nd Blue states as
> > referenced and defined by a Dept of State
> paper.
> > The Dept of State is oversaw by our own
> Fearless
> > Leader. Got a problem with that, deal with it
> you
> > unpatriotic person who hates our Fearless
> Leader.
>
> Whoa, not only are you an anonymous hypocrite, you
> are stupid as well. Thanks though, I did get a
> good chuckle out of your theory that the US State
> Department originated the red state/blue state
> dichotomy. I hadn't realized that Tim Russert or
> David Brinkley were employed by the State
> Department!
>
Radiophile: Where did I say the State Department ORIGINATED it? I said it was REFERENCED AND DEFINED in a State Department publication I read. Ever read a State Department publication? I guess not.

> > The divorrce rate numbers were taken from the
> US
> > Census Bureau, oversaw by? You guessed it! Got
> a
> > problem with that? Then again you are
> unpatriotic.
>
> I don't have a problem with the Census Bureau, but
> you have a problem with reading comprehension and
> embarassment over your own hypocracy.

Radiophile:And I have a problem with you quoting what I did not say.
>
> > I did not attack conservatives for their moral
> > infeority, I was simply pointing out facts as
> > defined by our own US government, which right
> now
> > is oversaw by our own Fearless Leader. Got a
> > problem with that? Then move to Canada you
> > unpatriotic American.
>
> You used those facts to attack conservatives.
> Simply because the facts support your argument
> doens't mean it isn't an attack. If I say Bill
> Clinton is a dickwad for getting BJs from Monica
> in the oval office, it is an attack and it is a
> fact.

Radiophile: Your Clinton analogy is NOT a fact it is an ATTACK, you used the word Dickwad, that is your opinion, not a matter of fact

> > I will leavce the attacking to RNC, they do a
> > pretty good job of it as we all know.
>
> "You "conservatives" live in some mighty big glass
> houses." That isn't an aspersion?

Radiophile: No, I know pletny of conservatives who live in big houses with alot of windows. Had I used the "Throwing stones" analogy then it would be a mild attack - get it? Reading comprehension is a good thing.

> > And go ahead and ask me how to solve a problem
> and
> > I will tell you. If I just tell you, it is not
> > problem solving, it is called Preaching.
>
> It isn't preaching, it is informing. If I ask you
> how to fix my tire and you tell me, it is
> preaching? Do you even understand yourself?

Radiophile: Can you read and comprehend, that is EXACTLY what I said.


> > And lastly, I do not hide behind made up names
> > with every post. You got a problem with
> something
> > I said, then fine - you know exactly where to
> PM
> > or point it out by telling me.
>
> So, your parents named you Radiophile??? Or did
> you make it up? Why would I want to PM you or
> have you PM me?

No I have a biblical first name that was given to me at birth. I prefer not to use it because of people like you. What happens on Fairfaxunderground should stay here, I dont want you to know where I live or work. Fair enough? If you have a problem with what I say - then contact me here. You on the other hand have freedom of speech with no consequences or more importantly, responcibilities since you are an anonymous poster. With rights come responcibilities. I take responcibility for my words, you hide behind your own. And that is a fact, not an attack.


Learn to Read. That will be all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2008 05:46PM by Radiophile.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For weeks, Sen. John McCain's campaign has quietly
> resisted calls to dump one of his leading
> religious representatives who critics say is an
> inappropriate surrogate because of links to
> allegations of sexual impropriety.
>
> At least three religious groups have asked the
> McCain campaign to remove Deal W. Hudson from its
> national Catholic-outreach group. The groups say
> Hudson, who quit President Bush's political team
> in 2004 amid similar calls, lacks the moral
> authority to represent the campaign on religious
> issues.
>
> Hudson left a tenured professorship at Fordham
> University in New York after a 1994 incident in
> which he was accused of having sex with a
> freshman. He was never charged with a crime.
>

I love it when reporters write articles like this. "He was accused of having sex with a freshman...He was never charged with a crime."

First off, having sex with a freshman is not a crime (legal issue) unless they are underage or somehow it was a rape - even then it gets murky due to age of consent and other legal issues. But then making a statement that he was never charged with a crime, suddenly puts in your mind that what he did must have somehow been criminal, just that he got away with it.

Fordham (as do probably most colleges) have rules about sexual conduct with students as it relates to ethics within the school, and teacher-student relationships.

Later in the article it adds this:

"Hudson, a self-styled "theocon" who now lives in Fairfax, Va., left Fordham after one of his former students sued him, claiming he plied her with drinks and had sex with her when she was 18 years old. The case was later settled."

So she sued him (implying civil court), and then the case was later settled. Whoop de doo. Anyone can claim just about anything in Civil court and sue you for it. At the least it seems he did have sex with her, and it also seems, based on the reading, that he was married at the time (since that article also notes that he admits to how that was a "...shame to me and, unfortunately, my family..."). She was 18, so no legal issue there other than possibly rape, but it appears that if she did go to the authorities they must have believed it was consensual sex, so then she decided to sue him to make him lose his job or something?

So ... at the time he may have had some moral and ethical questions he had to deal with. He obviously had a problem with his place of work based on his behavior, and left the job because of it. On the other hand, certainly the lawsuit would raise questions to most outside observers as to what the girl's motivation was in first having sex with him, and then suing him. Sure, he could have gotten her drunk and had sex with her, so why not claim it was rape and go to the police (or did she and they deemed it was consensual)? Was her civil case somehow claiming he raped her? Not sure how that would move forward as a civil issue if the Police deemed it was not.

The fact that she sued him seems odd - was she trying to get cash from him? Hmm, you had sex with me, and later I felt it was wrong, so I think you owe me money? Or she decided after the sex that he was wrong, so he should lose his job for it? I just don't get the whole point of suing someone for having sex with you, other than to go out of your way to discredit them. Anyone know if she went to the school administration and tried to "out" him on having sex with her? So what, the school administration didn't fire him because of it, so then she sued him to REALLY prove he did it? Sounds more like she wanted more out of the relationship with him, and when he said no, she decided to get even - IMHO.

Certainly he was morally wrong for doing it at the time, but the issue is something between him, his wife, and God. It didn't somehow disqualify him as a Catholic - only the Pope can do that here on earth I think... If he went to his priest, asked for forgiveness, did his penance, and kept working to redeem himself, then he is doing exactly what he should be as a Catholic, true? Great thing about Catholicism, you are presumed to be a sinner all the time, and have to go to Confession since they know you are going to sin. Hard to understand how you can lose moral authority on any religious issue as a general rule.

And I am not religious per se. I have a generally Christian belief system, but I don't belong to any Church here on earth.

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 09:38PM by Alias.

First, I was responding to the quote "Meeper is an excellent example of the modern liberal. He does not think it is morally wrong to cheap on your spouse."

An assumption was made that modern liberals cheat on their spuses. If you want to get into why the divorce rate is higher in Red VS Blue states, that is fine.

You see the north eat is not known for its transient population... Either is Oklahoma, or Wyoming so I miss your point.

I was responding to a simple statement with facts that include numbers. But let me argue your statement in the same fashion you make yours - short and sweet.

When most people marry, they make a vow before their God(s). People in red states break this vow in a greater percentage than the people in the blue states.

John McCain who is a conservative and calls himself a Christian, was married to one women and decided to take on a second wife; it is called bigamy, After he married his second wife he decided he liked her better and divorced the first wife. His opponent, also a Christian, is still married to his first wife. His opponents Preacher said some whacky things. McCains Preacher said some whacky things too.

Which candidates values more closely resemble yours?

Radiophile Wrote:
>>> First, I was responding to the quote "Meeper is an excellent example of the modern liberal. He does not think it is morally wrong to cheap on your spouse."


It's funny that you'd even respond to his stupid quote. I said it was wrong to cheat on your spouse, and as far as me being "a liberal", I do vote for Republicans and I'm one of the idiots that voted for GWB back in 2000.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It's funny that you'd even respond to his stupid
> quote. I said it was wrong to cheat on your
> spouse, and as far as me being "a liberal", I do
> vote for Republicans and I'm one of the idiots
> that voted for GWB back in 2000.

This anonymous poster accused you of being a liberal. In the eyes of famous, god fearing, patriotic conservatives, you must then be a liberal and responcible for all that is wrong with America. Environment whacko and Femi-nazi!!!

Just kidding but he or she is must be practising to be the next Ann Coulter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2008 06:36PM by Radiophile.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, I was responding to the quote "Meeper is an
> excellent example of the modern liberal. He does
> not think it is morally wrong to cheap on your
> spouse."
>
> An assumption was made that modern liberals cheat
> on their spuses. If you want to get into why the
> divorce rate is higher in Red VS Blue states, that
> is fine.
>
> You see the north eat is not known for its
> transient population... Either is Oklahoma, or
> Wyoming so I miss your point.
>
> I was responding to a simple statement with facts
> that include numbers. But let me argue your
> statement in the same fashion you make yours -
> short and sweet.
>
> When most people marry, they make a vow before
> their God(s). People in red states break this vow
> in a greater percentage than the people in the
> blue states.
>
> John McCain who is a conservative and calls
> himself a Christian, was married to one women and
> decided to take on a second wife; it is called
> bigamy, After he married his second wife he
> decided he liked her better and divorced the first
> wife. His opponent, also a Christian, is still
> married to his first wife. His opponents Preacher
> said some whacky things. McCains Preacher said
> some whacky things too.
>
> Which candidates values more closely resemble
> yours?

For a lot of Americans, including the family that I grew up with, it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character: Whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them. I think the most important qualities in a candidate in today's world are trustworthiness, sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And certainly that goes to a part of that.

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 09:28PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiopile,
>
> When I asked § to explain his idiotic response to
> my post, why did you respond? I guess you forgot
> which name you were logged in under. If you are
> going to post under different aliases, you have to
> keep them straight. Isn’t that so, Meeper?
>
> And, Meeper, I’m interested in knowing what
> behavior you would view as being morally wrong.
> You’ve already told us that infidelity is NOT
> immoral. In your world, how does one define
> morality?

Mark Foley. No further explanation necessary unless you are still seeing red dots on canvas. I could've gone on the Larry Craig tangent, but I didn't want to offend you and your lunchtime trysts in the Macy's men's room. -§

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiopile,
>
> When I asked § to explain his idiotic response to
> my post, why did you respond? I guess you forgot
> which name you were logged in under. If you are
> going to post under different aliases, you have to
> keep them straight. Isn’t that so, Meeper?


Again, you are asuming facts. I never post under a different name. I take full respncibility for my words. You, Alis, have more identities than Sybil.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I recommend that you go do what you GOP'ers do
> best; instant message young boys. I believe you
> call that "mentoring". -§

Or we could run male whore houses out of our apartments and become chairman of a powerful committee like Financial Services...... You would call that leadership or change or some other worthless catch phrase.....

C'mon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> § Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I recommend that you go do what you GOP'ers do
> > best; instant message young boys. I believe
> you
> > call that "mentoring". -§
>
> Or we could run male whore houses out of our
> apartments and become chairman of a powerful
> committee like Financial Services...... You would
> call that leadership or change or some other
> worthless catch phrase.....



Rule number 1, if you shout loud that you are a fag, no one cares. If you say you hate fags over and over again THEN turn out to be one, then people care. Got it, Alias?

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 09:26PM by Alias.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> C'mon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > § Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I recommend that you go do what you GOP'ers
> do
> > > best; instant message young boys. I believe
> > you
> > > call that "mentoring". -§
> >
> > Or we could run male whore houses out of our
> > apartments and become chairman of a powerful
> > committee like Financial Services...... You
> would
> > call that leadership or change or some other
> > worthless catch phrase.....
>
>
>
> Rule number 1, if you shout loud that you are a
> fag, no one cares. If you say you hate fags over
> and over again THEN turn out to be one, then
> people care. Got it, Alias?

First of all, I'm not Alias. Is it such a foreign concept to you that more than one person might disagree with you? I would think that someone with your personality (or lack thereof) would be used to having many people disagree with you. Second, the issue is not whether he is a homosexual, the issue is he allowed a prostitution ring to be run out of his house by a man that he hired.

Look, Radiophile, you are a one trick pony. All you do is rail about Republican hypocrisy. I am not disputing that the hypocrisy exists, but you should learn a new shtick. Why not try pointing out the hypocrisy of all those people pushing an extreme environmental agenda while leaving a bigger carbon footprint that is 20 times larger than that of the average American?

PS - go ahead and rant about the "anonymous poster" thing. Until you show me how you are not anonymous........

FYI- not registering a name is considered "anonymous" to the people who frequent this board.

I am not Meeper nor am I Radiophile. The point I am trying to make is that over the course of the previous 7 1/2 years, your political party and its agenda have ruined this country and our global reputation. This is on ALL fronts and ALL subject matters. As far as I'm concerned, if you voted for Bush, then you've lost all credibility and standing in ANY political conversation or debate. If you intend to vote for McCain, then break out the rubber stamp and blank checks for another 4 years. -§

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not Meeper nor am I Radiophile. The point I
> am trying to make is that over the course of the
> previous 7 1/2 years, your political party and its
> agenda have ruined this country and our global
> reputation. This is on ALL fronts and ALL subject
> matters.

In certain areas, you may be correct. However, you conveniently ignore the enormous impact PEPFAR has had on the elimination of disease in Africa. Even Bob Geldof praised the administration for this effort.

> As far as I'm concerned, if you voted
> for Bush, then you've lost all credibility and
> standing in ANY political conversation or debate.
> If you intend to vote for McCain, then break out
> the rubber stamp and blank checks for another 4
> years. -§

Then there are 62M plus Americans lacking credibility. 3M more than voted for Sen. Kerry. Conversely, I suppose all credibility is given to those who support Sen. Obama? One question though - how can you speak with ANY credibility when your candidate stands for nothing while standing for everything at the same time? That is your definition of credibility? I suppose that is just "change."

C'mon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > C'mon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > § Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > I recommend that you go do what you GOP'ers
> > do
> > > > best; instant message young boys. I
> believe
> > > you
> > > > call that "mentoring". -§
> > >
> > > Or we could run male whore houses out of our
> > > apartments and become chairman of a powerful
> > > committee like Financial Services...... You
> > would
> > > call that leadership or change or some other
> > > worthless catch phrase.....
> >
> >
> >
> > Rule number 1, if you shout loud that you are a
> > fag, no one cares. If you say you hate fags
> over
> > and over again THEN turn out to be one, then
> > people care. Got it, Alias?
>
> First of all, I'm not Alias. Is it such a foreign
> concept to you that more than one person might
> disagree with you? I would think that someone
> with your personality (or lack thereof) would be
> used to having many people disagree with you.
> Second, the issue is not whether he is a
> homosexual, the issue is he allowed a prostitution
> ring to be run out of his house by a man that he
> hired.
>
> Look, Radiophile, you are a one trick pony. All
> you do is rail about Republican hypocrisy. I am
> not disputing that the hypocrisy exists, but you
> should learn a new shtick. Why not try pointing
> out the hypocrisy of all those people pushing an
> extreme environmental agenda while leaving a
> bigger carbon footprint that is 20 times larger
> than that of the average American?
>
> PS - go ahead and rant about the "anonymous
> poster" thing. Until you show me how you are not
> anonymous........


What you fail to understand is there are two sides to every story, assuming both sides speak the truth as they see it. Did you ever check to see what the person you speak did or said to respond to these charges?

And "all those people" you are refering to one man. Unless you have seen these people energy bill.

When Drudge first reported this story, it was said that his energy bill was predicted on the basis of the house size etc. No one at that time ever saw his energy bill. They just guessed at it.

Has anything changed since then? Why has Drudge not reported THAT. Was the person in question purchasing carbon offsets before the story was published?

So look at both sides of the story. Just do not take the RNC's word for it.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What you fail to understand is there are two sides
> to every story, assuming both sides speak the
> truth as they see it. Did you ever check to see
> what the person you speak did or said to respond
> to these charges?
>
> And "all those people" you are refering to one
> man. Unless you have seen these people energy
> bill.
>
> When Drudge first reported this story, it was said
> that his energy bill was predicted on the basis of
> the house size etc. No one at that time ever saw
> his energy bill. They just guessed at it.
>
> Has anything changed since then? Why has Drudge
> not reported THAT. Was the person in question
> purchasing carbon offsets before the story was
> published?
>
> So look at both sides of the story. Just do not
> take the RNC's word for it.

Trying to parse through your illiterate ramblings is tough, but I assume you are talking about Al Gore. While Al Gore is indeed a massive hypocrite, his hypocrisy goes far beyond his home energy bill. His travel schedule and means of travel leave much to be desired by green community he intends to create. And, yes, I did read his response concerning his home energy bill. I thought it was great he had taken steps to green his home until it was revealed a year later that his energy consumption actually went up 10% despite his efforts. I also saw how he purchases carbon offsets. Carbon offsets are a scam being perpetrated on a global scale. It allows the superwealthy to pollute at will with no accountability for personal action. It is also dubious if the "offset" really negates the carbon emissions of the polluter in the first place. Shouldn't we be pursuing an agenda to reduce our own carbon footprint while also engaging in offsetting activities as well?

Al Gore is merely the tip of the iceberg concerning the green hypocrisy. Let's look at a few of the more prominent members of this so-called "green" club:

RFK, Jr -- a great champion of wind power until it might happen off Cape Cod. advocates for higher cafe standards, but uses a personal jet.

John Travolta -- Having a fleet of five private jets and logging 30,000 miles/year in air time, much of it alone, this man has the audacity to lecture others on lowering their carbon footprint. Some have estimated his carbon footprint at 100 times the average person's.

SPeaker Pelosi -- Needs a bigger jet to fly herself across the country.

The list goes on and on.... How many liberal members of congress drive less than efficient vehicles while wanting to hoist their plans on us?

C'mon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> § Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I am not Meeper nor am I Radiophile. The point
> I
> > am trying to make is that over the course of
> the
> > previous 7 1/2 years, your political party and
> its
> > agenda have ruined this country and our global
> > reputation. This is on ALL fronts and ALL
> subject
> > matters.
>
> In certain areas, you may be correct. However,
> you conveniently ignore the enormous impact PEPFAR
> has had on the elimination of disease in Africa.
> Even Bob Geldof praised the administration for
> this effort.
>
> > As far as I'm concerned, if you voted
> > for Bush, then you've lost all credibility and
> > standing in ANY political conversation or
> debate.
> > If you intend to vote for McCain, then break
> out
> > the rubber stamp and blank checks for another 4
> > years. -§
>
> Then there are 62M plus Americans lacking
> credibility. 3M more than voted for Sen. Kerry.
> Conversely, I suppose all credibility is given to
> those who support Sen. Obama? One question though
> - how can you speak with ANY credibility when your
> candidate stands for nothing while standing for
> everything at the same time? That is your
> definition of credibility? I suppose that is just
> "change."

Bob Geldof? Who gives a sh!t. That's like saying Sid Vicious believes the country is on the right track! Irrelevant. Besides, last I checked, disease was NOT eliminated in Africa.

No, 62m Americans that voted for Bush in 2004 do not lack credibility, they lack foresight. You lack credibility if you voted for Bush and you then try to debate a continuation of his policies by defending McCain or attacking Obama. I didn't expect you to understand this because if you were one of the 62m in 2004 or an original backer in 2000 (that lost the popular vote), then clearly your head is so far up your a$$ that it makes anything you say on this message board, to your colleagues, your neighbors, or even your television set meritless.

Here's some simple logic. Write it down.

Credibility is determined by factual events and their outcome. The factual events and outcomes of the Bush administration point to utter failure. You backed Bush. Now you back McCain. You are destined for failure. -§

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Bob Geldof? Who gives a sh!t. That's like saying
> Sid Vicious believes the country is on the right
> track! Irrelevant. Besides, last I checked,
> disease was NOT eliminated in Africa.

Sid Vicious probably does not believe much considering the fact that he has been dead for nearly 30 years. Also, I don't believe Sid Vicious was nominated for 2 Nobel Peace Prizes. Geldof and Bono have praised PEPFAR and the PMI, and deservedly so. Someone with a mind as simple as yours should be able to appreciate the results: 6 million people that PMI reached with lifesaving prevention or treatment services in the Initiative’s first year in the first three focus countries. 25 million people that PMI has reached with lifesaving prevention or treatment services during the Initiative’s second year. Greater than 50 percent of PMI countries in which at least 70 percent of households in malaria-endemic areas will own an insecticide-treated mosquito net (ITN) and will have artemisinin-based combination therapies available in more than 70 percent of public health facilities by December 2008. Fewer than 1 percent of children tested positive for malaria in Zanzibar following distribution of long-lasting ITNs and indoor residual spraying. Just two years earlier, 20 percent tested positive. When President Bush announced PEPFAR, it was estimated that only 50,000 people were receiving treatment for HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. Of those for whom PEPFAR supported treatment as of March 2008, nearly 1.68 million are in this region. The programs are treating those with HIV/AIDS and ELIMINATING malaria among a large population. Don't let the facts trip you up though.


> No, 62m Americans that voted for Bush in 2004 do
> not lack credibility, they lack foresight. You
> lack credibility if you voted for Bush and you
> then try to debate a continuation of his policies
> by defending McCain or attacking Obama. I didn't
> expect you to understand this because if you were
> one of the 62m in 2004 or an original backer in
> 2000 (that lost the popular vote), then clearly
> your head is so far up your a$$ that it makes
> anything you say on this message board, to your
> colleagues, your neighbors, or even your
> television set meritless.
>
> Here's some simple logic. Write it down.
>
> Credibility is determined by factual events and
> their outcome. The factual events and outcomes of
> the Bush administration point to utter failure.
> You backed Bush. Now you back McCain. You are
> destined for failure. -§

Credibility involves being able to look at a situation objectively. You have utterly failed. You lack complete objectivity when you completely dismiss successful outcomes of this administration. I can at least admit shortcomings, you fail to recognize success. I am certain you have very enlightened discussions with your TV when Keith Olbermann is on, you both posess the same amount of credibility.

Credibility also entails a certain amount of principled belief. When Senator Obama changes postions on public financing of campaigns, troop withdrawal, telecom immunity, an undivided Jerusalem, Second Amendment rights, Rev. Wright, decriminalization of marijuana, and the Cuban embargo, credibility goes straight out the window! If his position is constantly wavering, by definition, he cannot be considered credible. Any support of a man with that lack of credibility is a tacit admission of your own lack of credibility.

Word of advice - support Senator Obama all you want, but you might NOT want to put credible next to his name when you do or you risk calling into question your own credibility.

The simple fact is that the failures that you support far outweigh any success achieved in the previous 7 1/2 years. No need for objectivity. The results speak for themselves.

As for your success in Africa, bravo (with a sincere "golf clap"). It's too bad it doesn't even move the needle on the more significant issues that America really cares about. Please, save yourself the humility by mention of the economic stimulus checks. That's a check that not only didn't move the needle, but once again, is from borrowed (or insufficient) funds.

McCain, in his long-standing tenure of grand-standing, has changed positions on several of his original stances. I don't need to point these out since, absent any rose-colored glasses, I'm certain you already know what they are as they are well documented. But for the sake of entertainment value (and to rebuke your narrow mindedness), here you go...

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

Now that you and your short-sighted GOP'ers have been enlightened, please take a page out of Pink Floyd's book and for god's sake, drop the NAMBLA membership and, "LEAVE THEM KIDS ALONE!"

-§

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The simple fact is that the failures that you
> support far outweigh any success achieved in the
> previous 7 1/2 years. No need for objectivity.
> The results speak for themselves.
>
> As for your success in Africa, bravo (with a
> sincere "golf clap"). It's too bad it doesn't
> even move the needle on the more significant
> issues that America really cares about. Please,
> save yourself the humility by mention of the
> economic stimulus checks. That's a check that not
> only didn't move the needle, but once again, is
> from borrowed (or insufficient) funds.
>
> McCain, in his long-standing tenure of
> grand-standing, has changed positions on several
> of his original stances. I don't need to point
> these out since, absent any rose-colored glasses,
> I'm certain you already know what they are as they
> are well documented. But for the sake of
> entertainment value (and to rebuke your narrow
> mindedness), here you go...
>
> * McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as
> “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since
> decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans
> “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has
> now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)
>
> * McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the
> very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
>
> * In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam
> and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty
> money” to help finance Bush’s presidential
> campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint
> against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign
> finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly.
> In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for
> support.
>
> * McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform
> measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned
> his own legislation.
>
> * McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a
> crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then
> McCain got serious about running for president and
> began to reconcile with Norquist.
>
> * McCain took a firm line in opposition to
> torture, and then caved to White House demands.
>
> * McCain gave up on his signature policy issue,
> campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same
> provision he sponsored just a couple of years
> ago.
>
> * McCain was against presidential candidates
> campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was
> for it.
>
> * McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
>
> * McCain was both for and against state promotion
> of the Confederate flag.
>
> * And now he’s both for and against overturning
> Roe v. Wade.
>
> Now that you and your short-sighted GOP'ers have
> been enlightened, please take a page out of Pink
> Floyd's book and for god's sake, drop the NAMBLA
> membership and, "LEAVE THEM KIDS ALONE!"
>
> -§


Yes, most people have seen that list considering it has been on the internet nearly two years! You could've saved some time cutting and pasting and just provided the link - - http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html

You do, however, seem extremely obsessed with the kiddie angle. What's the matter? Skeleton in the closet? Monkey on your back?

And, finally, the simplest of all facts is that your statement, "your political party and its agenda have ruined this country and our global reputation. This is on ALL fronts and ALL subject matters," has been CREDIBLY refuted. On the front of sub-Saharan Africa on the subject of malaria or HIV/AIDS relief, there are children embracing their mothers and vice-versa as a result of this administration. There are other accomplishments that you have missed as a result of your blinders, but why bother listing them to a dim-witted, myopic dolt who would rather focus on one man and his kiddie problems than educate himself with some fairly simple facts. I suppose the facts are too simple for a simpleton such as yourself to comprehend. Again, I see the shortcomings, so no need to list them. That glug glug sound was the last shred of your credibility being swallowed up by the toilet.

Sorry if I made you out for a fool on a public forum. I didn't expect such a venomous response so quickly. Here's a Kleenex. Now blow and get over it.

From where this list was derived or how long it has been around is exactly like your status in society, IRRELEVANT. It establishes that yes, your very own social-security-eligible McCain, has and still continues to flip-flop. Got it? Great. Let's move on.

Africa is a minor success. If the economy was as robust as it should be, this would be a MAJOR success. So pull the Johnsonville bratwurst out of your mouth, look in the mirror and say it aloud, "I FAILED.". Wait, I forgot. Wasn't it, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" a few years back? Accomplished what exactly? I guess that gives us standing to criticize Russia for invading Georgia when we cannot even keep ourselves out of a country that doesn't even want us there, huh? Besides, your obsession with Africa leads me to believe that you're still riding around in your 1986 Nissan Pulsar NX blaring, "WE ARE THE WORLD, WE ARE THE CHILDREN." I do like that Stevie Wonder part, though.

In closing, I win (yet again) unless you can make a compelling argument to say that (1) McCain has never flip-flopped OR (2) there is nothing more important in this world than helping Africa buy mosquito nets.

So, C'mon, "C'mon". Get with it. -§

][



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 09:25PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile or § wrote:
> “As far as I'm concerned, if you voted for Bush,
> then you've lost all credibility and standing in
> ANY political conversation or debate.”
> _______________________________


Accusing me of having another identity here? ORLY??? - as Gravis would say...

§ has been around here way longer than Radiophile... definitely 2 different people.

Gotta love it when newbs come in here to teach us about FU....

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry if I made you out for a fool on a public
> forum. I didn't expect such a venomous response
> so quickly. Here's a Kleenex. Now blow and get
> over it.

Looking for a fool? I don't think you have to look too far. I didn't expect you back for another bitch slapping so fast. You must be too ignorant to realize you are stupid or just a glutton for punishment. Maybe a bit of both?

> From where this list was derived or how long it
> has been around is exactly like your status in
> society, IRRELEVANT. It establishes that yes,
> your very own social-security-eligible McCain, has
> and still continues to flip-flop. Got it? Great.
> Let's move on.



> Africa is a minor success. If the economy was as
> robust as it should be, this would be a MAJOR
> success. So pull the Johnsonville bratwurst out
> of your mouth, look in the mirror and say it
> aloud, "I FAILED.". Wait, I forgot. Wasn't it,
> "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" a few years back?
> Accomplished what exactly? I guess that gives us
> standing to criticize Russia for invading Georgia
> when we cannot even keep ourselves out of a
> country that doesn't even want us there, huh?
> Besides, your obsession with Africa leads me to
> believe that you're still riding around in your
> 1986 Nissan Pulsar NX blaring, "WE ARE THE WORLD,
> WE ARE THE CHILDREN." I do like that Stevie
> Wonder part, though.
>
> In closing, I win (yet again) unless you can make
> a compelling argument to say that (1) McCain has
> never flip-flopped OR (2) there is nothing more
> important in this world than helping Africa buy
> mosquito nets.

Your declaration of victory reminds of "mission accomplished." A bit ironic considering you mocked it. Is that how you close your oral arguments in court? A simple "I win." Do the judge and jury laugh at you and mock you the way I am right now? I never said McCain didn't flip-flop. I said Senator Obama is a squish that lacks a spine and panders to what he thinks people want to hear. You never refuted that. Until you do, you lose and are still a loser.

As for successes, the competetive initiative that will set an economic roadmap for younger Americans to succeed in science and technology; Since no child left behind was signed into law, math, scores for 4th and 8th graders were the highest they have ever been, and in reading, scores for 4th graders were also the highest on record; African-American and Hispanic students are making significant progress, posting all-time highs in a number of categories; oh, and yeah, terror free on US soil since 2001. Again, there are deficiencies, but there are also accomplishments. Regarding Africa, it is extremely important to portray America in a positive light in sub-Saharan Africa. Our goodwill now should pay dividends in the future to ensure the region does not become the next breeding ground for terrorists. I doubt your short-sightedness will allow you to comprehend that concept though. Your refusal to even acknowledge accomplishments is why you look like the petty bitch you are.


> So, C'mon, "C'mon". Get with it. -§

So, § stop using a small § of your brain. Let's see that cut and paste answer.

C'mon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're exactly right §. I am ashamed of the GOP party and its hypocrisy, boy-lovingness and restroom trysts that I must take a serious look into myself and ask, "Why do I associate myself with these people?" It must've been that time back in college when my fraternity decided that "reach-arounds" were just friendly hazing rituals. Golly! I do miss those male-on-male walkdowns! I guess that's why it took me 12 years to get my undergrad degree! Well, gotta run! There's a sale at TJMaxx....... well, and the fact that they do have THUPER THWEET men's rooms with scented candles! Ciao!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Very disappointing post, C'mon or "Come, Man" or whatever your name is. I'll leave you to your HOT LUNCH. Sorry to interrupt. -§

\.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2012 01:20PM by Alias.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> C'mon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're exactly right §. I am ashamed of the GOP
> party and its hypocrisy, boy-lovingness and
> restroom trysts that I must take a serious look
> into myself and ask, "Why do I associate myself
> with these people?" It must've been that time
> back in college when my fraternity decided that
> "reach-arounds" were just friendly hazing rituals.
> Golly! I do miss those male-on-male walkdowns!
> I guess that's why it took me 12 years to get my
> undergrad degree! Well, gotta run! There's a
> sale at TJMaxx....... well, and the fact that
> they do have THUPER THWEET men's rooms with
> scented candles! Ciao!
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> Very disappointing post, C'mon or "Come, Man" or
> whatever your name is. I'll leave you to your HOT
> LUNCH. Sorry to interrupt. -§

That's it?!? After being completely dismantled, you come back with a lame fake post and a fake response?!? Look, I understand that your job is nothing but monotonous repetition. I even understand the need for you to express yourself via creative writing as an outlet for your personal shortcomings and frustrations. However, you should keep your scatalogical, homosexual, pederast fantasies to yourself. People are starting to come to the conclusion that you have serious mental problems. Those mental problems are probably something you want to hide, and maybe get cheated.

C'mon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Thath it?!? After being completely dithmantled,
> you come back with a lame fake potht and a fake
> rethponthe?!? Look, I underthtand that your job is
> nothing but monotonouth repetition. I even
> underthtand the need for you to expreth yourthelf
> via creative writing ath an outlet for your
> perthonal thortcomings and fruthrations. However,
> you thhould keep your thcatalogical, homothexual,
> pederath fantathiesss to yourthelf. People are
> tharting to come to the concluthion that you have
> theriousssssssss mental problems. Thothe mental problems
> are probably thomething you want to hide, and maybe
> get cheated. THUPER!


C'MAN! You're back? Back in the closet I see. Which is it? First you're in, now you're out. I don't know what you are, but I know what you aren't.......and that's heterosexual.

I mean, you lisp so damn much, it even appears on when you type (see above)! I'm not an expert, but perhaps you should dial-down the Gaydar a bit before you interrupt your wi-fi chat sessions with the boys at the neighborhood pool.

Remember, you are a court jester to my KING. So keep up the entertainment level before I have you quartered. -§

bahahaha! +1 to the symbol guy for making me ROFL

Quartered? Thath the beth you've got? I'll have you thectioned in eight piectheth! Look, I know thith might thound thilly, but I think I actually do like those court jether funny hats they wear! I wonder if BJMAXX carrieth them. Be right back!

See what I mean everybody? C'mon dove right into the shallow end of the gene pool once again. -§

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> C'mon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Thath it?!? After being completely
> dithmantled,
> > you come back with a lame fake potht and a fake
> > rethponthe?!? Look, I underthtand that your job
> is
> > nothing but monotonouth repetition. I even
> > underthtand the need for you to expreth
> yourthelf
> > via creative writing ath an outlet for your
> > perthonal thortcomings and fruthrations.
> However,
> > you thhould keep your thcatalogical,
> homothexual,
> > pederath fantathiesss to yourthelf. People are
> > tharting to come to the concluthion that you
> have
> > theriousssssssss mental problems. Thothe mental
> problems
> > are probably thomething you want to hide, and
> maybe
> > get cheated. THUPER!
>
>
> C'MAN! You're back? Back in the closet I see.
> Which is it? First you're in, now you're out. I
> don't know what you are, but I know what you
> aren't.......and that's heterosexual.
>
> I mean, you lisp so damn much, it even appears on
> when you type (see above)! I'm not an expert, but
> perhaps you should dial-down the Gaydar a bit
> before you interrupt your wi-fi chat sessions with
> the boys at the neighborhood pool.
>
> Remember, you are a court jester to my KING. So
> keep up the entertainment level before I have you
> quartered. -§


You have a seriously unhealthy obsession with homosexuality. I will give you credit though for dropping the scatalogical lust and pederasty from your routine. As Dr. Leo Marvin said, "baby steps." You have a ways to go, but maybe after you completely burn out from your lackluster career, you can begin to heal and begin to rebuild your life in a healthy manner. As to being the jester in your court, I have no doubt that in your mind that is the case. When and if you are able to re-enter the real world, you will see what a foolish little man you have been. As for me being gay, sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not the case. Your unhealthy obsession with the subject demonstrates the obviousness that you are. Perhaps this repressed sexuality of yours is further contributing to your overall mental instability. We live in a pretty tolerant area of the country. I am sure you can find a good network of people like you. Well, not really like you, most gay people won't really have the mental issues you have. Best of luck in your coming out and impending full mental breakdown and recovery!

C'mon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You have a seriously unhealthy obsession with
> homosexuality. I will give you credit though for
> dropping the scatalogical lust and pederasty from
> your routine. As Dr. Leo Marvin said, "baby
> steps." You have a ways to go, but maybe after
> you completely burn out from your lackluster
> career, you can begin to heal and begin to rebuild
> your life in a healthy manner. As to being the
> jester in your court, I have no doubt that in your
> mind that is the case. When and if you are able
> to re-enter the real world, you will see what a
> foolish little man you have been. As for me being
> gay, sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not
> the case. Your unhealthy obsession with the
> subject demonstrates the obviousness that you are.
> Perhaps this repressed sexuality of yours is
> further contributing to your overall mental
> instability. We live in a pretty tolerant area of
> the country. I am sure you can find a good
> network of people like you. Well, not really like
> you, most gay people won't really have the mental
> issues you have. Best of luck in your coming out
> and impending full mental breakdown and recovery!

I must've completely pissed you off, because with a weak response like that, you're likely going to go home, beat your lover, and maybe sit on the toliet for 2 hours all clenched up unable to pass stool because you're all agitated. You may actually have a dream about the regrets of your weak post and wake up and go straight to the computer, log-in, and try to fix it. But it's too late. The damage is done and you've already exposed yourself as a lonely guy who lacks quick wit and charm, yet still thinks he's a ton of fun at parties. Yet another poor, lame Republican (who quotes Dr. Leo Marvin, his man-crush....LOL). -§

I do have all his books in HARDBACK!

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pssst.. Radiophile,
> > "We attribute to the other fellow all the evil
> and inferior qualities that we do not like to
> recognize in ourselves, and therefore have to
> criticize and attack him…." Jung
>

So that is why you and your other "Alias's" Keep calling me a homo. I get it now. Thanks for explaining.

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/108950/109941.html#msg-109941



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2008 06:20PM by Radiophile.

,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 10:06PM by Alias.

This is my last post here for a while. I've spent the last couple of hours with the razor blade perched upon my wrist. I have decided that it is better to admit my homosexuality than continue to hide from it.

So, Fairfax Underground, I am here and I am queer...

You are the first that I have admitted my homosexuality to and I hope to have the courage to admit it to my friends and family soon.

I am going to check into a facility that will allow me to come to terms with my scatological homosexual desires. I hope that they will also be able to dissuade me of my pederasty inclinations. One can always dream, right?

While C'Mon's words were harsh and cut me very deeply, in the end they helped me not make those cuts that I was contemplating. In a weird way, I want to thank him (or her) for allowing me to see the lie I have been living.

Yes, I am gay. I have come to terms with it and so should you.

After my treatment, I will be back in a few weeks or months and be a staunch advocate for all the gay men living in the closet. Just because I have lived in the closet for many years doesn't mean you have to. In fact, I'll help you escape that closet.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2012 02:16PM by Alias.

.§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is my last post here for a while. I've spent
> the last couple of hours with the razor blade
> perched upon my wrist. I have decided that it is
> better to admit my homosexuality than continue to
> hide from it.
>
> So, Fairfax Underground, I am here and I am
> queer...
>
> You are the first that I have admitted my
> homosexuality to and I hope to have the courage to
> admit it to my friends and family soon.
>
> I am going to check into a facility that will
> allow me to come to terms with my scatological
> homosexual desires. I hope that they will also be
> able to dissuade me of my pederasty inclinations.
> One can always dream, right?
>
> While C'Mon's words were harsh and cut me very
> deeply, in the end they helped me not make those
> cuts that I was contemplating. In a weird way, I
> want to thank him (or her) for allowing me to see
> the lie I have been living.
>
> Yes, I am gay. I have come to terms with it and
> so should you.
>
> After my treatment, I will be back in a few weeks
> or months and be a staunch advocate for all the
> gay men living in the closet. Just because I have
> lived in the closet for many years doesn't mean
> you have to. In fact, I'll help you escape that
> closet.

How original. Not only did you make a point to post in the middle of the night, as I suspected, but your schtick is borrowed. Have fun staying relevant. Oh, and keep that Bush-Cheney 2004 sticker on your car through November so everyone can see what a great "decider" you are. -§

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 10:05PM by Alias.

I forgot to mention that....I LOVE UNICORNS!

TOODLES!

I might have schizophrenia.