"News" of late...

Can someone explain to me why I returned from my vacation on Sunday to see an article on the FRONT PAGE of the Sunday Washington Post about Mike Tyson filing for bankruptcy? This is front-page news? This is ANYONE'S business? Argh!
And now it's the gay Episcopalian would-be bishop from the obscure little state of New Hampshire that's getting attention. Who, besides Episcopalians and homosexuals, have any real interest in this?

THIS IS NOT NATIONAL NEWS DAMMIT!

Sorry, just needed to rant,

Vermont. :p

You say that like it's something rare , new and different.

*Yawn*

Then again , you don't think the death of a national treasure (Mr. Bob "Thanks For The Memories Hope") is news or comment worthy either.

You could always start your own newspaper that way as editor YOU would get to decide what is news and what is not.

The media sucks. You are just learning this now at your age?

On a slow news day Mike Tyson's antics will always make the front pages.

The gay bishop thing surprises you? Have you been living in a cave for the last 20 years?

The media loves shit like the bishop story. It helps advance two causes they are totally in favor of... the homosexual agenda and the destruction of organized religion in America.

The Episcopal Bishop story is the perfect example of the agenda driven schizophrenic nature of the media. They hail the prospect of an outspoken deviant becoming a Bishop in a major church. Yet all the scandals regarding Catholic priests molesting young boys they consistently covered up the fact that all the priests were homosexuals. They never reported the fact that the Catholic Church has been allowing deviants to become priests since the 1960's. They never reported the fact the 40% of Catholic priests in America are homosexuals. They never reported how the homosexual agenda (which they support and obviously protect) has ruined the Catholic Church.

Homosexuals ruined the Catholic Church by stealth. Now they are ruining the Episcopal Church and they are doing it out in the open. This will fracture the Espiscopal Church and the media vermin love it. However when an Episcopal priest molests a 15 year old boy the media will never identify him as a homosexual. They will call him a "pedophile". Rule number one... hurt the religion but protect the agenda.

I may have been wrong on one aspect. There is one religion the media consistently protects and that is Islam. Their hatred and angst is focused primarily on Christianity and Judaism to a point.

More bad news for you Brent...There is a vote this afternoon in the Episcopal Church and you will see this on the headlines again tomorrow.

Welcome to the real world Brent....

You can hardly blame the Homos for ruining the Catholic Church..I think the Catholic priesthood adn administration is doing a stellar job on that one.

I wanted to respect my in-laws by getting married in a Catholic church, We were both married before and was advised we had to bleed $800 and our former spouces had to be "interviewed" THEN we would have to take marriage classes...I say FUCK em, Money grabbing hypocrats.

In all seriousness, where did you get these figures?

We can't blame the deviants? WTF?

When a homosexual priest is sodomizing a 15 year old boy, who is to blame?

Maybe on some level you are right. The Catholic Church is largely to blame for allowing them to become priests.

Claus... Are you telling the truth? If your wife is Catholic and was married before, under Church rules she would have to have the first marraige anulled before she would be allowed to be married in the Catholic Church again.... and yes it costs a few bucks.

Are you mad that the church has rules? Maybe all organized religions should just throw all their rules and traditions out the window just to please the liberals and atheists. Would that satisfy you?

Easy madman, easy...

You say this like there was some big conspiracy. I can just see all these gay men meeting in the basements of gay night clubs studying the bible and sewing their priest costumes in preperation for their coordinated attack on the almighty Catholic church. :rolleyes:

There is a BIG difference between a homosexual and a pedophile, you seem to infer that they are one in the same. I am willing to bet there are more straight pedophiles then gay.

Your ignorance is truly amazing sometimes.

I am stating fact. I know the difference. A pedophile is an adult who has sex with a pre-pubescent child. A grown man having sex with a 15 year old boy is a homosexual.

I was bringing attention to the spin and protection of homosexuals by the media during the whole mess with the Catholic Church.

There may be more straight pedophiles but we are talking about priests and the Catholic Church. Is this an example of your ignorance or are you placing some liberal bullshit spin to the subject?

You liberals have a hard time with reality and facts.

One entry found for pedophilia.


Main Entry: pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: "pE-d&-'fi-lE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
Date: 1906
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

According to Webster, what you would call a homosexual is actually a pedophile. A person is not an adult until the age of 18, so therefore a person having sex (male or female) with anyone under the age of 18 would be classified a pedophile.

It is funny that anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal. I would not classify myself as liberal, I have in fact voted for more than one Republican.

How many people go through puberty at 18?

18 is the statutory legal age of consent for sex. A 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old is not a pedophile. A 40 year old having sex with a 10 year old is a pedophile.

I repeat... pedophilia is sex between an adult and a pre-pubescent child. A 15 or 16 year old boy is not pre-pubescent. I don't give two shits what Websters dictionary currently states. Definitions are periodically updated. Look it up in a Websters dictionary published 30 years ago.

You really want to go out of your way to spin and protect the homosexual aspect of the priest scandal. Are you a member of the media?

1st of all why the FUCK do you throw around the word Liberal like it was the F...word at a Prom. It has NOTHING todo with Liberals. My point is the following:

Ever since we looked into the whole annullment to get married thing the church has continued to raise it's bars. we were NEVER able to get a straight answer but was told there were certain rules and it was up to the individual Church (or parish if you will) to determin if we were allowed to wed. Double morale and shitty standards are painted all over the catholic church. They consider deviant marriages (I said deviant as you understand that better than homo)a death sin, but look the other way when servants of the Curch ruins 1000's of lifes by sodomy over centuries, never even an attempt to stop it before it became a very public scandal, is that following in the eye of God????.

We ended up getting married in my Church, The Danish Lutheran Church in Burnaby BC. The pastor needed a baptismal certificate along with a marriage certificate, we attended church over the past 4 months (which was actually nice since I am not a bible thumper) and had a great ceremony. Paying $800 to get an annullment is the biggest BULLSHIT I have ever heard off.

No I am not going out of my way to "spin and protect the homosexual aspect of the priest scandal". I just get tired of hate mongers like you blaming everything on gays. Unless they have admitted that they are ALL gay, some of those priests are pedophiles/deviants (to use words you understand). Just because they had sex with boys, does not make them gay.

Most of the the gay people I have met would find it just as revolting to have sex with a child as you or I would. I have two uncles that are gay, in my 34 years of being around them, neither they or their friends/partners have tried to rape me. I don't necessarily believe in their lifestyle, but I also don't view them as deviants. Pedophiles are deviants.

Claus...

I use the term liberal where it fits. Who else has a problem with the Catholic Church? (Well actually I do since it's loaded with deviants... but you get the message)

How nice of you to attend church for 4 months before the ceremony. I guess now that you got what you wanted you never have to see the inside of a church again. Good for you.

I don't agree with charging a large fee for an anullment but there are clerical fees and paper work, etc. that makes the rounds and the Church does have full time employees that they must pay just like any private secular business that has lots of paperwork etc. Consider it an administrative cost.

What makes me laugh is a liberal would have no problem paying $800 for an abortion yet most bitch if they have to pay a fee to have a previous marraige anulled if they want to get married in a Catholic Church for whatever reason. (Doesn't mean this statement applies to you)

You really are stupid aren't you.

I guess in your fantasyland the gay molesters spend most of their time molesting young girls.

Sorry to hear about your gene pool.

No I am not stupid, I am not afraid of things I don't believe in...unlike you.

In my fantasy land, you would be be getting sodomized by gay arab liberals. Because I believe that you are a closet gay liberal who wishes he had been born in the Middle East.

Oh, I would rather have a couple of gay men floating through my gene pool than the likes of you.

So I guess that's it? No more debate? This is the best you can do?

I don't mind being insulted but be accurate with your insults.

There are no gay liberals in the Islamic world. At least none that will admit it. In case this was not included in your liberal handbook, they kill gays in the Islamic world. The popular method is dumping a pile of bricks over their heads or knocking down a wall on top of them.

I guess you will be on the next flight to Riyadh to fight for their cause. Better hurry... they make bricks pretty fast over there.

Actually, I would have to partially agree with Guido the killer pimp.

Being a Pedophile does not make you Gay, I think the majority of the reasons why young Boys are molested by Cahtolic Priests is due to the fact they taught boys only. As nuns Taught Girls only.

Webster's dictionary; pedophilia -- sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object.
From that definition can comparisons be drawn to homosexuality?

No shit, Sherlock, that's my point.

Brent

Where was the debate?? As soon as I didn't agree with what you posted I was labeled a Liberal. Is that the best you can do?

I know there are no gay liberals in theh Islamic world, they were all in my fantasy land taking a drive up your hershey highway. Pay attention.

I don't have the time to get in a pissing match on a message board with someone who is as set in their ways as you are. If you could actually give a thoughtful/intelligent debate that wasn't laced with name calling and hate, I might actually be interested.

Until then we will just have to agree to disagree.

Nice try Claus. 15 and 16 year old boys are not children.

Most of the gay priests sodomized their altar boys. Some were students. Some were family friends, etc., but most were altar boys.

A grown man who has sex with 15 and 16 year old boys is not a pedophile. He is a homosexual.

How tall were you when you graduated grammar school? I was almost 6 feet tall. As were many of my peers. When I was 16 years old I could already beat the shit out of most people twice my age.

Look at the 15 or 16 year old kids in your family. Would you say many look like children to you?

Calling these gay priests pedophiles was a coverup for the homosexual angle. Clear and simple. The media NEVER...EVER prints any stories that portray homosexuals in a bad light and that is the truth. They spin and coverup all to support the agenda. That is a fact of the modern media.

You never knew anyone who worked in a newsroom? Ask them. They will tell you I am right. (Providing they are honest and not part of the problem)

The media is just as guilty when reporting on racial issues.

Do you consider "liberal" an insult?

When I am labeled a "conservative" I don't consider that an insult.

I always find it curious how "liberals" always try to deny the liberal label.

SO, may ask you. What do you call a person who has sex with 7-9 year old boys?, who preys on kids and ONLY likes to have sexual relations with young boys?. Alter boys yes, BUT in Canada (as in the US) there has been countless cases where Priests has preyed on VERY young children in Boys homes etc.

I was very big for my age, At age 18 I worked as a doorman/Bouncer at our local Bar which was a biker hangout. never a Saturday night without a fight. i have had my left index finger almost bitten off. Stabbed in my right tricep. Practised Taekwon-do for 7 years and had a great mentor. Yes I knew how to fend for myself and would beat the snot out of anyone who would even try taking advance of me.

In my view (and opinion) you have to seperate the Homosexual vs Pedophile thing when talking about Abuse in the Catholic Church, Sure there are Homosexual priests as are there Pedophiles.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle you choose, Some are more flamboyant than others. In general I have NOTHING against a person's sexual orientation as long as no laws are broken. In my choosen profession I work with Homosexuals of both genders and admire then as I do straight people for the person they are not what they were born to. Would I socialize with flamboyant Gay people NO, but that is a choice due to my Social orientation.

C

In that case Claus... With 7 and 9 year olds...They are called pedophiles. More accurately homosexual pedophiles. Due to the current climate of political correctness and societies increased protection of everything gay, the homosexual label has recently been removed from the term homosexual pedophile. Remember, 9 year olds are pre-pubescent children. 16 year olds are not.

Well over 90% of the cases in the Catholic Church scandal in the US involve teenage boys aged around 15 and 16 years old.

I'm glad to hear you can take care of yourself. You are not afraid to fight. I respect that. I was beginning to worry about you.

That is the age old argument. I don't agree with you here. For a lot of them it is a chosen lifestyle. For some maybe not. However a sexual deviance does not in any way deserve special consideration as some type of "civil right". Nor does it warrant special protection from society in the form of lies and protection by media and other societal outlets.

I'm glad to hear you will not be attending any deviant day parades.

I too worked with deviants in my chosen profession when I was "on the job". I saw a different side of these people that the public does not see. The public is also sheltered from much of the truth about this so-called "lifestyle". A lot of it is ugly, brutal and plain old sick.

EEEEEEEEEHHHHHH. Actually I did, THis last Saturday, Superjens and took in the festivities with our wifes/GF's. I have been at the parade before, I think Jens enjoyed the topless blondes in schoolgirl uniforms> I just got a kick out of seeing our local Demoract MLA trying to score votes by dressing up as a dyke queen. It's all fun we can laugh, does that mean I will be dancing with the 40 buffed "sailors" on a float...naaah. I'll post some pictures tonight for your enjoyment.

C

You got to be fucking kidding!!

Unbelievable. Out of control mental illness is an epidemic among Canadian politicians. A lot of ours too.

You don't have to post any pictures. I believe you. One thing though.... people love a freak show.

Madman. On what planet do churches draw from a pool of 15-16 year olds for alter boys? And where are you getting the age 15 - 16 from ? You uncharacteristically are making up numbers to support your argument. Generally most cathlioc churches have an elementary school on site. For the most part that elementary school provides them with the pool of kids to draw from for alter boys.

At least out here , they usaully start allowing kids to be alter severs right arround the fourth grade and they continue to serve until the end of the 8th grade. That puts most alter servers in the 9 - 13 age range.

Yes you are right that most altar boys start out in grammar school. Some of the victims of gay priests were grammar school age. Many teenagers who are interested in the Church and those who feel they have a vocation themselves often stay as altar boys through high school. If you haven't noticed, there are many Catholic High Schools also. I attended one. (...and yes there were priests and brothers who were obviously gay. One was arrested a year after I graduated for sodomizing a 16 year old male student)

Regarding all the victims who have come forward the past couple of years, The Catholic League and The Traditional Values Coalition have tabulated that 90% of the victims were teenage boys.

As a Catholic I closely monitored most of the press coverage and bullshit being reported regarding the scandal.

I don't know if you are Catholic or not, but in the last 10-20 years there have been fewer and fewer young males volunteering to be altar boys. Maybe this is only a problem in the NY area but I seem to doubt it. Many masses are said with no altar boys or an adult volunteers to help out during mass. It seems no one wants to be altar boys any more. Can you blame them with all the deviants who are priests these days?

Catholic seminaries in the US have turned into gay club meds over the last few decades. Many normal males have left the seminary in disgust because of the gay subculture. There have been a number of good books written about this subject in recent years.

The Catholic Church in America is in serious trouble and they did it to themselves. Is it because they are adhereing to Vatican dictates? No of course not. The Church is being destroyed from within because of homosexuals who think they have a vocation yet reject the very doctrine of the Catholic Church. The insane liberal social cuture does not help either regarding a lot of the Church's lay popualtion.

The media hates the Catholic Church. Primarily because of it's stance on abortion. Secondly because the official doctrine that practicing homosexuality is a sin. Is there any future for an organization that lets the sinner watch over the flock? I doubt it unless serious changes are made within the Church.

There will very likely be a split in the Anglican/Episcopal Church because of this selfish fuck in NH who wants to be a bishop. The Catholic Church in America may also be fractured all because of the homosexual agenda.

EDIT: ... I forgot to mention... One of my brothers got married recently and the wedding was performed in the bride's parish. Guess what? I would bet my life that the priest who performed the ceremony was a deviant. The guy had the flaming looks and mannerisms. At the rehearsal dinner I made a joke about it and the bride and one of her sisters did not seem to pleased with the joke. They are very devout Catholics and seem to be in denial regarding the problems with the Church. (My brother did mention to me that he would never let his future kids be in a room alone with a priest) Oh how times have changed.

A lot are leaving, because they want to have a family as well as serve the church. My brother-in-law, for instance. The priesthood has fewer and fewer candidates. NOT because of gays in the ministry.

Quote:

The Catholic Church in America is in serious trouble and they did it to themselves. Is it because they are adhereing to Vatican dictates? No of course not. The Church is being destroyed from within because of homosexuals who think they have a vocation yet reject the very doctrine of the Catholic Church. The insane liberal social cuture does not help either regarding a lot of the Church's lay popualtion.

The Pope needs to realize that to keep the church going, he's got to make a few changes. Allowing Priests to marry and have families, for one. Why is it that if an Episcopal Priest can come in to the Catholic church and be a full-fledged priest while STILL being married, but a Priest ordained in the Catholic church can't?

Quote:

There will very likely be a split in the Anglican/Episcopal Church because of this selfish fuck in NH who wants to be a bishop.

Vermont.

Quote:

The Catholic Church in America may also be fractured all because of the homosexual agenda.

I still say the American Catholic church could easily separate from Rome. But not because of gays. American Catholics are a lot more tolerant than Rome, and want changes (I mean that as a generalization - I don't think I've ever come across a Catholic who thinks using birth control is wrong (the official stand of Rome)). We won't see any changes until at least the next Pope.

Quote:

EDIT: ... I forgot to mention... One of my brothers got married recently and the wedding was performed in the bride's parish. Guess what? I would bet my life that the priest who performed the ceremony was a deviant. The guy had the flaming looks and mannerisms. At the rehearsal dinner I made a joke about it and the bride and one of her sisters did not seem to pleased with the joke. They are very devout Catholics and seem to be in denial regarding the problems with the Church. (My brother did mention to me that he would never let his future kids be in a room alone with a priest) Oh how times have changed.

Funny thing...my parents are devout Catholics, as well (and VERY conservative politically). My dad will turn 70 next year, and has missed a total of 5-6 Sundays of Mass since he came home as a newborn. They do things with the church all the time (even moreso now that they have retired). And neither one of them has any problems with gays in the church. Neither one of them have a problem with Dignity (the gay catholic support group). Nor does their local church have any issues with it. When I went to church with them this last Christmas, they pointed out at least 6 or 7 ex-priests. Ex-priests who were welcomed into the church, and were allowed to join in the Eucharist. EVERYONE was welcome. This, to me, is how the church SHOULD act.

And if when we were younger, we had a known gay priest, my parents wouldn't be concerned because he was gay. My dad is a physician, and knows full well the difference between someone being homosexual and someone being a pedophile.

Moby...

Why do you keep saying Vermont? The deviant Rev. Gene Robinson is from New Hampshire.

I won't argue with you anymore regarding the homosexual agenda bullshit. You don't see it and you never will.

You are a true liberal. I don't mean that in a bad way. You want so bad to think of yourself as a good person. You also want so bad to think of everyone else as a good person.

I do think you are a nice guy but I also believe that you are blind to many evils in the world and the evils that are enveloping and infecting our society on many levels. The homosexual agenda for one. There is an innocence about you that I do not see in many of the other users here. You want to be good and to do good therefore I do not believe you are an agenda driven liberal. You only want to see the best in everyone and everything. This blinds you to a lot. It doesn't make you a bad person.

When I speak of liberals and radical lefties I usually mean the agenda driven people. You are perhaps one of the last so-called good liberals. I am still not sure if that is a good thing for the rest of us. Innocence is often taken advantage of and many times liberals like yourself are taken advantage of by the other agenda driven liberals. Maybe a guy like you needs to have children. You're protective mechanisms will kick in and you may not see the world the same way.

But Moby.... Please don't tell me your parents are conservatives and then turn around and say they accept gays and gay priests. There is nothing conservative about this. It is pure spin and a lie. Maybe you don't see this either...

whoops...you are right. I glanced through one of the articles and all I saw was Vermont. It is NH. My mistake.

Quote:

But Moby.... Please don't tell me your parents are conservatives and then turn around and say they accept gays and gay priests. There is nothing conservative about this. It is pure spin and a lie. Maybe you don't see this either...

Ah, you don't know my parents. They are VERY conservative. It is not a lie by any stretch. They accept gays, they tolerate them. That's not saying that they agree with the actions.

I know I don't know them. I only know what you write. They can't be "conservative" and accepting of gay priests at the same time. If you don't want your parents becoming part of this conversation, why did you bring them up in the first place?

This sounds kind of like the spin put on radical leftist Howard Dean who is running for president. The media has often called him a conservative and sometimes a fiscal conservative. That is like calling Josef Stalin a conservative. It is nothing but a lie and outright spinning of the truth.

Everyone accepts the fact that there are gays. They are a fact of life. I don't believe they deserve special rights because of their sexual deviance and depraved lifestyle. They especially do not belong in the priesthood or any positions of authority or the ministry involving the Christian faith. The homosexual lifestyle is a sin in not only Christianity but the majority of the world's religions. They have no place in the ministry at all. How can you have faith in a minister who is a sinner and the antithesis of all your religion stands for? This is insanity and is the first step in the destruction of our faiths. But that is the ultimate goal isn't it?

Aren't you an atheist anyway? If you are I question the validity of any of your opinions regarding any faith.

Some news: ... There goes the Episcopal Church. One selfish deviant bastard who does not adhere to his faith and the teachings of Christ is going to destroy a once great church. Are you happy?

Madman,

What would you do if one of your children told you they were gay? Would that be the last time you ever talked to them, or would you accept them for who they are and continue to love and support them?

I am just curious, I have never encountered some one with so much hatred towardthose who don't believe the things you do, or live the way you think we should live.

We may have had our disagreements, and while I am no a fan of your constant name calling. You seem to be a fairly intelligent person, and I am just curious as to how you would handle this situation.

I would immediately enroll them in a Catholic seminary or put thier names forward to be the next Episcopal Bishop in NY.

All kidding aside... I seriously doubt that would ever happen. Seeing that only 5% of the population are deviants, this is a rare and unlikely scenario. Especially since there are no deviants in my family. Isn't the new argument from you libs is that it is a hereditary disease? Maybe you want the government to take care of deviants via the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have noticed that argument took up steam after the ADA was passed by Congress. Anything to get over right?

But seeing that liberals like you think that 95% of the population should kowtow to the demands of a deviant, perverted and abnormal minority I am not surprised you would ask a question like this. All you liberals ask the same thing when anyone questions this agenda.

I am not a parent. Maybe I will be one day but in the meantime I know where the hell the drugstore is in my area. If this ever did happen to me... I guess everyone stills loves thier children even after they do things like commit murder or whatever. I would be gravely disappointed and it would affect me and bother me until the day I died. I would not support the lifestyle. I would continue to talk to them but it may change the relationship on many levels. Show me any heterosexual father who says he is proud of his son being gay and I will show you a liar.

Relax on this bullshit with calling me a hate monger. I don't hate gays per se... I hate the agenda. I hate it's ramifications on society, children and our long held institutions.... an example would be the Catholic and Episcopal churches. I hate the way they use children to advance this bullshit evil agenda. I hate the way they increasingly demand access to children such as adoption and going camping with young boys in the Boy Scouts. I hate the way radical organizations like GLSEN have access to public schools and children to advance the agenda through social engineering. I hate the way corporations advance this agenda through forced diversity training. Anyone who questions it is FIRED. I hate the way too many people are silent and sit back and do nothing about this perversion infecting our society. I hate the way no one recognoizes it as EVIL. Many more issues than a simple post could constitute. However you would never admit to the existance of the agenda so what would you know?

With every post you reveal yourself to be more of a liberal. Only liberals call those who do not buy into their agendas, radical positions and various bullshit hate mongers. The truth is liberals are the ones filled with hate. The rest of the liberal hate mongers I am sure will chime in tomorrow.

I have to go... the hate mongers Hannity and Colmes are on now....

Because the church's *official* stance is that it's not wrong to be a homosexual, it's wrong to ACT on it. ALL priests are supposed to be celibate, regardless of their orientation.

Quote:

Aren't you an atheist anyway? If you are I question the validity of any of your opinions regarding any faith.

Absolutely not. I've stated many times that I'm not.

I'll relax with calling you a hate monger, how about you relax with calling me a liberal. If I did consider myself to be liberal, I would have no problem with you calling me one, but I do not consider myself one. Not anymore at least. If we were to have this discussion 8-10 yrs ago things might be different. As I have gotten older, I find myself edging more and more to the conservative side. As to whether or not I'll be as conservative as you, I doubt that will happen

Thank you for your honest response. I do not believe that 95% of the population should kowtow to the demands of a minority. I do believe that they should have all the rights that straight people have, but they shouldn't have any specieal protection (such as under the ADA). I don't believe that homsexuality is something that can be fixed, it is something that you are born with. Whether or not it is hereditary, I don't know. I do have two uncles from the same family that are gay, but that is it. It is not like there has been gay family members in each generation.

Just so you know, I voted for Norm Coleman. Which I would have done even if Paul Wellstone had not died.

I swear I think Madman is Ann Coulter posting under a psuedonym. I love your book, "Treason" by the way, very enlightening.

And full of lies. :p

Like what?

Like what?

p.51 - "When the United States made an alliance with mad mullahs in Afghanistan against the USSR, no sensible American would go sign up with the Taliban."

The Taliban did not have a militia until '94, 5 years after the Soviets withdrew.

p. 225 - some congressmen went to Iraq. She says, "Weren't any Democrats the tiniest bit irritated that members of Congress were meeting with a tyrant as the U.S. prepared to attack him?"

The group did not meet with the tyrant.

p. 229 - she quotes Clinton: "They have good reason to hate us...after all, we sent the Crusaders to try and conquer them."

Clinton said no such thing. If you think he did, show some proof. (Coulter gave no source for her proof)

Moby... You really are becoming a left wing spin doctor aren't you? I may have to rethink my position on whether or not you are a nice guy.

Many of the Afghani mujahideen that fought the Soviets were the same idiots that later formed the Taliban. Yes, the mujahideen were (and are) a militia. A rose by any other name huh....

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, Rep. David Bonior, D-Michigan, and Rep. Mike Thompson, D-California all made a trip together to Iraq last September. On the eve of war and right before Congress voted to use force against Iraq, it was certainly sedititious and quite possibly treasonous to make this trip and give aid and comfort to the enemy. But this is something modern Democrats do with total absolution these days. They may not have met Saddam personally, but they did meet with ranking members of the tyrannical Iraqi regime. Coulter never said they met Saddam. The whole regime were all tyrants.

Nice try again. Clinton did say something almost identical to this in a disgraceful November 7, 2001 speech at Georgetown University. (He also arrived late and seemed drunk while giving the speech).

The following is a transcript of the speech:
http://www.georgetown.edu/admin/publicaffairs/protocol_events/events/clinton_glf1107 01.htm

Did you actually read the book or are these page indicators and quotes from the book a result of a Google search?

Care to discuss Hillary Clinton's book of lies or how about Sidney Blumenthal's lengthy book of bullshit lies and spin?

But that's the point, isn't it? He DIDN'T say what she said he said. She spun it to her advantage, and lied in the process, saying he said it.

Quote:

Care to discuss Hillary Clinton's book of lies or how about Sidney Blumenthal's lengthy book of bullshit lies and spin?

Oh, I don't doubt she's got a tankful of lies in there. But I was talking about Coulter, not Clinton.

pg 51 Whether or not they were called "The Taliban" really doesnt matter. It isnt as if these guys just magically appeared. They were the same people under a name not used yet.

With page 225. Arent we just talking semantics here? Is there really a difference? They still met with his direct representatives. It's like saying that if there was proof that Osama Bin Laden hadn't met with Saddam directly, but dealt constantly with Iraqi officials, that would somehow represent less collusion between the two than if they met face to face somewhere.

As for page 229, here is the text of a speech. I'll agree he did not say those exact words, but the sentiment does seem to be there.

The Speech

edited to add, wow Madman, we sure are on the same page today.

OK, but then what's your opinion of Reagan supporting Saddam? We knew what he was dropping on the Iranians then.

But it's when someone changes it ever so slightly that it begins to mushroom. Just like people keep harping on Gore saying "I invented the internet" when he never said any such thing, and did not even imply such a thing.

Yeah she did misquote what Bubba said. I am not sure I would go so far as to call it a malicious lie.

Out of a book that is 368 pages this is the only thing you can come up with? I say that is not bad at all on her part and in no way does that constitute a book of lies or propaganda.

You never said whether you read it. A Google search comes up with the same stuff you posted regarding Coulters' book.

Oh by the way.... Al Gore did say he invented the Internet in a March 1999 interview with Wolf Shitzer on CNN. Even Snopes.com admits it and prints the text of what he said... "I took the initiative in creating the Internet".. but they even shamelessly spin and make excuses for what he said. I guess the people at Snopes are Democrats and not very non-partisan.

And where did he say, "I invented the internet?"

Vint Cerf, who was one of the driving forces behind the internet, even says Gore was misquoted, and what he DID say was taken WAY out of context.

Again he said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". You're talking a matter of semantics. "Created" or "invented". You're a very picky and literal guy when it suits your interests.

Regardless it was a ridiculous claim to make. Al Gore was known for his exagerations. In his defense he did have a sense of humor and joked about it on later public appearances. Al Gore is an ass, but in his defense he is no where near the level of lunacy displayed by the current crop of unworthy Democratic candidates for president. Joe Leiberman is the only one who comes close to being somewhat qualified and possibly sensible enough to be in the running.

You love talking about Vint Cerf. He is a Democratic Party supporter so of course he would defend Al.

Oh, I will fully admit I haven't read it, and yes, I googled it.

But I've never read Clinton's, and have no intention to read it.

I have never read any of the bullshit politico books on either side, and have no intention to. Both sides spin and put forth lies (intentional or not).

But again, he didn't say he created or invented. He took the INITIATIVE. And he did. Before he backed it, there was no internet as you know it today.

I do agree though, the current crop of dems...sorely lacking. Honestly, I don't think there's been a decent Democrat since April '68.

Gore can say stupid things. But one thing nobody on either side will deny - he knows a hell of a lot about issues, regardless of what they feel about his *opinion* on them.

I videotaped him once. Saying he is wooden is being generous.

Do you not see the word "created" in his quote?

The internet was here long before Al ran for his first elective office. While he did support computer and telecommunications issues while in the Senate, we would still have the same internet today even if Al Gore had never existed.

Both big Al and his boss Bill Clinton belong in jail or standing against a firing squad for their treasonous technology transfers to China. That's how much these guys thought about our high tech industries.

There hasn't been a Democrat who really cared about America or our national security issues since Truman. Even his predecessor FDR was socialist scum.

I disagree. I'm not that impressed with JFK, but I think his brother would have been good for the country. But, that's neither here nor there, as he never got a chance to show us.

It'd be nice if we got a politician, any politician, who would be honest with us. I recall reading where all the dem hopefuls refused to say what their position was on the gay marriage thing. I'd have been most impressed with one if they said this: "Do I have a problem with it? No. Would I support it? No. No because we have more important things to worry about than that."

Don't know how JFK was thrown into the mix... but all the Kennedy's are no good bastards. Always were and always will be.

JFK sealed his fate with The Bay of Pigs. His brother Bobby was a notorious scumbag and backstabber who had amassed many powerful enemies. The country was better off without him.

The gay issue will be in the forefront of the general election. The current crop of vermin are trying to slime their way through the primaries and hiding their real faces from their Democratic voter base in order to win the nomination.

Here is an example of Democrat lunacy. Nancy Pelosi ( a card carrying member of the Socialist International ) wants her fellow Dem congressman to have birthday parties for the anniversary of Medicare. She even passed out detailed instructions on everything included the type of cake to order. WTF!!! This is how this anti-American, multimillionaire socialist bitch spends her time? Is there any friggin Democrats who give a shit about what is going on in the world. Are socialist governmental programs all that matter?

Only brought JFK in to simply say I thought RFK was better. As far as him being a backstabber - that's utter nonsense.

Heck, you should appreciate him for his nonstop attack on Hoffa and the corrupt unions.

Which is really pathetic. We have more important issues than that. MUCH more important issues.

RFK's dealings with mob types, CIA and the ongoing use of both in the numerous plots to kill Castro did them both in. He backstabbed all of them. He initially did not want to use mob operatives in his Cuban operations but he quickly became involved. Playing both sides against the middle. All at the same time going after Hoffa and other mobsters. Let's not forget the mob helped fix the election in Illinios and Nixon never demanded a recount. Probably because he did not want to be the first guy to do this in a presidential election. Maybe he also feared Kennedy use of mob types and possible mob retribution. Who knows. You can't play both sides against the middle with people like this and emerge unharmed.

I miss the good old days....