When I read your initial post on this thread I thought I was reading some stupid, poorly written, preverted romance novel. Why in the world would anyone ASSUME that kids who become pages, interns, assistants to political figures, etc. in Washington are there for anything other than participating in government and possibly preparing for a career in public service. You MAY also think that this is their main focus – but it sure sounds as if you think that neither the Congresspersons nor the pages/interns are able to conduct themselves professionally. I’m sure there are some who go there for prestige or the chance to meet some important and influencial figures – and maybe even to get involved sexually – but you make it sound as if that’s the only thing in which these teenagers are interested. And you also say in your last statement that they are a distraction to the Congresspersons – as if they weren’t able to control themselves, either. Please give all these participants a bit of respect – don’t assume they have the same low moral character that you have.

My vulgarities were thoughtfully chosen and carefully calibrated to make my point.

Kralizec on October 4, 2006 at 4:48 PM

Thoughtful Vulgarities:

children turn into fresh, hot, young adults

children running around ovulating or loaded with spunk

desperately waiting for his “morning wood” to subside

The slick suds feel really good on his hairy “junk

he strokes himself out to his full seven inches, gets the rhythm, and goes at it

he pushes the evidence to the drain with his foot and watches it slide down, glob by sticky glob

but before he falls asleep, he drowsily busts out another one

He’s a child; he’ll get PTSD if a hairy, fat dude IMs an impure thought to him

Whew!

Let me catch my breath, and wipe the tears from my cheek. I am momentarily blinded by your God-like thoughtfulness. No wonder you’re so pleased with yourself.

Have you ever considered sending your resume to Hallmark?

I see you are capable of making a valid point without filthy language and disgusting sexual visualizations. Had you taken this route initially I wouldn’t have bothered to poke a barb at you. From the outset I was offended by your language, not your opinion. So that I might return to civility as well, I withdraw my last antagonistic remark.

* My point isn’t just valid; it’s true.
* I post often enough that my rhetorical range can’t actually be in doubt.
* Your barb is irrelevant; I care about issues, theory, politics, and written style. My vulgarities were thoughtfully chosen and carefully calibrated to make my point.
* Given that I drew critical comment from just one person, I’m quite pleased with my choices and calibrations.
* I don’t really know what it means to “withdraw” a remark or why your personal antagonism matters.

Following up my last post on the Foley follies, not surprisingly we have yet to hear the full story of Foley’s sad and sick behavior (for maximum political purposes, naturally). No doubt the gay activist ranks, a confused and benighted crew ……

Consider what I must mean by sexual maturity if I collocated “sixteen-year-old” and “sexual maturity.” I’m not talking about the wisdom that sometimes comes with experience. As for that and the rest of your remarks, the very thing I’ve been doing, throughout, is attempting to draw attention to the sharp contrast between the thoroughly adult sexual biology of most sixteen-year-olds and our cultural and legal classification of them as children. And on the other hand, I’ve pointed out that although we claim to classify them as children, we consider it fitting to dress them up and send them to Congress. The confusion you’ve noted is precisely the confusion I’m pointing out. Nor am I offering a doctrine; I’ve drawn attention to the confusion for the sake of whomever is willing to reconsider everything from the beginning.

Kralisec,

Kudos.

I see you are capable of making a valid point without filthy language and disgusting sexual visualizations. Had you taken this route initially I wouldn’t have bothered to poke a barb at you. From the outset I was offended by your language, not your opinion.

So that I might return to civility as well, I withdraw my last antagonistic remark.

…sounds like something witten [sic] by a sixteen-year-old….

If we ever were able to meet face-to-face (bring a stool to stand on), I suspect you would retract associating me with that “too dainty” remark in a heartbeat.

You and I are beside the point.

The words “sixteen-year-old [sic] and “sexual maturity” do not belong together in the same sentence together [sic]…. Our horny “children”, to use your words, can hardly be considered both youth and adult members simultaneously simply because they are fully reproductive. They are one or the other, yet you somehow manage to lump them into the same category.

Consider what I must mean by sexual maturity if I collocated “sixteen-year-old” and “sexual maturity.” I’m not talking about the wisdom that sometimes comes with experience. As for that and the rest of your remarks, the very thing I’ve been doing, throughout, is attempting to draw attention to the sharp contrast between the thoroughly adult sexual biology of most sixteen-year-olds and our cultural and legal classification of them as children. And on the other hand, I’ve pointed out that although we claim to classify them as children, we consider it fitting to dress them up and send them to Congress. The confusion you’ve noted is precisely the confusion I’m pointing out. Nor am I offering a doctrine; I’ve drawn attention to the confusion for the sake of whomever is willing to reconsider everything from the beginning.

Just so, fogw, just so. One of my very points is that a frank, un-bowdlerized description of a sixteen-year-old “child’s” daily routine reeks of his sexual maturity. But you have said it yourself, so what further need have we of witnesses?

Not quite pal. I merely suggested graphic comments like “fresh, hot, young adults”,”loaded with spunk” and ” strokes himself out to his full seven inches” were over the top [childish] and unnecessary to make your point. Your follow-up comment is laughable as well. The words “sixteen-year-old and “sexual maturity” do not belong together in the same sentence together (sounds like something witten by a sixteen-year-old). Sexual awareness, yes. Sexually active, yes. But sexually mature, afraid not.

Another of my points was that we’re too dainty to come face-to-face with the circumstance that the youth have become finely-tuned, fully reproductive, adult members of the species, until years after it’s happened. You can be my Exhibit A, fogw.

Wow, now there’s a convoluted revelation. Our horny “children”, to use your words, can hardly be considered both youth and adult members simultaneously simply because they are fully reproductive. They are one or the other, yet you somehow manage to lump them into the same category.

I’m fascinated by your ability to know how everyone else thinks and perceives the world of sexuality.

If we ever were able to meet face-to-face (bring a stool to stand on), I suspect you would retract associating me with that “too dainty” remark in a heartbeat.

Apparently the big bombshell is that Foley … was molested as a kid by a priest.

What did BenediKKKt XVI know, and when did he know it?

…but how does that relate to his obvious joy in getting his jollies off as seen in the text messaages?

Why do you think the IM messages produced by Brian Ross are not forgeries?

The Democrats tried to pass forged National Guard documents as factual in 2004 with Dan Rather defending their authenticity. Have you forgotten that?

What makes you think that these are dialogs actually involving Foley? Because Brian Ross says so?

Forging IM logs or saved sessions is immeasurably easier than a printed document using a modern electronic word processing font. All you need is a simple text editor.

Being a gay Republican, still closeted, places the individual between the rock and the hard place. He is vulnerable to blackmail OR outing just before an election, making his formerly “safe” seat vulnerable.

And the Democrats are already running ads accusing the Republican leadership of covering up the fact that they allowed a predator to prey on boys….

You could have said adults should refrain from preying on the raging hormones of innocent adolescents….

Re-read.

the Penthouse Forum article

Just so, fogw, just so. One of my very points is that a frank, un-bowdlerized description of a sixteen-year-old “child’s” daily routine reeks of his sexual maturity. But you have said it yourself, so what further need have we of witnesses?

The last person I heard talking that much about masturbation was Jocelyn Elders.

Another of my points was that we’re too dainty to come face-to-face with the circumstance that the youth have become finely-tuned, fully reproductive, adult members of the species, until years after it’s happened. You can be my Exhibit A, fogw.

You could have said adults should refrain from preying on the raging hormones of innocent adolescents and spared us the Penthouse Forum article.

The last person I heard talking that much about masturbation was Jocelyn Elders.

Seek professional help.

The American Spectator’s blog says he’s tight with them, based on reporting by a certain site that gets no direct linkage from me. Foley may have even checked into their Clearwater campus for a quick brainwash treatment. Foley’s own faith……

http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/10/03/mark-foleys-attorney-speaks-video/

I’ll stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that these pages really are just boys and girls, fragile children in need of the protection of the laws. I’ll stipulate that pages are children, despite what every male reader of my comment must suspect is a male page’s typical daily routine: He wakes up in the morning and spends his first five minutes desperately waiting for his “morning wood” to subside, so he can pee. He gets in the shower, spends a few minutes waking up under the hot water, then gets busy washing up. The slick suds feel really good on his hairy “junk,” so he str0kes himself out to his full seven inches, gets the rhythm, and goes at it. When he’s finished and he’s caught his breath, he pushes the evidence to the drain with his foot and watches it slide down, glob by sticky glob. He gets out, dries off, shaves, then smears deodorant on his hairy armpits, hoping to reduce his manly stink, which has become such a problem lately, despite the established fact that he’s just a child. All day he dreams about sex, while he does whatever work it is that pages do. He goes home and stays up till 1:00 a.m. playing a PC game over the internet. Then he goes to bed, but before he falls asleep, he drowsily busts out another one. There’s no drain handy this time, just Kleenex and a trash can.

Never mind that his grubby, no-nonsense, bust-another-one sexuality is at its peak. He’s a child; he’ll get PTSD if a hairy, fat dude IMs an impure thought to him. Fine, I won’t argue, but then I will insist that parents keep their precious children at home, so that the Congress can conduct the nation’s legislation without the distraction these children inexplicably pose.

But if Foley was a gay pedophile who wasn’t a Republican Congressman, there would be no controversy.

I am feeling less and less sympathy for this guy every time he tries to provoke it with another sob “alcoholism” or “was abused as a kid” story he throws out there.

He’s a bastard. Let the FBI do their investigatin’.

Does that mean he has no understanding of right and wrong? Not based on his utterances.

Does it imply that he has been prevented from having a successful career? I don’t think so…he has been elected multiple times to the US House of Representatives.

It is a kind of “pass it forward”, but in a bad way? I dunno.

I think that this is just a cheap, sleazy way to try an get some sympathy and pass off some blame to some priest by invoking a modern stereotype. This is not to say that, if the molestation did occur it isn’t terrible. But I don’t see any connection with that and what this grown up, successful “man” has done.

It’s always about the coverup, or the incomplete investigations, isn’t it….

I hate to use the word “theory.” People think I’m about to affix a tin-foil hat on my head. But while listening to Hugh Hewitt’s show this afternoon, an e-mailer brought up an interesting point. (It hasn’t been posted anywhere, so I’ll paraphras…