blah blah blah.
like I've said before, please don't speak for me or try to skew what I'm saying to fit whatever agenda you have.

Nabokov wrote a novel called Lolita. graphic, disturbing, but fiction. Does that make Nabokov a pedophile?
No.

What I was saying was that those excerpts were derived from works of fiction. Are you implying that the actions of a person directed toward a minor should be condoned while an act of fiction should be condemned? You're screwed up man. Please don't tell me what kind of candidate I would vote for or what a hypocrite Democrats are because the only hypocrisy I see in this instant is you justifying the actions of a gay pedophile because legally in some other state, it would be entirely ok.

Silly me for having an agenda of not getting a Senator in office that writes about a father having oral sex with his son. Silly me. Democrats have no problem having a former KKK member as their senier senator, so why not this senator, right?

I have no problem with fiction. I have a problem with a person that is suppose to represent the people, while writing books about a father and son having oral sex. Do you think average Americans write fiction like this everyday?

Putting words in your mouth? You said, "fiction should carry the same weight in the ballot box as real life activities," jokingly.

That is your quote. By your statement, you believe a congressman can write about a father having sex with a child and it should not matter in the real life. I have a newsflash for you, that is real life.

A senator is pouring out his thoughts in a book. Should we not consider his thoughts if we are voting for him? Bob, just because you can vote for the guy without blinking an eye doesn't means thousands will not change their minds. Because in "real life" guys that are writing about having sex with boys is thinking about it.

So, if George Bush wrote a fictional book about shooting all of the congress (Democrats) then going out into the oval office and having sex with little boys, it shouldn't matter because it is fictional correct? I am sure the New York Times will share your view.

I wonder why people investigate fictional writing about killing the President. It is just fiction correct?

Why did this guy not choose to write a fictional book about space travel? Instead he chose this subject, which I can promise you voters will take notice.

Bob, care to make a wager on if this guys ratings in the polls go down after this story?

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

Mike, did I ever say I would vote for this guy? Did I ever say I have no problem with this guy?
Mike. Stop putting words in my mouth and I mean it. My point is and still is, why do you put so much time and effort into making an abstruse point about a Democratic contender and deflecting attention away from someone who so obviously DID do something?
Funny how you never addressed that point.
I guess it's excusable since it's only a minor legal point since the kid would have been legal in some other states.
Also, the congressional representative is Republican so he can't be that bad a fellow.

Additionally, you should learn the difference between sarcasm and joking. They are two quite different beasts.

How you can you derive this statement from my bit, I have no idea. If you can't discern the proper application of my statement, I won't waste any more time on it.

Or what?

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

I'm sorry Bob, but I have to back Mike up on this one. Having chat room sex with a congressional page is much better than writing about sex between a father and son. It doesn't matter if you are portraying the incest in a positive or negative light, because you're talking about in the public sphere.

Foley was simply trying to bang underage boys in a private setting. Nothing illegal with that in most states, at least according to Mike and I trust he's an authority on the matter. You see, Foley was in the closet and trying to hide his pedophilia. You didn't see him cavorting with high school kids in public. Why? Because he's a moral man. He knows that pedophila is unnacceptable, so he kept it hidden, which is the only right thing to do.

Jim Webb is totally different. He showcases his virulent form of pedophilia for everyone to see. I mean grown adults, leaders around the world read his books. And they liked them. The book has 4 out of 5 stars at Amazon. I mean, that's a lot of pedophiles. It's like Jim Webb has given them a banner to rally around. Even John McCain liked it:

Foley had internet sex with children only a limited number of times. Jim Webb, through print, had sex with children millions of times in homes and offices around America. Can you not tell who is the worst of the two men?

It is nice that Doutes has no care for slander since he is slandering a congressman. Care to show us the proof? Foley NEVER touched or had sex with anyone. He made some comments on a chat room. I guess Doutes knows more than the FBI.

$)C!0Nothing untoward happened. It was social chitchat,!1 attorney Stephen Jones said from Enid.

Edmund was then 17, in high school and living in Carlsbad, Calif.

Edmund, now 21, is among the teenage, male former pages who allegedly received sexually explicit Internet messages from Foley, a Florida Republican.

Foley resigned Sept. 29 after ABC News confronted him about the graphic instant messages.
Foley, 52, has since admitted through an attorney that he sent inappropriate messages but said he never had sex with a minor. Foley also confirmed publicly that he is gay.

The FBI is investigating Foley. FBI agents interviewed Edmund for more than two hours Tuesday in Oklahoma City.

Do some research instead of bashing a gay Republican. The Page was 17 and the legal consent in D.C. is 16 and much lower in Florida. If they met and had sex it would not be illegal.

Doutes, you might want to look up some debating 101 tips. Rule #1 is know the facts. Rule #2 is learn how to use sarcasm. Paragraph after paragraph makes people stop reading.

It's nice that Doutes is a Democrat and bashes a gay Republican for being gay and not having sex with someone he legally could have. It would have been unethical, but not illegal. Nice way to spend our tax money on FBI agents.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

I never said Foley had sex with pages. I said he was trying to. And yes, chatting online like that is illegal. Just like banging a 17 year old isn't illegal, but taking pictures of yourself banging a 17 year old is is very illegal. The law is a little complicated like that.

Now, I'm not exactly sure Foley was trying to bang 17 year olds. It was probably just "social chitchat." During the next USFK Forum meetup, you and I can "chitchat" about our penis lengths and whether we make each other horny. It wouldn't mean that we wanted to hit the sack together. I mean, don't you "chitchat" about your penis with women and men all the time? It doesn't mean that you want to sleep with them, right?

Are you going to assign me a 5 yard penalty for overusage of sarcasm? However, It would help if you learned the difference between sarcasm and satire in the first place.

So Republicans were angry at Clinton because he's a heterosexual. I thought Republicans were angry at Clinton because Monica was his employee and it was an extra marital affair. Now, thanks to "Mike Logic," I understand that Republicans just dislike heterosexuals. If only Clinton had banged a male congressional page, the whole incident could have been forgotten.

So, first you said:

Now you say:

Care to show the proof that Foley took pictures of himself having sex with 17 year old? Or is slander the game you play? First you call him a pedophilia and now saying he took pictures of himself having sex with someone 17. It must be nice sitting behind a computer and slandering people with little proof.

Ah, the Morales of the Democratic left. Bill Clinton did nothing wrong, (except he had sex with a dozen women that were not his wife), but if a gay Republican has a a legal (yet unethical) online chat he is a terrible person, a pedophilia and films a 17 year old having sex. What is the difference? Sperm on a dress. See the difference between sperm on a dress and text on an instant messenger?

'
No. I let guys like you a Kafkorea post your true colors and let others decide. If I were on a left-wing bulletin board I would have been banned from posting again. On my site I let you say what you want within reason. I don't allow swearing, spamming and vicious personal attacks. On a liberal board I would be called a fascist and most likely banned.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

or you might find less people on these boards.

that's a great attitude to have mike. 'let's drive off everyone that disagrees with the great leader and leave a quorum of unsuspecting sheep.'