Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RummagingBedouin

Conservative Republicans - Just can't get enough

0 posts in this topic

From the Salt Lake Tribune.


A top Utah fund-raiser for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign - who has links to an organization facing a civil lawsuit alleging child abuse - is no longer part of Romney's state finance team.

Robert Lichfield of La Verkin, who founded the umbrella group called the Worldwide Association of Specialty Schools, brought in some $300,000 earlier this year for Romney during a single Utah event and has donated tens of thousands to the former Massachusetts governor and other Republicans in recent years.

Lichfield is named in a federal lawsuit charging that students of the "behavior modification" schools with ties to WWASPS were subjected to "physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse." The suit had 140 defendants at last count.

...

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Utah, alleges brazen acts of child abuse, including that students of the various programs had been forced to eat their own vomit, clean toilets with a toothbrush and brush their teeth afterward, were chained or locked in dog cages, kicked, beaten, thrown and slammed to the ground and forced into sexual acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but don't forget Bill Clinton almost had sex with an intern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Skin2Skin @ Sep 7 2007, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, but don't forget Bill Clinton almost had sex with an intern.


True...and well spotted. But I was thinking more Norman Hsu, you know, troubled partisan fundraiser and troubled partisan fundraiser. Apples and apples.

If I should leave this thread alone so it can turn into yet another partisan giggling session, let me know. No prob.

In the meantime, less than an hour old news, in case you're actually interested in crooked partisan fund-raisers..........


Fugitive fundraiser Hsu captured in Colorado
Jaxon Van Derbeken,John Coté, Chronicle Staff Writers
Friday, September 7, 2007

(09-07) 07:33 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Fugitive political fundraiser Norman Hsu, who skipped out on San Mateo County authorities this week rather than face sentencing for a 1992 fraud conviction, was apprehended Thursday night by federal and local lawmen in Grand Junction, Colo.

Authorities said Hsu was taken into custody at St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction at 7 p.m. local time. He had been on the lam for almost two days after failing to appear in a Redwood City courtroom Wednesday to surrender his passport.Hsu was taken off a passenger train at the Grand Junction train station earlier in the day by paramedics who requested a backboard to move him, said Sgt. Lonnie Chavez with the Grand Junction Police Department.

Authorities received a request for medical assistance at the train station at about 11:15 a.m., but the exact nature of Hsu's condition was unclear, Chavez said. Hsu was traveling on an Amtrak train when he became ill, and Amtrak personnel called an ambulance when the train stopped in Grand Junction, said Pete Smarr, a nursing supervisor at St. Mary’s Hospital. Hsu was listed in fair condition early Friday, but Smarr declined to comment on the nature of Hsu's illness or a timetable for his release from the hospital.

Hsu was arrested in Colorado on federal charges of unlawful flight to avoid prosecution after the California attorney general's office sought assistance from federal authorities in apprehending him, FBI spokesman Joseph Schadler said. The federal charges will be dropped once Hsu is returned to California to face sentencing in state court, Schadler said.
Hsu's attorney told state prosecutors that Hsu had been on a charter flight that arrived at Oakland International Airport at about 5:30 a.m. Wednesday and then dropped out of sight, said Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the state attorney general's office.

Amtrak's California Zephyr train offers service from nearby Emeryville to Grand Junction before heading to Denver and Chicago. The Zephyr left Emeryville at about 7:10 a.m. Wednesday and was scheduled to arrive in Grand Junction before noon Thursday. Hsu's disappearing act seemed to be a reprise of a move he pulled 15 years ago, when he failed to show up for sentencing in the same grand theft case. Hsu was facing up to three years in state prison, a $10,000 fine and restitution payments after pleading no contest to a single count of grand theft in what prosecutors described as a $1 million fraud scheme. But while free on bail after his plea, Hsu dropped from sight for 15 years, apparently spending time in Hong Kong, the Philippines and Taiwan, only to emerge in recent years as a seemingly wealthy New York resident who donated generously to Democratic political campaigns, regularly attended fundraisers and was photographed with party leaders.

A week ago, Hsu, 56, surrendered to San Mateo County sheriff's deputies in Redwood City after press accounts linked him to the earlier grand theft case. He spent a few hours in county jail before posting $2 million bail and agreeing to surrender his passport. The state attorney general's office, which is prosecuting the case, initially sought bail of $1 million, but San Mateo Superior Court Judge James Ellis doubled that to $2 million - the amount specified in the arrest warrant.

After Hsu posted bail, his attorney, Jim Brosnahan, sent a legal assistant to Hsu's New York condominium Monday to retrieve the passport but was unable to find it after a 90-minute search.
Before Hsu was captured Thursday night, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell became the latest Democratic figure to distance himself from the fundraiser, announcing earlier in the day that he would donate to charity almost $40,000 Hsu contributed to his campaign.

"Though Norman is my friend, and remains so, his failure to appear casts a new light on his assertions regarding the original case," Rendell said in a prepared statement. "As a result, I will follow other elected officials and donate the money he contributed to me to charity." Hsu, listed as a "Hillraiser" committed to bringing in $100,000 or more to the presidential campaign of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, has given an estimated $600,000 of his own money to candidates ranging from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Assemblywoman Fiona Ma to presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Hsu has helped raise hundreds of thousands more through high-profile events in New York and California and served on the board of trustees of New York City's New School university at the request of Bob Kerrey, the university's president and former Democratic senator from Nebraska.

The size and scope of Hsu's contributions made him one of the party's largest individual contributors. While he gave $23,000 to Clinton and $7,000 to Obama, he also gave $62,000 to New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, $50,000 to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, and $50,000 to the New York State Democratic Party. His contributions also included $38,000 to the Tennessee Democratic Party, $750 to Newsom, $1,250 to San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, and $3,500 to the 25th Ward Democratic Organization in Chicago. In the 1991-92 grand theft case, Hsu was charged with bilking about 20 investors, including his ex-girlfriend, out of about $1 million in connection with a business that was supposed to provide latex gloves to another firm - only no gloves were ever bought or sold, prosecutors said.

"What Mr. Hsu was in the business of was running a Ponzi scheme," prosecutor Ron Smetana said at a preliminary hearing, according to the transcript. "He was taking money and spending part of it on himself and returning it as it was available. As with any Ponzi scheme, the first ones in and the first ones out always do quite well. Those (who) hope that their investment will continue and stay to the end tend to lose their shorts."

After the glove business collapsed in April 1990, Hsu was kidnapped four months later in San Francisco by a Chinatown gang leader in an effort to collect a debt from him, police said. The abduction was foiled after the car they were riding in ran a red light in Foster City and was pulled over by police, who rescued Hsu, authorities said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Skin2Skin @ Sep 7 2007, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, but don't forget Bill Clinton almost had sex with an intern.

so I can count you in the camp of those who belive oral sex is not sex and that you can be almost pregnant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Skin2Skin @ Sep 7 2007, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, but don't forget Bill Clinton almost had sex with an intern.


And by the way, it appears you don't consider oral sex to be sex. It was that kind of 'progressive' thinking that led to the explosion of young teenage girls offering an exorbitant amount of oral sex and anal sex following the Clinton/Lewinsky debacle. The liberals and progressives pushed hard, ever wanting to clear the name of their fallen hero, that oral sex was not sex. Study after study has backed this, including ones that liberals like to laugh at, where young often Christian girls vow chastity and then have anal sex. Nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is your point about Hsu? No one voted for him or hired him to run his/her campaign. You can't always know every detail about where your supporters got their money. A lot of wealthy individuals who live blameless lives may have inherited wealth from parents whose behavior is/was less than savory. Where do you draw that line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which liberals were these? This liberal considers oral and anal sex to be sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(wizardimps @ Sep 7 2007, 11:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(Skin2Skin @ Sep 7 2007, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, but don't forget Bill Clinton almost had sex with an intern.

so I can count you in the camp of those who belive oral sex is not sex and that you can be almost pregnant


Another classic example of diverting us from:

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Utah, alleges brazen acts of child abuse, including that students of the various programs (CHILDREN) had been forced to eat their own vomit, clean toilets with a toothbrush and brush their teeth afterward, were chained or locked in dog cages, kicked, beaten, thrown and slammed to the ground and forced into sexual acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I consider oral sex to be a sexual act, not the sexual act. Sorry if that sounds like "depends on what the definition of is is" but someone can be a virgin even if she has given someone a blow job. Technically speaking. (Not sure if that would apply to a guy and homosexual sex...it's not my area of expertise and I'd rather not go there anyway.)

But it's all diversionary and that's my point. To me there's no comparison between Bill Clinton and someone who would allow the torture of children...even if Bill and Monica had had every kind of sex every way but Sunday.





Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Skin2Skin @ Sep 7 2007, 09:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Another classic example of diverting us from:

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Utah, alleges brazen acts of child abuse, including that students of the various programs (CHILDREN) had been forced to eat their own vomit, clean toilets with a toothbrush and brush their teeth afterward, were chained or locked in dog cages, kicked, beaten, thrown and slammed to the ground and forced into sexual acts.


That's the strategery, haven't you learned anything yet?

If any of those allegations are true, those people should be punished beyond the extent of the law

I am thinking a few days locked in a room with the parents would be fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE
And by the way, it appears you don't consider oral sex to be sex. It was that kind of 'progressive' thinking that led to the explosion of young teenage girls offering an exorbitant amount of oral sex and anal sex following the Clinton/Lewinsky debacle. The liberals and progressives pushed hard, ever wanting to clear the name of their fallen hero, that oral sex was not sex. Study after study has backed this, including ones that liberals like to laugh at, where young often Christian girls vow chastity and then have anal sex. Nice.


I must have been out of the country on this. Could you show a few columns, reports, or anything where liberals and progressives tried to clear the name of Clinton by claiming oral sex isn't sex and the cause of the young teenage girl blow job explosion. Could you also name a few of those studies that must be legion. Also haven't heard anyone laughing about Christian girls liking anal sex. Hell, I didn't even know they liked anal sex. That's reason enough to not raise a daughter to be Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Skin2Skin @ Sep 7 2007, 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You can't always know every detail about where your supporters got their money.


True. But peronally, I think many peeps turned their eyes and stuck out their hands (hoping nothing would be made public.) Don't know that to be fact; just my opinion. Then again, I tend to believe there is a lot more 'dirt' going on in politics than others seem to think or acknowledge. I think the system stnks. I think, as I have said earlier, the humongous amounts of money being raised on both sides is staggering...and prohibitive for lesser known caring, intelligent, honest 'clean' people to run, for many different offices, not just President. If my friend had $35million he would run against the aging and not-even-liked-by-his-own-part Sen. Frank Lautenberg. But he doesn't. So he simply can't run.

The need for more and more money lends to politicians seeking more and more money. When the 'clean' sources run dry, hey, look the other way and stick out your hand............

It all makes me sick, in a non-partisan manner. This time, the libs and progressives make fun of the conservative fund-raiser. Next time, it could be vice-versa. I argue, yet again, the system is flawed and inefficient, not one particular party or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(RummagingBedouin @ Sep 7 2007, 12:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE
And by the way, it appears you don't consider oral sex to be sex. It was that kind of 'progressive' thinking that led to the explosion of young teenage girls offering an exorbitant amount of oral sex and anal sex following the Clinton/Lewinsky debacle. The liberals and progressives pushed hard, ever wanting to clear the name of their fallen hero, that oral sex was not sex. Study after study has backed this, including ones that liberals like to laugh at, where young often Christian girls vow chastity and then have anal sex. Nice.


I must have been out of the country on this. Could you show a few columns, reports, or anything where liberals and progressives tried to clear the name of Clinton by claiming oral sex isn't sex and the cause of the young teenage girl blow job explosion. Could you also name a few of those studies that must be legion. Also haven't heard anyone laughing about Christian girls liking anal sex. Hell, I didn't even know they liked anal sex. That's reason enough to not raise a daughter to be Christian.



You got me. I'm making it all up. Now you may go back to living your life like an ostrich with your head in the sand.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(RummagingBedouin @ Sep 7 2007, 11:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE
And by the way, it appears you don't consider oral sex to be sex. It was that kind of 'progressive' thinking that led to the explosion of young teenage girls offering an exorbitant amount of oral sex and anal sex following the Clinton/Lewinsky debacle. The liberals and progressives pushed hard, ever wanting to clear the name of their fallen hero, that oral sex was not sex. Study after study has backed this, including ones that liberals like to laugh at, where young often Christian girls vow chastity and then have anal sex. Nice.


I must have been out of the country on this. Could you show a few columns, reports, or anything where liberals and progressives tried to clear the name of Clinton by claiming oral sex isn't sex and the cause of the young teenage girl blow job explosion. Could you also name a few of those studies that must be legion. Also haven't heard anyone laughing about Christian girls liking anal sex. Hell, I didn't even know they liked anal sex. That's reason enough to not raise a daughter to be Christian.


Actually, there has been shown a higher incidence of oral and anal sex by christian teens who have taken that BS abstinence pledge than ever were influenced by the infamous WH BJ. I guess they think that if is isn't in the hoo haa, it isn't sex. Therefore they won't go to hell.

Many Teens Who Take 'Virginity Pledges' Substitute Other High-Risk Behavior for Intercourse

Study: Teens Who Pledge Virginity Try To Bend The Rules

The Problem With Virginity Pledges

And, as usual, bushco tries to hide another rightie bungle.

Burying Release of Abstinence Only Report on Friday the 13th Seems Fitting

And once again, as usual, it's all Clinton's fault. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you, Jack.

I figured if Rummagin' Bedouin was really interested, he could look it up himself. As for the liberals and progressives who were defending the President by trying to say he didn't have sex, one would need to look at the myriad of news talk shows during the time of the Lewisnsky scandal. I guess some people were just sleeping then....or had their heads in the sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(skyjocky @ Sep 7 2007, 12:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(RummagingBedouin @ Sep 7 2007, 11:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE
And by the way, it appears you don't consider oral sex to be sex. It was that kind of 'progressive' thinking that led to the explosion of young teenage girls offering an exorbitant amount of oral sex and anal sex following the Clinton/Lewinsky debacle. The liberals and progressives pushed hard, ever wanting to clear the name of their fallen hero, that oral sex was not sex. Study after study has backed this, including ones that liberals like to laugh at, where young often Christian girls vow chastity and then have anal sex. Nice.


I must have been out of the country on this. Could you show a few columns, reports, or anything where liberals and progressives tried to clear the name of Clinton by claiming oral sex isn't sex and the cause of the young teenage girl blow job explosion. Could you also name a few of those studies that must be legion. Also haven't heard anyone laughing about Christian girls liking anal sex. Hell, I didn't even know they liked anal sex. That's reason enough to not raise a daughter to be Christian.


Actually, there has been shown a higher incidence of oral and anal sex by christian teens who have taken that BS abstinence pledge than ever were influenced by the infamous WH BJ. I guess they think that if is isn't in the hoo haa, it isn't sex. Therefore they won't go to hell.

Many Teens Who Take 'Virginity Pledges' Substitute Other High-Risk Behavior for Intercourse

Study: Teens Who Pledge Virginity Try To Bend The Rules

And, as usual, bushco tries to hide another rightie bungle.

Burying Release of Abstinence Only Report on Friday the 13th Seems Fitting

And once again, as usual, it's all Clinton's fault. rolleyes.gif



I think the issue with "Is it sex or isn't it?" isn't nearly as germane to these young women as "Can I get pregnant from it?" Even if these girls don't believe abortion is a sin/murder, abortions are very difficult to obtain in our New World Order.
The most recent survey found that 88% of all U.S. counties have no identifiable abortion provider.

( http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/fa...s_abortion.html )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(JoeZap @ Sep 7 2007, 12:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Thank you, Jack.

I figured if Rummagin' Bedouin was really interested, he could look it up himself. As for the liberals and progressives who were defending the President by trying to say he didn't have sex, one would need to look at the myriad of news talk shows during the time of the Lewisnsky scandal. I guess some people were just sleeping then....or had their heads in the sand.


You miss the point completely. Whether Bill Clinton had sex or not with a consenting adult is his personal business.

Torturing children...not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Skin2Skin @ Sep 7 2007, 11:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(JoeZap @ Sep 7 2007, 12:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Thank you, Jack.

I figured if Rummagin' Bedouin was really interested, he could look it up himself. As for the liberals and progressives who were defending the President by trying to say he didn't have sex, one would need to look at the myriad of news talk shows during the time of the Lewisnsky scandal. I guess some people were just sleeping then....or had their heads in the sand.


You miss the point completely. Whether Bill Clinton had sex or not with a consenting adult is his personal business.

Torturing children...not so much.


And yet the right ALWAYS goes back to the blue dress. Forget the children. Forget the bathrooms. Forget the Pages. Forget the war. Forget the environment. Forget the Vets. REMEMBER THE BLUE DRESS!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was the point of my original post smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Skin2Skin @ Sep 7 2007, 12:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You miss the point completely. Whether Bill Clinton had sex or not with a consenting adult is his personal business.


I know your partisan point. You have made it clear to anyone who reads this forum on a regular basis. If a Democrat, liberal or progressive does something let's say, less than enviable, it is a mere solitary character flaw or one-time aberration and the good outweighs the bad, they can still be a hero, the flaw doesn't really mean much, they are still tops in your book, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum, ad nauseum...vomit.

When a conservative or Republican does something less than enviable, they are a bad person who should be mocked, ridiculed and punished without jury.

Your partisan point has been there for years for anyone who frequents this place with an open mind to see.

You have shown on thread after thread that you will stubbornly defend any Democrat/liberal or progressive that comes under fire, regardless of how many (even other Dems and libs, like on the Edwards health care plan thread) disgaree with you. I see your partisan point very often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(JoeZap @ Sep 7 2007, 11:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(Skin2Skin @ Sep 7 2007, 12:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You miss the point completely. Whether Bill Clinton had sex or not with a consenting adult is his personal business.


I know your partisan point. You have made it clear to anyone who reads this forum on a regular basis. If a Democrat, liberal or progressive does something let's say, less than enviable, it is a mere solitary character flaw or one-time aberration and the good outweighs the bad, they can still be a hero, the flaw doesn't really mean much, they are still tops in your book, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum, ad nauseum...vomit.

When a conservative or Republican does something less than enviable, they are a bad person who should be mocked, ridiculed and punished without jury.

Your partisan point has been there for years for anyone who frequents this place with an open mind to see.

You have shown on thread after thread that you will stubbornly defend any Democrat/liberal or progressive that comes under fire, regardless of how many (even other Dems and libs, like on the Edwards health care plan thread) disgaree with you. I see your partisan point very often.


M..U..S..T N..O..T R..E..S..P..O..N..D. M..U..S..T N..O..T R..E..S..P..O..N..D. M..U..S..T N..O..T R..E..S..P..O..N..D. M..U..S..T N..O..T R..E..S..P..O..N..D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(skyjocky @ Sep 7 2007, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And yet the right ALWAYS goes back to the blue dress. Forget the children. Forget the bathrooms. Forget the Pages. Forget the war. Forget the environment. Forget the Vets. REMEMBER THE BLUE DRESS!!!!!!!!!


This thread is now becoming classically funny. Good stuff. laugh.gif


jack,

Who brought up the 'blue dress' on this thread? Go ahead, I'll give you time to check. Get your facts straight.


OK, that's right, it was Diane, not exactly a member of the 'right'. But yet, the two of you hoot and holler and get giddy accusing the 'right' of doing what you guys did....that is, bring up the 'blue dress' on an issue where it had little relevance. This is classic Psychology 101 going on here, folks. Please read this stuff for all its worth. Classic 'entrapment' case. Diane brought up the 'blue dress' then Jack says, "And yet the right ALWAYS goes back to the blue dress. Forget the children. Forget the bathrooms. Forget the Pages. Forget the war. Forget the environment. Forget the Vets. [b]REMEMBER THE BLUE DRESS!!!!!!!!!"

You just can't make this stuff up. A Psychologist would have a field day with this thread (and forum.) Accuse the innocent of excatly what you just did.

Classic. Simply classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has nothing to do with partisanship. I don't equate people having sex (extramarital or otherwise) to people abusing children. I don't equate politicians who take campaign money from people whose ethics are questionable with people abusing children.

You, otoh, did just that in your thread. And when I politely tried to show you the difference, you changed the terms yet again.

Anyone who reads my posts on a regular basis knows I am critical of liberals and progressives when there is a basis to be so. I don't blindly support anyone.

But for the record, I don't think someone who abuses children should be mocked. I think he or she should be punished. Severely. Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.

It just so happens that the latest stories are all about Republicans. I assume that will change when Democratics come into more power. That's the way it usually works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(JoeZap @ Sep 7 2007, 12:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(skyjocky @ Sep 7 2007, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And yet the right ALWAYS goes back to the blue dress. Forget the children. Forget the bathrooms. Forget the Pages. Forget the war. Forget the environment. Forget the Vets. REMEMBER THE BLUE DRESS!!!!!!!!!


This thread is now becoming classically funny. Good stuff. laugh.gif


jack,

Who brought up the 'blue dress' on this thread? Go ahead, I'll give you time to check. Get your facts straight.


OK, that's right, it was Diane, not exactly a member of the 'right'. But yet, the two of you hoot and holler and get giddy accusing the 'right' of doing what you guys did....that is, bring up the 'blue dress' on an issue where it had little relevance. This is classic Psychology 101 going on here, folks. Please read this stuff for all its worth. Classic 'entrapment' case. Diane brought up the 'blue dress' then Jack says, "And yet the right ALWAYS goes back to the blue dress. Forget the children. Forget the bathrooms. Forget the Pages. Forget the war. Forget the environment. Forget the Vets. [b]REMEMBER THE BLUE DRESS!!!!!!!!!"

You just can't make this stuff up. A Psychologist would have a field day with this thread (and forum.) Accuse the innocent of excatly what you just did.

Classic. Simply classic.


M..U..S..T N..O..T R..E..S..P..O..N..D. M..U..S..T N..O..T R..E..S..P..O..N..D. M..U..S..T N..O..T R..E..S..P..O..N..D. M..U..S..T N..O..T R..E..S..P..O..N..D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE
You got me. I'm making it all up. Now you may go back to living your life like an ostrich with your head in the sand.


There you go again, being uncivil. You should practice what you preach. Or don't you mind being a hypocrite.


I knew about the studies sj mentioned but you related the teenage blow job explosion to Clinton/Lewinsky. I can't find either of their names in the studies.

You seem to think that everyone on the American left loves Bill Clinton. We don't. I thought he should have resigned when the Lewinsky thing became public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites