--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > No man, he was grooming the boy.
>
>
>
>
> Grooming him for what...sex?
>
> If it WAS for sex, and the two then went on to have consen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > No man, he was grooming the boy. Speach is not protected w
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> wrote:
> > Finally, the various other issues--Condi vs.
> > 9/11 and so on--can all be *finessed* to some
> > extent--which Republicans are very good at doing
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > wrote:
> >
> > Which is why this current scandal is so important,
> > > given its pot
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > wrote:
> >
> > Which is why this current scandal is so important,
> > > given its pote
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> wrote:
>
> Which is why this current scandal is so important,
> > given its potential to make these folks realize how
> > empty are the claims of this moveme
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Which is why this current scandal is so important,
> given its potential to make these folks realize how
> empty are the claims of this movement's leaders.
>
> Foley himself is just the straw the camel stepped
> on an
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > No man, he was grooming the boy. Speach is not protected wh
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "markmeredith2002"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Back to main pt ... Right On to Alex's posts, and I wanted to
> highlight another Greenwald comment that sums it up for me:
>
> We have been barraged with laws, programs, sermons, demagoguery and
> all sorts o
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
And homosexual acts are still illegal in a few
> of
> > the red states that best reflect shemp's kind of mind.
> >
> And how do YOU feel about those states where it is still illegal?
I don't believe sex among consen
On Oct 4, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beingsĀ wrote: This is very funny: http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=178Uh, which Republican are you referring to?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "markmeredith2002"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > No man, he was grooming the boy.
>
> > Grooming him for w
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Outraged that the smug, hypocritical asshole who helped create that
> law is getting bitchslapped by it? You gotta be kidding!
>
> And, actually, I'm not particularly outraged by that law. It basically
> establishes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "markmeredith2002"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > No man, he was grooming the boy.
>
> > Grooming him for wh
On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:37 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
>> I am concerned with the draconian internet laws that are raking this
>> guy over the coals. Sure, it was inappropriate speech but it was
>> speech none-the-less and it was internet speech...and we, as regular
>> users of the internet, should be b
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> > Speach is not protected when it is in this context.
>
> Speech is most definitely protected in this context everywhere...
> EXCEPT the inte
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > No man, he was grooming the boy.
> Grooming him for what...sex?
>
> If it WAS for sex, and the two then went on to have consensual sex,
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> >
> > This is very funny:
> >
> > http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=178
> >
>
>
> Uh, which Republican are you referring to?
>
> Foley?
>
> 1) H
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No man, he was grooming the boy.
Grooming him for what...sex?
If it WAS for sex, and the two then went on to have consensual sex,
there would have been no crime because both were over the age of
consent.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > No man, he was grooming the boy. Speach is not protected when
it
> is
> > in this context. He was just dead wrong.
> >
> >
> > ---
"He said Mr. Foley, who was raised a Roman Catholic and attended
Catholic schools in Lake Worth, had wanted to identify the person he
said had molested him from ages 13 to 15. But his civil lawyers had
advised him not to do so until he had completed treatment, Mr. Roth
said."
http://www.nytime
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> >
> > This is very funny:
> >
> > http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=178
> >
>
>
> Uh, which Republican are you referring to?
>
> Foley?
>
> 1)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No man, he was grooming the boy. Speach is not protected when it
is
> in this context. He was just dead wrong.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLi
No man, he was grooming the boy. Speach is not protected when it is
in this context. He was just dead wrong.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> >
> > This is very funny:
> >
> >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is very funny:
>
> http://www3.capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=178
>
Uh, which Republican are you referring to?
Foley?
1) He didn't molest anyone...
2) Had he had consensual physical relations with the boy in que
25 matches
Mail list logo