Different circumstances.. but yet similar F'd up stuff.

After the republicans denounced and sent Foley packing after his weird obsession with young boys... it seems we have the signs of another weirdo.. and this one is running for office in Virginia. However, this one isn't on any front pages, or really getting any press at all.

Here is an excerpt from one of Virginia Democratic Senator nominee Jim Webb's book:

..Shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from the little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy's penis in his mouth...

....

So.. we have a democrat running for senator talking about grown men putting little boy's penis's in their mouths. Now i digress.. this is a BOOK. Its fiction.. but the question has to be raised.. What the hell is he writing about that for anyway??? Thats a bit TOO fucked up and disturbing to let slide... but the media doesnt think so. It took a press release by George Allen, Webb's opponent, just to get it into the media light.

Im not saying either side is right... im just saying that both sides should get the same treatment. It is my opinion that if a republican had written stuff like this, it would be public knowledge provided by NYTimes much sooner than the way this came about... having to be pushed through the "glass ceiling" by a non-media person.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061027/27politicalwire.htm

http://drudgereport.com/flashaw.htm

It is my opinion that if a republican had written stuff like this, it would be public knowledge provided by NYTimes much sooner than the way this came about... having to be pushed through the "glass ceiling" by a non-media person.

Just FYI, Webb WAS a Republican when he wrote those books... :rolleyes:

Just FYI, Webb WAS a Republican when he wrote those books... :rolleyes:

could be.. but that doesn't really fit into the situation here.. he could be a republican and i'd still call him sick.

but he's running as a democrat... hence the minimal media coverage.

There's a really big difference between the two. Sure, it's certainly a revolting scene in Webb's book; but it doesn't mean he has the desire to do that.

I just love how they have excerpts from the books and absolutely no explanation of the context in which they were written. No indication of the novel's plot. Interesting, because to me it becomes instantly suspect. Maybe it isn't mentioned because it would change the whole slant of said quotes.

So now what...if you write fiction and may run for office in some distant future you may want to censor what you write. Sparky you had better be careful.

That is very frightening.

Great points there Sal.


Also, Foley was a menace to others in society, while Webb simply portrays a disturbing scene in his book (without the context or knowing if Webb thought it was OK).

Decka, if you equate the writing of fiction with what Foley did, you need help.

BTW, these exerts appeared in a published book, yet you claim they weren't in the public eye? You're getting more desperate with every thread.

Sal.. i agree it WAS taken "out of context"... however, in today's ultra-sensative society.. i would assume a republican would be hounded and crucified if they ever at all spoke of turning a boy "upside down" and sucking on his penis. I mean.. does that REALLY need an explanation?? That is just VILE lol.. some things are just pretty sick.. and this counts in that category...

moving on... i'm not saying the two incidents are identical.. but they are somewhere in the same area code.

For someone who is running for governor.. you would think you would have heard something about this... i mean, people can dismiss it if they want to, and just say "oh it was just a book"... thats fine. But at least PRETEND to be unbiased.. and report it.

BTW, these exerts appeared in a published book, yet you claim they weren't in the public eye? You're getting more desperate with every thread.

Pagan.. geez where do i start.. i cant even begin to explain how off that post is. The excerpts were "hidden" in his book, which might "technically" be in the "public eye".. however, the new york times never reported anything on it.. and i would definitely EXPECT alot of coverage for something like this. When i say Public Eye.. im talking media coverage... for which there is none for these writings of Webb.. which i think we can ALL AGREE are pretty f'd up reguardless of the context.

I'm just saying... the ump should give the outside corner to both sides.. not just Greg Maddux.

Sal.. i agree it WAS taken "out of context"... however, in today's ultra-sensative society.. i would assume a republican would be hounded and crucified if they ever at all spoke of turning a boy "upside down" and sucking on his penis. I mean.. does that REALLY need an explanation?? That is just VILE lol.. some things are just pretty sick.. and this counts in that category...

Fuck you Decka.


Pagan.. geez where do i start.. i cant even begin to explain how off that post is.

Why don't you begin by explaining how what a person writes in a fiction story has to do with his competence to be a Governor. If J.R.R Tolkien were to run for Governor you'd accuse him of believeing in elves.


The excerpts were "hidden" in his book, which might "technically" be in the "public eye".. however, the new york times never reported anything on it..

That's because only an idiot, or a very desperate politician, would think it's a story worth reporting. Which one are you?


and i would definitely EXPECT alot of coverage for something like this. When i say Public Eye.. im talking media coverage... for which there is none for these writings of Webb..

I guess you don't have to answer the previous question now.


which i think we can ALL AGREE are pretty f'd up reguardless of the context.

No I don't agree. The reason I don't agree is because I haven't read the books, and I'd be willing to bet you haven't either. Another stunningly brilliant move on your part.

No I don't agree. The reason I don't agree is because I haven't read the books, and I'd be willing to bet you haven't either. Another stunningly brilliant move on your part.
Decka is grasping at straws trying to paint this up to be up to the calibre of Mark 'Foleyitis'.

Still, even if you haven't read the book, and do not have information on the context, the idea of a father putting his child's genitals in his own mouth, be it in a dream excerpt, a joke, or symbolic device, or just an event in the story, it comes off as depraved.

On a lighter note, here's Wolf Blitzer interviewing Lynne Cheney on CNN ysterday:

WB: Democrats are now complaining bitterly in this Virginia race. George Allen using novels, novels that Jim Webb, his Democratic challenger, has written, in which there are sexual references. And they’re making a big deal out of this. I want you to listen to what Jim Webb said today in responding to this very sharp attack from George Allen.

LC: Now do you promise, Wolf, that we’re going to talk about my book?

WB: I do promise.

LC: Because this seems to me a mighty long trip around the merry-go-round.

WB: I want you to respond. This is in the news today, and your name has come up, so that’s why we’re talking about it. But listen to this:

James Webb: There’s nothing that’s been in any of my novels that in my view, hasn’t been either illuminating the surroundings, or defining a character, or moving a plot. I’m a serious writer. I mean, we can go and read Lynne Cheney’s lesbian love scenes if you want to, you know, get graphic on stuff.

LC: You know, Jim Webb is full of baloney. I have never written anything sexually explicit. His novels are full of sexually explicit references to incest, sexually explicit references…well, you know, I just don’t want my grandchildren to turn on the television set. This morning, Imus was reading from the novels, and it’s triple X rated.

WB: Here’s what the Democratic Party put out today, the Democratic Congressional Senatorial Campaign Committee. Lynne Cheney’s book featured brothels and attempted rape. In 1981, Vice President Dick Cheney’s wife, Lynne, wrote a book called Sisters, which featured a lesbian love affair, brothels, and attempted rapes. In 1988, Lynne Cheney wrote about a Republican Vice President who dies of a heart attack while having sex with his mistress. Is that true?

LC: Nothing explicit. And actually, that is full of lies. It’s not…it’s just absolutely not true.

WB: But you did write a book entitled Sisters.

LC: I did write a book entitled Sisters. This description…

WB: And it did have lesbian characters.

LC: No, not necessarily. This description is a lie. I’ll stand on that.

WB: There is nothing in there about rapes and brothels?

LC: Wolf, Wolf, could we talk about a children’s book for a minute?

WB: We can talk about the children’s book. But I just wanted to…

LC: I think our segment is like 15 minutes long, and we’ve now done ten minutes, so…

WB: I just wanted to clarify what’s in the news today, give you a…

LC: Sex, lies and distortion. That’s what it is.

WB: This is an opportunity for you to explain on these sensitive issues.

LC: Wolf, I have nothing to explain. Jim Webb has a lot to explain.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/28583f2d-ac3e-4f88-88bf-ddd9a28d9a4a

ROTFLMAO!!

Decka is grasping at straws trying to paint this up to be up to the calibre of Mark 'Foleyitis'.

Still, even if you haven't read the book, and do not have information on the context, the idea of a father putting his child's genitals in his own mouth, be it in a dream excerpt, a joke, or symbolic device, or just an event in the story, it comes off as depraved.

Perhaps "depraved" is exactly the emotion the author wanted to get across at that point in the story.

Perhaps "depraved" is exactly the emotion the author wanted to get across at that point in the story.
Do you feel comfortable with having a man who thinks of ways to incorporate pedophilia into his fiction writing in office? Being a civil servant is a full time job, and writing such debauched story could be reflective upon himself.

Personally, I wouldn't care if Barney Frank had a massive, alcohol soaked orgy in the offices of Congress. Or if Mark Foley has cybers with a bunch of pages, or if Bill Clinton picks up women at some upscale DC bar when Hillary is off in New York doing business. Sexual liaisons may reflect upon character, but I could care less, since it is their voting record and their political principles which I care about.

The public, however, happens to think differently. Would the majority of those who voted for him be happy with the fact that he employed pedophilia in his old writings, for any reason? Not likely.

Do you feel comfortable with having a man who thinks of ways to incorporate pedophilia into his fiction writing in office?

If he was trying to outrage the reader at that point in his story with some sort of sexual depravity, would you feel better if he had used bestiality, instead of pedophilia? If he writes a good story, and incorporates such things in a non-gratuitous way I have no problem with it. If he just has sexual depravity for the sake of depravity, it makes him a bad writer, nothing more.


The public, however, happens to think differently. Would the majority of those who voted for him be happy with the fact that he employed pedophilia in his old writings, for any reason? Not likely.

I hope the public sees this for what it is, a non-story put forth by a desperate politician.

Here’s what the Democratic Party put out today, the Democratic Congressional Senatorial Campaign Committee. Lynne Cheney’s book featured brothels and attempted rape. In 1981, Vice President Dick Cheney’s wife, Lynne, wrote a book called Sisters, which featured a lesbian love affair, brothels, and attempted rapes.


Lynne Cheney; "...actually, that is full of lies. It’s not…it’s just absolutely not true."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lynne Cheney is the one lying here.

Her novel most certainly DOES contain explicit descriptions of a lesbian love affair, brothels, and an attempted rape.

When i say Public Eye.. im talking media coverage... for which there is none for these writings of Webb.. That makes me wonder where you heard about it in the first place. I heard about it on the CNN website where it was the main headline, complete with large lettering and a photograph.

Now you could argue that it didn't receive as much attention as the Foley scandal, but the reasons for that have already been explained on this thread.

If he was trying to outrage the reader at that point in his story with some sort of sexual depravity, would you feel better if he had used bestiality, instead of pedophilia? If he writes a good story, and incorporates such things in a non-gratuitous way I have no problem with it. If he just has sexual depravity for the sake of depravity, it makes him a bad writer, nothing more.

nice to try to give excuses for Webb.. but the fact still remains.. he wrote some pretty f'd up stuff... and it's a story now because people moved to make it one.. while the media had their thumb up their asses and didnt care... probably because it was a democrat who was the story. Like i said before.. if this were a republican... the media would be ALL OVER it.. AND people like pagan wouldn't be defending this individual to the extent that they are.



I hope the public sees this for what it is, a non-story put forth by a desperate politician.

why don't you let people make that decision for themselves.. i think its very relevant to know everything about the person you are voting for governor of your state... and if someone was running for governor of ohio and had a book talking about an adult sucking his son's penis.. i'd vote against him every time... its just so out there and so direct that it can't be explained away.

Fuck you Decka.

nice to see you are improving your debating skills pagan.

That makes me wonder where you heard about it in the first place. I heard about it on the CNN website where it was the main headline, complete with large lettering and a photograph.

Now you could argue that it didn't receive as much attention as the Foley scandal, but the reasons for that have already been explained on this thread.

The only reason it got ANY media coverage was because his opponent brought it to everyone's attention. Had george Allen not brought it up.. the media wouldnt be reporting it.... which is a shame because i'd want to know what's going on with the people who are running my state.

nice to try to give excuses for Webb.. but the fact still remains.. he wrote some pretty f'd up stuff...

It's not a "fact" Decka, it's your subjective opinion.


and it's a story now because people moved to make it one..

You mean a desperate politician moved to make it one.


while the media had their thumb up their asses and didnt care... probably because it was a democrat who was the story.

Prove it.


Like i said before.. if this were a republican... the media would be ALL OVER it.. AND people like pagan wouldn't be defending this individual to the extent that they are.

Firstly, all your doing is whining about how the "liberal media" picks on Republicans but not Democrats. Where was your false outrage when Lynne Cheney was writing about "lesbian love scenes, brothels, and attempted rape"? The media sure left her alone on that one, but I suppose that wasn't a story, right Decka? Secondly, I'm not defending Webb. I'm trying to get through your thick skull that trying to judge a book by a few selected passages is the height of stupidity. But of course that's why you do it.


why don't you let people make that decision for themselves..

Why don't you? You're the one trying to convince people to think a certain way. I've already said people should read the books themselves if they want to make a judgement. You're the one who wants to judge a book based on a few snippets from the Sludge Report.


i think its very relevant to know everything about the person you are voting for governor of your state...

Ironic then that you don't know anything about these books other than what you've been told by others. Try reading one. You can read can't you?


and if someone was running for governor of ohio and had a book talking about an adult sucking his son's penis.. i'd vote against him every time... its just so out there and so direct that it can't be explained away.

If you want to base your vote on a few snippets from a fiction novel, that wouldn't surprise me one bit.


nice to see you are improving your debating skills pagan.

Yeah? Fuck you again Decka. I'll put my debating skills up against yours any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. In case the reason I'm angry has escaped your rather questionable intellect, it's because you made a very crude and tasteless attempt at humor at my expense. If you ever make another suggestive comment linking me with pedophilia, you'll get more than a couple "fuck you's". Don't do it again.


The only reason it got ANY media coverage was because his opponent brought it to everyone's attention. Had george Allen not brought it up.. the media wouldnt be reporting it....

That's because most people realize that this is nothing more than the flailings of a desperate campaign.


which is a shame because i'd want to know what's going on with the people who are running my state.

You think you know what's going on because someone showed you a few paragraphs out of a book? God Decka, you're dumber than I thought.

nice to try to give excuses for Webb.. but the fact still remains.. he wrote some pretty f'd up stuff...Holy crap, Decka. Are the concepts of fiction and literature completely beyond your ken? It is not uncommon for a writer to describe perverted and bizarre behaviors. Only an idiot would think that describing a behavior equates to condoning the same. Go figure.and it's a story now because people moved to make it one.. while the media had their thumb up their asses and didnt care... probably because it was a democrat who was the story. Like i said before.. if this were a republican... the media would be ALL OVER it..If this is true then why weren't the media ALL OVER it when Ronald Reagan appointed Webb Secretary of the Navy? Fields of Fire had sold over a million copies and was widely read on college campuses. Do you think no journalists had read it at the time? Maybe no one was ALL OVER it then because they saw it for what it was: a novel.why don't you let people make that decision for themselves.. i think its very relevant to know everything about the person you are voting for governor of your state... and if someone was running for governor of ohio and had a book talking about an adult sucking his son's penis.. i'd vote against him every time... its just so out there and so direct that it can't be explained away.First of all, Webb isn't running for governor -- he's running for the Senate. But hey, there's no need for you to have even the slightest acquaintance with the facts here; they'll only get in your way. Second, Webb shouldn't have to explain anything. He wrote about things he saw in Southeast Asia -- things George Allen could never have seen because, like so many of his chickenhawk brethren, he never served there.nice to see you are improving your debating skills pagan.You're a pig.The only reason it got ANY media coverage was because his opponent brought it to everyone's attention. Had george Allen not brought it up.. the media wouldnt be reporting it.... which is a shame because i'd want to know what's going on with the people who are running my state.:rant:Three weeks ago George Allen aired a two minute commercial calling for the end of negative ads and personal attacks in this campaign. He said the voters of Virginia deserved a return to the issues. Well, his negative ads have continued unabated while his personal attacks against Webb have escalated to this obnoxious extreme. What a piece of crap he is. Small wonder he'd get your vote.

It's not a "fact" Decka, it's your subjective opinion.

i can go with that.. yea its my opinion.. but hey lets not act like the whole "sucking a boy's penis" thing is appropriate. I've read many novels, and have never read about this stuff.. its kind of messed up in my opinion.



You mean a desperate politician moved to make it one.

That's a "subjective opinion" you have right there.. if you want to get down to it. Why do you have to label a guy desperate for bringing up issues that people might want to know about?



Prove it.

I can't prove it because i can't change Webb into a republican and then see what would happen. I'm just using my educated guess ... based on what i've seen.



Firstly, all your doing is whining about how the "liberal media" picks on Republicans but not Democrats. Where was your false outrage when Lynne Cheney was writing about "lesbian love scenes, brothels, and attempted rape"? The media sure left her alone on that one, but I suppose that wasn't a story, right Decka?

Hey, first off when did Lynn Cheney get elected in office.... second, i would want to know that about her if i were going to give her my vote, so if it WASNT reported by the media it sure SHOULDVE been...

Secondly, I'm not defending Webb. I'm trying to get through your thick skull that trying to judge a book by a few selected passages is the height of stupidity. But of course that's why you do it.

I never tried to judge the book... you assumed i'm smearing his entire book as some perverse novel... no, i just took excerpts.. and i LABELED them as such... and put them out there. Anyone who thinks the whole book is about grown men sucking a boy's penis would be an idiot... but the fact that it's IN the book is knowledge that i could care less about but i think fits the bill for being needed to know in today's ultra-sensative society.



Why don't you? You're the one trying to convince people to think a certain way. I've already said people should read the books themselves if they want to make a judgement. You're the one who wants to judge a book based on a few snippets from the Sludge Report.

Again.. i never said anything about the entire book..



Ironic then that you don't know anything about these books other than what you've been told by others. Try reading one. You can read can't you?

no.. i can't read.. i just randomly hit keys and make words as i go along:woohoo:



If you want to base your vote on a few snippets from a fiction novel, that wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Character is a very exacting observation... not saying anyone who writes about that is a bad person.. it just raises a red flag.. and hey i'd like to know why stuff like that is in his books.. i'd like it if he could at least explain it.



Yeah? Fuck you again Decka. I'll put my debating skills up against yours any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. In case the reason I'm angry has escaped your rather questionable intellect, it's because you made a very crude and tasteless attempt at humor at my expense. If you ever make another suggestive comment linking me with pedophilia, you'll get more than a couple "fuck you's". Don't do it again.

Where did i make a crude and tasteless attempt at humor? Where did i link you to pedophilia? I never intended to...



That's because most people realize that this is nothing more than the flailings of a desperate campaign.

again.. that's quite subjective... as you should know.



You think you know what's going on because someone showed you a few paragraphs out of a book? God Decka, you're dumber than I thought.

Why you have to put words in my mouth and make me out as someone who condemns the whole entire book just because i have an opinion on a paragraph is quite dumb in itself.

Holy crap, Decka. Are the concepts of fiction and literature completely beyond your ken? It is not uncommon for a writer to describe perverted and bizarre behaviors. Only an idiot would think that describing a behavior equates to condoning the same. Go figure.

Well.. i've read my share of novels.. and havn't run into writings like this... so either i'm reading the wrong books, which i'll gladly do to avoid certain subjects... or I havn't read enough books..

And I never said Webb condoned and supported flipping his son's penis in his face and sucking it... It is just a bit eerie that its what he's writing about and is in his novels... in my opinion.


If this is true then why weren't the media ALL OVER it when Ronald Reagan appointed Webb Secretary of the Navy? Fields of Fire had sold over a million copies and was widely read on college campuses. Do you think no journalists had read it at the time? Maybe no one was ALL OVER it then because they saw it for what it was: a novel.

That was a long time ago... the society we live in now is "ultra sensative".. a term i keep using over and over.. but that's the only way i can describe it. But hey i wouldn't mind if it would've been brought up when Reagen did appoint Webb way back then. But you have to see a difference in the times....


First of all, Webb isn't running for governor -- he's running for the Senate. But hey, there's no need for you to have even the slightest acquaintance with the facts here; they'll only get in your way. Second, Webb shouldn't have to explain anything. He wrote about things he saw in Southeast Asia -- things George Allen could never have seen because, like so many of his chickenhawk brethren, he never served there.

While particularly WHAT he's running for is somewhat redundant.. it was a screw up.. oops

And did you serve? or are you "chickenhawk brethen"... LOL

You're a pig.


thanks!! maturity is abound here...



Three weeks ago George Allen aired a two minute commercial calling for the end of negative ads and personal attacks in this campaign. He said the voters of Virginia deserved a return to the issues. Well, his negative ads have continued unabated while his personal attacks against Webb have escalated to this obnoxious extreme. What a piece of crap he is. Small wonder he'd get your vote.

Allen would only get my vote if i agreed with what his platform is... why do you assume he automatically gets my vote just because i see a potential difference in how the media reports things? Maybe if Webb is all innocent here, he gets my vote... you never know.

Where did i make a crude and tasteless attempt at humor? Where did i link you to pedophilia?

"i would assume a republican would be hounded and crucified if they ever at all spoke of turning a boy "upside down" and sucking on his penis. I mean.. does that REALLY need an explanation?? That is just VILE lol.."


I never intended to...


Bullshit.

I did my homework on it, which you didn't when you posted this Decka:


Thira Srey, office manager for the Southern California-based Cambodian Association of America, said it is acceptable for a mother or caretaker in Cambodia, especially those from rural areas, to kiss the penis of an infant or put it in her mouth as a sign of respect or love...

The act has nothing to do with sexual feelings, he said, noting that it can be viewed as a sign of high respect by a caretaker for a future master.


What you just read is not a sexual act. Read it in the context of the book instead of taking a paragraph out of it and simply going off on that. It's an act that happens in rural areas of Vietnam too - so get your facts straight before you go laying into someone.

...so get your facts straight before you go laying into someone.

Nice post WW, but I think it'll be a cold day in hell before Decka does that.

Just FYI, Webb WAS a Republican when he wrote those books... :rolleyes:
You name me a "real" Republican who's gay, and I'll show you a famous ballerina with one leg.

Fuck you Decka......If you ever make another suggestive comment linking me with pedophilia, you'll get more than a couple "fuck you's". Don't do it again..........Yeah? Fuck you again Decka.

Nice post WW, but I think it'll be a cold day in hell before Decka does that.
Wow! Vile, I don't think I've ever seen you be that brutal before. Color me impressed...:)

"i would assume a republican would be hounded and crucified if they ever at all spoke of turning a boy "upside down" and sucking on his penis. I mean.. does that REALLY need an explanation?? That is just VILE lol.."

Last i checked... the word "vile" is in the dictionary and means something gross or disgusting... and thats how i used it. I just said it last night describing a video i saw when i was with my friends... it had NOTHING to do with your name. i actually JUST NOW noticed why you might have thought that.. but no i'm above making fun of someone's sexuality out of the blue... it's their choice and i'll respect that.


Nice post WW, but I think it'll be a cold day in hell before Decka does that.


Here we go.. Pagan painting me as some stubborn, evil conservative. That WAS a good post by Windwhip.. very informative. It was something I personally DIDNT know.. and i doubt anyone else did either. I am always for accepting any new information which is valid to the subject matter, and this definitely fits the bill. So I guess Satan should get out the blankets and the Long Johns....

What you just read is not a sexual act. Read it in the context of the book instead of taking a paragraph out of it and simply going off on that. It's an act that happens in rural areas of Vietnam too - so get your facts straight before you go laying into someone.

A good post Windwhip.. but off base if you think i was "laying into" Webb. I never said anything negative about Webb, i merely questioned some of his writings in one of his books, and thought they were "f'd up". I also thought it would be reported because of (here we go again) the "ultra-sensative" society we live in... but yet it was neglected. I merely called for the issue to be brought to light. My question is... why did YOU have to tell me that this possibly could not be a sexual act, and not Webb? You would think he'd be quick to clear his name of this if it's such crap...

So quit trying to paint me as some republican who has an agenda and is trying to smear Webb. I don't like being labeled...

Last i checked... the word "vile" is in the dictionary and means something gross or disgusting... and thats how i used it. I just said it last night describing a video i saw when i was with my friends... it had NOTHING to do with your name. i actually JUST NOW noticed why you might have thought that.. but no i'm above making fun of someone's sexuality out of the blue... it's their choice and i'll respect that.The only reason I can see for you adding 'lol' to your 'VILE' remark is that you thought you were making some kind of clever (for you) pun. Sounds to me like you've been listening to way too much Rush lately. You think you can say anything and later deny what you really meant, just like he does.So quit trying to paint me as some republican who has an agenda and is trying to smear Webb. I don't like being labeled...You are trying to smear Webb, as is the Allen campaign. You never would have started this thread if that were not your intention. Do you really expect anyone to believe you when you say things like this?

I think one of Decka's points has some merit - the fact that if these words were written by a republican, they'd be getting more attention.
Take these other words from Webb for example:

"The Hall [Bancroft Hall], which houses 4,000 males and 300 females, is a horny woman’s dream.” (pg. 277, “Women Can’t Fight,” Washingtonian Magazine, November 1979"

"Webb referred to female midshipman at Annapolis as "thunder thighs." (Baltimore Sun, 8/28/92)"

"The men are essentially the same; it is the institution that has changed. It has changed primarily because of female midshipmen.”

“Many women appear to be having problems with their sexuality…What kind of woman would seek out the Academy routine?”

“Tailhook should have been a three or maybe five-day story.”

"And I have never met a woman, including the dozens of female midshipmen I encountered during my recent semester as a professor at the Naval Academy, whom I would trust to provide those men with combat leadership."

“If Congress had considered these realities when it debated whether to open the service academies to women, and approached this as a national defense rather than a women’s issue, it may have voted differently.”

Had George Allen uttered half of these sentences it'd be front page news.

Last i checked... the word "vile" is in the dictionary and means something gross or disgusting... and thats how i used it. I just said it last night describing a video i saw when i was with my friends... it had NOTHING to do with your name. i actually JUST NOW noticed why you might have thought that.. but no i'm above making fun of someone's sexuality out of the blue... it's their choice and i'll respect that.

Bullshit. If you wish to apologize, apologize. Spare me the lame excuses.


Here we go.. Pagan painting me as some stubborn, evil conservative.

Reread the post in question, I think you'll find I was just painting you as stupid.


A good post Windwhip.. but off base if you think i was "laying into" Webb. I never said anything negative about Webb, i merely questioned some of his writings in one of his books, and thought they were "f'd up".

More bullshit.

"it seems we have the signs of another weirdo"


I also thought it would be reported because of (here we go again) the "ultra-sensative" society we live in... but yet it was neglected. I merely called for the issue to be brought to light. My question is... why did YOU have to tell me that this possibly could not be a sexual act, and not Webb? You would think he'd be quick to clear his name of this if it's such crap...

Perhaps he's not anxious to waste his time trying to clear his name because he has more important issues to address than the baseless charges brought by a desperate opponent.


So quit trying to paint me as some republican who has an agenda and is trying to smear Webb. I don't like being labeled...

You just like labeling others on the flimsiest of evidence.

Last i checked... the word "vile" is in the dictionary and means something gross or disgusting... and thats how i used it. I just said it last night describing a video i saw when i was with my friends... it had NOTHING to do with your name. i actually JUST NOW noticed why you might have thought that.. but no i'm above making fun of someone's sexuality out of the blue... it's their choice and i'll respect that....
Now, I'm the first to admit I'm a world-class bullshitter, Decka - but that was the most blatant lie I've ever seen someone try to proffer in my life. Surely, you don't think Vile is that stupid, do you???

Just admit you were being a dick. It's less painful that way.

You name me a "real" Republican who's gay, and I'll show you a famous ballerina with one leg.

If you think there aren't tens of thousands of gay Repubicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans), you're a fool.

And a homophobe.

If you think there aren't tens of thousands of gay Repubicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans), you're a fool.

And a homophobe.
Hold the phone there, Frannie. "Tens of thousands" seems a tad high, especially considering the fact that you referenced a group that only claims "thousands" of members, yet that same group refuses to release official figures. Hmmm.

That aside, how does my comment make me a homophobe? I just made a blanket statement, and nowhere in that statement did I say that I hate or fear homosexuals. If you want to start a flame war, then you're off to a good start. Keep it up.

Ooh, golly. I'm so scared.

:eek:

The fact that you used my quote (about Webb being a republican back in the day) to bring up gay Republicans would seem to indicate that you have some sort of concern about there being gay Republicans (at the very least, you believe they don't exist), which in turn seems to indicate that you're in denial about gay Republicans, which in turn seems to indicate that you have homophobic tendencies.

Why else bring gay into the discussion at all?

But you asked for only ONE gay Republican, and I delivered far more than that, so what's your beef?

Ooh, golly. I'm so scared.
Hey, now...no reason to get all cunty on me - I'm not trying to incite a fight.
The fact that you used my quote (about Webb being a republican back in the day) to bring up gay Republicans would seem to indicate that you have some sort of concern about there being gay Republicans (at the very least, you believe they don't exist), which in turn seems to indicate that you're in denial about gay Republicans, which in turn seems to indicate that you have homophobic tendencies.
Nice non sequitur, unfortunately incorrect. I'm not going to waste my time explaining which one of your "which in turn's" or "would seem to indicate's" went awry, so we'll just chalk this one up to a mutual disagreement.
But you asked for only ONE gay Republican, and I delivered far more than that, so what's your beef?
I don't have the "beef" - I didn't call you a fool or a homophobe now, did I? It's apparent that you have the beef, not me. Sorry I offended you - I should've recognized the irony in pissing off a woman who chokes chickens for a living, but lays carpeting in her free time.

Bullshit. If you wish to apologize, apologize. Spare me the lame excuses.

I'll give no apology because i never intended any hint or mention of you... While Prae might try to "sniff me out" here... i honestly used the word vile because the thought of a grown adult sucking his son's penis is just that to me.. vile. So you can suspect anything you want.. but let me tell you this. If i made fun of you, i'd fess up to it in a heartbeat. I have no problem dealing out stuff to people who deserve it.. and i have no need to run from something like using a certain word in a certain way...

I now wish i hadn't made that word choice.. just to avoid this crap. But then again... i didn't know Vilepagan had licensing rights to the word "vile"...

As for the rest of your "post" pagan.. i got out of high school 5-6 years ago.. don't drag me back into that kind of BS... because that's exactly what it reminds me of.

I'll give no apology because i never intended any hint or mention of you...
Jesus Christ, man - just fuckin' admit it! This is painful, Decka....

Why else would you follow up a sentence like, ("I would assume a republican would be hounded and crucified if they ever at all spoke of turning a boy "upside down" and sucking on his penis. I mean.. does that REALLY need an explanation?? That is just VILE lol...") with an "LOL" if you didn't mean to tie the act of sucking on a boy's penis to the poster here EVERYONE refers to as vile, who just so happens to be an openly gay man? If not, then perhaps you can explain what the "lol" was for, because I don't get it? Surely, you don't expect us to believe that you thought making a comment about a man fellating a boy was funny, so what was the knee-slapper Sedan, Vile, and I seemed to miss?

You can't back outta this one, Decka. Trying to makes you look desperate, IMHO.

Jesus Christ, man - just fuckin' admit it! This is painful, Decka....

Why else would you follow up a sentence like, ("I would assume a republican would be hounded and crucified if they ever at all spoke of turning a boy "upside down" and sucking on his penis. I mean.. does that REALLY need an explanation?? That is just VILE lol...") with an "LOL" if you didn't mean to tie the act of sucking on a boy's penis to the poster here EVERYONE refers to as vile, who just so happens to be an openly gay man? If not, then perhaps you can explain what the "lol" was for, because I don't get it? Surely, you don't expect us to believe that you thought making a comment about a man fellating a boy was funny, so what was the knee-slapper Sedan, Vile, and I seemed to miss?

You can't back outta this one, Decka. Trying to makes you look desperate, IMHO.

omg YES this is painful!... i have NO REASON to try to "back out" of this... I cant tell you WHY i put an "lol" after the freakin word "vile".. but i did. I type fast, and thats just how it came out.

I have NO REASON to tie vilepagan to what Webb was talking about... it wouldn't be funny, witty, or have ANYTHING to do with him or anything else.

And while the claim is that everyone calls vilepagan by just "vile"... i often call him "pagan"... so are we not allowed to say both of those words?

blah this is painful.

Hey, now...no reason to get all cunty on me - I'm not trying to incite a fight.

Nice non sequitur, unfortunately incorrect. I'm not going to waste my time explaining which one of your "which in turn's" or "would seem to indicate's" went awry, so we'll just chalk this one up to a mutual disagreement.

I don't have the "beef" - I didn't call you a fool or a homophobe now, did I? It's apparent that you have the beef, not me. Sorry I offended you - I should've recognized the irony in pissing off a woman who chokes chickens for a living, but lays carpeting in her free time.

Interesting insults. I neither choke chickens nor spend my free time laying carpet. What sort of drugs are you on?

Anyway, you've got the floor. I'd love to hear the explanation for why you said what you said. I'm sure I'm not alone.

Here's the interplay so far:

Decka begins a thread about Jim Webb's literary pursuits, complaining that:

if a republican had written stuff like this, it would be public knowledge provided by NYTimes much sooner than the way this came about... having to be pushed through the glass ceiling by a non-media person.

I responded, telling Decka that a Republican DID write that stuff:

Just FYI, Webb WAS a Republican when he wrote those books.

You replied to my post with a bizarre comment about homosexuals:

You name me a "real" Republican who's gay, and I'll show you a famous ballerina with one leg.

Since I've apparently misunderstood your mindset, please do me the favor of explaining why you felt compelled to insert "gay" into the discussion.

Thanks, ever so.






Also, we're still waiting for that famous ballerina with one leg.... :rolleyes:

Interesting insults. I neither choke chickens nor spend my free time laying carpet. What sort of drugs are you on?
No, you "wrangle" 'em, ay? Interesting line of work for a 50-year-old woman. If you didn't catch the humor behind my comment, then don't fret it; I wouldn't expect someone with a two-digit IQ to understand.
You replied to my post with a bizarre comment about homosexuals
The whole point of the thread was about homosexuality/perversion in politics. It was a play on the "Freaky Foley" thread a few weeks back where many people insinuated that only Republicans engaged in "boy sex". Forgive me for responding in kind.

There’s no way to argue that 99.999999999999999999% of the gay crowd belong to the Democratic Party. So, given the obvious, I take it you want to argue semantics, eh? Well, fuck off, and quit wasting my time.
Since I've apparently misunderstood your mindset, please do me the favor of explaining why you felt compelled to insert "gay" into the discussion.
See above.
Also, we're still waiting for that famous ballerina with one leg.... :rolleyes:
If I produce a picture, will you promise to print it out and shove it up your ass?

while I agree that it is irrelevant, I would like someone to put that statement into a context where it makes sense or is "OK"

No, you "wrangle" 'em, ay? Interesting line of work for a 50-year-old woman.

FYI, Wrangler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrangler_(profession)) and strangler (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strangler) are two different words. You could look it up.

If you didn't catch the humor behind my self-made title, then don't fret it; I wouldn't expect someone with a one-digit IQ to understand.

Oh, and I'm 48. You're 29, right?

Well, fuck off, and quit wasting my time.

But your comments are so easy (and fun!) to poke holes in. It's almost all the entertainment I get out here on the chicken ranch. You wouldn't deny an old lady that, would you?




P.S. We're still waiting for the ballerina! :cool:

If you didn't catch the humor behind my self-made title, then don't fret it; I wouldn't expect someone with a one-digit IQ to understand.
I didn't get it from your title - I got it from the occupation field in your public profile. I wouldn't presume to ever limit the intellectual ability of someone who "wrangles" (thanks for the vocab lesson) a flightless bird for a living at 48.

Now that we've established that, perhaps you can tell me what comic genius I missed in your self-ascribed title of "Chicken Wrangler - Mole Killer"? I mean, don’t get me wrong; that sounds really interesting and all, but I’m gonna have to plead ignorance on this one.
But your comments are so easy (and fun!) to poke holes in. It's almost all the entertainment I get out here on the chicken ranch.
I'll bet.

someone who "wrangles" (thanks for the vocab lesson) a flightless bird for a living at 48.

Now that we've established that, perhaps you can tell me what comic genius I missed in your self-ascribed title of "Chicken Wrangler ...

Uh... because they're flightless birds that require little to no wrangling?

Sheesh. Talk about clueless! :rolleyes:

As for the mole thing, yeah. I kill moles. Every chance I get.

Imagine that, a liberal with a gun! :thumbs:



Oh yeah... ballerina?

Uh... because they're flightless birds that require little to no wrangling?

Sheesh. Talk about clueless! :rolleyes:
Oh, there's a real knee-slapper, especially considering the "It's almost all the entertainment I get out here on the chicken ranch" comment. I don't know what chicken ranchers do, or in what capacity they view themselves performing their "job" duties, but what I do know is that if you don't "wrangle" them - you're stuck "tending" to them, right? Kind of reminds me "Of Mice and Men" in high school, Lennie - or am I to take it this reference is over your head being that you're indubitably only quasi-literate?

Find working on a chicken ranch challenging, do you? Interesting.

wow.... just stopping in for the exchange... :D

:banana: :corn:

while I agree that it is irrelevant, I would like someone to put that statement into a context where it makes sense or is "OK"


Which statement would that be?

Which statement would that be?

the one from the beginning, where the guy turns the kid over and puts his thing in his mouth. someone said he thought it was taken out of context, so I wanted to hear that put into a context where it sounds anything but grotesque

Oh, there's a real knee-slapper, especially considering the "It's almost all the entertainment I get out here on the chicken ranch" comment. I don't know what chicken ranchers do, or in what capacity they view themselves performing their "job" duties, but what I do know is that if you don't "wrangle" them - you're stuck "tending" to them, right? Kind of reminds me "Of Mice and Men" in high school, Lennie - or am I to take it this reference is over your head being that you're indubitably only quasi-literate?

Find working on a chicken ranch challenging, do you?

Not at all; I raise chickens as a hobby. You know - for fun. See, I'm retired. But you knew that from the Drunk Driving thread...

And, "It's almost all the entertainment I get out here on the chicken ranch," is a joke, friend.

http://webpages.charter.net/eagle91/Replies/Foghorn-Leghorn.jpg

I say, it's a joke. :thumbs:

the one from the beginning, where the guy turns the kid over and puts his thing in his mouth. someone said he thought it was taken out of context, so I wanted to hear that put into a context where it sounds anything but grotesque

WindWip posted this on page 2 of this thread.


I did my homework on it, which you didn't when you posted this Decka:


Thira Srey, office manager for the Southern California-based Cambodian Association of America, said it is acceptable for a mother or caretaker in Cambodia, especially those from rural areas, to kiss the penis of an infant or put it in her mouth as a sign of respect or love...

The act has nothing to do with sexual feelings, he said, noting that it can be viewed as a sign of high respect by a caretaker for a future master.


What you just read is not a sexual act. Read it in the context of the book instead of taking a paragraph out of it and simply going off on that. It's an act that happens in rural areas of Vietnam too - so get your facts straight before you go laying into someone.

I heard of some messed up customs, but putting akids penis in your mouth? give me a break. Thats just stupid. Reminds me of George Costanza saying there were tribes in Indonesia that go to war if you dont take your coat off.
Either way, even if it were a custom, you need to be either very aloof or very stupid to think everyone in your book reading audiance is going to pick up on that obscure custom, even if it was real.

it just raised an eyebrow that webb's opponent had to bring this up, not the uber-sensative media who supposedly know everything and know whats best for everyone...