Gingrich: Worse Sex Scandals Than Foley On Capitol Hill

[RogerFGay]

Gingrich: Worse Sex Scandals Than Foley On Capitol Hill

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/10004112/detail.html

GREENVILLE, S.C. -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says Democratic sex scandals have been far worse than the suggestive Internet messages sent to teenage congressional pages by former Representative Mark Foley.


...

At a party fundraiser yesterday in Greenville, South Carolina, Gingrigh said "What we don't have to do is allow our friends on the left to lecture us on morality."

...

[Wyatt_Junker]

Again, to clarify the obfuscation currently going on by the MSM as relayed to them by the DNC....

This October Surprise has no legs.

Clinton pulled a Foley and didn't step down and his was real. Foley IM'd a teenager. Clinton screwed the mouth of a teenager. Both were the hired help; interns and pages.

The media won't do the math, so let's be clear.

Clinton was 54. The teenager he diddled was 19.

54 - 19 = 35 yrs. of separation

Foley was 52. The teenager he talked dirty to (online) was 16.

52 - 16 = 36 yrs. of separation

Clinton didn't step down.

Foley did.

Any questions?

[Rhino]

Ten!

[Wyatt_Junker]

At LGF and Drudge the kid Foley was IM'ing might have been 18!

Link (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22837_Foley_Scandal-_Cybersex_Between_Two_Adults&only)

[Rhino]

Doesn't matter much. IM'ing a minor isn't illegal. Sex with one is.

[Trau]

I don't care if he was 20; it's still behavior unbecoming of a member of Congress.

[Rhino]

I agree. But the question of whether he was 18 or not doesn't really matter. That was my point.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I'm not willing to cede the Supreme Court nor the agenda of this country over to a group of socialists based on instant messaging.

Clinton didn't step down. Ted Kennedy didn't step down. Why should anybody else? Because of the MSM and the DNC wagging their finger? I don't think so. Its the usual. Its October isn't it? Surprise, surprise.

I'm not so easily pushed into the false guilt of moral corners because I don't need a theoretical priest in a position of power. I only care about what ideology they're pushing and if its good for the country. I don't think a DNC majority is good for the country because of the potential of SCOTUS vacancies & also the impeachment they're gonna ram down our throats come majority status.

According to the Starr Report Clinton had a cigar show with fattie while talking to Netenyahu over the phone, then watched as she stuck a Cuban in her terd cutter. Then, she did her usual closing routine on his schfonzz. Not only a teen, but the hired help.

Did he step down?

I don't need to be lectured about anything after that, TYVM.

[Rhino]

Foley already stepped down, which is more than several dems can say. Case closed.

[Trau]

You guys do raise an interesting point with the Clinton thing.

Since Foley has admitted his homosexuality, the liberals have been quick to draw a line between homosexuality and pedophilia. Theoretically, then, Clinton's actions should be viewed similarly by the Democrats, because what Foley did was no different. But that's not going to happen.

It's comedic to watch the Democrats try to take a stand on sexual morality.

I will say, however, that I don't think Foley's actions here have been pedophilic in nature. He probably saw himself some easy ass, some boys with whom he could use his influence and to whom he had easy access. There is a difference between attraction to young children and older teenagers, something I think the Democrats would be quick to point out if one of their's were caught in a similar situation.

[JeepcrewX5]

Were are the Clinton Era Dems that said what happened in Clinton's private life was private? I do not agree with what Foley did, and I am happy he stepped down, but the double standard driven dems are diggin themselves a hole again...... I'll be more than happy to stand back let them climb in and pull the dirt over themselves, or if I asked I'll even give them a hand.

And the page was 18 years old, it's another Dan Rather special.:shame:

[Republican_Legion]

At LGF and Drudge the kid Foley was IM'ing might have been 18!

Link (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22837_Foley_Scandal-_Cybersex_Between_Two_Adults&only)

Well now we know Foley isnt a pedophile but still is a homosexual.
Will the MSM change the headline to 'foley a homosexual ?' or are they too embarassed to admit the link between some pedophiles and homosexuals.

[ldb83]

There's some unreal spinning going on in this whole debacle. There are double standards and hypocrisy on both sides of this poo-flinging party. Recognize the condemnable act and condemn it. Then move on.

[Rhino]

They're too busy searching for a guilty party, whether they're actually guilty or not.

[ldb83]

Well now we know Foley isnt a pedophile but still is a homosexual. Will the MSM change the headline to 'foley a homosexual ?' or are they too embarassed to admit the link between some pedophiles and homosexuals.

Who knows, but the link you mention is a complex one. A lot of it comes down to semantics regarding the definition of 'child'. Some people define pedophilia as sexual attraction directed toward children... meaning physically undeveloped children. This is the accurate clinical definition. Others think it's sexual attraction directed toward anyone not of legal age of majority. There's a big difference if you ask me.

If you claim pedophilia includes the desire for children ages 13-17, it'd be a lot easier to establish that link, but I don't think it would be an accurate claim. Scandals like this one are cases of repressed homosexuality, and a lot of times teens become victims because of adults' ability to exercise power over them and make sure their secret will be kept. It's sick, but it doesn't equal pedophilia.

[Rhino]

Let's please not get into that here. It's been debated ad nauseum before, and I'd hate to see this thread moved to the homosexual forum.

[Maggie_T]

Thank you, Rhino.

[Rhino]

Mags, when are you moving?

[Maggie_T]

As soon as we sell the house, love. We will put it on the market sometime in November (still some rough edges to smooth out). After that, it's wait and hope for the best now that the house market is sort of falling. :( Pray for us.

[Rhino]

You got it.

[Maggie_T]

You're a sweetheart. :hugs:

Incidentally, I heard Newt on Sean Hannity today. He said that Nancy Bela Pelosi voted on several congresses to put Gerry Whatshisname on the Ethics Committe, of all things, or something like that.

You know, when I hear things like that, I get to the conclusion that liberalism is indeed a mental disorder. Just how stupid do these people think we are?

And when will George Soros finally run out of money?! :banghead:


Got to work out (I'm tyring to lose weight). See you all later.

[Lubbock]

An unwanted sexual advance is just that: unwanted. One unwanted advance does not constitute a crime [unless it is an actual assault]. One advance, rejected, rejection accepted, does not constitute a crime --to my way of thinking.

It matters not if the unwanted advance is male to male, male to female, or any combinatin thereof, including females who commit the same unwanted act.

I don't know about "law" --federal or state, as to age. My own personal belief [having nothing to do with what's on the books]: Anyone making sexual advances on a sixteen year-old should be guilty of a crime; I'm not sure about seventeen; at eighteen, it should not be a crime.

By age eighteen, a "kid" should be sophisticated enough to fend off an unwanted advance, and should have some basic knowledge of what legal steps are available to them if the unwanted advance doesn't cease.

I was under the impression that Foley's advances were made to the Pages while they were still in Washington and at or near age sixteen; now we're learning that the Pages were back in their home state, and all older.

That says to methat these "youngsters" were not under any constraint that would have made them believe they had to at least be nice to Foley if they wanted to stay in the Page program. In other words, they were not being pressured, or believed they had to keep quiet about Foley's advances.

So many of the "facts" have changed in this story since it first broke; so much of what was originally reported has turned out to be false, that it's hard to sort it out.

How many Pages received these vile IMs, and at what age?

All told how many IMs are there? 10? 500? To a dozen different youngsters? Two dozen youngsters? Or three youngsters?

When this entire thing gets sorted out, there is going to be a lot of mud get splashed in a lot of different directions, and my sense of it is at this moment, the Democrats are going to end up needing a hot shower.

[Trau]

Where in the hell did you guys get that Lewinsky was 19 when Bill fiddled her fanny?

[Wyatt_Junker]

Where in the hell did you guys get that Lewinsky was 19 when Bill fiddled her fanny?

Does it really matter? Don't you mean where in the hell did the DNC get that Jordan Edmund was 16?

Huzzah!

Under pressure from Starr, whom Clinton learned had obtained from Lewinsky a blue dress with Clinton's semen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semen) stain, as well as testimony from Lewinsky that the president had inserted a cigar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigar) into her vagina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina), Clinton admitted on August 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_17), 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998), that he misled the American people and that he had had an "inappropriate" relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton denied having committed perjury because, in his opinion, oral sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_sex) was not "sex" per se.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky)

Or if you wanna get the full-on McGriddles, go here (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/).

[Wyatt_Junker]

Clinton the multi-tasker.


According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President kissed. She unbuttoned her jacket; either she unhooked her bra or he lifted her bra up; and he touched her breasts with his hands and mouth.<SUP>(161)</SUP> (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/6narrit.htm#N_161_) Ms. Lewinsky testified: "I believe he took a phone call . . . and so we moved from the hallway into the back office . . . . [H]e put his hand down my pants and stimulated me manually in the genital area."<SUP>(162)</SUP> (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/6narrit.htm#N_162_) While the President continued talking on the phone (Ms. Lewinsky understood that the caller was a Member of Congress or a Senator), she performed oral sex on him.<SUP>(163)</SUP> (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/6narrit.htm#N_163_) He finished his call, and, a moment later, told Ms. Lewinsky to stop. In her recollection: "I told him that I wanted . . . to complete that. And he said . . . that he needed to wait until he trusted me more. And then I think he made a joke . . . that he hadn't had that in a long time."<SUP>(164)</SUP> (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/6narrit.htm#N_164_)


Link (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/6narrit.htm#L27)

[Wyatt_Junker]

More pube parsing here.



The President also maintained that none of his sexual contacts with Ms. Lewinsky constituted "sexual relations" within a specific definition used in the Jones deposition.<SUP>(28)</SUP> (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/6narrit.htm#N_28_) Under that definition:
[A] person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes -- (1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person . . . . "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.<SUP>(29)</SUP> (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/6narrit.htm#N_29_)


According to what the President testified was his understanding, this definition "covers contact by the person being deposed with the enumerated areas, if the contact is done with an intent to arouse or gratify," but it does not cover oral sex performed on the person being deposed.<SUP>(30)</SUP> (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/6narrit.htm#N_30_) He testified:
[I]f the deponent is the person who has oral sex performed on him, then the contact is with -- not with anything on that list, but with the lips of another person. It seems to be self-evident that that's what it is. . . . Let me remind you, sir, I read this carefully.<SUP>(31)</SUP> (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/6narrit.htm#N_31_)


In the President's view, "any person, reasonable person" would recognize that oral sex performed on the deponent falls outside the definition.<SUP>(32)</SUP> (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/6narrit.htm#N_32_) If Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex on the President, then -- under this interpretation -- she engaged in sexual relations but he did not. The President refused to answer whether Ms. Lewinsky in fact had performed oral sex on him.<SUP>(33)</SUP> (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/6narrit.htm#N_33_) He did testify that direct contact with Ms. Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia would fall within the definition, and he denied having had any such contact.<SUP>(34)</SUP> (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/6narrit.htm#N_34_)


I did touch the no no, however, I only did it with my forefinger. I didn't graze the labia majora, only the hood that bridges over that puppy. Thus, it wasn't sex, man.

Link (http://www.time.com/time/daily/scandal/starr_report/files/6narrit.htm#L28)

[Trau]

Does it really matter?

Of course it ****ing matters. Unless I am mistaken, you said Monica Lewinsky was 19 when Bill had her ladel his dradel. How have you come to the conclusion that she was 19 when this happened?

[Lubbock]

For the record, I thought she was twenty-two --or twenty-three.

[Trau]

She was indeed 22.

[DoctorDoom]

Who knows, but the link you mention is a complex one. A lot of it comes down to semantics regarding the definition of 'child'. ... If you claim pedophilia includes the desire for children ages 13-17, it'd be a lot easier to establish that link ... "NAMBLA's position on sex is not unreasonable, just unpopular... When a 14-year-old boy approaches a man for sex, it's because he wants sex with a man... The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy-love is not homosexual love is ridiculous. We must not be seduced into believing misinformation from the press and the government. Child molesting does occur, but there are also positive sexual relations. And we need to support the men and the boys in those relationships."
-- Point of View, "No Place for Homo-Homo-phobia", San Francisco Sentinel (a queer newspaper), March 26, 1992

[Wyatt_Junker]

Of course it ****ing matters.

It matters? Really? And the facts mattered with Jordan Edmund right? The media's been parroting PEDOPHILIA for how many days? And now we come to find out it wasn't even close.

So tell me why it matters again if Fattie was 19 or 22 when she gobbled Chubby's knob like the chickenhead she was? She was still an adult. Almost the same age as Chelsea. Tell me what 3 years really means?

If anything, the facts are a bit more relevant in this Foley mess and now it looks like the media took a big shit and the DNC aren't even around to clean up what they started.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Foley should have gotten consent (http://www.glumbert.com/media/consent).

[Republican_Legion]

At LGF and Drudge the kid Foley was IM'ing might have been 18!

Link (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22837_Foley_Scandal-_Cybersex_Between_Two_Adults&only)

Could someone possibly who has better knowledge of internet language post this source on wikipedias page on the scandal. http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/2006/10/meet-jordan-edmund-one-mark-foley.html

Wikipedia seems to stand by the MSM democrat propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal

[Lazarus]

The Dems are losing their political savvy... They are going to try to keep this alive thru the Elections and that is way too long for it to be effective... The only way they can do that is to keep pumping it to try to build a bigger fire than the story has on its own, the public will really sick of their election year hypocracy, and the Dems will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

I can actually see a senario here where Rove quietly aggs them on till they make election year fools of themselves... Politics is all about timing, and this case doesnt have the long range legs to carry it to the election - IOW, the Dems have burned all their fuel too early...

[Wyatt_Junker]

The problem with the DNC Foley story is that it peaked too quick and now we all know it wasn't a story inasmuch as an office fabrication/prank.

If they would have released it, say, a week before the election it would have been much more effective. I'm surprised they haven't learned that one in their typical October surprise bullcrap yet.

[Antigone]

Nobody said they were smart Wyatt, just well trained in mud slinging.

[Trau]

It matters? Really?

Uh...yeah. It's not okay to say she was 19 when she wasn't.

So tell me why it matters again if Fattie was 19 or 22 when she gobbled Chubby's knob like the chickenhead she was?

Because a 19 year old is a lot less mature than a 22 year old. If she was 19 at the time, Clinton's actions would be even more disgusting.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Uh...yeah. It's not okay to say she was 19 when she wasn't.

Like the media with Jordan Edmund, that kind of accuracy? And I'm not even a paid journalist.



Because a 19 year old is a lot less mature than a 22 year old. If she was 19 at the time, Clinton's actions would be even more disgusting.

Maybe in your world, but both ages are legal. Its the deed that counts, the fact that he stuck a cigar up her whisker biscuit and then held her head like a Nintendo controller and steered it on down to his bone zone while talking to members of Congress on the phone. And to think the DNC invented sexual harrassment in 1991 when they borked Thomas. Apparently, you can ram yer wafflebinger into the mouth of the hired help if your a 'crat.

Oh yeah and would it have been better if she was 80? I hope that's not what you're saying, but you seem crude enough, lecher.

[Trau]

Like the media with Jordan Edmund, that kind of accuracy? And I'm not even a paid journalist.

It's unfortunate you don't have your own standards of behavior.

Maybe in your world, but both ages are legal.;

Doesn't matter. If she was 19, he'd have been just like Foley as far as I'm concerned, and the Democrats would be even bigger hypocrites than they already are. But you were quite wrong.

Its the deed that counts, the fact that he stuck a cigar up her whisker biscuit and then held her head like a Nintendo controller and steered it on down to his bone zone while talking to members of Congress on the phone. And to think the DNC invented sexual harrassment in 1991 when they borked Thomas. Apparently, you can ram yer wafflebinger into the mouth of the hired help if your a 'crat.

Why are you explaining this to me?

Oh yeah and would it have been better if she was 80? I hope that's not what you're saying, but you seem crude enough, lecher.

What I am saying, you stupid sop, is that Clinton's tomfoolery would markfolery if Lewinsky had been 19. She was not, and Mark Foley's act remains the worser of the two.

[Wyatt_Junker]

It's unfortunate you don't have your own standards of behavior.

I don't. My standards are horrible. That's why I try to use Biblical ones.



Doesn't matter. If she was 19, he'd have been just like Foley as far as I'm concerned, and the Democrats would be even bigger hypocrites than they already are.

Uh huh. 'As far as you're concerned.' Its a good thing your concerns are irrelevant, then, isn't it? 19 or 22, the fat bitch was legal.


Why are you explaining this to me?

Because the Starr Report kicks ass! Its a good read. If you want to forget it, that's your loss. The Starr Report was Clinton's gift to America.


What I am saying, you stupid sop, is that Clinton's tomfoolery would markfolery if Lewinsky had been 19. She was not, and Mark Foley's act remains the worser of the two.

I hear what you're saying, you gay little kunt, and you're wrong. Kay, sunshine?

First, Chub stuck his wiffle ball bat in places it shouldn't have gone. He punked his wife, shoved cigar's up the hired help's no no's, got blown no less than half a dozen times and then committed purjury to a grand jury. Then, on top of all that, he bombed brown people to cover it all up.

I'd say that's much worse than IM'ing an 18 yr. old kid if he's gonna wear a cup to soccer.

[Trau]

I don't. My standards are horrible. That's why I try to use Biblical ones.

Such as being dishonest...? No, I'd say you're using your own.




Uh huh. 'As far as you're concerned.' Its a good thing your concerns are irrelevant, then, isn't it? 19 or 22, the fat bitch was legal.

Only through an arbitrary benchmark. Are you saying it wouldn't be even more egregious if she was 19?



Because the Starr Report kicks ass! Its a good read. If you want to forget it, that's your loss. The Starr Report was Clinton's gift to America.


I've got better things to read, thank you very much; things whose content is not known to me.


I hear what you're saying, you gay little kunt, and you're wrong. Kay, sunshine?

First, Chub stuck his wiffle ball bat in places it shouldn't have gone. He punked his wife, shoved cigar's up the hired help's no no's, got blown no less than half a dozen times and then committed purjury to a grand jury. Then, on top of all that, he bombed brown people to cover it all up.

I'd say that's much worse than IM'ing an 18 yr. old kid if he's gonna wear a cup to soccer.

You like to call people gay quite a bit. Interesting.

In any case, we weren't talking about Clinton's policies as president, we were talking about (unfortunately still, after eight years) his relationship with Lewinsky. Yes, we know he's an adulterer, we know he furzenheimered his 22 year-old intern. He's a scumbag for it, but it doesn't make him ****ed up in the head. I wouldn't worry if an adulterer lived next to the school my children attended; I'd worry if a 50+ year-old man who tried to get with teenage boys.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Such as being dishonest...? No, I'd say you're using your own.

Yes, it was a serious offense. I hope I am not forthwith charged.


Only through an arbitrary benchmark. Are you saying it wouldn't be even more egregious if she was 19?

If you want to use your own arbitrariness, sure. But then, that could mean anything and everything and the Trau Benchmark isn't really on the books now is it?


I've got better things to read, thank you very much; things whose content is not known to me.


Jugs?


You like to call people gay quite a bit. Interesting.


You're right. I shall hereby no longer use 1950's slang. Is that better, faggot?


In any case, we weren't talking about Clinton's policies as president, we were talking about (unfortunately still, after eight years) his relationship with Lewinsky. Yes, we know he's an adulterer, we know he furzenheimered his 22 year-old intern. He's a scumbag for it, but it doesn't make him ****ed up in the head. I wouldn't worry if an adulterer lived next to the school my children attended; I'd worry if a 50+ year-old man who tried to get with teenage boys.

I would worry more also if a pedophile lived next to the school my children attended than an adulterer, but you conveniently forgot murder & perjury in your above Clinton inventory.

So, again, bombing brown people in order to divert attention from the fact that he was a marital cheat and a lecher doesn't rank him worse than a pederast? And adding to that let's say you don't have a pedophile living adjacent to your school in your ideal morally equivalent made-up-for-shits scenario. Just one asshole compared with another asshole. A murdering politician lecher versus a guy IMing a 17year/11 month old about wearing a jockstrap at soccer. One guy abused his power and killed a bunch of people. The other guy was a month early in a cyber-bating session.

Both men are moral retards. Both should not be given a pass. However, why is the MSM so one-sided? That is the question we should be asking ourselves.

[Trau]

If you want to use your own arbitrariness, sure. But then, that could mean anything and everything and the Trau Benchmark isn't really on the books now is it?

You fail to see my point, but that does not surprise me. Regardless of the legality, a 19 year old is a lot closer in maturity to a 16 year old than a 22 year old is. I think it's pretty damn gross if a 50 year old man is interested in giving the slip and slide to teenagers, legal or not.

It's like those guys who date 16 year olds when they're 19, or 18 year olds when they're 25: You can't get someone in your own age group?


Jugs?


Indeed. I do not read Jugs.

You're right. I shall hereby no longer use 1950's slang. Is that better, faggot?

If it tickles your cuddly bone, sure.


I would worry more also if a pedophile lived next to the school my children attended than an adulterer, but you conveniently forgot murder & perjury in your above Clinton inventory.

No, I didn't. I didn't say I'd rather have Clinton living on my street or next to that school than a pedophile or a pederast.

So, again, bombing brown people in order to divert attention from the fact that he was a marital cheat and a lecher doesn't rank him worse than a pederast? And adding to that let's say you don't have a pedophile living adjacent to your school in your ideal morally equivalent made-up-for-shits scenario. Just one asshole compared with another asshole. A murdering politician lecher versus a guy IMing a 17year/11 month old about wearing a jockstrap at soccer. One guy abused his power and killed a bunch of people. The other guy was a month early in a cyber-bating session.

I don't think presidents who have bombed people overseas pose any physical threats as individuals. If Clinton lived on my street, I'd worry more about him flirting with my wife than bombing my house.

Both men are moral retards. Both should not be given a pass. However, why is the MSM so one-sided? That is the question we should be asking ourselves.

The media was all over the Lewinsky scandal. Don't blame the media, blame the American people. Let's face it: sex is more interesting to them than brown people being bombed.

[DesertFox]

The media got all over the Lewinski scandal only after it was publicized far and wide on the internet. Once it became known anyway, the media increasingly lost cred by ignoring it and so went with the flow.

IOW, the media had to be clubbed over the head before it went after the story.

[blackwatch]

It's very simple....communists want power and control the U.S. anyway they can....so they use communist sympathizers called liberals to get it for them...

[BuckeyeMike]

Such as being dishonest...? No, I'd say you're using your own.






Only through an arbitrary benchmark. Are you saying it wouldn't be even more egregious if she was 19?





I've got better things to read, thank you very much; things whose content is not known to me.




You like to call people gay quite a bit. Interesting.

In any case, we weren't talking about Clinton's policies as president, we were talking about (unfortunately still, after eight years) his relationship with Lewinsky. Yes, we know he's an adulterer, we know he furzenheimered his 22 year-old intern. He's a scumbag for it, but it doesn't make him ****ed up in the head.

Sure as hell does.......but then, just being a liberal, having the name William Jefferson Clinton and being the husband of Hillary Rodham Clinton most assuredly makes him ****ed up in the head.






I wouldn't worry if an adulterer lived next to the school my children attended; I'd worry if a 50+ year-old man who tried to get with teenage boys..