(no subject)

Date: 2006-04-05 06:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sivi-volk.livejournal.com
Glad to see there's a few news agencies covering this. It seemed too strange; I was worried my sources were wrong.

Are the scandals accelerating, or does it just seem that way?

(no subject)

Date: 2006-04-05 08:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mejeep.livejournal.com
But we're still safe from terrorists! He was probably calling it "research for advanced airport security screening".

(no subject)

Date: 2006-04-05 11:18 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jsbowden.livejournal.com
Hey man, he's just a compassionate conservative trying to uphold traditional family values.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-04-05 01:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jirel.livejournal.com
All it proves is that ANYONE can be a sex offender. Too many people think that a man in a well paying high placed job cannot be a sex offender, but they are wrong. It can be anyone, just as anyone can be a wife and/or child beater.

Now the fact that more news agencies aren't covering it - that's another story. But then, they are probably saying it would make America look bad. As if we don't already look bad enough to the European countries.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-04-05 01:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
It more pointedly demonstrates that those who want to legislate morality on others are, inevitably, the ones with the largest problems.

It's exactly the same as the idiots who insist that being gay is a choice - they insist this because, to a man[1], they WANT to be gay but have "decided" not to, and they don't understand that them being closeted is not the same as me really not being interested in guys.

[1]: Proven in a clinical trials. *100%* of male homophobes are aroused by gay porn. Comfortable non-homophobe straights were not.

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Mar. 5th, 2026 11:36 pm