"RHF" wrote in message
om...
.

GP32,

What I was trying to point out by these statements:
- Did Bill Clinton renounced NAMBLA in 1992 & 1996 - NO !
- Did Al Gore renounced NAMBLA in 2000 - NO !
- Has John 'ff' Kerry renounced NAMBLA in 2004 - NO !
The Democrat Party and it's Leaders can come out in favor of
'consenting adults' engaging in Homo-Sexual Sex and so called
Gay Marriage (Civil Union). But the Democrat Party and it's
Leaders do NOT have the Moral Sense of Decency to Publicly
{Openly} Renounce Organizations like NAMBLA and Abuse of Minor
Children by Pedophiles. They remain Silent and by their Silence,
Condone and Endorse NAMBLA and continued Exploitation of
Innocent Children by Sexual Predators.

Neither party has taken a stand on cannibalism. Does their silence mean
they condone cannibalism? Or does it mean they don't even bother wasting
time trying to define their position on cannibalism?

I don't think there's any need for most politicians to take a stand on
NAMBLA, any more than they need to tell us they stand foresquare against
crime, they can't stand Osama Bin Laden and they stand at attention at the
Flag.

But I can understand why some Republicans might want to clear up any
pontential misunderstandings about NAMBLA, given the White House scandal of
fifteen years ago. A left-wing kook site has archived the front page of the
June 29, 1989 edition of the Washington Times:

http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_...p/franklin.htm



The "First-Step" is for the Leaders of the Democrat Party to Publicly:
- Just Say NO to NAMBLA !
- Just Say NO to Pedophiles !
- Just Say NO to the Sexual Predators of Children !

ssi ~ RHF

.

Well, I'm with you there. The more time politicians spend talking about the
obvious, the less time they have to mess up the country.

Frank Dresser