To: conservative in nyc
No, it's not relevant in a political sense. It's just tit for tat... But it is relevant in a criminal sense. The person who sat on the IMs (for whatever reason) needs to answer for that since it put young boys in danger.
473 posted on
10/03/2006 3:06:51 PM PDT by
carton253
(He who would kill you, get up early and kill him first.)
To: carton253
That's what I keep thinking. If this guy was sending sexually explicit IMs in 2003, then why didn't that come out then, not in October of 06.
Whoever was sitting on this information did far more to endanger these kids than anyone else in my opinion.
505 posted on
10/03/2006 3:10:31 PM PDT by
CougarGA7
(This tag line will be commercial free for the remainder of this thread.)
To: carton253
No, it's not relevant in a political sense. It's just tit for tat... But it is relevant in a criminal sense. The person who sat on the IMs (for whatever reason) needs to answer for that since it put young boys in danger.
You simply just don't get it. It's not just tit for tat, especially if the hypocrite RATS knew about the IMs before the Republicans did. The Democrats shouldn't be getting away with feigning ignorance if they knew all along. You just don't sit back and let the opposing party make hypocritical charges if there is evidence to the contrary. That's stupid politics.
It's not really all that relevant in a criminal sense at all - not reporting a crime usually isn't a crime.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson