Phone records show Adams called Breed...

Feedback.pdxradio.com message board: Politics and other things: Phone records show Adams called Breedlove 33 times
Author: Vitalogy
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 10:49 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Phone records show that Sam Adams phoned then 17 year old Beau Breedlove 33 times.

Yet more solid information that Sam Adams was pursuing a sexual relationship with a minor.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_043009_news_adams_breedlove_calls.97e9 2ab.html

Author: Andrew2
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 11:01 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

As I said so many times in the past on this issue: let's wait to see if the Oregon Attorney General's investigation determines Adams has broken the law.

Author: Vitalogy
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 11:13 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I think it's already been shown he broke the law. He admitted to kissing a 17 year old, and now these phone records show he was definitely pursuing him while still a minor.

But as I've said so many times in the past, I don't care if he "broke the law" or not. He showed terrible judgment and as a result is unfit to be mayor.

Author: Warner
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 11:34 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I'm not an expert in this area (ahem), but, I don't believe kissing a 17 year old is a crime.

Let's wait for the investigation.

I think it will all be moot anyway, as I'm sure the recall effort will be kicking in soon and will be successful.

By the way, since when does "terrible judgement" make someone unfit to be a politician? They show it all the time.

Author: Vitalogy
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 11:45 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Warner, go to your local high school and attempt to kiss (make out) with a 17 year old and see if it's a crime. I guarantee you, you will be arrested and charged.

Ever see the show "To Catch a Preditor" with Chris Hansen? All those guys did was chat sexually with a minor on the internet and meet up with them in person. They showed up, got arrested, and they are doing hard time!! They didn't even get a chance to touch the minor. What's the difference between the men on this show and Sam Adams?

The only reason he's not been charged is that he kissed a boy. Had he kissed a girl, he'd be in jail. Sam Adams can feel lucky for once that him being gay actually works to his advantage as society has a double standard when it comes to sex crimes and what sex the victim is.

Author: Andrew2
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 12:00 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Vitalogy, I'd prefer to let the Oregon Attorney General's investigation determine whether Adams broke the law, not you.

Author: Warner
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 12:25 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Vitalogy, you may be right on that, i'm not sure how the law specifically works. Nor do I want to find out.

BTW- I hate that whole "To Catch A Predator" crap. Yeah, those guys may be slimeballs, but that is just total entrapment and sensationalism. Makes MSNBC look really bad.

Author: Skeptical
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 12:45 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Phone records show that Sam Adams phoned then 17 year old Beau Breedlove 33 times.

So?

It appears you're doing what the Broadway et als do -- shoving your moralities down our throat here. Hmm?

I'll render my verdict if he is found guilty of breaking the law.

Author: Vitalogy
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 1:05 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

The defense of Sam Adams here is downright pathetic. I've never seen such support for an admitted pedophile! Somehow I have a feeling that if a 42 year old man was chasing after your 17 year old son or daughter, somehow you'd feel different, and I guarantee you your response would not be "so?"

I'm not shoving moralty down anyone's throat, I'm simply pointing out that people really do go to jail for doing EXACTLY what Sam Adams did. He solicited a minor for sex. If the guys on "To Catch a Preditor" are charged and convicted, how can you dismiss what Sam Adams has ADMITTED to doing? Why would a 42 year old man call a 17 year old boy 33 times???

Author: Justin_timberfake
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 1:19 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

These calls that Sam Adams made to Mr. Breedlove were "Booty Calls". Thats 33 different times Mr. Adams could have had sexual relations with Mr. Breedlove when he was only 17.
I consider kissing on the mouth "sex" . We know he atleast did that when Mr. Breedlove was 17.

Get this pervert out of office ASAP!

Let me ask all of the parents on this board! Lets say that you found out that YOUR 17 year old son was kissing Sam Adams ON THE LIPS when he was only 17, and quite possible doing a LOT more. How would you feel???

Sam Adams took advantage of his power and was making out with a minor. GET RID OF HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Call me conservative but I think a grown man kissing a 17 YEAR OLD is VERY Disturbing! Its a shame that we live in a society that has such MAJOR DOUBLE STANDARDS!! Like Vitology pointed out, If Sam was having sexual relations with a 17 year old girl, he would have been arrested!

So creepy older men CAN "Take advantage" of under-age guys, yet if its an underage woman, the guy will get arrested???

Boy this sends out great messages to the kids who are following this case!

Please excuse me while I go find my barf-bag!

Author: Warner
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 1:58 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I don't think that some of us saying "let's wait for the investigation" should be considered defending or supporting him or what he may have done.

Author: Darktemper
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 2:03 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I will hold out on judgement until all of the facts are presented.

In the meantime, what I find disturbing is that in this day and age you are no longer innocent until proven guilty, you are guilty until proven innocent. The laws are there to protect the guilty, they have rights don't ya know! Maybe the laws and courts should be more inclined to protect the innocent!

Author: Justin_timberfake
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 2:11 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Don't we already have proof that Sam Adams was kissing Mr. Breedlove when he was 17??

To me, thats going overboard and uncalled for. But thats just me.

Author: Vitalogy
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 2:28 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

How much more of an investigation do you need? Sam admitted kissing him when he was 17 and having sex with him when he was 18. This indicates his interest with him is/was sexual. His phone records show 33 calls WHEN he was 17 years of age.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 2:46 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

" Warner, go to your local high school and attempt to kiss (make out) with a 17 year old and see if it's a crime. I guarantee you, you will be arrested and charged."

With what? And would that be the same charge Adams could be charged with?

Author: Vitalogy
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 2:56 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Soliciation of a minor.

Author: Darktemper
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 3:03 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Bullshit, go to any local high school and you will find tons of 18 year old seniors making out with people under 18, calling and texting each other on their cell phones, so arrest all of them as well. The only difference here is the age. Note, I am not defending him or his actions but if sex was not involved until he turned 18 then what law was broken?

Author: Skeptical
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 3:17 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

v sez: The defense of Sam Adams here is downright pathetic.

Damn, you're taking a page right out of the Herb-Deane playbook and putting words in our mouths.

So, I'm going to give you the same advice you give them when they do this: Stop listening to Rush. We can think for ourselves and when the right information is presented, we will decide. NOT based on hysterical rants that you and Rush are apparently fond of.

Author: Andrew2
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 3:20 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Vitalogy: How much more of an investigation do you need?

I need an investigation by the Oregon Department of Justice, which is now in progress.

You think whether people are guilty of crimes should be determined by the Willamette Week instead of by our state justice department and court system?

Author: Vitalogy
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 3:47 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Soliciting a minor for sex is a crime. Ask any of the stars of "To Catch a Preditor."

However, the debate really isn't whether a crime was committed, but whether Sam Adams is fit to be mayor. I don't have to see him be charged with a crime to come to the conclusion that Sam Adams was soliciting a minor for sex. He was. His interest in Beau was sexual, period. And he proved it by admitting to kissing him while he was a minor and having sex with him once he was an adult. I don't think that kind of person with such a lack of judgment should be the mayor of Portland.

Skep, you're the biggest hypocrite here. What was your opinion on Mark Foley?

Author: Skeptical
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 4:58 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Skep, you're the biggest hypocrite here.

Oh really? Why not cite some cases to back that up? Me thinks you have nothing.

I've stated in this forum many times that I don't care about anybody's sex life. All I want to know about is whether they are going to vote my way on the issues.

v sez: Yet more solid information that Sam Adams was pursuing a sexual relationship with a minor.

Solid? I don't think so. If you look at the chart in The Oregonian (sadly wrapped up in tabloid journalism at the moment) it appears that after a flurry of initial calls, Adams backed off quite a bit until Breedlove's birthday. If he was trying to pursue a minor, why did he back off?

Anyway, discussing this is wasted time until evidence surfaces showing he broke the law.

Author: Vitalogy
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 7:22 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

You're a hypocrite because you lambaste conservatives yet look the other way with liberals when it comes to poor behavior. I'll call anybody out if they deserve it, regardless of political affiliation.

There is right, and there is wrong.

It is wrong for a 42 year old man to solicit a 17 year old boy. End of story. At the very least, Sam is guilty of grooming the young man, which by the way is a trait among child molesters. The law really doesn't matter in judging Sam, unless you think OJ really is innocent. Sam did wrong by pursuing him and he did wrong by lying about it. We don't need the legal crap to figure that out.

I think it's sad that anybody has to wait for a legal judgment when it comes to a case like this.

Author: Andrew2
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 7:35 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

It's sad that you can't simply agree to disagree with us and leave it at that...

Author: Skeptical
Friday, May 01, 2009 - 8:23 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

You're a hypocrite because you lambaste conservatives yet look the other way with liberals when it comes to poor behavior.

Well, cite one.

I didn't blast Sen Larry whatever his name is from Idaho for having sex with a man. If anything, I likely said he made a bad decision to have sex in that very public bathroom. If Sen Larry supported anti-gay legislation and was having gay sex himself, he got called out on it by me. But the act of having gay sex? No problem. Don't care.

So cite something, will ya?

Author: Deane_johnson
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 6:25 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Vitalogy seems to feel it's his position in life is to judge others.

Author: Vitalogy
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 11:19 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Nope, just calling it like it is. And Skep, I already cited one. You lambasted Mark Foley, yet look the other way with Sam Adams.

Deane, here's a link to the Oregonian story. Read it and judge for yourself. Regardless of political affiliation, would you defend Sam Adams?

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/04/mayor_sam_adams_beau_breedl ove.html

There's some conflicting reports from people, which means that SOMEONE is lying. I have zero reason to believe anything that comes out of Sam Adams or Beau Breedlove's mouth. They're both liars.

Author: Missing_kskd
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 11:47 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I don't like liars.

I too smell something funny here.

Why isn't he being charged keeps bouncing around in my mind. Either there is enough to proceed with a case, or there isn't.

And either a case is in progress, or it isn't.

Is there a case in progress? If so, then let it proceed.

If not, why?

Author: Deane_johnson
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 12:55 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

From what I've read in this thread, his transgression appears to be that he kissed a 17 year old boy. The question is, does that constitute sex.

I rather doubt it, certainly in the eyes of the law.

Author: Skeptical
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 1:09 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

And Skep, I already cited one. You lambasted Mark Foley,

Where is it? The search function came up no results. Me thinks your anger is clouding your thinking.

Author: Stevethedj
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 1:57 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Skep--It appers that someone was shoving "something" down someones throat.

Author: Mc74
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 1:58 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Can we waterboard Sam?

He is a scum bag anyhow.

Author: Missing_kskd
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 3:11 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Deane, that's where I'm at too.

If more than that happened, then it seems to me there is a case.

Which then leads to either persue the case or not, and why.

And I'm all for nailing him, Dem or no. That's not at issue.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 4:14 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

If it's a big enough deal to lie about ( and remember, it wasn't just " no comment " or " that's private " - it was a flat out denial made to make others feel stupid for even questioning it ), it's a big enough deal to use to form an opinion about...in my opinion. You can't have it both ways like that when it suits you.

And not that it really matters because I believe it to be a reasonable assumption that he voted Democrat - therefore is likely a Democrat himself - but I don't think Portland's Mayoral race is partisan, is it?

Side note about the legality issue; I Googled " solicitation of a minor " just to see how the law actually reads since that was the charge that Vitalogy said would be used against him in a case like this. The moment I got the search results I IMMEDIATELY went " FUCK! Now I'm on some kind of radar for even looking into this." As in " how to assasinate a President " or " askjeeves - Where can I buy enough explosive fertilizer to make a bomb that kills Liberals in their workplace."

Hi Homeland Securtiy Department! I'm Sean. I'm not doing anything bad. These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.

Author: Deane_johnson
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 5:48 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

CJ. of you had been kissing a 17 year old boy, would you have a tendency to deny it? Or would you?

Author: Aok
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 8:05 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

What's this, has no other celebrity done anything embarrassing lately, so we're going to bring this up again? I love the fact you all treat this kid like he's some kind of innocent. He has a court record all his own including attempting to shoplift hundreds of dollars worth of merchandise from Macy's, soooooooo I think he's quite capable of taking care of himself.

BTW Deane, the "17 year old boy" is gay. I thought your side hated all gays plus you don't even live in the NW. Why do you care?

Author: Skeptical
Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 9:26 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

17 years old and a few weeks shy of being able to kill Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan with automatic weapons.

I think people foaming at the mouth over this Adams thing have their priorities in disarray.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 12:31 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

"CJ. of you had been kissing a 17 year old boy, would you have a tendency to deny it? Or would you? "

That's kind of a good point. Yes. I likely would deny it. I could give you all sorts of disclaimers or qualifying rebuttals - but in the end, yeah, I would. I suspect that I would do that because I know it's wrong, illegal, would put me in a position to have to defend - I don't think I would have any leg to stand on.

Unless, you know, I was a little bit of a sociopath or in complete denial or something. I'm not sure what state I would have to be in to deny it. But I can tell you that if I did that today, I would have some pretty deep issues that were fucking me up pretty hard.

Author: Brianl
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 7:01 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

"BTW Deane, the "17 year old boy" is gay. I thought your side hated all gays plus you don't even live in the NW. Why do you care?"

Give Deane credit here. He has toed the GOP and conservative line on many things here over the years, and irked the masses in here. I don't recall ONE TIME where he said anything derogatory or inflammatory about someone's sexual preference.

Author: Skybill
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 12:17 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Illegal is a sick bird!

Illegal or not it was certainly a poor choice. And lying about it just added insult to injury.

If he wants to pork some guy in the butt, while personally I think it's sick, I don't really care if he does or not. It'll get him in the end. (pun intended)

Should he be bounced out of office. IMHO, Yes.

Do I really care one way or the other? Nope. I live in Vancouver.

Aok is showing he doesn't have a clue about the Conservative view point with his statement "BTW Deane, the "17 year old boy" is gay. I thought your side hated all gays plus you don't even live in the NW. Why do you care?"

Conservatives don't hate "gays". They disapprove or as it was put, hate, their lifestyle choice.

I don't have anything against a gay person. I do believe they are making the wrong lifestyle choice though.

Guys shouldn't kiss guys and girls shouldn't kiss girls. However, if they do, I don't care as long as they don't try to force upon me or my kids that it is normal.

Author: Andrew2
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 12:30 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Skybill: Conservatives don't hate "gays". They disapprove or as it was put, hate, their lifestyle choice.

I don't have anything against a gay person. I do believe they are making the wrong lifestyle choice though.


So what's the "right" lifestyle choice when you are strongly attracted to people of the same gender and not at all to people of the opposite gender? Be miserable denying what to you are natural instincts toward love with another consenting adult?

Author: Skybill
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 12:38 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Right = 1 man, 1 woman, IMO.

Anything else is abnormal, but I realize that it's going to happen anyway and there is no way to stop it.

If they want to shack up and do what they do, that's fine, just don't try and force me to support it or believe it's normal.

Just like a married guy is going to go tap his secretary. Wrong, but going to happen.

Author: Vitalogy
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 12:40 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Being gay has nothing to do with this. It's about the age issue. Had Chris Hansen been in that bathroom, Sam would be going to jail on TV.

Author: Skybill
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 12:43 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Being gay has nothing to do with this. It's about the age issue.

Yes, but I think it's more about the lying part. If you can't trust the people you elect to office, then they are going to be ineffective in what they try and accomplish.

Author: Andrew2
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 12:58 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Skybill: If they want to shack up and do what they do, that's fine, just don't try and force me to support it or believe it's normal.

I don't think most gays are asking you to support their lifestyle, they want you to accept it. As in: we aren't all the same, why shun people who make different choices than you make?

Being gay isn't any less "normal" than being black when the majority of the world's population isn't black. People were born the way they were born, and they will behave according to that. Do you shun black people because they aren't "normal" either?

Author: Skybill
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 1:03 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

People were born the way they were born, and they will behave according to that.

That's the part I don't agree with. I don't buy that you are born gay. I think it's a choice. And there is no scientific proof that it isn't. Yes, there are some studies, but you have to look at who sponsored them, but no scientific proof.

I choose women (and ONLY 1 in particular!). Some other guy chooses men.

Black, Asian, Mexican, etc. you have no choice in that.

Author: Andrew2
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 1:14 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree about that, Bill. I think people don't have any choice about who they are attracted to - they can choose only whether to act on that attraction. Just imagine, Bill, if there are certain women out there you find attractive and then some you definitely DO NOT find attractive. Could you will yourself to "be attracted to" those unattractive women? Talk yourself into it because someone tells you you are supposed to be attracted to them? I sure can't - and neither can gay people choose to be attracted to people of the opposite gender. It's pretty much the same thing.

I don't need scientific studies to prove it so: I've known a lot of gay people and most of them seem quite naturally gay. Not that I haven't known a few people who "experimented" but those seem quite the exception and not the rule in my experience.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 1:28 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

" I choose women (and ONLY 1 in particular!). "

So choosing a man was something that you felt you needed to resist and not give into?

Author: Mrs_merkin
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 4:13 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Lie. Lie. Lie some more.

I can't wait to sign a recall petition for Mayor Mc$cum.

But really, it has more to do with shoving the Soccer/baseball/Hotel/Chavez mess down our throats than shoving personal desires and penis's into whatever teenage or otherwise orifices he chooses.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/04/mayor_sam_adams_beau_breedl ove.html

Author: Brianl
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 5:18 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

"Conservatives don't hate "gays". They disapprove or as it was put, hate, their lifestyle choice."

Bill, there's a rather large group of gay conservatives, maybe you've heard of them. They're called Log Cabin Republicans.

"That's the part I don't agree with. I don't buy that you are born gay. I think it's a choice. And there is no scientific proof that it isn't. Yes, there are some studies, but you have to look at who sponsored them, but no scientific proof."

I hate to tell you this, but you are absolutely, unequivocally, 100 percent wrong.

Trust me, I know.

Author: Chris_taylor
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 5:43 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I think those of us who have been around the gay and lesbian community for a long time can honestly say it's not a choice. My sister certainly didn't choose her sexuality. She struggled with it trying to figure out why she wasn't attracted to boys.

But like Andrew I guess we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Author: Skybill
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 6:19 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

But like Andrew I guess we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Works for me! And that's the beauty of it...We can!

Author: Chickenjuggler
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 6:45 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Yeah. We've spent a lot of time on this. Someone IS wrong. After looking into it and discussing it, I do not feel it is me.

Skybill doesn't want anyone to try and convert his kids in any way - I don't want people like him to interfere with the way gay people want to live in any way.

Seems like a reasonable compromise.

Deal?

Author: Dodger
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 8:04 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Vitalogy: for once we agree. The reason this sexual predator is defended on this board is for one reason only: it was a homosexual act.
If this man had done all the same to a 17 year old girl, it would have been ended and story over long ago. The homosexual agenda is to keep on battering the general public with the same old crap over and over until we are all numb and then we just fall right into it as the members of this board have done.
It was SEX WITH A MINOR PERIOD. Don't care which gender, he's a pervert and pedophile, lock him up.

Author: Andrew2
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 8:11 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Can't use facts to defend your point of view, eh, Dodger? Demonizing those you disagree with is oh so much more convenient...

Author: Chickenjuggler
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 8:44 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

" It was SEX WITH A MINOR PERIOD."

Would it matter to you if it was not that?

Author: Dodger
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 8:49 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

No andrew that is what you and your's are doing.
Not me.
This one is REAL easy. Sex with a minor. Against the law. Brushed under the carpet and defended by the "keepers of the law" here on the ol' RADIO board, ONLY because it was sex with another male.
If it was a girl, you goofs would be all over it like flies on crap. Get off your high horses.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 9:02 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I'm just asking you - Would it matter to you if it wasn't " sex with a minor period " ?

Author: Dodger
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 9:07 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I think I have answered you. You are now trying to pull me in a different direction. The point of this thread is: Sam Adams is a pedophile, period.
Don't try to pull me into YOUR change of topic. Deflection doesn't work with me.

Author: Andrew2
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 9:33 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Dodger: This one is REAL easy. Sex with a minor. Against the law.

And that was established by what Court - the Willamette Week? (I assume you embrace everything they print? Don't you know they are a very liberal pro-gay newspaper?) Don't believe in legitimate investigations and due process? How about innocent until proven guilty? Ever read the US Constitution? Or is it just easier to make up your mind based on preconceived notions, supported by whatever is printed in the newspaper?

Methinks you would change your attitude quickly if you were ever accused of anything and people made up their own mind about you, without waiting for all the facts and due process.

I don't know if Sam Adams has committed a crime or not. Let the Oregon Attorney General's office - and, if it comes to that, a jury - decide that, not you or the Willamette Week.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 9:39 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Dodger, I am only quoting you and asking a simple question. If you don't want to answer it, that's fine. But don't pretend that you have.

Here's one; Did Sam Adams have sex with a minor?

You say it's simple. Did he?

I'm not defending anything he did. I think I've been pretty clear about it. But I didn't know he had sex with a minor. So I am asking you. Did he?

Author: Vitalogy
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 10:11 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

It doesn't matter if Sam Adams committed a "crime", which I think he did. The point is, crime or no crime, what he did was WRONG. 33 calls to a 17 year old that he later had sex with? C'mon. No due process needed! And because both Sam and Beau are proven liars, who can believe what they say anyway?

Author: Skeptical
Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 11:15 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Dodge sez: The reason this sexual predator is defended on this board is for one reason only: it was a homosexual act.

Oh really?

There are some people on this board that think age 17 is too old to be considered A CHILD and should be held to ADULT standards when it comes BOTH sexual and criminal behavior.

I will however yield to the existing law if Adams is convicted of a crime, but I will not yield to a mob of people foaming at the mouth ready to lynch someone.

vit sez: No due process needed!

There we go, you're now on recorded as a known supporter of lynch mob tactics, congrats.

By the way, Vit, you still owe me evidence on that Mark Foley BULL SHIT. Fess up, you pulled a NW Okie and you know it.

Author: Thedude
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 11:13 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I dated beau briefly when he was 12, maybe 13, he really is nothing special

Author: Vitalogy
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 12:37 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Skep, I'm not going to waste my time trying to pull up your past posts. We both know you critizced Mark Foley for exactly the same kind of behavior Sam Adams has ADMITTED doing. You are a blind partisan (which you've already admitted too).

I guess if I was trying to defend an admitted child predator I'd try to change the subject too.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 12:51 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Did I hear something on the radio today that Adams accidentally stepped on the gas instead of the brake in a parking lot?

Author: Tadc
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 1:31 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

He did. Our boy Stoner did a nice hit piece about it on his blog.

But lets get one thing straight: a 17 year old is not a child. Legally a minor, sure. Physically, emotionally, developmentally anything different than an 18 year old? Not at all. Calling Adams a "child predator" is a gross distortion of the *allegations*, let alone any proven facts.

Funny that some people are saying that the only reason Adams is being defended is that he's gay. I think the truth is exactly the opposite - if this had been a hetero relationship, the average joe-6-pack would be saying (to quote South Park), "niiicce!"

Politicians have been getting action from hot younger women since the beginning of time. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

He lied about an aspect of his personal life that was NONE OF OUR BUSINESS, and he did so because he KNEW that prude busybody homophobe A-holes would use it mobilize like-minded A-holes against him. But since it's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS, he was justified in lying. Just like you would be justified in lying if you were asked about your sexual proclivities during a job interview(which is essentially what the mayor did).

The notion that one lie about his personal life makes him unfit for service doesn't really hold up to logic. Politicians lie all the time...

Author: Skeptical
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 1:31 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

vit sez: Skep, I'm not going to waste my time trying to pull up your past posts.

That's pure BS. The burden is on you to defend your assertation. Prove it or shut up.

vit sez: I guess if I was trying to defend an admitted child predator

Sam Adams has turned you into a liar spewing ad homimiem bs.

Author: Andrew2
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 2:01 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Right on, Tadc.

Author: Vitalogy
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 2:04 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Skep, the burdon is on you if it's so fucking important. You put up or shut up. You've already admitted that you're a hypocrite, which was my point. Thanks for making it for me!

And Sam Adams lied BECAUSE HE KNEW HE WAS DOING WRONG. If there was nothing wrong with what he did, he would have no reason to so boldly lie about it.

Author: Vitalogy
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 2:11 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

So Tadc, you have no problem with adults soliciting sex from minors? You think it's none of our business?

Sam Adams is no different than the scums arrested on "To Catch a Predator."

Read about all the people just like Sam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Catch_a_Predator

Some shows resulted in 20-30 CONVICTIONS, doing the same thing Sam did.

Author: Bunsofsteel
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 2:14 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

GAWD! WOULD YOU TWO LOVE-BIRDS (SKEP & VITALOGY) PLEASE GET A ROOM!!! YOU SOUND LIKE WHINEY LITTLE BITCHES!

Author: Broadway
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 2:54 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

>>If there was nothing wrong with what he did, he would have no reason to so boldly lie about it.
Where's Bill Clinton when you need him.

Author: Skeptical
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 4:12 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Vit, you're foaming at the mouth and turning into a full blown nwokie. I told you I already did a foley search and found nothing, so where is it? The burden is entirely on you, the accuser. So hush-hush and take your anger somewhere else.

Author: Tadc
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 5:01 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Vit - Soliciting sex from minors is illegal. However, I can differentiate between "illegal" and "immoral".

In my opinion, there is NO moral difference between bonking a person who's been on this earth for 17 years and 10 months (illegal), and 18 years and 1 month (legal). A little creepy? Yep, but no creepier than doing the 18 YO, and still NONE OF MY BUSINESS. What gets his rocks off has NO bearing on his ability to do his job!

Re: "To Catch a Predator" - really? NO difference between an *actual* child and person who's only seperation from "adulthood" is a legal technicality?

"And Sam Adams lied BECAUSE HE KNEW HE WAS DOING WRONG. If there was nothing wrong with what he did, he would have no reason to so boldly lie about it."

In your completely unsupported opinion... if you truely believe that statement, then you should have NO problem allowing the government to freely pry into every private corner of your life. After all, you're not doing anything wrong! Heck, I'm coming over later to hunt for your porn stash! Sound cool?

In my view, he lied because he was afraid of being unjustly screwed (no pun intended) by the likes of you.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Let me ask you this: is it possible for someone to be simultaneously a "sex pervert" and a quality politician? If not, why not?

Are you familiar with Kohlberg's stages of Moral Development? Where would you place yourself?

Author: Vitalogy
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 5:13 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Good thing you're not a lawyer, the judge would laugh his ass off at your defense!

I'm astonished at some of the loyalty here to Sam Adams. The guy is a scum and I hope he gets charged. If not, I hope he gets recalled or removed.

And, if I was living in Portland, I would have voted for Sam over Sho, so it's not like I'm an anti-Sam Adams person. His conduct and lying about it has turned me anti-Sam, so while you guys are willing to look past the law, I hope it's enforced to send a message to others that "15 will get you 20", and so will 17 and 6 months!

Author: Andrew2
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 5:49 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Vitalogy, can you cite where Sam Adams has actually been indicted for breaking the law or charged with a crime? YOU are not the law - the State of Oregon is. You don't get to decide whether Sam Adams has broken the law - just like you wouldn't want Sam Adams or me or random people on the street making up our minds about whether you have broken some law (unless we are on a jury) about something we may disagree with.

Tadc puts it very well. Having sex with someone under 17 (which as of yet there is no evidence of - until charged with such crime, assume innocent til proven guilty) is illegal - and should remain a crime in my opinion - but for someone who seems quite sexually experienced like Breedlove was by then, that sort of violation is like driving 80 on I-5 in a 70mph zone. Illegal? Yes. Dangerous? Perhaps. Morally wrong? All depends on the situation. Passing a school bus at 80mph on the right in icy weather is different than driving 80mph in clear, dry conditions when there are no other cars around...but it's still driving 10mph over that's the real legal violation.

On the other hand, having sex with, say, a 9-year-old (a true pedophile) is like driving drunk at 70mph through a crowded school zone: not only legally wrong but clearly morally wrong and requiring harsh punishment under the law. A very different situation than the former.

I don't expect to change your mind, only to express why I disagree with you. Honestly, your demonizing rhetoric here is starting to resemble 62kgw's "throw all the liberals in jail" rantings. Yeah, we get it that you don't like Sam Adams and want him removed from office, blah blah blah. Fine. But please allow the rest of us to disagree with you without attacking us, 'kay?

Author: Vitalogy
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 6:01 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Comparing my rhetoric to 62kgw's is ridiculous.

While I understand your attitude of don't judge the man until he's had his day, the fact remains that there is undeniable proof he called a 17 year old 33 times. He's also admitted to having sex with him when he was 18. The second Sam Adams found out Breedlove was under 18 he should have stopped ALL calls to him. Phone records don't lie.

So, my whole point boils down to this: Sam Adams should be punished for what he did. He knew it was wrong for a 42 year old to be chasing after a 17 year old. This is why he lied, repeatedly, and even called people out for "smearing" him.

I would be happy with his removal from office. Do you think Sam Adams should be punished for chasing a 17 year old around?

Author: Andrew2
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 6:09 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Vitalogy: Do you think Sam Adams should be punished for chasing a 17 year old around?

Under what law? I'm not an attorney, so I don't know whether one can be charged for kissing a 17 year old. There must be precedent. I'm guessing the Oregon AG investigation will charge Adams for a crime if they think they could win conviction in front of a jury and will probably err on not being lenient, given the public profile of their investigation.

If there's a violation of the law, let Adams be prosecuted like anyone else. If not, I certainly don't think he should be otherwise "punished" outside the legal system. Like Tadc I think he should not be removed from office for lying about a personal matter that is no one else's business.

Author: Vitalogy
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 6:35 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

So you approve of a 42 year old knowingly chasing around a 17 year old? You don't think there should be repercussions beyond what the law provides? And on top of that you approve of him lying so publicly?

Author: Andrew2
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 6:57 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Vitalogy: So you approve of a 42 year old knowingly chasing around a 17 year old?

No.

I'll bet that, if I asked you 100 questions about your personal life, I'm sure I could find more than one that I don't approve of, either. Do you feel any obligation to live up to Andrew's personal moral standards?

You don't think there should be repercussions beyond what the law provides?

No. That would be called "vigilantism." I prefer to live under a system of laws, not anarchy.

And on top of that you approve of him lying so publicly?

About a personal matter? I don't think it's any of our business, unless he broke a law.

Author: Mc74
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 6:59 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

You dont think its any of our business yet here you are talking about it...

Author: Skeptical
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 6:59 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Comparing my rhetoric to 62kgw's is ridiculous.

I'm betting there is a bunch of people here who agrees with that asessment, but having witness your behavior in this thread, they're not likely to speak out because you'll just turn around and fan them with that wide open unrelenting flamethrower of yours, putting words in their mouths and calling everyone liars.

Author: Andrew2
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 7:03 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Mc74: You dont think its any of our business yet here you are talking about it...

It's now a major news story in Portland - of course I'm talking about it. Duh!

Author: Talpdx
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 7:11 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

"...I think he should not be removed from office for lying about a personal matter that is no one else's business."

I disagree. He made it our business when he answered the question. He could have said "no comment" or even, God forbid, told the truth. Yet he dishonored himself by lying – and in such a contemptuous manner. Instead of answering the question honestly, he engaged in a grossly cynical cover-up to conceal the truth. And he used surrogates to help him carry out his dirty work. Did you see the interviews he did on television; read his interviews in the print media or read the letter he issued to citizens of Portland after the story initially broke during the mayoral campaign – all claiming to be the victim of an anti-gay smear? As a gay man, I find that to be the most despicable of all his many lies. Plus he used extremely poor judgment in making nice with a 17 year old when his staff told him that he was playing with fire. What 40 something year old man (especailly an elected official running for mayor) hangs out with a 17 year old kid? It’s disturbing and calls into serious question his better judgment. Had Frank Ivancie done something like that, he would have been out on his ass.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this subject. But I do think telling the truth, even for a politician, is important (even if the matter isn't related to their work in office).

Author: Trixter
Monday, May 04, 2009 - 9:51 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Vitalogy seems to feel it's his position in life is to judge others.

Pot meet kettle...
WOW!

Author: Vitalogy
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 1:29 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Good post Tal!

This just in:

GRESHAM, Ore. -- An assistant girls basketball coach at Centennial High School was suspended after Troutdale police found him alone with a student in the backseat of his car.

A suspicious vehicle was reported in Troutdale around 10 p.m. Sunday night, on SW 15th Street just east of the SW Hensley Road intersection, according to police. When they arrived to investigate they found the coach laying with a 17-year-old female student in the car’s backseat.

The juvenile was taken into protective custody and transported to the Troutdale Police Station, where she was released to her parents.

“For the event last night there was no crime, per say, by them laying together,” Troutdale Police Department Sgt. Steve Bevens said. “Obviously, there's a lot of concern. This gives a lot of red flags.”

The coach has not yet been charged or arrested for any wrongdoing. An investigation was launched with Centennial School District officials, the district attorney’s office and the girl’s parents to determine whether any crime had been committed, according to a Troutdale police statement.

The coach has been suspended from working with kids or being on campus while the investigation continues.

His name was withheld by police and the school district.

-So, here we are, pretty much the same situation. An adult with a 17 year old. Anyone want to bet this guy gets fired? For those defending Sam Adams, is this also none of our business? Should he keep his job since no law was broken?

Author: Deane_johnson
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 1:31 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Maybe they were just tired.

Author: Tadc
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 2:07 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

"He could have said "no comment""

I think that's incredibly naive. In today's society, anything short of a vehement denial would be taken as a de-facto admission of guilt. Don't you agree?

"So you approve of a 42 year old knowingly chasing around a 17 year old?"

You miss the point... It's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. Whether or not I, or you, approve of his sexual proclivities, taste in clothes, or what he has for breakfast has NO BEARING on his ability to do his job!

I'm still looking for someone to coherently explain the logic behind "sexual misconduct years in the past automatically makes you a bad mayor". I think Neil Goldschmidt is still well regarded for his mayoral acts, despite his (far more offensive) sexual misconduct.

If this news about Adams had come out after he had several successful terms, would that automatically invalidate his good work as mayor?

As for the girls BBall coach - the difference there is that Adams' job does not have anything to do with children/teens/whatever. If Adams was a high school BBall coach and kissed a 17 YO of either gender, he should (and would) be fired. Why? Because it HAS A DIRECT EFFECT ON HIS JOB PERFORMANCE. Mayor? Not so much.

Author: Vitalogy
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 2:15 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

So you have no problem with adults getting together with minors? It just depends on what job you have?

If it's not a crime, as some people say, to kiss a 17 year old, why didn't Sam Adams just tell the truth? Because he knew that people know that's crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed, law or not. He lied because he knew it would look REAL bad, and rightfully so.

As for doing the job he's elected to do, it looks like his personal issues are definitely casting doubt on his credibility.

"Troubling words about Portland's mayor are coming from powerful people in Oregon's capitol"

http://www.katu.com/news/specialreports/44337327.html

Author: Tadc
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 2:34 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Are you not getting my point (NONE OF OUR BUSINESS), or just ignoring it?

Why didn't he tell the truth? Because he wanted to be mayor, and he knew he'd be crucified if he admitted it. Case closed.

Unable to differentiate between illegal and immoral? Kohlberg's level 4 IIRC...

Author: Vitalogy
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 2:38 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

It's none of our business until minors are involved.

And I have no issue with differentiating between illegal and immoral. Apparently you do, which is why you seem to be okay with adults having sexual relationships with minors.

Author: Deane_johnson
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 2:44 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

If the minor is gay, wanted to be kissed, and was almost 18, I don't get to tense about it.

What might be more of an issue is the bad judgment it indicates. That's not good in political leadership positions.

Author: Stevethedj
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 3:21 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I just love watching the double standard you liberals have. No values leaves a rutterless ship.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 3:59 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Which value has a double standard being applied, Steve? And who is applying it? Specifically.

Author: Talpdx
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 4:05 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Sam Adams had two choices, telling the truth or lying. He chose to lie. And look where it got him. A bloody f*cking mess. No mayor, not even Sam Adams (as much as I think under different circumstances he would make an excellent mayor) is worth this sort of mess.

Some say he lied because he knew if he told the truth, voters would have rejected his candidacy. So be it. That’s why we have elections. Others say matters of a personal nature are irrelevant and should not be the source of questioning by the media. I say look no further than Neil Goldschmidt and Bob Packwood. You run for elective office, expect the unexpected; including questions about your sex life. Whether you like it or not, your life becomes an open book. Be prepared to answer honestly because deceit can get you exactly where Sam Adams stands today. Some people (like me) take real issue with people who don’t tell the truth. It’s not a very endearing quality. And if you’ve got skeletons in the closest, perhaps you should not run for elective office – regardless of how talented you might be. Find another way to make a difference. Lastly, if you want to make nice with a 17 year old kid and also want to be mayor of Portland, then you’re asking for trouble. Do one or the other, but not both. But be prepared for the consequences. It might be brutal.

Author: Stevethedj
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 4:08 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

when it is a liberal political figure. I.E. Clinton, Adams, Edwards, Goldsmith or a coach. They yawn. But let it be a Rep. And they can't comdem fast enfough. Dear Liberal friend. Sex with a minor is WRONG. Period. If you had some values, you could figure it out. Or mabey a better way to see it is they feel nothing is wrong. sail-a-vee

Author: Amus
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 4:23 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

FYI...

Every ship is rutterless.

Who's Goldsmith?

Author: Chickenjuggler
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 5:58 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

" Sex with a minor is WRONG. Period."

I agree.

Say, did Adams have sex with a minor? Period?

Author: Vitalogy
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 6:07 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Both of them deny that. And my opinion on what should happen to Sam assumes they are telling the truth, which given their past history of bald face lying, is a stretch for me, but I give them the benefit of the doubt.

But just like the coach caught in the back seat "laying down" with a 17 year old, I think they both should lose their jobs since they are on a public payroll. If Adams was privately employed, that would be a different story.

If the coach gets fired from his public job, so should Sam. And this should be regardless of the legal findings by the AG. What's been documented and admitted so far is more than enough.

Author: Andrew2
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 6:46 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Talpdx: Some say he lied because he knew if he told the truth, voters would have rejected his candidacy. So be it. That's why we have elections. Others say matters of a personal nature are irrelevant and should not be the source of questioning by the media. I say look no further than Neil Goldschmidt and Bob Packwood.

Perhaps you've forgotten the reason Bob Packwood was forced to resign? It had nothing to do with his personal sex life; it was because numerous women he worked with accused Packwood of sexually harassing them. I hope you understand the difference between that and consensual sex. Packwood's personal sex life would have been none of anyone's business had he confined his relationships to simply sex.

Vitalogy, your scenario about the coach caught with a 17 year old student is hardly the same situation as Adams's. The fact that he was a coach and worked with/had authority over kids makes it quite different from some random adult male who is caught on a couch with a 17 year old girl. The reason people are especially upset about that situation is because he was a coach, not because he was on the "public payroll."

Author: Missing_kskd
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 6:59 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

It's worth noting the coach has an implied trust position with minor kids.

Sam does not have that direct implied trust position.

My point being the actions of the coach would directly impact his job. Sam's actions only indirectly impact it.

Carry on.

Author: Vitalogy
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 7:27 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Wow, I guess I should go find a hot 17 year old!

Sam's situation and the coach's situation are the same thing!! Both situations you have an adult entering a relationship with a MINOR, and knowingly doing so.

Bad judgment is bad judgment and both should be fired.

Giving adults a pass on pursuing relationships with minors sets a dangerous precedent.

Author: Talpdx
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 7:32 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I wasn't talking about the issue of his sexually harassing of women on his US Senate staff or campaign staff. I was talking about Packwood’s inappropriate sexual contact with a Maryland teenage girl (his family's babysitter). I'm not certain how you could not justify looking into such a matter.

And yes Andrew, I am very aware of the difference between workplace sexual harassment and inappropriate sexual contact with a minor. Both of which are against the law. Perhaps Sam and Bob could provide us with a tutorial on the latter?

Author: Dodger
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 7:48 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

It's all moot now with the passing of SB 90 and HR 1913, anything he "did" or "did not" do with that 17 year old will be ok!

The Hate Crime law, S.909 (and HR1913), will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published 30 such sexual orientations that, because of Congress's refusal to define "sexual orientation," will be protected under this legislation. These 30 orientations are listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. It is considered the dictionary of mental disorders. Those 30 sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states.

Among those sexual orientations being protected by S.909 (and HR1913) are these:

Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an Amputee
Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman
Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces
Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification
Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body
Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks
Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex
Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas
Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse
Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person
Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either
Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation
Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement
Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls
Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing
Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine
Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity
Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals

To protect a "sexual orientation" under S.909 (and HR1913) - while leaving that term undefined -- is to protect this whole range of bizarre sexual behaviors. It is to normalize by federal law what are still considered to be mental disorders (paraphilias) by the American Psychiatric Association.

Author: Missing_kskd
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 7:56 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Agreed they are the same in that an adult and minor having a relationship.

I feel that is wrong. I'm disgusted at the idea of it.

It's different in that the coach interacts with minors all the time and so the bad judgment significantly overlaps with their job.

The politician who does this doesn't interact with minors all the time, meaning the bad judgement doesn't overlap so much. Very little actually.

That was my point on the comparison.

Now, there still is some overlap, as in the politician making decisions surrounding the boundaries between adults and minors. That's ugly for sure.

There are some core questions here that are gonna have to be answered.

1. Is kissing sex? The surprising thing seen on this case is that a fair number of people think it isn't.

2. Did Sam know the other guy was a minor? I don't know the answer to that.

So then there is the difficulty. Without strong consensus on kissing being sex, there is a problem with the law, and that means there is a problem with straight up removing Sam from office, and there the matter sits.

I personally want to see the "is kissing sex?" bit resolved, either through successful legislation, or litigation. Currently, it's not, and until it is, the reality is we will find it very difficult to remove Sam.

The sexual orientation is not a factor, though I suspect where "Is kissing sex?" question is concerned, it has an influence.

On the greater matter of there being a relationship, that's sleazy, but likely legal, barring sex is a factor. I personally don't trust people who would walk the line of the law like that. And they don't get votes.

That is how we will resolve the relationship bit.

Sex, or not, is on the table, meaning somebody has either got to bring a case, or legislate it, and until then we have nothing.

Author: Missing_kskd
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 9:24 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Well KPOJ had an interesting segment this morning.

We have a process for what is essentially "Sam Sucks".

A recall petition can be started 6 months after he takes office.

If they get a percentage of the ballots cast, in terms of signatures, then a recall action starts. This is 30K signatures, in Sam's case.

From there, he gets to issue a statement, and a judgment is made whether or not to recall.

A recall election occurs.

If he's recalled via election, then a replacement election occurs, and Sam could run again in that one, if he wanted to.

Barring some straight up legal violation (and this case isn't straight up, or we would have seen a prosecution), this is how we deal with Sam.

I would sign that petition.

Author: Vitalogy
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 10:21 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I don't believe that kissing can be defined as "sex" but I do believe it should be defined as a "sexual advance". And 42 year old men should not be making sexual advances on 17 year olds.

It's just too bad there is not a transcript of the conversations between Sam and Breedlove when they were on the phone those 33 times. That's part of what nails the dirtbags on "To Catch a Predator" is that there is a conversation log detailing what they were talking about. After all that's been admitted, does anyone really thing there was no "dirty talk" going on between these two? The men arrested on Predator are doing hard time for essentially the same thing Sam did, because NONE of them actually had any physical contact. All they did was talk on the internet and show up, and they've lost their jobs, families, and are in jail.

I'm hopeful that he ends up being recalled or has to resign. But I have my doubts he will be properly punished based on the attitudes some here harbor when it comes to adult/minor relationships. I was always taught that under 18 can get you 20.

Author: Skybill
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 11:11 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I'm pretty sure "straight up" isn't a term that should be used in this thread!!!!

Vitalogy, I think they were talking about the Blazers, the Ducks and the Beavers. Well, maybe not the beavers!!!!

Author: Tadc
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 11:20 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

"And I have no issue with differentiating between illegal and immoral. Apparently you do, which is why you seem to be okay with adults having sexual relationships with minors."
No issues, because for you they are apparently one and the same. Gotcha. Since you're not reading or refusing to comprehend anything I'm saying, I'll not waste my time any further.

"I just love watching the double standard you liberals have. No values leaves a rutterless ship." Just because you don't (or won't) understand the standard being applied doesn't make it doubled. I much prefer a rudder that I'm in control of rather than one that's fixed by dogma and immobile.

"I say look no further than Neil Goldschmidt and Bob Packwood."
I agree, but for different reasons. Goldschmidt and Packwood were arguably two of our better politicians, *DESPITE* their sexual misdeeds. Which is, IMO, evidence that the two subjects need not be related!

Steve/Dodger - You guys need to work on your critical thinking skills. 'nuff said.

Author: Skeptical
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 2:24 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

vit, where's the mark foley evidence?

Author: Vitalogy
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 2:42 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Skep, I already told you, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove you wrong, you've already done it for me.

Author: Skeptical
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 5:05 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

You've proven nothing. Where's the mark foley evidence?

Author: Missing_kskd
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 6:52 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

"I don't believe that kissing can be defined as "sex" but I do believe it should be defined as a "sexual advance". And 42 year old men should not be making sexual advances on 17 year olds."

Agreed, given the legal test includes one for intent to sexually advance.

Author: Missing_kskd
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 7:39 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Well, I was taught the same thing Vitalogy.

I don't think it's cool. What I do think is that we don't have sufficient clarity to nail a judgement in the matter.

And that's the rub.

We do however, have a process that accounts for that. So then. Barring legal options, which appear to be moot either for political reasons, or for lack of evidence, we have a "public trial".

I find it difficult to imagine NOT being able to gather 30K signatures in 60 days, or whatever the time is. Based on what is out there right now, that is just cake.

Then, an election will happen.

Here's the brutal thing. Those pissed off people are gonna show, and they are going to tell their friends.

The supporters also have to show, and tell their friends.

This isn't the kind of thing you go and talk up your friends about.

IMHO, Sam is cooked if there is sufficient public interest in that happening.

You can bet there is.

Given we all have an interest in how he performs as a politician, this makes a lot of sense, given we don't have simple criminal legal means available to us. It then becomes a civil matter.

Watch for it next month. We all get to judge Sam, with first a signature, then a "character" vote assuming critical mass is reached on the signatures, which is exactly what the recall election is.

I strongly suspect he will not prevail there, meaning it's over and PDX gets a re-do, and Sam can still be legally prosecuted --and as an ordinary citizen, perhaps then things are a little less political.

Author: Missing_kskd
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 7:49 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

And for the record, I don't see Vitalogy as a bigot.

Bigots discriminate on those things people cannot choose for themselves.

Sam chose to entertain this relationship. Sam did not choose to be gay.

The issue at hand IS THE RELATIONSHIP, and whether or not it's criminal, and whether or not it's APPROPRIATE.

Advocating for this kind of thing to be criminal is not bigotry, it's simply where some people see the boundaries. Advocating that it not be criminal is the same thing.

Differences like this is why we talk about things, why we vote, and through that, how our society evolves over time.

I think this whole thing is shitty. Sam was shitty for lying about it, though I can understand why he might go that way. The relationship is deffo shitty. Maybe Sam was seduced, but still... shitty.

I don't have any real respect for Sam over this.

Also, on the other side of the coin, those people advocating we follow the process are perfectly within their right to do so.

So, we have (some) facts, a LOT of opinion, most of which doesn't sound good. (most people I talked to think this is shitty)

And we have a process.

There is the criminal element, where it appears either the legal burden hasn't been met, or politics is getting in the way of that.

There is also the civil element, where we essentially call for a show of hands. That's where a lot of the sparks flew on this thread. Some people think he should be out, others don't, and NOBODY has a solid position to work from.

We don't have that because of the criminal element being un-resolved.

So, we are going to have to take our advocacy to the streets, then a vote, and then we will have some resolution.

BTW: If a recall ends up not being warranted, we then can continue criminal investigation. This isn't a one time shot.

If Sam has done wrong criminally, there is a path. And if he's just exhibited poor character not worthy of somebody holding office, there is a path too.

I'm about the process. Frankly, I was annoyed at the lack of clarity criminally. Understanding how the recall process works for me. We do get to check bad people, criminal or not, meaning Sam does have some accountability and will see some judgement.

And that's where it sits for me.

Author: Vitalogy
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 8:12 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Skep, first off, Mark Foley is from 2006. I just spent a few mins searching the archives and it looks to me like there are no records dating to when the Mark Foley threads were active. Do you really think I'm dumb enough to fall for your lame "search for the evidence that doesn't exist" ploy? I'll tell you what, I'm so sure of the fact that you criticized Mark Foley that I challenge YOU to find the threads that prove you said you were okay with his behavior like you are with Sam Adams. And if you do, I'll promise to admit to everyone here that I'm an asshole and I'll quit posting here forever. That's how confident I am that I'm right. Prove me wrong, I challenge you!! Otherwise, STFU.

Author: Missing_kskd
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 10:04 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I have some threads archived for writing. My interest is in the greater discussion threads and events over time.


quote:


[posts above lamenting "liberal" treatment of Foley --and Republican = Family Values]

By Skeptical on Sunday, October 08, 2006 - 10:03 pm:

Aren't we all so glad we voted in the "family Values" party the last few years?

we shoulda stuck with the 'wish we had values' party because at least we knew exactly where they stand.

[in response to some double standard crap]

Skeptical on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 10:08 pm:

"Isn't it amazing that Foley's affair is not a private matter to Trix and the rest of the libs. But to Jerry Studds and Bill CLinton it was a private matter! Would they please explain that?"

"You all need to stop playing politics with this one"



Republicans ran for office under "moral values", "family values". We have to hold them accountable. If they're going to have affairs like Clinton, then don't LIE about "family values" to voters.





After looking at a whole lot of threads, Skep appears to be firm on hypocrisy. Foley was guilty of that ALONE, regardless of what ever else he did.

Given Sam did not win his office on typical conservative Republican "family values" stuff, then he's not a hypocrite? If he's not, why? Isn't there an expectation of solid character, even if we differ politically?

I posted this because I am interested in the answer.

And what we think of character IS relevant, because we have a process that makes it relevant.

This is new ground here. I'm hoping the matter of hypocrisy can see some discussion in this context, without a big ass flame war I might have started. Don't make me regret this post. Just help me understand this subtle point, please.

Author: Skeptical
Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 11:22 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

(The Bigot comment was for Mc74 in another thread -- he bought up "gay" for no other reason than to make a cheap potshot.)

The very first time Vit mentioned mark foley, I did a search and came up with nothing. As vit hammered it home again, I did another search, still nothing. Clearly the burden is on the accuser here.

Vits comments had to be strange to many people because time and time again I've said in this forum I didn't care who has sex with whom. Not my business.

A thing to remember here is that running for public office requires a bit of an ego and a strict requirement for character eliminates quite a few otherwise excellent people from the mix and that'll hurt the country as a whole. As far as I know Adams won the mayor's seat by showing he was the most qualified.

Adams as of this point hasn't even been charged of a crime. If he's found guilty I'm sure he'll go without a fuss.

Author: Vitalogy
Thursday, May 07, 2009 - 10:56 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I guess I'll still be posting here, thanks KSKD!

Author: Missing_kskd
Thursday, May 07, 2009 - 10:10 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

No sweat. Can't see you taking off that easy :-)

Skep, thanks. That clears it up nicely.

Author: Vitalogy
Friday, May 08, 2009 - 10:45 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Crow. Would you like yours pan seared, oven broiled, or grilled?

Author: Vitalogy
Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 2:54 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Good thing Sam decided to call rather than text, otherwise he would be arrested just like this guy.

By KATU.com Staff

CASTLE ROCK, Wash. - A substitute high school teacher has been arrested in connection with explicit sexual text messages sent to a female student, police said.

Dustin Matthew King, 27, of Longview, Wash., was arrested Friday afternoon and booked into the Cowlitz County jail on suspicion of communication with a minor for immoral purposes. He posted bail and was released.

The text messages came to light after a fellow student at Castle Rock High School saw the explicit texts on the victim's phone and reported them to school staff, police said. Principal Jenny Risner called police, who investigated the incident.

King was working as a substitute at the high school. It was not clear if he has taught at other schools as well, said Sgt. Scott Neves, a Castle Rock police spokesman.

Police described the texts as "containing explicit sexual content." No more information on them was released.

Author: Missing_kskd
Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 3:26 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Expect to see more stories of this kind.

The up and coming generations really, really like text. They text for fun, they text anger, you name it, they text it. Dump 'em on a text, set the rebound date for the night on text, and tell mom and dad, it's all ok, on the text.

When my oldest wouldn't talk to us at all, they would still text! So, I framed them up with those damn texts (trying to manipulate the younger ones), and they texted about that too, which just made it all worse. (forwarded the mess to them, just for their own consideration, being the nice guy that I am :-)

Only after they got their asses solidly kicked, did they try and make a phone call. Well, then I was the ass, and denied that. Oh well.

Text, text, text. It's rapidly growing to be a 160 character life! I find it all very interesting, and sorry for the rant.

I doubt Sam was being smart about it. He's just not a member of Generation Text. So, he made a phone call instead. Breeder is though. Wonder how that worked?

Maybe he's not really all that hip, which is how he found his way to Sam...

Author: Vitalogy
Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 5:39 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

The only difference between the Sam Adams case and the sub teacher case is Sam's guilt is shown only in phone conversations, but no record of what was discussed. The text case, there is an iron clad written transcript of everything that was discussed that proves it was sexual in nature.

If this sub teacher got arrested, why not Sam? Is the only difference here the records that show the text versus the records that show the phone calls but no details on what was discussed?

Author: Skeptical
Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 6:47 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Why not? Evidence. If there's none, can't arrest. Surely you don't expect us to support the talibanized rule of law, do you?

Author: Missing_kskd
Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 7:09 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I think so!

The rules of evidence are well established.

To make a case, you've got to link the elements with the evidence in such a way as to meet the burden of no reasonable doubt.

Texting is way different than a set of who called who records.

In the case of texting, the content of the texts can link intent directly to the key elements of the case. With a phone record, all that can really be done is suggest the intent follows that link.

I believe the correct way to parse this is Sam's guilt is suggested by the phone call number records. The Subs guilt is embodied within the content of the text messages. We don't have the content of the phone calls, and that's the difference.

And they can make a case with the phone records. The trick is beyond a reasonable doubt. Without the content of the call, they are going to need some supporting information, or the defense would be well within their rights to just have the case dismissed for lack of compelling evidence.

Author: Beano
Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 11:57 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I think Stoner should add his 2 cents on the sam Adams issue:-)

Author: Vitalogy
Sunday, May 17, 2009 - 11:06 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Skep, do you thin OJ is innocent? By your standards, I have no other option than to believe you would think OJ is innocent.

Face the facts: What the sub did and what Sam did are the same thing. The sub didn't get away with it, Sam did. Give us a transcript of the calls and Sam would be in jail, guaranteed. End of story.

Author: Skeptical
Sunday, May 17, 2009 - 2:50 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

OJ was found not guilty. If I administered my own sense of justice to OJ because I disagreed with the court's finding, I'd find myself in jail. I don't waste my life wondering if OJ got away with murder or not.

Since you are CLEARLY incapable of telling the difference between the law and your opinion, let me unload an opinion on you -- CLEARLY by the posts in this forum, you are an unfit parent. You're perfectly willing to bend the law to fit your own warped sense of justice and this does not bode well for your child's well being.

While the law as written doesn't specifically detail the kind of child abuse you're doing, but according to the Vitalogy sense of justice, the intent is clearly there, therefore I think (and like your opinion on Sam Adams) you're clearly guilty and you should give that child to children services NOW.

If you don't like my analogy, too bad, because like your not based on fact claims about Sam Adams, I'm making the same about your child raising. Call CSD today.

Since you can't remember stuff from 2 years ago and are now trying to stuff a dead horse I don't care about down my throat, maybe you ought to step away from the computer for awhile.

Author: Vitalogy
Sunday, May 17, 2009 - 3:00 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

You can fuck yourself Skep. How dare you even judge what kind of parent I am!

And how ironic, while judging me as a parent, you're approving of an adult/minor relationship. I hope that 42 year old men aren't chasing my son around when he's 17. It's illegal, as evidenced by the arrest of the sub.

You're the scum of the earth. Fuck off.

PS. How was your crow, HYPOCRITE? You're credibility here is zero, pal.

Author: Skeptical
Sunday, May 17, 2009 - 3:14 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Glad to see you blow a gasket. This happens when you make up stuff about me and make up imaginary laws and try to play cop.

Think about it. I used one of your very own tricks that you've been using on others and turned around and applied it to yourself and you cracked. It's not so much fun when people do to you what you do to others.

If you don't like Sam Adams, fine, get off your butt and get together with stoner and empty your pocketbooks and put your money where your mouth is.

Knock it off with putting words in people's mouths just because we're not buying your BS.

What crow are you talking about? I don't see nothing that backed up your claim.

Author: Vitalogy
Sunday, May 17, 2009 - 3:35 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

KSKD posted the proof, idiot. Are you blind? Or just selective memory?

Author: Skeptical
Sunday, May 17, 2009 - 9:53 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Or just still waiting for proof.

What KSKD did do was post some quotes, some of those quotes are clearly me quoting other people's posts from the same thread. Whatever the heck you found there doesn't support your claims.

Sam Adams did not tell people not behave in their private lives.

The Foley guy DID tell people how to behave.

Same Adams isn't a hypocrite, but Foley IS, even though I don't care about the private lives of either of them.

Author: Missing_kskd
Sunday, May 17, 2009 - 10:53 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Actually, they were a mix Skep. You quoted somebody, then added commentary. What I posted was the text of two of your posts. Each contained a quote from another contributor, or more than one, followed by your original commentary. Over time, I've archived some interesting stuff with a simple "save page as", with no intent other than to be able to recall it for some writing purposes.

Thanks for the full answer just now, BTW. I see your distinction. I agree with some people being hypocrites and others not being that. Nothing worse than the anti-gay votes coming from the in the closet politician in denial, for example. it's a classic "holier than thou" move, and it sucks big. That was the point of your posts then. You are right in that, BTW.

Adams is looking pretty bad, apart from that however.

If he was telling others how to behave, it would be WORSE, but it's still pretty damn bad. There is enough on the table now to look down on Adams, even though he's not a hypocrite.

We may find we lack sufficient evidence to nail him. If that's the case, then we've got the recall process for what is essentially a public trial over whether or not what we do know matters.

I suspect it does.

And I will sign that recall petition because of what has transpired so far.

This is where I must say I do side with Vitalogy. Adams is doing the right thing by not being a hypocrite. Good on him for that. But, under 18 is wrong period. Being a pro-tolerance individual doesn't trump trolling in the under 18 waters.

What I don't know is why. Was he seduced? Was he lied to? What other contributing factors led down this road? If it was something understandable, why isn't it out there? Don't know that either, and I suspect we won't know, simply because going down that road means admission of guilt, and Sam isn't going there, no way, no how.

That's why I'll sign the petition. It's a lose lose for Sam at this point.

I think the point Vitalogy is making, and if I have it right I strongly agree, is that at some level, we do care about private lives. It's not a discriminatory thing, but an age thing. And expressing that isn't anti-anything, other than child molestor.

Nobody, no matter how good they are otherwise, gets to go down the sex road with minors.

We all should care about that, period. And what makes it worse, is Sam is a great advocate for GLBT people. His election was a high point, completely spoiled by this crap. Gives the whole community a bad name. Betcha a batch of them sign the petition too.

I know people of that persuasion, and that's exactly what they are telling me, and it makes perfect sense.

Again, if there is some explanation that could sort this out, it would involve him expressing guilt. Not gonna happen. So, he's marginalized now and we might as well move forward. Earlier, when the main issue was whether or not a kiss equaled sex, I waited to see what came out regarding intent. It hasn't been good.

Author: Skeptical
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 12:40 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Here's the thing, when Vitalogy first brought up Foley, I'm thinking who is this foley guy and why did I care about his sex life? So I do a search and there's nothing there.

I've never cared about anyone's sex life and I've said that many times, if fact I know I've said here several times that I wished all Bush had was sex and none of his WMD lies and he wouldn't have had any issue with me. Likewise with Larry Craig. I stated here I didn't care.

I've stated time and time again in this very forum when it comes to voting for a candidate I wouldn't care whomever they had sex with because I'd select the one who supported my causes.

If vitalogy hasn't been paying attention, its not really my problem, but if he is to make an accucasion, he better use the search function first!

I KNOW I never accuse anyone here of being hypocritical or contradictory without providing a DIRECT QUOTE(s) at least once in the thread.


Likely Vitalogy very well knows what I'm talking about but he's got his mind on trying to pressure me into stating that Sam Adams a child molester.

Again, if Sam Adams is guilty of breaking the law, he'll go away quietly.

In the meantime if Vitalogy can't raise his kid to be well adjusted enough to deal with adult relationships (legal or otherwise) by the time he's a few weeks shy of 18, then he's gonna have bigger problems than he can even imagine.

This busting a gasket over Sam Adams is nutty when there are real perverts out there and "age 18" is not magic number for passage from childhood to an adult.

Author: Missing_kskd
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 2:10 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I'm not sure he would go away quietly. There is a lot for him to lose, freedom and stature being the top two. That is sufficient motivation for somebody not to go away quietly.

Actually, according to the law age 18 IS the magic number. It's pretty simple law really. Statutory Rape is what it's called, and everybody, including Sam and Breedlove (christ! of all the names) knows it. Both of them knew better.

And any kid mature enough to handle that relationship would have NO problem with waiting a bit to see it through, for the greater good on both of them. Clearly that didn't happen, did it?

Sam's an ass for going down that road. And he's a fool too, given his political aspirations.

Being the mature adult, there is an extremely strong case for him knowing better, even if the kid didn't.

If either one of them, had the grounding and maturity you speak of, we would absolutely not be having this discussion.

Who Sam has sex with is not at issue. Their age is. No getting around that.

If the law is the problem, lobby to address that. Betcha you won't find all that many takers.

Supporting those that support your causes, while ignoring their violations of law isn't any different than your typical Bush supporter saying, "It all worked out in the end."

Ends don't justify means. It's disturbing that you would go down the "close enough" road on this, and that's absolutely all I have to say about it.

Author: 62kgw
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 8:44 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

was sam also offering to put that guy on the city payroll somehow? what is the hidden follow-the-money motive??

Author: Deane_johnson
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 9:44 am
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Skep, Vitalogy is a guy who likes to hide out in the weeds and yell to everyone else what they should be doing and thinking. He's not man enough to identify himself and openly stand behind his commentary and accusations.

Author: Vitalogy
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 12:13 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Ooooohhh, not man enough? Spare me. I don't need to provide my name and address to earn my "man-ness" or add credibility. If you feel the commentary is wrong, prove it. Just another for the "dodge" list, Deane.

And as far as the Foley issue goes, for the last time, the posts from that era are GONE. So, at this point, the best we have is what KSKD posted, which proves my point that Skeptical is a hypocrite by criticizing Foley but looking the other way with Adams when their behavior was the same. I don't take an argument this far unless I know 100% I'm correct.

And if you don't think 18 is the "magic" number, give the substitute teacher that just got arrrested a call and ask him whether 18 means anything.

Author: Deane_johnson
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 12:53 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Vitalogy, it seems everyone is a bad guy except you.

Author: Vitalogy
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 1:04 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I call it like I see it.

Author: Deane_johnson
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 1:15 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

"I call it like I see it."

That's obvious and explains your problem.

Author: Missing_kskd
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 1:20 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

It's not a problem.

I've seen it over and over. People get pissy when they are lacking support for their point of view.

This bit is no different.

Any of you, either post up your counter point to see if it stands, or come to acceptance that it doesn't and move on, perhaps agreeing to disagree.

Agreeing to disagree on 18 not being the magic number is disturbing though. Think that over first.

Author: Vitalogy
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 2:29 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Deane, since you call it like you see it, you must have the same problem I do.

Author: Deane_johnson
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 2:31 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

"you must have the same problem I do."

You can be sure that's not the case.

Author: Vitalogy
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 2:59 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

You said on the PC thread that you take every opportunity to be un-PC. That's calling it like you see it. So if you're un-PC, you have the same problem you're accusing me of. If not, then you're a hypocrite.

Author: Mc74
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 5:34 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I have no idea what makes this thread so popular, I can agree with you that Adams is a scum bag but until the investigation is done I dont see much of a point in talking about it.

Either way he is done. He will never be elected to anything other again other then Grand Marshall at the gay parade.

Author: Trixter
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 6:40 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Who cares!
Mc74 calls me 37 times a day and texts me another 45 and I don't think.... He has a crush on me....
:-)

Author: Skeptical
Monday, May 18, 2009 - 11:30 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I'm not sure he would go away quietly. There is a lot for him to lose, freedom and stature being the top two.

He seriously considered it last January. I'm also thinking Adams doesn't crave the attention as much as the average politican does. Unlike many career politican, Adams has skills that will serve him well in the private or non-profit sector -- an executive director of a large non-profit in trouble comes to mind.

according to the law age 18 IS the magic number. It's pretty simple law really.

I agree, this why if the AG says what he did broke the law, I'll yield to that decision, even through I think 17 ought to be the magic number. Unless there is something that previously has not been disclosed to us, Adams will go quietly because for many of us, that's the benchamrk we choose to look at.


Topics Profile Last Day Last Week Search Tree View Log Out     Administration
Topics Profile Last Day Last Week Search Tree View Log Out   Administration
Welcome to Feedback.pdxradio.com message board
For assistance, read the instructions or contact us.
Powered by Discus Pro
http://www.discusware.com