Actually, I apologize Mike, I clicked on the wrong box and it went to you by mistake. I noticed you wrote that there is no reason to believe Republicans are any more likely to be sexual deviants...



>I don't know if you meant to send that to someone else or just read my message backwards. I said there is no reason to believe Republicans are any more likely to be sexual deviants than anyone else.
>
>BTW, I think you mean "accepted" near the end, not "excepted."
>
>
>>Where is the proof that the majority of sexual deviants are Republican? That statement really should NOT be made without providing substantive results of professionally excepted studies...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>I usually agree with you, but not in this case. For one thing the story is all over the news, so you can't say it has been hushed up. I also don't think there is anything about Republicans that makes them more likely to be sexual predators than anyone else. Kind of a cheap shot IMO.
>>>>
>>>>Well it was hushed up for many months before it saw the sunshine.
>>>>
>>>>But I do agree that party affiliation has little to do with social deviance. Though I'd bet that MBAs, deviants+, are mainly Republicans.
>>>
>>>MBAs? Maybe the acronym means something different from what I am thinking of, which is people with Management in Business Administration degrees. I have no doubt they are predominantly Republican but don't get the link to sexual deviants.