No problem. I get enough grief already when I really do trash the Republicans <g>.


>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.