Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Spokane mayor takes leave
amid sex probe

Report: West offered jobs to men met in chat
rooms; computers seized
The Associated Press


Updated: 10:58 p.m. ET May 9, 2005SPOKANE, Wash. - Embattled Mayor James West said Monday he will take a leave of absence for a ?few weeks? to prepare to defend himself against a newspaper?s allegations of child molestation and that he offered city jobs to men he met online.

West told the City Council that the molestation allegations reported in The Spokesman-Review last week were false and that he would take his first vacation since taking office in January 2004 to prepare a response.

?I hope that you and the people will reserve judgment on me until the newspaper is done persecuting me and allow me to have the fair opportunity to respond to each of the allegations in due time,? West said at the beginning of the council meeting.

He left without taking questions.

Job offers to chat-room denizens?
An hour after West?s announcement, the paper posted a new story on its Web site alleging West offered city jobs to two young men he met through a gay Internet chat room ? and that one of them briefly accepted a city appointment.

Ryan Oelrich, an openly gay 24-year-old, told the paper he accepted West?s appointment to the city?s Human Rights Commission in April 2004 after meeting West online at Gay.com.

Oelrich said he resigned from the commission in January after West ?hounded me for months, telling me I was cute and asking me out on dates.? Oelrich said he refused the mayor?s advances, the newspaper reported.

The newspaper said another man, who is 25 and spoke on condition of anonymity, said West offered him a job as the city's human resources director, but the man said he was not qualified.

When he rejected the human resources job offer, the man said West offered him a job as aquatics director, overseeing operations at the city's swimming pools, the newspaper reported. The man did not accept that job either.

Calls placed Monday to the mayor's office and City Attorney Mike Connelly seeking comment on the latest allegations were not immediately return ed.

Abuse allegations date to 1970s
The newspaper on Thursday published a series of reports that West had been accused of abusing boys while he was a sheriff?s deputy and Boy Scout leader in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

West, a former Republican state Senate leader and staunch opponent of gay rights, denied those allegations but subsequently acknowledged that he had visited the gay online chat room and had relations with adult men.

The articles resulted in a number of calls for West to resign.

Earlier Monday, city officials seized West?s City Hall computers for an investigation into whether he improperly used them to visit gay chat rooms.

And Monday afternoon, a Spokane resident, Shannon Sullivan, filed a recall petition against West. If the petition is approved by a judge, recall supporters would have to gather more than 12,000 signatures to place the issue on the ballot.

Admits offering internship, memorabilia

The newspaper alleged that West offered autographed sports memorabilia and a possible City Hall internship to someone he thought was an 18-year-old man in a chat room. The man was actually a computer expert hired by The Spokesman-Review as part of a journalism sting operation.

West also disputed a story in Sunday?s newspaper that quoted a city councilwoman as saying he told her that he had masturbated in his office. West said he was at home, not in his office, when the simulated online sex occurred, the newspaper reported.

The Spokesman-Review has called for West?s resignation, saying in an editorial Sunday that he can no longer govern effectively. The Seattle Times also called for West to step down, as did a national gay advocacy organization.

?This man ? whether he?s straight, bisexual, or gay ? deserves nothing but scorn,? said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C. ?He needs to resign immediately.?

What a fucking loser.

What a dick.

But I'm gunna guess if this was a Democrat Mayor, SLCPunk wouldn't have mentioned it!

and I'm gonna guess that if this Republican Mayor hadnt been publicly caught, you'd be licking his balls because he's an anti-gay crusader which you blindly support.  Funny eh?


Makes me wonder, how many of the outspoken anti-gay crusaders are, in fact, little faggots in the closet.  That's why you guys are so quick to denounce him - because he lifted the smokescreen.


Soundtrack for this thread:

A Devil with a crucifix, brimstone and fire,
He needs another carnal fix to take him higher and higher.
Now Jimmy he got busted with his pants down,
Repent ye wretched sinners, self righteous clown.

Miracle Man, you're busted   :yes:

For someone that is pro-gay rights, that is hardly a PC term to use.? Perhaps it shows your true bigotry.? Sure some of us are against gay marriage, but I would never use that term to represent someone that was gay.

No I wouldn't be licking his balls, I'd probably be slaggin him off like every1 else. Yea, nice bit o' un PC language there, I'm pretty sure u'd be slaggin me off as a facist or summat if i'd have said tht

In random's defense, I think the term was being used in an ironic way. A lot of Republicans are anti-gay, because they view gay lifestyles as deviant. And they're always judging gay men and using derogatory terms. Like in the movie "Philadelphia", the rich, white lawyers(whom were probably Republicans) would sit around the locker room telling offensive gay jokes. And they fired that dude, not because he had AIDS, but because he was a "faggot". ?

THANK YOU, JOURNEY

I took the Ann Coulter approach to getting people to respond - and it worked!  :rofl:  But I'll be nice & PC from here on out.  : ok:

---

My true bigotry?  that's pretty funny considering this is one of the few issues I get worked up about.   I'm surprised you couldnt see why I was using that word. 

And I stand by what I said.  You're ashamed that one of your crusaders turned out to be a homosexual, so you're quick to distance yourself from him. 

It's the best way to silence this thread instead of discussing the hypocrisy of these anti-gay crusaders.   But I didnt want this thread to be silenced.




If this was just an article about a Republican  Mayor being anti-gay, and he had not been publicly caught, what reason would you have to slag him off?  After all, he's just obediently voicing your agenda - nevermind the fact that's it's a big fucking lie.

you know liberals really know how to judge ppl such as republicans, im so glad that you guys have us so figured out... that man does not represent conservatives at all, hes a sick pervert.. thats it.. homosexuality to me is just a perversion.. so go for it idc what u stick in your ass as long as you dont do it to me.. not that they would want too

and yet he was elected by Republicans to be Mayor because he parroted their agenda. 


But now his little secret is out ppl!!1!!  So let's call him a "dick", "fucking loser", a "sick pervert" because it's easier than discussing the issue.

who gives a flying fuck what party he represents. he's anti-gay when it suits him and loves the cock behind closed doors. it's political scandal at its best.

I'd prefer sick hypocrite but I suppose "dick" will do.


And you would be right...

speaking of hypocrits....

....in the afghanistan/newsweek thread you berate slcpunk for not discussing the issue and simply turning the thread into a hatebush thread, yet here you've lightly touched on the issue and turned the thread into a hate slcpunk thread.

I just found the fact that you could write what you have above and then 3 minutes later apparantly contradict yourself a tad interesting.

I don't think you can say anyone has turned this into a "hate SLCPUNK" thread just yet.

I responded to axl_rose_700 and his comments.

...about the topic as well as the person who started it.

With a number of people here (and I'm sure the same goes for me) I've learned to "read between the lines."? I look at not only what a person says but also why they're saying it.

Right.

That is the whole point.

He's their anti-gay hero before. Denouncing homosexuals and advocating traditional family values in the community. Hurrah!!!

But when he get caught not only being a hypocrite, but a homosexual, you guys say he sucks.

Such is a Republican.

Probably not, because more than likely, a Dem Mayor wouldn't be out their preaching the evils of homosexuals.

you know, I was getting all worked up about this until you posted in a level-headed manner and it calmed me down.  For sure, this Mayor is now an embarrassment to his folks, and the easiest way to minimize the scandal is to call him a few names, and hope that the thread is forgotten.


But I read so much more into this than just denouncing him or the religious right-wing.  There's others like him who have been publicly shamed and I wont even start with pedophile priests here. I have spent many sleepless nights wondering about people like this Mayor.  Why do they act like this?

If homosexuality is just a choice, then why didnt he just stick with the anti-gay crusades and continue to be elected - so simple, so easy!  Why be gay and anti-gay at the same time!  It seems like the most venomous crusaders are the ones who hate themselves for it, and realize they dont have a choice.  And their only consolation is to make other people suffer the living hell too.

what if he were only posing as an Anti Gay guy but was getting elected and trying to help gay people? would that matter any?

To me he is no different than any other politician, all politicians lie and do whatever they can to get votes and 99 percent of them whether they are democrat or republican are fake.

He would never get elected championing gay rights so to keep his career political job, he had to act and put on a front, but it isnt any different than any other politician running for office.

difference is, he is gay and it makes him out to be somewhat of a hypocrite

but maybe he thinks if he can stay in office, he can try to change things a little at a time.

the jacking off to gay.com at work thing and telling was bizarre, offering jobs to gay guys isnt a huge deal, im sure many  many hetro bosses hire attractive females in the same vein.

So is he fucked up? Sure

but show me one politican who isnt.

D hit the nail on the head here.

Let's see, no-one is a hero of mine who slags off gays for no reason, with some people in the extremes he may be, but you can't judge someone's political views by the extremes of it, you'd be quick to complain if i started saying all left wing views were as evil as Joseph Stalins.

The problem I have with him (i live in the uk so didnt know anythinga bout him b4 this thread, altho am quite conservative) is that he is obviously a liar and a hypocrite, not that hes gay, if he'd have come out and said he was gay, it wouldnt stop me voting for him.

Nice try!  I dont buy it.  I think you slipped up.  It is an easy cop out to say that you were using it in an ironic way.  I dont see how you could read it that way. 

Speaking of irony, I thought it was ironic that you jumped on the thread to become a defender of gays, but probably made the most offensive post towards gays I have seen in a while.

GnRNightrain, you've been coming here long enough to know that random is not a bigot. I think you're getting your panties in a wad for no reason. And it seems to me, by personally attacking random, you're avoiding the main subject.

These particular Republicans have made a career out of bashing gay men and keeping them from marrying and having other rights. And it is clearly ironic that one of them is in fact gay.

No Irony at all.

Fact is this: He in this case (like I do) put it out there like the Right wing does....ugly and rude. In your face.

When the shoe is on the other foot you all cry like babies.

Certainly he is not a biggot.  No more than any of us that are against gay marriage etc.

I just found it funny that he ran in here on his high horse to condemn those that are traditionally on the other side of gay issues, and in the process he made the most offensive comment to those that are gay.

Surely it is ironic that one of them is gay.  That is why I called him a fucking a loser.  But it is also ironic that someone would come in to bash these people for being hypocritical against gays, and then mistakenly say something offensive against gays.

Certainly you do put it in our face.  You try so hard that sometimes you dont read what you actually write.  That certainly was the case here. 

Also note though SLC, we have the ability to bash a republican.  We dont defend him or blame his misdoings on Bush or Michael Moore etc.

Analogies can not be overlooked, especially at such a crucial time in human history and the destruction of human life.

I have and will hold Clinton accountable for his bullshit too. But guess what? He ain't prez right now.

You refuse to bash anyone that is liberal, including Newsweek.  Instead you blame Bush.  That is hardly holding anyone accountable except Bush. 

Your analogies were justifications for newsweeks actions.  Ill bet you condone them misleading people if it makes Bush look bad.

If I'm mistaken, werent almost "ALL" politicans against gays?

If you are unable to see the analogy between W's move (to war) based on a (faulty) source and Newsweeks move based on theirs, then you are an idiot.

I am not defending newsweek. I said the verdict is out and it has not been proven false and they used a government source.

Innocent until proven guilty, in case you forgot.

Yet your only source of Bush being a liar is the memo that came out last week.  Im sorry, but I was under the impression that you thought he was a liar for a while.

Yet your only source of Bush being a liar is the memo that came out last week. 

That was one of many.....

newsweek has admitted they fucked up.

bush has not been found guilty of anything. so he's innocent. glad we cleared that up.

almost 4 years and still no terror attacks on our soil....

slipped up?  that only works if this were a spoken conversation, an IM chat, or some other 'real-time' discussion.  But this isnt.  I have plenty of time to review my post before I submit it.  Hence, if I choose to use an offensive word, I must have a reason for doing so.  Have you ever seen me make jokes in bad taste?  We all know each other relatively well in the Jungle so if you cant take the time to understand my motive, that is your own short sightedness. 



Then, stop, use your brain and try to understand why I used that word.  Why would I make a post offensive to myself and possibly others on this board?  However, since you're so keen to stand up for some of these hypothetical offended  people, I will ask that ANYONE who was offended by my post kindly take the time to read every post I made in this thread.  If you still feel offended, you can PM me or voice your distress in this thread, and I'll be glad to explain. 



To repeat, This is not an IM chat - I am not typing in real-time.  If I used an offensive word, it is not "mistaken" - I have a reason for it. 

FEEL FREE TO IGNORE THE REST OF THIS POST AND KEEP TELLING ME THAT I SLIPPED UP. 


But to get back to this thread.  You called him a fucking loser.  I dont care what name you give him. I was trying to figure out what makes him tick.  I know you dont care, but I do. 

I want to know why someone who is truly gay would ally themselves with the anti-gay movement.   I think about that a lot because there's many people like him.  You remember the crazy miltary dad in American Beauty?  There's a lot of people like him in real life.


Only D gave a response:  "what if he were only posing as an Anti Gay guy but was getting elected and trying to help gay people? would that matter any?"


Maybe. but I cant tell from this article alone.  The older generation of homosexuals have learned to conform and act like everyone else.  Many of them lead double lives and often have wives and children!  In fact, some of them dont support gay marriage or civil unions because it's too showy, and they are comfortable with their double lives.  Although I disagree with them, I completely understand their point of view because many heterosexual people really do feel threatened by gays, and those awful gay parades dont help either.  But I think it's more likely that this Mayor hates himself for being gay, and joining the anti-gay movement is his way of atoning.  You might think that's crazy, but there's many people in the same boat.