Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I mean, Proteas, come on.
Haha.

At 5/8/10 12:40 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/8/10 12:34 AM, fli wrote: WHY would he bother finding a male escort to travel with him to Europe... when he can get somebody on his staff?

Would you want to travel to Europe for ten days with your boss?

Oh heck no... blah-- he's been hitting me since last year, and he's just way too femmy... you can even hear it in his voice.

At 5/8/10 12:24 AM, Proteas wrote: Call me a delusional drug user. Pfft.

Delusional drug user.

At 5/8/10 01:49 AM, poxpower wrote: I mean, Proteas, come on.
Haha.

I take that back. If I was looking for someone to hire to take care of my luggage, this would be the perfect site to browse! Look at that fine muscular man! I'm sure he would have no problem at all toting my luggage around with muscles like those.

At 5/8/10 01:02 AM, Proteas wrote: Reker admitted to hiring a travel assistant, the gay prostitute denied that he was hired as such, ergo what I said earlier about one man's word versus the other.

Except the process involved in hiring the gay prostitute pretty much makes it clear HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING.

"Click here to hire GAY PROSTITUTE" is a little hard to misconstrue Proteas......

"Please enter your credit card number to finalize purchase of GAY PROSTITUTE" is a tad difficult to misinterpret Proteas.....

Do yourself a favor:
Go through the site as if you were Reker and see if the information can be misconstrued into thinking he was hiring a "travel assistant" and not a "GAY PROSTITUTE"...
...
...
...
..
GAY PROSTITUTE.

At 5/8/10 01:24 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: dude did you even read THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD?

Have you been reading what's been said in this topic?

At 5/8/10 01:57 AM, Imperator wrote: Except the process involved in hiring the gay prostitute pretty much makes it clear HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING.

Assuming he was the one that actually did the hiring, and not a member of Rekers' staff at he University, which again goes back to the question of "why would someone that rich with that many responsibilities be bothered with the minute details of planning a trip" that none of you will address. It's just as plausible (if not more likely) that this guy really didn't know that he hired a gay prostitute as it is that he did, what's pissing everyone off is that I'm actually doing what I've been taught to do and looking at this in a rational manner instead of just jadedly jumping to conclusions like the rest of you would....

which is mildly ironic when you think about it... think for yourself, but if you dare speak out against the rest of the group we'll beat your ass back into place like the idiot you are.

Also, the organization he helped found has taken on a life of it's own, it doesn't need him in order to carry out it's mission and it's not going to come crumbling to the ground because of this. The laws he helped sponsor will not be struck down because of this. His job at the university will not be effected by this. He will not be personally effected by this. So ask yourself this... so what if this guy is gay?

At 5/8/10 11:06 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: yeah and you look kinda silly. like you started replying to the topic without having read the article first.

I read enough of it to know that it's a biased piece of trash parading itself as honest journalism.

so what else is there we need to know?

Is he really an in the closet republican hypocrite the way he's being portrayed by the people in this topic and the news media? That's what he's being accused of, that's what I'm asking for proof of, and since everybody else in this topic seems to be such an expert on the subject with firsthand knowledge of sitation, why is it not fair for me to ask?

And if he is... why did he break this story to the news media?

This is still a developing story, Steve, you don't have all the details about it despite what you may think.

At 5/8/10 12:22 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: in other words, you stopped at the title, right?

Funny. You're giving me crap for actually staying "on topic" when you're the one trying to shift the focus off topic from what's being discussed.

what are you saying? that he advertised this to the paper himself? what the what?

His comments about the situation were a key part of the original Miami NewTimes article, so either (a) he went to the newspaper and talked to them about it or (b) they sought him out for comment, which he willingly obliged them with (more likely the B situation). In either instance, it doesn't make sense for somebody who is a closet republican he's being described as to openly discuss the situation, mmkay?

lol okay, if it's a developing story then why are you so quick to assert that it won't affect this man's personal life when, quite clearly, it's ALREADY affecting both his personal and his professional life? honestly, what would even compel you to write, in bold-faced type, "He will not be personally effected by this" when the story is, as you said, still developing?

Because he's not an elected politician, he can't be forced to answer any questions on the matter under penalty of law and nobody can vote against him out of spite. At the end of the day, he's still got a Ph.D. and Th.D. and teaches at the university of South Carolina -- in addition to several books -- which all told has probably netted this guy more money than all of us will see in our lifetimes. The worst thing that can happen to this guy is a bunch of finger wagging from talking heads in the media, or as has already happened, people distance themselves from him (such as the case with the organization he helped found with Dr. James Dobson).

At the end of the day, the only bad thing that will happen to this guy is a bit of bad press. It will make people pay attention to what him and others like him say with regards to homosexuality, and in the end, will possibly bring more followers to his message into the fold.

you're acting like everyone else is jumping to conclusions based on a lack of information... but hey, that's exactly what you're doing.

The only conclusions I've drawn from this is that his job won't be effected any, and in a week's time people will have forgotten about this. That's all. I'm still undecided about wether he's gay or not, and I have no more reason (or proof) to believe he is than any of you.

but if he DID in fact have a staffer make the arrangements, i want to know from YOU how reasonable it is that he wouldn't think to simply blame the staffer for what the staffer had arranged?

This wasn't a sit down interview with the Miami NewTimes, steve, it was probably just a few passing comments he made to the member of the media harassing him as he went through the streets.

Or did you fail to notice that the article has all of 13 words from the guy, with no further comments?

AND if you want to still call it a "his word against the other guys" scenario, then explain to me what the gay prostitute has to GAIN by being dishonest

Business for the website he advertises through, which in turn equals more business for him.

I'm curious how many hits Rentboy.com has gotten since this broke.

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2 010/05/george_rekers_is_a_homosexual_say s_escort.php
"Rekers allegedly named his favorite maneuver the "long stroke" -- a complicated caress "across his penis, thigh... and his anus over the butt cheeks," as the escort puts it. "Rekers liked to be rubbed down there," he says."

Haha, this just keeps getting better. xD

Hey Proteas, does this look like the picture of a butler of a really gay butler?

At 5/8/10 10:00 AM, Proteas wrote: Assuming he was the one that actually did the hiring, and not a member of Rekers' staff at he University, which again goes back to the question of "why would someone that rich with that many responsibilities be bothered with the minute details of planning a trip" that none of you will address.

Well.....I'm not addressing it because I thought "I hired him" was rather clear.
But I suppose I can elaborate:

I is the 1st person singular nominative form personal pronoun. It denotes the person acting upon the verb, in this case, Reker. So when he says "I hired him", Rekers is making it clear that Rekers himself, not a staffer, made the actions of going to Rentboy.com and hiring that male prostitute.

Had he said, "My staff hired him", you'd have a point.

But he didn't.
And you don't.

It's just as plausible (if not more likely) that this guy really didn't know that he hired a gay prostitute as it is that he did,

Only if you have absolutely no understanding of the word "I", that is.....

what's pissing everyone off is that I'm actually doing what I've been taught to do and looking at this in a rational manner instead of just jadedly jumping to conclusions like the rest of you would....

No, what's pissing everyone off is you're ignoring fairly obvious details to look for loopholes.
If you close you eyes while driving, you don't get to claim you "didn't know" you just ran a red light.

which is mildly ironic when you think about it... think for yourself, but if you dare speak out against the rest of the group we'll beat your ass back into place like the idiot you are.

By all means, think for yourself, and reserve judgement until more facts are in. But don't deny the facts already presented.

Course, thinking is a verb, so to think for yourself, it DOES require you actually do some.....thinking....

Also, the organization he helped found has taken on a life of it's own, it doesn't need him in order to carry out it's mission and it's not going to come crumbling to the ground because of this.

Agreed.

The laws he helped sponsor will not be struck down because of this. His job at the university will not be effected by this. He will not be personally effected by this. So ask yourself this... so what if this guy is gay?

If an average person came out of the closet, it's no big deal. But when an anti-gay activist turns out to be gay? DELICIOUS IRONY.

This is why it's so fun to watch politicians flip flop on their stances. It's DELICIOUS to see strong vocal opponents of XYZ go out into the world and promote XYZ.

At 5/8/10 03:11 PM, Imperator wrote: Well.....I'm not addressing it because I thought "I hired him" was rather clear.

I'm looking at it from the point of view of how he could have gotten halfway through the vacation without knowing the guy was a gay prostitute, that's all. I have presented a very plausible scenario to explain this that fits in with what he has said. The fact that you want to sit there and belittle me personally for doing so is itself blatantly pathetic.

If an average person came out of the closet, it's no big deal. But when an anti-gay activist turns out to be gay? DELICIOUS IRONY.

So your admitting that this topic serves no other purpose than for you guys to just yuck it up over this issue? That it serves no higher purpose than to entertain you all, or that there was ever any intention of intelligent conversation beyond "GAY REPUBLICAN LOLZORS!!!"?

At 5/8/10 03:44 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm looking at it from the point of view of how he could have gotten halfway through the vacation without knowing the guy was a gay prostitute, that's all. I have presented a very plausible scenario to explain this that fits in with what he has said. The fact that you want to sit there and belittle me personally for doing so is itself blatantly pathetic.

What you're ignoring:
The other half of the vacation.

You could make a perfectly reasonable scenario depicting that only one half of the alphabet exists too.

You'd still be ignoring the other half of the alphabet.

See, I have no problem with the theory that this was an honest mistake......
I have a problem with the theory depicting Reker as anything other than a dumbass though, because the only way this could be an honest mistake is if Reker is completely oblivious and was on some serious drugs for most of the vacation.

So your admitting that this topic serves no other purpose than for you guys to just yuck it up over this issue?

That's all I'm doing in it, I can't really speak for everyone else. Of course, mocking you for your "stop making fun of republicans!" rants is also quite entertaining.

The "larger issue" is politicians being hypocrites. Seen it before, will see it again. The more entrenched a politician is in the belief, the more newsworthy and DELICIOUS IRONY involved when they betray their own cause.

So no, this thread serves no other purpose than to bash the idiot who got caught with his pants down. And by the way, thank you for contributing to my amusement. This thread probably wouldn't have made it to pg 2 without you. :)

That it serves no higher purpose than to entertain you all, or that there was ever any intention of intelligent conversation beyond "GAY REPUBLICAN LOLZORS!!!"?

Well, I'm more interested in the "my political stance is anti-XYZ but my personal life is pro-XYZ" angle.
I could care less whether he was Republican or not.

Besides which, why are you defending the Republican party? They're the big bad Republican party, THEY DON'T NEED DEFENDING.

They don't care what pissants like me think, and they probably care even less about you. I never get the crusader like fervor when it comes to defending organizations that are powerful enough to not give a shit, or defend themselves.

You yourself already said this won't change a damn thing, so why are you putting on the battle cap and manning a post to defend him (and by virtue, the Republican party at large)?

At 5/8/10 03:44 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/8/10 03:11 PM, Imperator wrote: Well.....I'm not addressing it because I thought "I hired him" was rather clear.

I'm looking at it from the point of view of how he could have gotten halfway through the vacation without knowing the guy was a gay prostitute,

Actually he said that it was to "help a lost soul", so he knew all along.
A lost soul who gives great penis massages incidentally.

At 5/8/10 04:05 PM, Imperator wrote: And by the way, thank you for contributing to my amusement. This thread probably wouldn't have made it to pg 2 without you. :)

And thank you for confirming to me that you have all the maturity of a twelve year old from general forum.

Besides which, why are you defending the Republican party? They're the big bad Republican party, THEY DON'T NEED DEFENDING.

Somebody had to argue in favor of the opposing side, otherwise this would have just been another mindless excuse for mental masturbation.

And besides that, you and I both know such a line would not fly if I were to use it in a topic openly poking fun at democrats. I'd have every member of this forum and THEN SOME on my ass faster than Medgar Evers at a Klan rally.

At 5/8/10 05:48 PM, Proteas wrote: And thank you for confirming to me that you have all the maturity of a twelve year old from general forum.

GLEE. :)

Somebody had to argue in favor of the opposing side, otherwise this would have just been another mindless excuse for mental masturbation.

Probably.

And besides that, you and I both know such a line would not fly if I were to use it in a topic openly poking fun at democrats. I'd have every member of this forum and THEN SOME on my ass faster than Medgar Evers at a Klan rally.

Oh, come now. Democrats have no spines, they'd say "ur bein mean!" and that's about it.
But yes, as often the case, when the reverse happens people conveniently change their attitude and renege on their convictions.

Hence DELICIOUS IRONY.

Then again, I'm a Ron Paul Revolutionary, so I'm apt to see idiocy on both sides of the fence.

At 5/8/10 04:05 PM, Imperator wrote: Besides which, why are you defending the Republican party? They're the big bad Republican party, THEY DON'T NEED DEFENDING.

I've read the posts, and I don't think it's the Republicans who's being criticized-- It's George Reker.

And he should be criticized rightly so because he is in a position of power that would affect the lives of the LGBT community-- all the while, receiving (or giving?) one type of erotic massage that I have YET discovered in my 28 years of existence upon this Earth. (And mind you-- this revelation is like... teaching an old whore a new trick.)

However, if there's some talk about Republican values-- that's because it's set against anything homosexual in general.

And it's not that they should become homosexuals, but allow them to live their lives-- but, it's becoming increasing difficult to remain civil when folks like Rekers and Roy Ashburn aid the passage of DOMA and Proposition 8, and yeah--

everyone is getting UGLY.
But keep in mind, this is Reker's time under the sun-- not his political party's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/america s/8665812.stm

"If you talk with my travel assistant... you will find I spent a great deal of time sharing scientific information on the desirability of abandoning homosexual intercourse, and I shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him in great detail."

Musta been a fun trip.

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2 010/05/george_rekers_is_a_homosexual_say s_escort.php

"Rekers allegedly named his favorite maneuver the "long stroke" -- a complicated caress "across his penis, thigh... and his anus over the butt cheeks," as the escort puts it. "Rekers liked to be rubbed down there," he says."

I wonder if he talked to him about Jesus while doing that.

http://gawker.com/5533157/rentboy+hiring -homophobe-george-rekers-urges-hired-esc ort-to-keep-quiet

And in a conversation he doesn't deny it.

At 5/8/10 05:48 PM, Proteas wrote: And thank you for confirming to me that you have all the maturity of a twelve year old from general forum.

Wow, check the ad hominem, when did you become memorize?

Somebody had to argue in favor of the opposing side, otherwise this would have just been another mindless excuse for mental masturbation.

And what's wrong with that? No one HAD to argue the other side, you just chose to, and you did it poorly. So now I think you're trying to back away and be all like "oh, I was just playing devil's advocate hahaha" that seems pretty dishonest from where I sit.

And besides that, you and I both know such a line would not fly if I were to use it in a topic openly poking fun at democrats. I'd have every member of this forum and THEN SOME on my ass faster than Medgar Evers at a Klan rally.

and again I say "so what?" why does NG or any forum anywhere have to have some sort of "balance" or "equal time" thing? It's a fucking internet forum! It's made up of the people in it. Just like you have red states and blue states, you'll find that at a community level anywhere, whether online or IRL. I don't understand how this is relevant to anything at all.

At 5/8/10 05:48 PM, Proteas wrote: And besides that, you and I both know such a line would not fly if I were to use it in a topic openly poking fun at democrats. I'd have every member of this forum and THEN SOME on my ass faster than Medgar Evers at a Klan rally.

Why not? While it wouldn't be as funny as George Reker having gay butt sex, I would still laugh at some stupid ass if he wanted to criminalize guns but was found at a shooting club.

At 5/9/10 12:24 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Wow, check the ad hominem, when did you become memorize?

He trolled me, I fell for it, ergo the ad hominem.

And what's wrong with that? No one HAD to argue the other side, you just chose to, and you did it poorly. So now I think you're trying to back away and be all like "oh, I was just playing devil's advocate hahaha" that seems pretty dishonest from where I sit.

I did not intend it to come across as me playing devil's advocate, I meant it in the sense that if I didn't say anything in defense of the guy, no one else would have. This is supposed to a place of intelligent and rational debate, I wanted to debate the issue of people jumping to the conclusion that this guy is a closet homosexual without a confirmation one way or the other, and that's what I did. And in the end the only person in all this who can confirm that Rekers is a homosexual is Rekers himself, and you can't blame me for wanting to hear this guy say it himself when I know there's a good number of you wanting to hear it as well just to further your own amusement.

But to borrow from something that has been previously said in this topic, how everyone in this topic perceives him to be is inconsequential in the matter. Your accusations don't mean anything to this guy, and he doesn't need my defense.

At 5/9/10 01:33 AM, Proteas wrote: He trolled me, I fell for it, ergo the ad hominem.

I don't honestly think he was trolling you any more then anybody else has trolled you here. Nobody seems to be picking a fight with you just to pick a fight, we're all just baffled that you seem to be ignoring facts, something I've never pegged you as one to do.

I did not intend it to come across as me playing devil's advocate, I meant it in the sense that if I didn't say anything in defense of the guy, no one else would have.

Again to this I say: So? Why does he necessarily deserve to be defended? It seems to me he was all but caught with the guys cock in some orifice. It seems to me based on the evidence there's nothing really to defend.

This is supposed to a place of intelligent and rational debate, I wanted to debate the issue of people jumping to the conclusion that this guy is a closet homosexual without a confirmation one way or the other, and that's what I did. And in the end the only person in all this who can confirm that Rekers is a homosexual is Rekers himself, and you can't blame me for wanting to hear this guy say it himself when I know there's a good number of you wanting to hear it as well just to further your own amusement.

We do, but we know he won't until either the evidence is completely incontravertible (and give it a little while) or until he's found a way to spin it so he gets sympathy. Know how I know this? Because that's how EVERY SINGLE prior scandal of this nature whether it be republican or democrat has gone. This is so cliche now someone should just publish a "how to" book for it.

But to borrow from something that has been previously said in this topic, how everyone in this topic perceives him to be is inconsequential in the matter. Your accusations don't mean anything to this guy, and he doesn't need my defense.

Our accusations? Nope, he don't care. People who effect any sort of money making endeavors he could involve himself in? Oh, I'm sure he cares a great deal about that. I guarantee you this is going to cost him some dough just by the appearance that he's a liar and a hypocrite.

At 5/9/10 12:55 AM, Gorgonof wrote:

At 5/8/10 05:48 PM, Proteas wrote: And besides that, you and I both know such a line would not fly if I were to use it in a topic openly poking fun at democrats. I'd have every member of this forum and THEN SOME on my ass faster than Medgar Evers at a Klan rally.

Why not? While it wouldn't be as funny as George Reker having gay butt sex, I would still laugh at some stupid ass if he wanted to criminalize guns but was found at a shooting club.

He wasn't into anal sex, just having a hot guy give him long sensual massages. That's probably how he justifies it to himself. If no holes are involved, it's not sex.

"I did not intend it to come across as me playing devil's advocate, I meant it in the sense that if I didn't say anything in defense of the guy, no one else would have. This is supposed to a place of intelligent and rational debate, I wanted to debate the issue of people jumping to the conclusion that this guy is a closet homosexual without a confirmation one way or the other, and that's what I did. And in the end the only person in all this who can confirm that Rekers is a homosexual is Rekers himself, and you can't blame me for wanting to hear this guy say it himself when I know there's a good number of you wanting to hear it as well just to further your own amusement."

He's pretty clearly guilty. His rent boy says so. If you want to maintain some balance, just give a counter example. Just because you're on someone's side, doesn't mean you should ignore the facts. Just say something like... "It's sad that he would be such a hypocrit. But at least he wasn't letting his prostitute boyfriend run a prostitute ring from his taxpayer funded home like Barney Frank. "Exceptionally good-looking, personable, muscular athlete is available. Hot bottom plus large endowment equals a good time".

He didn't deny, in the phone conversation, that he'd got a sensual massage. And seeking out a gay prostitute will always be very suspicious.

I'm not sure which is more funny, ANOTHER anti-gay republican getting caught red handed, or watching Proteas fumbling around with an explanation of innocence. Maybe Proteas is right, maybe all these situations are being blown out of proportion. Like Larry Craig, was he looking for sex, or did he just need some more TP? And Roy Ashburn, he wasn't driving some gay slut back to his house, he was helping out a hitch hiker, right? And well Rekers, that is clearly a case of Rekers trying to "cure" this lost soul, for ten days, in Europe, while learning some new power stroke thing.

At 5/9/10 01:45 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I don't honestly think he was trolling you any more then anybody else has trolled you here.

Telling and showing me how I'm wrong is one thing, sitting there laughing about it and acting like I'm here for your amusement? If it's not trolling, it sure is annoying.

we're all just baffled that you seem to be ignoring facts, something I've never pegged you as one to do.

Beyond the 10 day Europe trip, the only facts regarding this case are circumstantial at best, one man's word versus another. Rekers is saying one thing, Lucien is saying another, neither man's story is in agreement with the other but everybody is jumping on the "OMG it's another hypocrite" bandwagon. Last I checked, you couldn't convict a man of a crime based on hearsay testimony without corroborating evidence.

That's what I've taken issue with in this topic.

At 5/9/10 09:45 AM, Proteas wrote: Telling and showing me how I'm wrong is one thing, sitting there laughing about it and acting like I'm here for your amusement? If it's not trolling, it sure is annoying.

Oh come on! The article was pretty clear, and you're sitting here trying to come up with excuses like "maybe a staffer hired the male prostitute? U GUYZ R JUMPIN CONCLUSIONS!!"

Ignoring things like, he himself admitted to hiring the male prostitute, and then admitted the reason he hired him was to "save a lost soul". And you STILL tried to play it like he was ignorant, saying it's one man's word against another.

No, it's one man's word against HIMSELF, since his statements contradict the very things you've said were alternate possibilities.

I'm laughing at you because I'm saying "you're wrong" and you're FIGHTING it.

Beyond the 10 day Europe trip, the only facts regarding this case are circumstantial at best, one man's word versus another.

See what I mean?
No, it's Reker's word against Reker's word. "I didn't know" vs "I wanted to help him". "I hate gays" vs "I love rentboys!".

Rekers is saying one thing, Lucien is saying another, neither man's story is in agreement with the other but everybody is jumping on the "OMG it's another hypocrite" bandwagon. Last I checked, you couldn't convict a man of a crime based on hearsay testimony without corroborating evidence.

You could shred his credibility to pieces when one's testimony is negated by other testimony from that very same person.

That's what I've taken issue with in this topic.

No, you've taken up the Republican cause, thinking we were gonna jump down and harass the Republican party, when we're really more interested in harassing Reker.

It'd be fun for me to jump on the religion bandwagon, since I've always felt religious convictions to be stronger than pretty much anything else, but I haven't even done that.....yet.....

At 5/9/10 12:55 PM, Imperator wrote: I'm laughing at you because I'm saying "you're wrong" and you're FIGHTING it.

Because I am right, you're just not willing to admit it yet.

I will concede the issue of his presumed innocence due to lack of evidence favoring it, but at the end of the day, there's no evidence of his guilt in being a closet gay republican the way all of you are going "DELICIOUS IRONY" over. Yeah, there's more circumstantial evidence for your side of the issue, but that's all it is... circumstantial, nothing solid or concrete, you're presuming just as much as I am.

Have fun, kettles.

At 5/9/10 03:35 PM, Proteas wrote:

Have fun, kettles.

I don't know what you call penis massages performed by a guy hired from a gay escort website.

I guess to you that's not gay enough to qualify.

At 5/9/10 06:26 PM, poxpower wrote: I guess to you that's not gay enough to qualify.

Coming out usually works for me. Otherwise, it's like fli said; he's a guy who fooled around with another guy, but is still straight.