Hume Compares Mark Foley To President Clinton
Hume Compares Mark Foley To President Clinton
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume compared Mark Foley’s predatory behavior towards underage pages to President Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Hume said that while Foley is now “in total disgrace in his party,” Clinton’s “inappropriate behavior toward a subordinate [didn't] even cost Bill Clinton his standing in his party.” Watch it:
There is zero comparison between Foley’s behavior and Clinton’s. Foley made unwanted advances towards underage boys which one page described as “sick” and reported to authorities. The leadership of Foley’s party covered up his behavior for months.
President Clinton had a consensual relationship with an adult. The fact that it was an extramarital affair was virtually unanimously condemned by members of both parties.
Full transcript:
HUME: It is very serious misbehavior on the part of Congressman Foley, whether it stems from arrogance or just weakness of the human flesh is another question. It’s probably worth noting that there’s a difference between the two parties on these issues. Inappropriate behavior towards subordinates didn’t cost Gerry Studds his Democratic seat in Massachussetts, nor Barney Frank his. Nor did inappropriate behavior toward a subordinate even cost Bill Clinton his standing within the Democratic Party, even though indirectly he was impeached for it. Mark Foley found out about this, was found out to have done this, and he’s out of office and in total disgrace in his party.
WILLIAMS: It took him long enough, don’t you think?
HUME: What do you mean?
WILLIAMS: Well, gee, they knew about it way back. No action was taken. That’s the question.
HUME: What we don’t know —
LIASON: Barney Frank was not with a subordinate. We should correct that. We should correct that.
WALLACE: Yeah, I think we should point that out. I don’t think Barney Frank was involved with a page.
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
HUME: It is worth noting that we don’t yet know exactly what they knew and when they knew it. This — obviously, we’ll find out this week.
WILLIAMS: Well, it’s an argument among Republicans who have a very different time record here for what Hastert is saying.
WALLACE: Alright, guys. You can take it outside afterwards.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Brit Hume, who cares what he says?
:::
October 1st, 2006 at 12:04 pmUh wasn’t this a 16 y/o I think that is very different than a 21 y/o.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pmThis makes me sick. I’m so tired of Fox and their propaganda. It’s a shame that they stoop to such rediculous lies and slander.
The worst part of this is that there will be many Fox viewers who will just agree with this drivel, without thinking it through for themselves.
There is absolutely NO COMPARISON!
October 1st, 2006 at 12:09 pmHume is a relentless ass.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:09 pmFoley was born that way. He’s simply being who he is. Who are you intolerant bigots to judge a man’s homosexual proclivities?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:10 pmAre these people so stupid to make a comparison between sex between adults and sexually advances between a male adult and a minor. These quys are sick. This is a legal issue, its against the law and it falls in the same catagory as priest doing minors, teachers doing minors, and any adult doing minors with sexual intent. They all get investigated, arrested and put on trial.
Comment by DougdBiker October 1, 2006
October 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pmHume, what a cadaverous mook. Does anyone believe that hapless nitwit?
-GSD
October 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pmwhat is the legal age in DC? If its 16 that will be the next talking point. That it was “consensual”
Hume is a total dissembler anyway you slice it.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pm#5, it isn’t his “homosexual proclivities” we’re concerned with, it’s the fact that he was pusuing an underage page. If Foley were making the same advances to a 16 year old FEMALE page, the criticism would be the same (it would, however, not be as ironic).
October 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pmThat is so retarded Hume… there are several prominent republicans who were married but had affairs with another ADULT and they are still in good standing with the republican arty so don’t even try that you hypocritical shill.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:19 pmWhat the hell would they do without Clinton? It is strange that every action the rethuglicans take is justified and compared in some way to Bill Clinton. It is ironic that President Clinton has become the standard for bushco.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:22 pmHey #5, no one is judging Foley’s “homosexual proclivities”. We’re judging his pedophile proclivities. If I were judging him as a homosexual I’d have to “drag” in GWB (switch), Shooter (top), Mehlman (bottom), and a host other GOP “faithful”.
I’ve never seen a bigger bunch of Gays who spew gay hatred. But here the concern is Foley being a pedophile. Foley joins an ever increasing number of GOPers who have been caught just this year trying to find children online to satisfy their sexual needs.
Perhaps, #5, you suffer from an attention deficit problem. You know they have medication for that now.
Good luck to you, and if you get tired of supporting pedophiles, you might consider changing parties.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:23 pm298 million Americans DO Not watch Fox “news”.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:23 pmClinton’s smack down of Chris Wallace has really gotten under Brit Hume’s skin. Hume is lashing out at Clinton because Clinton did something he wasn’t supposed to do – he pointed out that Fox is a sockpuppet for the republican spin machine.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:23 pm#5 Go troll somewhere else. Homosexuality is not the same thing as pedophilia.
You hypocrites are so disgusting. You’re willing to make the most outrageous charges because you’re so blindly sure that your side is right and good, in spite of all glaringly obvious evidence to the contrary.
Truly pathetic.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:26 pmDon’t forget, Republicans “take care” of their problems. Bob Ney, anyone?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:28 pmRepublicans coddle AND protect pedophiles. A perfect example of GOP “moral values”. Not only protect child molesters, but cover-up.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:30 pmBrit Hume just showed himself not only to be totally stupid but misinformed as well. Pedophilia is very, very different than consensual sex, for starters!
Does the GOP have absolutely no shame? No conscience? We should boycott any media programming that is so obviously “twisted & demented” that they have to try to analogize two disparate incidents and try to tie them together! What hubris! What a joke Brit Hume is!
This is, indeed, Rove’s “october surprise”….and surprise, surprise, the mainstream media is “on the GOP take” and could care less about our children….that’s crystal clear!
October 1st, 2006 at 12:32 pmScrew Hume and the bloated elephant he rode in on….I never watch their crap any way…….Soon enough it will become evident to the public that this administration is made up of a bunch of sickos….Consenting adults is not the same as molesting children…..Being gay is not a crime….Soliciting children like incest is the worst of crimes…..Arrest, jail and then put them in with the general population in the big house, see how well they do there……Blessings
October 1st, 2006 at 12:35 pmTypical GOP tactics – blame Clinton.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:37 pmWith the comments of Fox news we know why our country is run by sickos.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:44 pmA child/children have been attacked by a sex offender who happen to be a US Congressman and his fellow elected officials cover it up as he will continue his attacks. Bill Clinton had an affair with an adult woman what’s wrong with this picture. Now Hume thinks a child sex offender is as bad as a man having an affair. Well Bush is having an affair with Connie Rice what’s with that. Is Gonzales still looking for child sex offenders if so check the White House and Branches of government first then go to Homeland Security.
Foley’s actions are not the same as Clinton’s, they’re the same as some Roman Catholic Priests…”good Christians” all around.
Of course, we don’t know at this stage whether or not Foley actually had sex with underage boys. For that, we’d need a complete impartial investigation. Think that’s likely to happen?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:48 pmAttraction to a 16 year old young man is homosexuality, not pedophilia. That is a fact.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pmHume could do better. Bush likes to use a World War II analogy, seeing himself as Winston Churchill promising blood, sweat, tears and tax cuts. In that (approved) analogy, Foley is Ernst Rohm, martyred leader of the young and ever so homoerotic SA (storm troopers). Of course, Rohm is sacrificed in favor of the Gestapo. Can’t wait for the next installment. Don’t you love public theater?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pmHere’s a question for Hume. If you had two sixteen-year-old boys, would you be comfortable inviting Bill Clinton into your home for an evening? Would you be equally comfortable inviting Mark Foley into your home for an evening?
That’s the difference.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:54 pmIs Bret Hume making a tacit case for N.A.M.B.L.A. Does he not understand the difference in morality between age with regards to this issue? Monica was pursuing Bill, whereas old Foley was pursuing his Boy Robin. Does being constitute enticement in Bret’s eyes? Should we not be looking into Bret’s private life, now? If the press receives special consideration under the constitution, should not its practitioners have the moral compass needed to discern predatory behavior from an adult towards a child?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:55 pmDems should stick to two main themes:
1) Yet another Republican HYPOCRITE has been exposed.
2) Politely but forcefully ask whether there was a cover-up.
Stay on the offensive.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:56 pmIsn’t everything Clinton’s fault?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:56 pmGang of
Ooversexed
PPedophiles
It is as simple as that
October 1st, 2006 at 12:57 pmClinton was an adulterer.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:58 pmFoley is a predator.
CREW knew too. Heh.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:59 pmI was over at Talkleft this morning and a poster named James Robertson had left a comment about Gerry Studds and Barney Frank. It had been posted around midnight way before Hume made his remarks. I wonder if this James Robertson and Hume are getting their talking points from the same person?.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:02 pmLooks like ThinkProgress is deleting comments they disagree with. How tolerant and open-minded.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:06 pmRegardless, Denial Hastert will be shown to have covered this up. You gotta love the timing of this. Grab another seat in Congress, watch out you Gory Old Pedophiles!
October 1st, 2006 at 1:11 pmIt is no wonder Hume’s son, Sandy Hume, was a alcoholic and ate a bullet at 28.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:11 pmYou guys don’t get it. To republicans, the Lewinsky business really IS the same as the Foley business. Because to republicans, women are the same as children.
It’s the same thing to them. They draw that equivalence not because of expediency, but rather because of their fundamental sexist nature.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:12 pm#7 The biggist hypocrite leads the party so what should we expect from the rest?????
October 1st, 2006 at 1:13 pmIt is no wonder that Hume’s son, Sandy Hume, was an alcoholic and ate a bullet at 28yrs old.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:13 pmMarie,
Both are predators.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:13 pmAttraction to a 16 year old young man is homosexuality, not pedophilia. That is a fact.
Comment by Yes+I+Question+Your+Patriotism
Sounds like the voice of experience….
October 1st, 2006 at 1:14 pmcdj
a 16 year old is not a child.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:15 pmIt is no wonder that Hume’s son, Sandy Hume, was an alcoholic and ate a bullet at 28yrs old.
Comment by David
That was out of line the first time you put it up.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:16 pmNice to see Democrats opposing homosexuality though.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:17 pmOne gets the feeling that if a Republican filleted a newborn live on TV, the GOP would still be defending him, and still be comparing it to Clinton.
The American people, in their infinite wisdom, will see the GOP for what it is, the type of policies it propogates, and the type of people it tries to protect.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:18 pmBritt Hume needs to stay focused in the present. President Clinton is the past, and we are talking about a young woman who knew exactly what she was doing. She is doing quite well, and the attention has not hurt her or her career and she was no virgin at the time.
Britt Hume needs to be concerned about Mark Foley, a latent homosexual, predator, and of boys!! O my God, this flies in the face what Republicans stand for, eh?? Children? Monica Lewinsky was young but no child. And Reynolds knew? But the parents didn’t want to press the matter? How about the other potential young victims out there? Eh? What if it was your kid, do you have kids?
Hey Britt, focus on the here and now and don’t confuse the issues for the seemingly ignorant people you think are out here. Stop justifying and start putting the blame and actions where they lie, at the doorstep of a mature, intelligent but sick man, he of the high and mighty Republican party.
And by the way, what war did you serve in? I watch your show, sometimes I agree or disagree, but the tongue lashing President Clinton gave Chris last week was well deserved. Are you all that stupid to bait one of the most intelligent and brilliant politicians alive today??
This guy is smarter than you and he made Chris look like an ass!! Now you are starting to do the same thing. I would love to see you “try” to take on Mr. Clinton one on one. But, methinks you’re too chicken and not smart enough. You are a reader of the news, President Clinton is a maker of news. Without people like him, you would not have a job.
You have no guts and have forgotten to get to the heart of the story, even as a sometimes Republican, I would vote for Clinton again in a heartbeat and I am a woman. He made the show come alive, his lines were not rehearsed and he wasn’t reading anything, he was passionate and brilliant and exciting. If all you can do is try to still go after him after last week and not focus on the Foley matter, you are not a hardhitting reporter, you have settled behind your cushy desk and read the news. In the real world, you’d be floundering around like Tony Snow still is doing no matter what the press people say, “he sucks” is what I say and he is about as manly as my toe. God what a disappointment!!! I tend to think you would do just as badly, Oh, and please tell Moira that whoever dyes her hair does a baaaaaaaaaaad
job of it, I can usually see her gray roots, and going lighter would make
her look younger. She is a beautiful woman, and you need to lose some weight. You are getting a bit fat!!
Oh and #23, a 16 yr old is not of legal age in this country, to vote or go to war, so he is still a minor and it is pedophilia not homosexuality, especially from a mature adult Congressman; if these two people were of the same age then homosexuality it is, and I for one have friends and family who are homosexuals not pedofiles. There is a big difference you dolt!
Linda Reeves
October 1st, 2006 at 1:19 pmClassy David. Typical lib “compassion.”
October 1st, 2006 at 1:20 pm#5 retorted on #23, You clearly wouldn’t know a fact if it hit you in the face.
Attraction of a 53 year old man to a 16 year old child of any sex is pedophilia.
The fact that Foley was a pathetic closet case for decades is irrelevant.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:21 pmNo one is opposing homosexuality Say+No+to+Censorship.
There are plenty of straight pedophiles out there to pal.
Are you opposing heterosexuality?
The Republicans use Gay like the Germans used the war-time Jews… scapegoats.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:22 pmnick,
Republicans aren’t defending Foley; Foley resigned. Republicans don’t defend wrongdoing the way Democrats always do, which was Hume’s point. So far no one here has even begun to rebut Hume’s point.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:22 pmI meant pedophiles!! And Foley is not a latent homo he is a pedophile, and I am correcting my own mistakes because I was typing so fast.
I just couldn’t believe Britt Hume’s comparison today re: Pres. Clinton and Mark Foley. Nuts!!
Linda Reeves
October 1st, 2006 at 1:23 pmOf course, we don’t know at this stage whether or not Foley actually had sex with underage boys.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — October 1, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
If he hasn’t, his text messages certainly indicate that given enough time, he probably would have. Now, while that is not grounds for indicting him, it certainly is grounds for removing him from a task force charged with protecting underaged children. I’m glad he quit. Save tax payers’ some dollars… though I’m sure they are already in transit to the holocaust in Iraq.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:23 pm#41 said, “a 16 year old is not a child.”
WHAT!?!?!?
Actually, it’s attitudes just like that that promote pedophilia! Society must firmly recognize and support our legal protections and definitions of minors in our society as well as the responsibilities of adults and adulthood.
For shame.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:25 pmglamberson,
No, pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. You are an ignoramus, like David. Foley is a sick man, but he is not a pedophile, he is a homosexual.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:25 pmHey that’s the facts Say+No+to+Censorship.
Hume is an shitbag and his son ate a slug.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:25 pmI’d compare Brit Hume to a newsman, but there is no comparison.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:26 pmAttraction to a 16 year old young man is homosexuality, not pedophilia. That is a fact.
Comment by Yes+I+Question+Your+Patriotism — October 1, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
I teach high school. The age of consent is 18, not 16. After being around them all day, I can tell you why. There is a vast difference between the maturity level of most 16 year old boys and 18 year old men.
16 year old boys like to fart in class and think it’s funny. The 18 year olds in the room do not do this.
16 year old boys still whine and pout when they don’t get their way. None of the 18 year olds in my class do this.
16 year old boys are children. They are not men, young or otherwise. Not by a long shot.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:28 pm“Society must firmly recognize and support our legal protections and definitions of minors in our society as well as the responsibilities of adults and adulthood.”
So then you think the Democrats’ support for abortion on demand for underage girls is wrong, correct?
October 1st, 2006 at 1:28 pmHume is an shitbag and his son ate a slug.
Comment by David
David, please stop with that.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:28 pm#49
“Republicans aren’t defending Foley”
We will find that out soon enough pal.
And when you find out that they have been hiding his pedo info, you will defend that too.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:28 pm#53 said, “pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children.”
Maybe in your little world, but not in reality. That is not a dictionary definition of pedophilia. It’s certainly not any legal definition in this country!
You really need to get a grip. As I already pointed out, it’s people like you who are so willing to blur the lines between what is and isn’t ok is what endangers children.
You need to take a good look at your attitudes. OR have you already and is your opinion on this matter framed by the fact that you are a pedophile?
October 1st, 2006 at 1:31 pmOh yea, Foley resigned so fast, cuz he knew what was coming, and honey, its coming anyway…and #36 women are the same as children?
I can’t even comment on that one…..if your mom was a child you would never have survived infancy, maybe you shouldn’t have…LOL
Clinton is still sexy, hot and I know too many women, Democrats as well as Republicans who would not have minded being in that oval office w/him. And since Republicans are so faithful to their wives, why don’t we add a clause when they swear in for their offices, on the Bible that says they have NEVER committed adultery.. I think over 80 percent of our congressmen would have to resign, eh?? Dems and Reps.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:31 pmwhy dont all you people send these comemnts to Fox news where they will actually do some good? good stuff but lost on these readers, fill up Humes mailbox pronto!
October 1st, 2006 at 1:31 pmThe Republican and Fox news strategy to defusing the uproar of Foley’s pedophilic actions clearly is to try to distract people from the facts of the case by blaming Clinton, as usual, as if Clinton’s past affairs with adult women is just as bad as Foley attempting to lure underage teenage boys.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:31 pmNo, pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. You are an ignoramus, like David. Foley is a sick man, but he is not a pedophile, he is a homosexual.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
We know you neocons are governed by emotion, but the law will arrest you and charge you with a crime if you are 18 or older and you have sex with another, of either gender, person under 18. Sounds like pedophilia to me.
Or, are you a 16 year old boy who’s ego is bruised because he’s being called a child (and you are).
October 1st, 2006 at 1:32 pmWe all have been rebutting Hume’s point. You’re not getting it.
The point is that he was involving himself with a 16-year-old. Under the age of consent. Clinton was doing the same with someone who was over the age of consent. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t being sleazy – he was. But there’s still a difference in the ages here.
Get it now?
October 1st, 2006 at 1:34 pmunbelievable,
“The age of consent is 18, not 16.”
Legal age of consent and the definition of pedophilia are two different questions.
“There is a vast difference between the maturity level of most 16 year old boys and 18 year old men.”
Utter nonsense.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:34 pm#57
Yes. So?
See how that works? The Democratic Party isn’t the Borg.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:35 pm“So then you think the Democrats’ support for abortion on demand for underage girls is wrong, correct?”
Please try to stay on topic. We’re talking about pedophiles.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:36 pmFox News, “Should the age of consent be lowered?”
October 1st, 2006 at 1:36 pm“the law will arrest you and charge you with a crime if you are 18 or older and you have sex with another, of either gender, person under 18. Sounds like pedophilia to me.”
An 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old would not be arrested, and calling that pedophilia is idiotic.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:37 pm#58
Zooey, my apologies if I offended you, that was probably over the top.
David
October 1st, 2006 at 1:37 pmSay+No+to+Censorship,
What don’t you understand about the words “under age?”
Do you have kids? A daughter?
I guess you’d be thrilled to see her getting horny emails from, or in a relationship with, a congressman at age 16.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pmLegal age of consent and the definition of pedophilia are two different questions.
No they aren’t.
http://www.avert.org/ageconsent.htm
Utter nonsense.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
No it isn’t. Clearly you’re 16 and think you know it all, but you are simply a child. When you grow up and look back, you’ll understand.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pmFact: The age of consent in Washington DC is 16 years old.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pmDon’t feed the troll. The troll doesn’t even understand the concept of “age of consent.”
October 1st, 2006 at 1:40 pmBrit Hume is not fit to lick Bill Clinton’s boots.
I’m glad the flesh is falling from his face. Serves you, right, Brit!
October 1st, 2006 at 1:41 pmThe age of consent is a legal distinction, not a moral one. What Clinton did was grossly immoral.
Linda Reeves: Ask Juanita Broadrick if she would like to be alone in the Oval Office with Clinton.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:41 pmDavid,
Thanks for that. The suicide of a child is a tragedy all it’s own, and shouldn’t be brought into a discussion like this.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:41 pmAge of consent in DC is 16…
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
I’m pretty liberal, but I think that is way too young.
I thought it was 18 everywhere. It should be.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:42 pmHurling insults at me won’t alter the facts.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:43 pmSo what?. Hume’s a piece of shit. Case closed.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pmBrit Hume must think that going after underage little boys is the same as an affair with a women of legal age.
As the Page put it, “Sick, Sick, Sick”
October 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pmBiologically and psychologically, the difference between 16 and 18 is arbitrary.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pmCNN’s Dana Bash issued the same comparison. The Lewinsky affair is equal to an adult sending erotic and offensive emails to a minor.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:45 pmI hope for the young man’s sake that it ended with the emails. It has taken me nearly fourty years to come to terms with an attempted assault. The fact the family did not want to prosecute is understandable.
Why should the family have to prosecute? Sex crimes are the only crimes where the victim must prosecute.
unbelievable,
I’m certain that Foley must have kept his horny solicitations in DC only, because he knew about the age of consent thing — that’s why he resigned.
I crack myself up…
October 1st, 2006 at 1:45 pmAn 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old would not be arrested, and calling that pedophilia is idiotic.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
Do some research, yes they would. They have been. It’s called rape.
We’re not talking about an 18 year old and a 17 year old. We’re talking about a 53 year old and a 16 year old. That is pedophilia.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:45 pmBiologically and psychologically, the difference between 16 and 18 is arbitrary.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
Prove it.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:48 pmFoley just wants to touch little boys, you know, like the Catholic Priests.
What’s wrong with that? Foley is just trying to be closer to God in his own wierdo way.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:48 pmI’m certain that Foley must have kept his horny solicitations in DC only, because he knew about the age of consent thing — that’s why he resigned.
Legally, he’s off the hook – but morally, I think most people who’ve been around 16 and 17 year olds know that they are still emotionally immature and incapable of conscious consent about sex most of the time. And anyone in his 50’s who finds them attractive has a problem. I’m only 39 and I definitely think they are still children.
I crack myself up…
Comment by Zooey — October 1, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
I don’t think you’re alone : )
October 1st, 2006 at 1:52 pmIts both funny, sad, and quite telling of the Republican party, that the Republican trolls on here are defending a pedophile. I mean how much lower can these people stoop?
October 1st, 2006 at 1:52 pm“Do some research, yes they would. They have been. It’s called rape.”
Nonsense.
Attraction to a 16 year old is not classified ass pedophilia. That remains incorrect. Sick yes, pedophilia, no.
“According to the DSM-IV definition, pedophilia involves sexual activity by an adult with a prepubescent child.”
http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355
But don’t let facts get in your way now.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:53 pmAre these people so stupid to make a comparison between sex between adults and sexually advances between a male adult and a minor.
No, but they know that many people in America are that stupid. Hume is preacing to the choir, as they say.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:55 pmShamRockNRoll,
Calling him “sick” is a defense? Are you a liar, a moron, or an illiterate?
October 1st, 2006 at 1:56 pmSince Hume did not say the Clinton situation and the Foley situation were identical, what is your point?
Hume named several instances of immoral conduct by Democrats that Democrats did nothing about or deffended. That point remains unrefuted.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:59 pmThis is Insane!!!!!
So let me get this right, the Sponsors of Fox News accept this comparison?
Am I to believe that all the Mortgage Companies, Pharmacutecal companies and Oil companies are going to continue advertising on a channel who’s lead anchor compares the FOLEY story to the Clinton Monika story?
Come On!
October 1st, 2006 at 1:59 pmSince Hume did not say the Clinton situation and the Foley situation were identical, what is your point?
Hume named several instances of immoral conduct by Democrats that Democrats did nothing about or deffended. That point remains unrefuted.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
Yes, well what exactly is your point? That both parties have ignored immoral conduct? Does that surprise you?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:01 pmRep. Mark Foley is a sexual predator and a pervert who stalks underage teenage boys! He is not a pedophile because they like kids under 13, so pre-puberty children!
October 1st, 2006 at 2:04 pmBob’s:
No, Democrats ignore or defend immoral conduct, Republicans do not.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:04 pmFrom your article:
“DSM-IV Criteria for Pedophilia
Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger).”
It says generally – it does not say only. Therefore it is subjective. 16 isn’t that much older than 13. They certainly aren’t that much more mature.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:06 pmBob’s:
No, Democrats ignore or defend immoral conduct, Republicans do not.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
So, if it turns out that Republican leadership in the House, including Boehner and Hastert, actually knew about Foley’s activities as early as last spring and did nothing to rectify the situation, why do you think they did nothing about it then?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:07 pmAttraction to a 16 year old young man is homosexuality, not pedophilia. That is a fact.
Comment by Yes+I+Question+Your+Patriotism —
OK…Now, Is still your drunken uncle hiding in your closet at nights?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:07 pmDemocrats ignore or defend immoral conduct, Republicans do not.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
No, you just redefine the word ‘immoral’ when ever your standard is held against you.
Wanna talk about Rush Limbaugh and drugs? The hypocrisy is astounding.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:08 pmWhen Clinton was done exploiting the young Monica Lewinsky, she lost her job at the White House. That’s sexual harassment. She should sue him.
Nice to see Democrats now view sexual harassment as trivial.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:09 pmAn 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old would not be arrested, and calling that pedophilia is idiotic.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:11 pmComment by Say+No+to+Censorship
Your sick. Get help.
Sexual and other physical maturation that occurs during puberty result from hormonal changes. As the child nears puberty, a gland in the brain called the pituitary gland increases the secretion of a hormone called follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). This hormone then causes additional effects. In girls, FSH activates the ovaries to start producing estrogen. In boys, FSH causes sperm to develop.
In boys, it is difficult to know exactly when puberty is coming. There are changes that occur, but they occur gradually over a period of time rather than as a single event. While each male adolescent is different, the following are average ages when puberty changes may occur:
beginning of puberty: 9.5 to 14 years of age
http://uuhsc.utah.edu/healthinfo/adult/men/mladlsnt.htm
October 1st, 2006 at 2:11 pmRepublicans do not.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship
Thats probably in the top 5 stupidiest post ever.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:12 pmWhen Clinton was done exploiting the young Monica Lewinsky, she lost her job at the White House. That’s sexual harassment. She should sue him.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
I agree.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:13 pmAre you a liar, a moron, or an illiterate?
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship
Whatever he is, he can tell the difference between a child and an adult. You sure cant. Watch out.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pmYou know, since we’re always reminded of just how superior Republicans are, I think it’s time we hold them to a higher standard of behavior.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:16 pmRepublicans aren’t defending Foley; Foley resigned.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship
How much time after it was known by Republicans? mmmm…
October 1st, 2006 at 2:17 pmNice to see Democrats now view sexual harassment as trivial.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship
Who the hell is a Democrat?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:19 pmHi Juan. :)
We’re taking part in the “massive distraction from the interrogation bill’s impending approval by GWB” thread.
How are you today?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:21 pmI wonder if they’ll drop the price of gas to 50 cents to try and manipulate the voting public?
This will be hard for them to recover.
I wonder how they, the party who bashes responsible gay behavior (marriage) will address the gay aspect of this nightmare.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:24 pmNice to see Democrats now view sexual harassment as trivial.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship
Perhaps you’d like to enighten us all and share a few of the Republicans’ position on sexual harassment issues.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:25 pmunbelievable,
Has Foley come out as a gay man?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:26 pmHow are you today?
Comment by Zooey
Fine, Zoo. But I got leaks from the cavity I was making. Its really annoying the experimental field. How are you? Hows true?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:31 pmHas Foley come out as a gay man?
Comment by Zooey — October 1, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
I don’t know. I doubt it. I was attempting to reference the fact that he wanted to have sex with a person of the same gender and how that will play out in the homophobic Republican Party considering their view of anything that isn’t male-female.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:31 pmSay+No+to+Censorship had to go clean his room.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:32 pmJuan, except for my frustration with this country, I am doing well. Went for a long walk in the dry wheat fields near my house this morning, and set my dog loose on the poor little bunnies. She’s too slow to catch them, so I don’t worry about them.
I haven’t heard from true for a couple days. Her daughter’s been ill, so I’m sure she’s focused on that.
Sorry your cavity leaks. That’s really gross! :P
October 1st, 2006 at 2:46 pmSay+No+to+Censorship had to go clean his room.
Comment by unbelievable — October 1, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
Or send out some email.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:47 pmunbelievable,
Say No to Censorship certainly needs to clean something…
I doubt he’s 16, but I bet he scopes out 16 year olds, and that’s why it’s a-ok with him.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:47 pmIf I were Brit Hume’s child, I’d have iced myself, too.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:52 pmWent for a long walk in the dry wheat fields near my house this morning, and set my dog loose on the poor little bunnies. Comment by Zooey
Sounds really nice. I dont know why but the American landscape (the one I picture -prairy, windy and colorful) reminds me to some sweet, sad banjo music.
Her daughter’s been ill, so I’m sure she’s focused on that.
Hope both are OK.
That’s really gross! :P
Comment by Zooey
I knew it. :)
Or send out some email.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:56 pmComment by Bob’s+Your+Uncle
I laughed a lot. Sorry.
Or send out some email.
Comment by Bob’s+Your+Uncle — October 1, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
Yeah, that is another possibility. I’m hoping he’s 16 and in his know-it-all phase, because the other possibilities are too alarming…
October 1st, 2006 at 2:59 pmI doubt he’s 16, but I bet he scopes out 16 year olds, and that’s why it’s a-ok with him.
Comment by Zooey — October 1, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
Sadly, that seems more likely. I just hope it’s not.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:00 pmZooey > neighbors of Foley in Florida are claiming he is a closeted Gay guy, but he likes to stalk underage males, so he is more a sexual predator than a normal homosexual! He solicits teenage boys, which means he is a borderline pedophile! Eventually if he never got caught, then perhaps he would have gone after consecutively younger boys?!
October 1st, 2006 at 3:00 pmneighbors of Foley in Florida are claiming he is a closeted Gay guy
October 1st, 2006 at 3:06 pmHomophobic mind: Well, he is not if he is on top.
According to the DSM-IV, he is not a pedophile. Jay Randal is a lying ignoramus. Democrats hate science and dissent.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:07 pmI’ve been looking around to find this stuff, and I don’t know if it’s true, but it may shed some light on the situation. This may seem weird, but here goes:
–age of consent in DC is 16. So if Foley and the page were going at it together, they’re not doing anything illegal. (Many other states would say the same.)
–However, under the so-called “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006″ (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any “minor” under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense.
Which would suggest, it seems, that doing what he was doing was indeed illegal, as well as the moral issues.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pmThinkFascist is censoring dissent again. Hypocrites. Cowards.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pmhe is not a pedophile.
Comment by ThinkDissent
Maybe you got a shot with kids, too, moron.
Democrats hate science and dissent.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:10 pmComment by ThinkDissent
As opposed to the Republican President GWB who talks with God. Yeah, really scientific!
Post 131 ThinkDissent > shame on you for defending a perverted sexual predator like Foley on TP threads! How much $$$ did Karl Rove pay you?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:12 pmDemocrats hate science and dissent.
Comment by ThinkDissent — October 1, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Say No to Censorship is back… Wallace is that you?
Good, wallace is a 16 year old boy.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:13 pmJuan, most Americans, including most Democrats, believe in God, you bigot.
All I did was quote the DSM-IV, moron.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:13 pmAccording to the DSM-IV, he is not a pedophile. Jay Randal is a lying ignoramus. Democrats hate science and dissent.
Comment by ThinkDissent
According to every thinking (read: Progressive) mind in the country, Foley is a pervert, no DSM-IV is required to figure that out.
Question: When you mention science, are you referring to Creationism or actual science?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:13 pmNo one defended Foley. Stop lying Jay Randal. Quoting the DSM-IV is not a defense.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:14 pmNo one defended Foley. Stop lying Jay Randal. Quoting the DSM-IV is not a defense.
No surprise, unbelievable supports censorship too.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:15 pmThinkFascist is censoring dissent again. Hypocrites. Cowards.
Comment by ThinkDissent
And yet you and your comments are still here.
Believe me, I know what it takes to get deleted, so if some of your comments are being deleted, you’re just being frickin’ nasty.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pmunbelievable > ThinkDissent could be Seixon? He is confused sexually and would be willing to defend a pervert like Foley on here for money!
October 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pmZoophile:
Garry Studds did not resign, Democrats reelected him. Barney Frank did not resign, Democrats reelected him. Foley resigned. In other words, you are full of sh!t.
Democrats aren’t against perverts. QED
October 1st, 2006 at 3:18 pmWhat it takes to get deleted is to disagree with liberals.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:19 pmAll I did was quote the DSM-IV, moron.
Comment by ThinkDissent
Quoting the DSM-IV is not a defense.
Comment by ThinkDissent
Wow. Within two comments of each other. It’s called whiplash.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:19 pmJuan, most Americans, including most Democrats, believe in God, you bigot.
But do not claim to talk to him to make decisions, a-hole. Unless drugs made you lose half of your brain.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:21 pmAll I did was quote the DSM-IV, moron.
Comment by ThinkDissent
You can quote whatever you want. But if I had a 16 or 17 year old and you are molesting him/her, I will DSM-IV you away.
ThinkDissent,
Gary Studds and Barney Frank are not perverts, they are gay men engaged in legal relationships with adults. I see what your real problem is now.
What it takes to get deleted is to disagree with liberals.
Comment by ThinkDissent
Still here?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:22 pmZoophile,
Studds was with a minor. Frank had a prostitution ring being run out of his house. What high standards you have! *L*
October 1st, 2006 at 3:26 pmThinkDissent could be Seixon? He is confused sexually and would be willing to defend a pervert like Foley on here for money!
Comment by Jay+Randal — October 1, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
Could be. Though the extreme immaturity sounds a lot like wallace too.
Either way, it’s not worth addressing him anymore. Wallace is 16 and Seixon is what 21 going on 13?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:30 pmThinkHeadUpAss,
It’s not my standards that matter here, only yours.
Got a link for your allegations about Studds & Frank?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:31 pmI can’t condone Foley’s behaviour but lets get real here. Where is the outrage for the 14 yr old Iraqi child whos family was murdered and then raped and murdered herself? Foley and his clique bear the reponsibility for this and countless other atrocities that have brought enormous shame to America and its moral standing in the world.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:32 pmThinkHeadUpAss,
Comment by Zooey — October 1, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
Funny…
October 1st, 2006 at 3:33 pm“Funny…”
If you’re 12.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:35 pmI would like to agree with the first comment, but can’t. In case someone else would like to send an email, Brit Hume can be reached at special@foxnews.com.
I sent him the definitions of pedophilia and adultery and asked that if he doesn’t know the difference to not make comparisons between the two.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:36 pmFoley and his clique bear the reponsibility for this and countless other atrocities that have brought enormous shame to America and its moral standing in the world.
Comment by Bruce
There is only one thing to do: To grease back the guillotine. These murderers deserve nothing but that. There are not enough juries for the crimes of these people.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:37 pmtyler,
According to the DSM-IV, Foley is not a pedophile. He is a homosexual.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:38 pmtyler,
According to the DSM-IV, Foley is not a pedophile. He is a homosexual.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:39 pmI can’t condone Foley’s behaviour but lets get real here. Where is the outrage for the 14 yr old Iraqi child whos family was murdered and then raped and murdered herself?
There isn’t a thread for that today. But, you’re right.
I guess we’re just happy that the Republicans are being exposed right before the election when they usually pull off some elaborate scam to get votes from teh sheep.
Foley and his clique bear the reponsibility for this and countless other atrocities that have brought enormous shame to America and its moral standing in the world.
Comment by Bruce — October 1, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
We haven’t forgotten. We’re just trying to find something that will convince the sheeple to vote anti-neocon. Clearly the Conservative Christians in this country do not care about 14 year old gilrs in Iraq or anywhere else not America. Knowing that, we have to point out the people in tehir party who prey on the 16 year old boy that they do care about.
Sad, I agree, but to defeat them, we must use what works.
I’ve been showing my students, twice a week, the architecture from other countries and cultures. But I don’t just show them buildings, I teach them about the history, culture, geography and even religions across the globe. They love it. Several have talked me into taking them on a trip this summer to as many countries as possible. They are excited about seeing the world! It’s a small victory, I know, but I thought you’d like to know.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:42 pmIf you’re 12.
Comment by ThinkCensorship — October 1, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
You are. Well, close enough.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:44 pmYou are. *L*
How juvenile.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:46 pmHow juvenile.
Comment by ThinkCensorship — October 1, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
You’re that too wallace.
Well, nice to see you again. I hope you get a date to the prom this year so maybe you won’t need to force yourself on Think Progress.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:52 pmHume then called for an Independent Prosecutor, right?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:14 pmIf the statute is correct, Foley chatting up minors on IM is now illegal, per a law he put in place, because it’s a minor; Clinton had sex with someone of age. That’s the difference. Both were on some level abusing their position; Foley was a step worse because its a minor involved.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:31 pm“Garry Studds did not resign, Democrats reelected him. Barney Frank did not resign, Democrats reelected him. Foley resigned. In other words, you are full of sh!t.
Democrats aren’t against perverts. QED ”
Dude, shut up. Studds SHOULD have resigned. He should have been out of office as a result of what he did. And Foley resigning after this comes out doens’t make him a good guy, it makes him intelligent enough to know he should have resigned. But you’re still then defending the House managers who left this to fester for 11 months. Why would you defend that?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:36 pmDavid,
“Clinton had sex with someone of age. That’s the difference.”
So then if Foley had been IM-ing with an 18 year old, then you would have no problem with it at all, correct?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:37 pmDavid.
Stop lying. I haven’t defended anything.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:38 pmI’ve never met or even seen Brit Hume, nor is it likely that I ever will see or meet him. However, people see him every day and I would applauld anyone who just beat the ever-lovin-shit out of this Bush appologizer.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pm“So then if Foley had been IM-ing with an 18 year old, then you would have no problem with it at all, correct?”
18, as in, not a minor? Yes. No problem. Moral problem if he’s cheating on his wife/partner? Sure. Potentially abusing his position? Yes. Still kinda icky because he’s 52? Definitely. But no – I don’t see it legally as the problem I see this as. But to try to blame Democrats somehow? I mean, gimme a break.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pmEvidently Brit Hume can’t tell the difference between a 21 year old woman and a 16 year old boy. This might get Brit into trouble one of these days.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:47 pmThe hypocrites of ThinkFascist are censoring again. Cowards.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:02 pmHume: blah bla bla blahahhh blah…beep….
October 1st, 2006 at 5:09 pmEvidently Brit Hume can’t tell the difference between a 21 year old woman and a 16 year old boy.
You might want to explain that, 5 years, female, male, sexual relations, yes, web chat, yes, oh wait a minute, thats what we’re doing here.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:44 pmWhen Clinton was done exploiting the young Monica Lewinsky, she lost her job at the White House. That’s sexual harassment. She should sue him.
Nice to see Democrats now view sexual harassment as trivial.
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
For someone who defends Hume by claiming he didn’t say the Lewinsky/Clinton affair was identical to Rep. Foley’s interest in a young page, you sure are referring to it a lot.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:47 pmZoophile,
Studds was with a minor. Frank had a prostitution ring being run out of his house. What high standards you have! *L*
Comment by ThinkCensorship — October 1, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
While you are at it, any chance you can reveal what male prostitute Jeff Gannon was doing at the White House press conferences? And how he got a press pass from the White House when he wasn’t even a member of the press?
If memory serves, he paid other visits (read: no press conferences going on) to the White House as well.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:08 pmFoley = pedophile, you know, like all those creeps on the Dateline “To Catch a Predator” show.
Clinton = not a pedophile, as Lewinsky was a consenting adult.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:09 pmEvidently Brit Hume can’t tell the difference between a 21 year old woman and a 16 year old boy.
Comment by RealScientist — October 1, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
Very funny!
October 1st, 2006 at 6:30 pmMr. Say+No+to+Censorship:
October 1st, 2006 at 6:35 pmWill you please forward me a picture of your son and his email address? I know a former Congressman who may be interested.
I see the developing Republican talking point on this issue: 16 may be young, but is of the legal consent therefore Foley is a homosexual, not a pedophile.
No matter how predatory his actions arer, please wash rinse repeat.
Is there anything you trolls won’t defend?
Just read this on crooksandliars.com; may be posted on another Foley thread:
Why all the concern if Foley was only having innocent conversations with pages?
October 1st, 2006 at 6:36 pmBrit and others like him in Fox has one job to do everyweek…to spin what does not suit their station…He is no different than Hannity, O’Rielly..and the rest of the group..the difference is their style…but the goal is the same…to spin…
October 1st, 2006 at 6:37 pmProminent left-wing blogger and homosexual activist Glenn Greenwald agrees with me:
October 1st, 2006 at 6:44 pm
RobG,
No one, including me, is defending Foley. Stop lying.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:50 pmMore Greenwald:
October 1st, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Thinkagain,
October 1st, 2006 at 6:53 pmYou’re still ignoring the other law, the one that Foley was a co-sponsor of, that said it’s illegal to engage in sexual discussions et al with a “minor,” that is, someone other 18. Which is illegal.
Lets see the stains on the dress?
October 1st, 2006 at 6:56 pmDavid,
I have not ever said that Foley did nothing wrong or illegal. Stop lying.
I have agreed with Glenn Greenwald that Foley is a homosexual, not a pedophile.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:57 pmHume is Murdoch’s lap boy.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:08 pmFox News supports pedophilia and sexual harrassment.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:10 pmX supports sheep buggery and necrophilia.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:19 pmNobody is lying. You’re still not addressing whether you’re defending Foley or not for these illegal advances.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:25 pmFoley’s behavior is disgusting, morally and maybe legally wrong. But was there any sexual contact? That is a difference between Foley and Clinton and I think it’s significant. Do you think it’s morally worse to send inappropriate email messages than to have inappropriate sexual contact with an intern?
Hume’s point was that Clinton is still the hero of the Democrats. I don’t think Foley will ever be anyone’s hero.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:34 pmKnowbody can really be surprised by Humes strategy: Bill CLinton is to blame for origianl sin and us being thrown from Eden.
REally, could have seen this coming a few days ago. One of the right’s key campaigning tools in solidifying their base is to remind them of Clinton constantly.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:46 pm16-year old boys are much less mature than 18-year old boys and 16-year old girls. Adolescent girls are about 2 years ahead of adolescent boys, so the comparable maturity level for a girl would be 14 years old.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:48 pmjust back in town… started reading today’s threads, get to this, and…
October 1st, 2006 at 9:07 pmhuh… shouldda seen this one coming…
of course… always with the clinton…
David,
You are lying. You just did again. here it is: ‘You’re still not addressing whether you’re defending Foley or not for these illegal advances.”
I’ve addressed it repeatedly.
Eargy,
Clinton is to blame for his immoral and illegal conduct. His defenders are to blame for excusing his conduct.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:17 pmI believe I mentioned this last week…
Whenever someone mentions Hitler during a thread, it’s known as “Godwinning” the thread. Said person AUTOMATICALLY loses the argument.
I propose a new rule…again…whenever someone sez “but, but, but Clinton” it should be called “Numfarring” the thread.
WHY? Hell, why not? I would love to be the scapegoat that the Rethugs use to lose an argument:)
October 1st, 2006 at 9:17 pmnumfar,
That’s only fair if Democrats never mention Clinton again either.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:19 pmI doubt that the Attorney General and FBI will conduct a real investigation. The are part of the Executive Branch and are even more corrupt than their confederates in the House leadership that they’re supposed to be investigating.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:32 pm[...] Brit Hume strokes Clinton’s rod while fingering his own asshole [...]
October 1st, 2006 at 9:32 pmObviously, attempting to seduce a 16 or 17-year-old is not the same thing as what Clinton did. But Gerry Studds did in fact have sex with a 17-year-old page; Studds was censured, a merely symbolic punishment, albeit one which often ends a political career. And Studds expressed his contempt for the censure proceedings by turning his back on the House (this last fact I am relying on Wiki for; the rest are unquestionably true). Yet Studds was reelected several times after this.
What Foley did may have been illegal because of the internet angle and his own (and ironic) law, but given that actual sex with a 16-year-old boy is legal in DC, it is not clear that this unmarried man’s attempts with the page (who did not work for him personally) are significantly more wrong than Studd’s actual sex with a page, or indeed, married Clinton’s actual sex with an office subordinate (adultery, sexual harrassment, which are admittedly civil cases, not criminal). They’re all scumbags. (Frank I would not so categorize, unless someone can prove that he knew the hustler was working out of Frank’s apartment.)
For what it’s worth, I defended Studds (if a call to the Howie Carr show counts) against censure, given the age of consent and the fact that the page did not work in Studds’ office, but I was not thrilled that he ran and was returned to office by the voters.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:45 pm“…When Clinton was done exploiting the young Monica Lewinsky…”
Comment by Say+No+to+Censorship — October 1, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
that’s as far as i got reading these comments – just had to respond to this one… so if this is a repeat, please excuse, but…
AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA AAaaaaaaahhh…
October 1st, 2006 at 9:52 pmoh my… that’s rich…
i don’t think things have changed too much, but my generation has a name for women like monica – hussy… she knew what she was after…
but i’m pretty sure she got more than she bargained for…
Hume is such a “mush mouth”. Who watches Fox crap. Hey stupid Hume, no one is defending Foley except you and Newt “The loyal husband”. I guess Hume got a couple smooth skinned boys on the side too. :) What a pervert!!!
October 1st, 2006 at 9:53 pm…Where is the outrage for the 14 yr old Iraqi child whos family was murdered and then raped and murdered herself? Foley and his clique bear the reponsibility for this and countless other atrocities…
Comment by Bruce — October 1, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
excellent point… one i remind everyone i talk to…
October 1st, 2006 at 10:05 pmDoes anyone else think that perhaps, just perhaps, Foley was thrown to the (media) sharks to distract them and the American public from the much more serious issues of gutting the Constitution, shredding the Bill of Rights, and being publicly exposed as lying incompetents who deceived their won country into an unwinnable and totally cocked-up war?
October 1st, 2006 at 10:23 pmDear Mr. Think Again,
October 1st, 2006 at 10:53 pmIf you don’t think you’ve spent days on Think Progress defending the actions of Foley by not excudsing his actions as homosexuality instead of predatory behavior, then you’re being dishonest with ourself. Therefore, you are the liar. As for me, well, I’m done with you, Mr. Asshole.
Yours truly,
Rob G
RobG,
I did not say Foley’s actions weren’t predatory, stop lying.
“Homosexual” and “predatory” are not mutually exclusive categories, you nitwit.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:04 pm…perhaps, Foley was thrown to the (media) sharks to distract them and the American public from the much more serious…
Comment by TheOtherMaven — October 1, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
i would have to agree that this is totally within the rovian realm of possibilities… i’ve thought for years that this cabal must have information on most congress sheeple in order to keep them in line… and to thow out to the dogs when needed for times such as these…
i don’t put a thing beyond these criminals…
October 1st, 2006 at 11:08 pmEven if true, which it is certainly not, isn’t this the party that proclaims itself as standing for “family values.”
October 1st, 2006 at 11:17 pmHume is a moron! How can you compare behavior between consenting adults with that of an adult and a minor!? Now one person on that panel challenged that assertion? Yet another example of Fox’s “fair and balanced” reporting.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:46 pmStill bashing Clinton after all these years. I expect that if a search were conducted investigators would find a pair of stained Bugle Boy Blue Jeans in Hastert’s closet.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:09 amyou all really need to look up what pedophilia’s definition truely is. the bad thing is he was a proponent in passing legislation that dealt with the exact thing he did. IMHO 16 is an age where the party knows exactly what they are doing. I do not condone sex with an adult and a minor but come on we know it happens more often then we care to admit in the building. this is nothing new. anyway i guess what i am saying is he broke the law. hes out. he should be tossed in jail. but you know gonzolez wont do anything.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:46 amI don’t watch Hume much, but everytime I do he seems like he has just taken some downers. I feel like I just watched some strung out druggie talking-head reciting some anti-Clinton mantra. Pure rote. I kinda felt sorry for him. I also feel a bit dirty.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:39 amI was fumbling for the word, but I finally found it: ephebophilia is the word for a sexual preference for adolescents. I would provide a link, but I think any post with a link in it is being deleted. It’s on wikipedia.
I can’t believe that there are people trotting out the age of consent to defend Foley. The vast majority of the American people would say that a 53-year-old man who sent sexually charged e-mails and IMs to a 16-year-old teenager working in his office did something reprehensible, unethical, and probably illegal. Faith in the American justice system makes you believe that behavior like that can’t be allowed, whether you want to call it pedophilia, statutory rape, sexual harassment, or “illegal contact with a minor.” Quibbling about what laws may or may not be broken puts you in a very, shall we say, nuanced position.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:37 amGreat! Way to go Hume make the GOP lok worse than Clinton!!
This shows that the GOPredator is worse than Clinton and you guys know how much ‘the base’ disliked Clinton!!
…the guy is worse than Clinton, by a moral mile, AND a GOPredator..Bwahahahaha
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:14 amIn case you forget Brit, Bill the charge was lying, [something BUSH has not been called to the carpet for], not about the sex or the age of the woman, also the charge was later dropped.
Lets rehash, the Starr charge against Clinton was a “pattern of deception”
Lewinsky apparently lied to the court and perjured herself at some point, or would.
In July, Starr granted Lewinsky immunity from perjury charges, and Clinton agreed to testify before the grand jury.
House Republicans had unexpectedly lost seats in the Nov. elections, and it was widely held that the impeachment proceeding was one reason, since polls showed the public did not favor impeachment.
Clinton to be impeached, on two charges: perjury—in his Aug., 1998, testimony—and obstruction of justice.
Maryland grand jury indicted Linda Tripp for illegally taping phone calls
President Clinton agreed to admit to giving false testimony in the Jones case and to accept a five-year suspension of his law license and a $25,000 fine in return for an agreement by the independent counsel, Robert W. Ray (Starr’s successor), to end the investigation and not prosecute him.
Nothing to do with a minor and eventually Clinton was not charged with any sex crimes.
Lets compare Foley to Foley, how about that?
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:28 amThe comparison is unjust. Monica was a consenting adult that persued the President. The pages that Foley Emailed and sent Instant Messages to were not of age either in DC or in their home states. The Republicans knew about this in September of 2005, but failed to report it or stop it. It also has turned out that the only Democrat on the Page committee was not informed of the Foley actions. I don’t know who is more wrong the Foley or the members that allowed him to continue preying on the underaged children. My question is how many more members on the Hill are preying on children?
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:55 amIf your sex life (and being asked questions about it) is getting in the way of your job then step down. Pervert Clinton dragged the country through the muck instead of steping aside like he should have. For this reason I put Nixon ahead of Clinton in the morals column.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:21 amHe who picks the grape before the appointed harvest time, cannot produce any wine.
I agree, that most of the concern comes from the legal age of consent. The fact simply is however, that the law is what it is. It is highly ironic whenever a lawbreaker breaks the law. You want to stop the scandals, Republicans? Change the age of consent laws. If you can give a teenager the responsibility to drive a car at sixteen… FIFTEEN even in some cases… isn’t it just a bit hypocritical to have sexual consent laws set at a higher age than the laws for driving a car?
Bottom line: These pages were not at the age appointed by law for this guy to pursue. Now, if there was a parental consent law for teens fifteen and up… that would be a different matter altogether. Foley weighed the risks to his freedom compared to his sexual interests. Unfortunately for him, the law is inflexible. Only when lawmakers do their jobs and pass laws that actually make SENSE, will the law change.
He who does nothing good, gets nothing good in return.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:42 am[...] While Bush administration defenders say critics are drawing the wrong conclusions from the leaked parts of the NIE report, that Bob Woodward’s book is full of “myths“, and that the Mark Foley affair is no worse than various Democratic congressional and presidential indiscretions, it is hard to see how things won’t get worse before they get better (assuming they do) for Republicans, with mid-term elections just four weeks out. [...]
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:23 amI knew it. I knew the right wingers would find a way to blame Clinton on this. This smarmy hypocrite Hume doesn’t see any difference between having sex with a consenting adult and child predator coming on to 16 year old boys. That tells you all you need to know about Fox the Republican broadcasting network.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:46 amI have to admit that I can’t get terribly upset about this. It is inappropriate, yes. If it is just the tip of the iceberg, and Foley went beyond salacious IMs and e-mails and actually practiced pedophilia, then I would be truly outraged and would join the chorus of those demanding prosecution in the courts. However, we have a congress and executive who are legislating torture, who are undermining the very bedrock of this nation’s principles, willing to arrest and imprison people indefinitely without defense of the legal system, who feel entitled to wage war on the basis of lies, who kill and maim hundreds of thousand, including thousands of our own young men and women in an unjustifiable war!
Where is the outrage about these matters? In the great scheme of things, if the moralists are going to be enraged by a few crude letters, they should be screaming in the streets for the overthrow of this disgusting government because of its crimes against humanity. PRIORITIES, people!
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:11 amWhen it comes to family values I can’t think of anybody better than Hume to talk about them with authority, considering his own many personal experiences and triumphs.
Let his upper lip be denounced far and awide as the mark of a truly spectacular asshole, but no one is more suited to represent the Fox inner core.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:25 am[...] This is yet another example of Republicans asleep behind the wheel of power. If the “24 Scenario” – the favorite hypothetical of those who think torture is just peachy in which a nuclear threat surfaced within the United States – actually happened I doubt that Republicans would be able to notify the American people, much less actually save them. But there is a beastly side this as well, and as usual Fox News heads off the facts with their own brand of spin, despite ratings now rightfully in a tailspin. The unassailable Brit Hume gets a special mention for actually comparing Foley’s sexual predator tactics to Bill Clinton’s Lewinski escapades. No, I’m not making this up – he compared Foley to Clinton and tried to smear Democrats for the sins of his own Party. HUME: It’s probably worth noting that there’s a difference between the two parties on these issues. Inappropriate behavior towards subordinates didn’t cost Gerry Studds his Democratic seat in Massachusetts, nor Barney Frank his. Nor did inappropriate behavior toward a subordinate even cost Bill Clinton his standing within the Democratic Party, even though indirectly he was impeached for it. Mark Foley found out about this, was found out to have done this, and he’s out of office and in total disgrace in his party. [...]
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:26 amfor david.
the ‘hume’s son ate a slug’ comment was mean. but i think brit has a spcial seething hatred for clinton because in some circles he was kind-of sort-of implicated in his son’s death for the whole exposing the coup against newty thing. btw i heart clinton, i am just saying though.
also apparently becuase of the age of consent in DC foley will not be prosecuted for these actions….unless the kids’ parents are forcing the issue. i don’t know the laws for statutory in DC. i think the left and any other intelligent and ethical adult are more outraged at the hypocrisy of republicans….even if he didn’t exactly break the law……
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:24 pmI think that a more appropriate comparison would have been to Juanita Broderick. Both the pursuing the sexual interests of minors and violently raping someone fits neatly into the same category for me. Only the most severe of left wing nuts can look at all of the evidence of the rape and then deny that it occurred (which likely includes most of the regulars here). Brit made the point that Clinton’s standing in his party didn’t waver in the least regardless of what facts came out to support Clinton’s sexual predator leadership style. Seems like a valid point.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:12 pmHum is the biggest bully in the Fox pulpit…! Need I say more?
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:06 pmI don’t know if anyone noticed this, but also on Fox News Sunday was NEWT GINGRICH!!! Hume bashes Clinton’s ‘inappropriate behaviour’, but then we get Newt’s spin? The philandering, deadbeat dad NEWT GINGRICH…Are they serious?
No shame, no decency.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:11 pmIn any group as large as the Congress, the probability of finding someone with Mark Foley is not surprising and there are probably more lurking in the halls, but haven’t been “outed”. Even that other members knew and kept it quiet is human tendency not to rock the boat when things are turbulent enough, already. Let’s face it-Americans’ preoccupation with sex trumps a lot of issues that would be more significant in my mind-like everything you can think of about Iraq, terrorism and global warming, not necessarily in that order.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:13 pm#228
“Holly R. ”
As bad as the “sex” issue here is – given that this involves a 16 year old kid – you are overlooking ( or – kind of ignoring ) central points fueling this furor:
The Republican leadership knew ( for about 1 year? )and tried to handle it in a politically convenient way. Up until the time they had to fold their hand because the evidence was about to see the light of day.
This clearly indicates a greater interest in their political fortunes (”not rocking the boat” – as you would say) vs. the safety of the pages.
With all due respect, this is well beyond “pre-occupation with sex.”
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:01 pmI am a great moralist, a man of supreme virtue. But, if I slip and do something out of character, I will just point out that many others have this, and worse for that matter.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:28 pmThese reichwingers have no shame. They can never admit they are wrong, even when it’s someone like Bob Woodward, who previously praised Bush, now telling it like it is.
Monica Lewinsky might have been an adult but she was an intern who worked under Clinton Do most of you nitwits really think that is just “consensual sex”? Hume was making a valid point especially with regard to Gerry Studds who was not just seducing an underage page but he was actually molesting him. But that is apparently OK with all the Democrats out there.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:08 pmI just don’t see or think of any reason why any sane person would attemp to reason or talk to a republican….. All the mentally retarded Americans somehow wined up being republicans….
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:18 pm#231..it was Consentual Sex.. Whether you don’t like to hear it or not.
Monica was well cared for. Bill Clinton asked for forgiveness. BUT then again to Blame Clinton and not the whole plethra of far more serious sex issues with Newt and Barr and other Youthful GOP Sex Evangelicals. Seem to forget the Neocons, before Clinton was a sworn in, delcared that you were going to impeach him even though there were no facts.
Your Neocon visceral attacks and Neocon controlled GOP Congress passed very destructive Sexual Harassment Laws. The Law is written so that the company or individual is guilty until proven innocent. When businesses needed clarification and tort refreshment you chickened out.
Sound typical !? IT is not much different then the GOP Pro Torture Laws.
Now what did Congressman Foley do???
Sex with underage children
What Clinton do?
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:43 pmConsentual relations with an Adult.
Concerning pedophilia…. the confusion lies in the fact that traditional “encylopedic” definitions of the disorder do indeed designate it as a sexual attraction by adults to prepubescent children. However, defifnitions as we all know evolve and many prominent psychologists and professionals now include adolescents in this type of behavior. Many use the “5 year difference” as a rule of thumb.
Labels aside, Foley was wrong to use his influence to get sexual pleasure. Bravo to the teach above… she is absolutely right on. There is a distinct difference in the maturity level and decision making ability between a 16 and 18 year old.
However, to compare President Clinton’s consensual liason with Foley’s actions is totally reprehensible, political, and ignorant. Hume is an idiot.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:25 amCorrection…. ingorance is a lack of knowledge, Hume is just plain stupid.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:36 am#233- Foley did not have sex with underage children, Clinton did have sex with a very young employee. And what about Gerry Studds? Is he an evil republican too?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:52 amI can’t imagine ANYBODY IN HIS RIGHT MIND comparing Foley to Clinton. Give me a Break!!! Ms. Lewinsky was 22 years old….female….and had made a pass at the president. Doesn’t make it right, but it does make it human. This creep Foley is taking his pants off, panting, and masturbating for a male child of 16. That makes it sub-human in my mind. If he was in a relationship with someone of age, and if he had come out of the closet and if he wasn’t so high and mighty, we might have shown some compassion. Here, I have NONE! I remember his having called President Clinton a “sex addict” and bemoaned the perversion of it all!
Let’s face it. When the chips are down, the Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites. I think of all the “holier- than- thou” elephants that got bumped off while criticizing President Clinton during the impeachment process. I remember the Susan Smith case, where her step-father was a big “mucky-muck” in the Republican party in SC while boinging his crazy step-daughter. I could give you a long list of the self-righteous Repubs that come to mind, but ……I’ll spare you that.
I am an independent, but I am certainly closer to the Dems than the Repubs! Go Dems!!!!
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:49 pmI am blown away by the “logic” that is being used to “defend” the indefensible. “They did it, too” is not a defense. (especially so, since they are two different things). And parsing of the law today is the republican version of “it depends on what the definition of “is”, is”. In 2006, there is a discussion of what Mark Foley allegedly did. What Clinton was hunted and impeached for in 1998, AND EVENTUALLY ACQUITTED FOR IN A SENATE TRIAL, has not a shred of bearing or relativity to what Foley is accused of, and what the republican leadership are accused of in covering it up to save a congressional seat. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Sometimes, it’s just that simple and just that clear. Enough with blurring the lines so your side doesn’t look as bad.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:10 pmI can’t wait to hear what the “moral majority preachers” have to say about this. Are they going to lie low, and hope it will blow over soon? Are they afraid to speak up, else someone might uncover their own sins? Personally, I look with jaundiced eye at those who declare that “God put them on earth to protect the children.” I have good reason, in that one of those SOB’s took advantage of my 12 year old son at a Scout’s outing, and I seethe whenever I hear of these low-life creatures. Unfortunately I took the law into my own hands, and have paid the price. But you know what? To this day, I don’t regret it. My son’s life was ruined, as was the rest of the family. I have NO patience for these a##h****s. Nor do I have patience for those who attempt to defend them.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:37 pmSo what Clinton did was right? Right is right. When a liberal is morally repugnant it is right but a conservative must be stoned to death.
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:13 pmTo: bsmart -
I never stopped to ask whether the A**h***that abused my son was on the right or left of politics. Don’t really care. I just know he was a scumbag parading as a do-gooder.
And…..if you don’t see the difference between Foley and President Clinton, I won’t waste my time in attempting to explain it!
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:05 pmYou lefties really take the cake. Where was your outrage when Reynolds was screwing a 16 year old and was PARDONED by Clinton? where was your outrage when Barney Frank said he didn’t know a male prostitution ring was being run out of his basement, where was you outrage when Stubbs not only had sex with a minor but kept his job and got reelected?
Foley is a disgrace and he has resigned and may face prosecution. However the idea that the GOP leaders knew about his abuses and ignored them is laughable. How would they be able to keep Page complaints away from democrat leaders? How could they cover this up when apparently these pages saved the IMs? The fact is the democrats are trying to turn this pervert’s actions into a political issue because they cannot win on the REAL issues. Foley resigned Frank and Stubbs didn’t and Reynolds recieved a pardon from Clinton. It seems that when democrats accuse republicans of protecting a pervert it’s really the pot calling the kettle black.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:28 amThere is no way the GOP covered anything up in this case. these pages saved the IMs that Foley sent and they could have sent them to Pelosi if they felt that the GOP was covering it up or not doing anything. Hastert never saw the IMs and only saw one E-mail that wasn’t sexually explicit.
Here is the difference,
Foley (GOP)-resigned
Frank (DEM)- Denied it, kept his job
Reynolds (DEM)- Pardoned by Clinton
Stubbs (DEM)- Reelected
Double standard anyone?
October 4th, 2006 at 9:36 amOctober 4th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Apparently a “fact” on this website is anything that the left wants to be a fact. There is no evidence that anyone saw the explicit e-mails or IMs but the pages and Foley until the scandal broke. These pages could have easily sent them to the Page board or the democrat leaders if they felt the GOP leaders were covering it up.
Foley has resigned, there is no evidence of any cover up, and the democrats are so desperate they are trying to make a political issue out of this. funny how they didn’t express outrage when Reynolds and Stubbs were caught actually having sex with underage individuals. Hell, Clinton pardoned Reynolds. It is so obviousl that this story will wind up like Plame Gate- and Memo Gate. A big pile of nothing.
Foley, is gone and may face prosecution, but when democrats actually have sex with underage pages, they get a pass and a pardon? Hmmmm
October 4th, 2006 at 10:15 amSexual perversion is the issue. Perversion being defined as “against the societal norm”.
My position is simply that there are perverted Republican party members and Just as many Perverted Democrat party members whether that ‘perversion’ occurs with consenting adults or with minors: always has been, is now and probably always will be.
In all fairness, we should recognize that these persons, seen by many as being mentally challenged, may be of any denomination, persuasion, ethnic group, or political party. Criminal behavior has nothing to do with these societal positions.
Pursuance of investigations or legal repercussions should be evenly applied to the person as an individual. Their societal postion did not do the crime. The individual(s) did the crime.
This means the Democrats should have been just as angry when a member of their own party had a sexual liaison with a House of Representative’s page. I am referring to the 1983 case when Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Gerry Studds admitted to having sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page.
Studds was not just communicating with the boy, but involved in a sexual affair.
In spite of the news coverage of his homosexual affair with a teenager, he won re-election the following year and served in Congress until his retirement in 1996, according to several sources (easily verifiable in open media).
And what about other Democrat perversions Gus Savage, Jim Bates
or Barney Frank and many other scandalous behavior by both Democrat and Republican party members.
Each Criminal individual should be attacked as vigorously as the individual of some other sexual persuasion, ethnic group, religion, political party or etc…
October 4th, 2006 at 11:10 amLet’s clarify this folks: Mark Foley is not a homosexual. He is a pedophile. Enough said! If this was just a man having a consensual relationship with another man, then it wouldn’t be a problem. This is a man that was making unwanted advances towards a 16 year old young man. It’s no comparison.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:07 pmA Second point: The Democratic Party has seldom or never marketed themseleves as “The Party of Moral Values”, thus that’s why Bill Clinton and other democrats, was somewhat forgiven for their travails.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:17 pmWow, is he really comparing sexual advances towards a minor to consensual sex with an adult? Hume is an idiot who needs to get laid. Of course Clinton isn’t going to lose much standing because one, it’s his private life, he broke no law and two, he didn’t skip out on any important business to play cybersex with little boys!!!!! These republicans are OUTRAGEOUS!!!
October 4th, 2006 at 5:19 pmThe Democratic Party has seldom or never marketed themseleves as “The Party of Moral Valuesâ€, thus that’s why Bill Clinton and other democrats, was somewhat forgiven for their travails.
Can you believe the above comment was made. Lets see. I suppose this democrat is assuring us that his party never markets itself as a party of moral values. Thanks for the info. but we already knew that.
If the Democrats had ever been a party of moral values they would not have had a class action Reparation lawsuit filed against them by Rev Wayne Perryman, – filed a class action Reparation lawsuit (in the United States District Court in Seattle Case No. CV04-2442), alleging “that because of their racist past practices the Democratic Party should be required to pay African Americans Reparations.
By all means, take a look at the low moral of Democrats as witnessed by their own actions toward anyone who is not white for 250 years (Of course, in the past 30 years they pretend it never occured – Go ahead take a look. Read it for yourself.
Click >>> here.
Or, click >>> here
Of Course, since the Democrats never claim to be high in morals, I guess they should be somewhat forgiven for their travails.
October 5th, 2006 at 5:08 pmWe all know that Osama is a Democrat
October 5th, 2006 at 5:21 pmI thought the dems liked butt pirates anyway
October 5th, 2006 at 6:02 pmLet’s look more at the facts confirming that the Democratic party does not promote itself as a party of high moral principles click > here
October 6th, 2006 at 10:00 amI had relatives fight for both the North and for the South in the Civil War. Born in the South, I was a Democrat simply because my parents were and they because their parents were and etc…
Then I started doing my own thinking. With all of the rhetoric on liberal news stations, I wondered how any of my relatives could have represented the Republican North. Finally, I grew up. I quit parroting the liberal news media and my uneducated friends. No longer do I side with Democrats simply because I know other people who do. I am proud that the majority of our country has sided with Republican views and I am ashamed of Democrat History.
This history they continue today Only now they screw us with a smile….. ” Here, take the government welfare we have for you, — You can’t ever hold a job that makes over $1,000.00 per month. If you do that we won’t give you the {free} 500.00 per month any more” >>>>>>>>>>” Here, take this test of lower standards and if you can pass it we will give you a diploma so you can be as smart as we are, {of course, in the actual job market, you will not exceed the persons who took tests with higher standards}”. >>>>>>>”Abort your children…. you have the right. Kill them all for all we care.” >>>>>>>>>> You do not need strong moral values….. that’s for Republicans. You don’t need a strong family environment. And you don’t need to be a productive member of society. Stay out of our way. Keep your mouth shut and comply with our Democratic program. Stay down, just as we have kept you for 250 years. We will give you government handouts ——- And we will smile at you with kindness while we concoct inventive ways to suppress you. Subtle ways that you are stupid enough to vote for. This way you are getting what you asked for. Ha. Ha. Does this make you happy? At least we are screwing you with a smile now.”
>>>>>>> I am not a Democrat anymore!!!!
No thank you. I can stand on my own 2 feet. Thanks to the 13th 14th and 15th amendments which were passed without any Democrat support. And we would be much further along now if Democrats had not oppressed us for an additional 100 years after their passage. i.e. Jim Krow, KKK etc….
October 6th, 2006 at 11:59 amYou can fool all of us some of the time. But you can’t fool some of us all of the time. >>>>>> I am not a Democrat anymore!!!!
Monique S. wrote:
“>>>>>>> I am not a Democrat anymore!!!!”
“No thank you. I can stand on my own 2 feet.”
WHOOPEEEEEE!!!!! Thank God for small favours! And thank you Monique. The Repubs can use all the long-winded people they can find!
October 7th, 2006 at 9:40 amI think Hume has a point. We don’t know all the facts about Foley’s ridiculous behavoir. I’m glad he resigned immediately when this was brought to light. There seems to be a question of the age of these pages. Foley’s misbehavior appears to me to be similiar to President Clintons. This kind of behavoir is not what I am looking for in a politician that I want to trust. This stuff is why I have dumped the Republicans and switched to the Libertarian Party. Enough is enough.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:27 amCLINTON’S RAPE OF AMERICA
North Korea’s ” …nuclear test could not have occurred without Bill Clinton’s decade of dalliance. Clinton could have obliterated the Yongbyong reactor with one strike when he first learned of North Korea’s covert nuclear program in 1994. Instead, he allowed Jimmy Carter’s private foreign policy to preempt him. Upon completing the “Agreed Framework†in 1994, Clinton stated, “This agreement will help achieve a vital and long-standing American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula.†We now know the $4.6 billion bribe gave the Communists the two nuclear reactors they used to create their current arsenal. ”
And that’s just one half of the equation. You’ll have to read the whole thing to find out the other half.
And all that dimwit Hume can come up with is that Clinton’s sexual aberrancies weren’t really all that bad.
But that’s not all. I just read that James A. Baker III is (shudder) advising the President. After listening to his and Condi’s “advice” Bush (and the rest of us, too) won’t know the difference between America and France. I mean, we already know what Clinton’s “diplomacy” cost us; so now why does Baker wants Bush to repeat the folly? And, why “stay the course” in Iraq, when we can cut and run, like all good leftist cowards want us to.
It looks like Bush is being set up to be conned into returning to the policies of yesteryear, in a neo-clintonian resurgence of banality and failure the likes of which this country has never seen.
I guess that’s just the problem with leaders these days. The worst of them are selfish spoiled brats, and the best of them lack any vision.
It’s a good thing my Dad is no longer with us, because if he saw how this country is being flushed down the toilet, it would kill him.
October 9th, 2006 at 11:03 pmDid you know that Karr was a registered Democrat and so was the Judge who let him go? Go figure.
October 10th, 2006 at 6:04 pmI bet if Bush and company took a truth pill that would not let them lie we would see that 90% are cheating on their wivies or have. They are just mad because Monica begged Clinton to let her please him. So how did he use her? They are just mad that with all their power they beg still can’t get a consenting adult to do them. So they turn to children. For everyone defending Foley maybe there should be a hidden camera recording when you are in the present of a minor.
October 10th, 2006 at 6:40 pmHey ya’ll, you do know that Britt Hume is still totally insane and totally mixed up about anything homosexual since, sadly, his own son, Sandy. committed suicide when it was revealed that Sandy was bedding down Susan Molinari’s hubby, Bill Paxton. The rumor was that Britt tried his best to “cure” Sandy (thank you, Dr. Stoopid, for thinking that gayness is a disease,,,) and the whole affair went south- culminating in Sandy’s suicide and Molinari/Paxton going back to Staten Island and being ferry (no pun intended,,,) boat drivers…or something… Anyhooooo…the Humemeister is totally and permanently whackoville!
October 10th, 2006 at 8:17 pmObviously, Elaine has not followed the news. Mark Foley may have unethical behavior. But In Florida, the age of consenting adults is 16. Of course, this means that Mark Foley was sending suggestive emails to an adult. The 21 year old who claims to have had sex with Mark Foley was also an adult. Mark Foley may have questionable ethics. But No one has found him absolutely guilty of doing anything illegal with a minor. Not in person. Nor on the internet. He has not even violated the stipulations of any laws/programs he passed or pushed through.
I agree, He was unethical because of his position of authority over a program of young adults. A program that parents encouraged their young adults to go, while assuming that their would be no homosexual advances.
Foley is simply being attacked by DEMOCRATS for being a Republican Homosexual. If he was a Democrat homosexual like Studds, then he would not be unethical. He would simply be exercising his right to be gay.
Again, what minor did Foley send emails to? Remember —– different states have different ages of consenting adults.
Again, what minor did Foley have sex with? None.
Again, what law did Foley violate?
Unethical ——– Yes.
Pedophile? ———– Prove it.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:37 pmThroughout American history, both Democrat and Republican leaders have proposed and implemented Civil Rights Legislation and related Civil Rights programs, apparently designed to develop and to maintain a country where fairness and equality is for everyone.
Contrarily, American history is filled with Civil Rights Legislation and related Civil Rights programs which were opposed by both Democrat and Republican leaders. American political figures who opposed Civil Rights Legislation and related Civil Rights programs had reasons that may or may not have been “politically correctâ€. However, the will and majority vote of American people assured the enactment of many Civil Rights Legislation and related Civil Rights programs in spite of opposition from these American political figures.
In fact, many may venture to say that it was an act of providence that opposition from these American Political figures could not quell the will of the American people, who demand a country where fairness and equality is for everyone.
On Newsmax.com, Diane Alden makes clear this TRUTH:
This may be confirmed by reading the Analysis from
October 11th, 2006 at 5:40 pmYale-New Haven Teachers Institute
Click HERE
RAY I AM NOT SPEAKING AS A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, GAY OR STRAIGHT, I AM HOWEVER SPEAKING AS A ADULT AND A MOTHER. IF I CAUGHT MARK FOLEY OR YOUR SICK TWISTED PERVERTED A$$ WITHIN 10 FEET OF ONE OF MY CHILDREN I WILL MAKE SURE U GAVE YOURSELF THE BEST BLOWJOB AND BUTT JOB. THIS IS WHY OUR CHILDREN OF TODAY CAN’T ENJOY LIFE BECAUSE OF SICK PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND MARK FOLEY AND I HOPE IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN OR BE AROUND CHILDREN SOMEONE IS KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON YOU. NOT THAT IT’S ANY OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS BUT I HAVE A GAY CHILD WHO HAPPEN TO BE MALE, SO YOU SEE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARK FOLEY OR YOU BEING A GAY REPUBLICAN IT IS ABOUT BOTH OF YOU BEING DECENT HUMAN BEINGS, AND LEAVING OUR CHILDREN ALONE AND GIVING THEY A CHANCE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE A CHILD. TALK ABOUT A POSTER CHILD FOR ABORTION YOU AND MARK FOLEY ARE THE PERFECT PAIR.
October 11th, 2006 at 11:20 pmELAINE, I clearly stated the following:
I am absolutely against Foley and/or anyone who may behave unethically while maintaining a position in government office.
You, on the other hand are attacking all Republicans ……. You said “They [Republicans] are just mad that with all their power they beg still can’t get a consenting adult to do them. So they turn to children.”
Come on ELAINE, It is obvious that you are angry with God and with the world because you have a gay child. Maybe you are angry with yourself. Maybe you now feel as though you have someone to take it out on. Someone to point your finger at so you can somehow feel a little more self-righteous. Someone who stands for all that you despise in your heart —-1. Gay and 2. Republican
I could be wrong in my assessment. But, if I am wrong, it would show in the words you use when you speak——and, If you truly agree with your own assertion, that this has nothing to do with GAY and nothing to do with REPUBLICAN, you would be attacking the behavior of the individual without mentioning his or her sexual preference, nationality, political postion, religion or etc….
Anyone from any of those postions have behaved as improperly as Mark Foley: Catholic Priests (as well as other religions), DEMOCRATS like STUDDS who actually had SEX WITH A 17 YEAR OLD PAGE [a mother's child as you put it now, but have never spoken against].
Maybe you did not know it but 16 is the age of consenting adult in over half of the states. Personally, I believe the age should be 18 in all states. But, I don’t get to make the law. So, while Mark Foley’s behavior appears to be completely unethical, it may not have been illegal. And if it turns out that there was anything illegal, I hope the bastard gets all penalties that can be thrown at him.
I think the Republicans did the right thing by canning his unethical ass right away. I hope there are rules/stipulations or programs set in place to protect our young adult or children pages (depending on which state they are from) —–and I think all DEMOCRATS who violate those ethical rules should be penalized and attacked as vigorously as a REPUBLICAN whether they are man, woman, gay, straight, or of any nationality.
I would not care if I was in a state where 16 is the age of a consenting adult, if my 16 year old son was having communications of a sexual nature from Mark Foley, I would be furious.. I would be mad because I trusted that my son [my child, even if he was technically and legally of the age of a "consenting adult"] was only allowed and encouraged by me to go there because I thought it was simply a program that would help his career.
I would not have sent him there to be sexually enticed or groomed. In short, my trust would have been violated by a Government official. THAT IS UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR.
Fortunately, the Republicans canned Foley right away to let our nation know they will not tolerate this behavior, and if it turns out that laws were violated, I am certain Foley will experience the full wrath of the Republican party as they pursue justice. Mark my word.
Use your brain ELAINE. Do you honestly think that Foley’s behavior, over the course of many years was known only by Republicans and no Democrat anywhere in the world knew anything about it? Did you ever hear any of those Democrats speak out against it? No. If they knew about it, they sat back, allowed it to happen, for years, and then all of a sudden, 30 days before election they say “Oh, by the way, look what Foley is doing”————
October 12th, 2006 at 9:38 amI WONDER IF THAT IS UNETHICAL. I wonder if you are speaking out about that.
Ray thanks for letting me know you have a direct line to God and he let you know that I was angry with him and my son. I do use mine brain and if you had one and was able to use it you would not be molesting 16 years old children just because there was sick molesting lawmakers who said it is okay. Foley want to blame being molested. As a child who molested you? You seem to be more mad that Democrats waited 30 days before a election to reveal this than the act itself. I wouln’t give a damn if they waited til the day of the election, it wasn’t a lie. Maybe next time you and God are having this personal talk you can ask him to send Mark Foley your way. He answers my prayers maybe he will answer yours.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:03 amELAINE, since you are narrow minded, let me spell it out for you AGAIN.
blockquote>And finally I would not care if I was in a state where 16 is the age of a consenting adult, if my 16 year old son was having communications of a sexual nature from Mark Foley, I would be furious.. I would be mad because I trusted that my son [my child, even if he was technically and legally of the age of a “consenting adultâ€] was only allowed and encouraged by me to go there because I thought it was simply a program that would help his career.
I would not have sent him there to be sexually enticed or groomed. In short, my trust would have been violated by a Government official. THAT IS UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR.
In spite of these assertions, which ELAINE, seems to agree with, her narrow mind somehow thinks she should accuse me of molesting 16 years old children [as she accuses Foley} just because there was sick molesting lawmakers who said it is okay.
There is only one point that ELAINE and I disagree on. She blames the entire Republican party and is highly pissed that anyone reminds her of the following truths:
DEMOCRATS like KENNEDY leaves bodies of dead women laying around and goes home to drink tea.
DEMOCRATS like STUDDS doesn’t send emails but has SEX WITH CHILDREN.
DEMOCRATS like CLINTON demonstrates to small children that a head-job is not having SEX behind his wifes back.
She uses her son as a crutch. She says, “I am not against GAYS, I just don’t want adult GAYS messing with my son”. ELAINE wouldn’t mind at all if her GAY son went and encouraged the neighborhood children of other Parents to suck his little pee pee, or maybe to bend over for him. I guess that is okay. They are all minors. Let them have at it. ELAINE, my children are not GAY. While under my roof as minors, they will not engage in sexual activity, gay or straight with my consent. Once they have reached the age of adulthood and move out on there own, I will support their decision to live in any manner they choose.
And as my bold quotes above clearly indicate, I do not endorse the behavior of any one having sex with anyone under the age of 18.
ELAINE LIES AND SAYS she is only arguing that people should be decent human beings: But, when I agree and say I am against pedophilia, I am against Mark Foley’s unethical behavior, I am against children under 18 having sex with anyone , even with each other, (even if it is “legal”, I have made it clear that I believe it is unethical and immoral) GUESS WHAT ELAINE DOES? ELAINE, DOES NOT PUBLICY AGREE with these decent human being view points ——–She instead, shows her IQ (or lack thereof) by making a feeble attempt at comparing me to Foley. Do these view points sound like Foleys view points?
IN SHORT, I merely pointed out to ELAINE the truth is that up to this moment, Mark Foley has not yet been found guilty of violating a law.
SORRY ELAINE ——–BUT NO MATTER WHAT ELAINE SAYS — IT IS STILL TRUE.
Foley, in my opinion, absolutely behaved unethically. I am happy his career is gone because of it. After a proper investigation, representation, and trial, (as our Constitution allows), if Foley is found guilty of a crime, I do hope the bastard gets the full penalty as justice demands. I am against pedophilia, I believe noone should be considered a consenting adult until after they reach the age of 18, I believe her 16 year old GAY son should not have sex with my children or with any child in their neighborhood, or anywhere else in the world. Just because ELAINE thinks the law would allow her GAY son to have sex with other minors does not mean the rest of the country agrees with her low standards.
Elaine, if this is truly about being a decent human being, then stop being judge, jury and executioner. That is not decent. You and I do agree that Ethics and Morality are shattered by people who behave as did Foley. Sometimes laws do not agree with everyones vision or what may or may not be decent for human beings. And ethics and morality may be violated without violating a law. Violating ethics and morality carries penalty as providence may dictate. The law has its own standards.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:49 pmQUOTE FROM ELAINE “Democrats waited 30 days before a election to reveal this than the act itself. I wouldn’t give a damn if they waited til the day of the election, it wasn’t a lie.”
ELAINE has publicly stated that SHE DOES NOT CARE IF ALL DEMOCRATS KNEW ABOUT FOLEY BUT DID NOT SAY OR DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
I guess that the decent thing for DEMOCRATS to do would be to watch children be violated for many years before admitting they knew it. Hey, why not enjoy the FREAK show.
ELAINE is a FREAK. She does not really care about the decent thing being done. She just wants to bash GAY’s and REPUBLICAN’s and the fellow named RAY who obviously has pointed out the truth to her.
I am a mother too. And Elaine had better keep her perverted children away from mine.
October 13th, 2006 at 2:13 pmMichelle makes a pretty good point to Elaine.
After several years of watching child abuse, the Democrats come out and say ” oh, by the way, your children are being abused”. Elaine does not care about the fact that the Democrats complacently and smugly sat back and watched on person violated our children. Elaines best response is “I wouldn’t give a damn if they waited til the day of the election, it wasn’t a lie.â€
Gee, let’s question Elaines sense of human decency. Let’s Elaines son is being violated for 2 years. The Democrats witness it for 2 years. They say nothing to you for years. But finally, after 2 years of enjoying the show, the Democrats say to Elaine ” oh, by the way, your son has been anally seduced for 2 years — Aren’t you glad that we watched it happen for 2 years and that we are now telling you about it, it isn’t a lie — it really happened — we knew you wouldn’t give a damn if we waited until the day of the election to tell you about it”.
October 13th, 2006 at 5:01 pmH.R.7152 was a bill written by REPUBLICAN Dirksen
H.R.7152 passed the House
Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34
Democrats supported it 152-96
Republicans supported H.R.7152 in higher proportions than Democrats
After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it? What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?
Dirksen’s reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: “I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.”
The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964
This bill is better known as the 1964 Civil Rights Bill
We thought people like Elaine might like to know this. The Democrats were probably gonna telly you about it in a few years since is true now.
October 13th, 2006 at 5:58 pmMark & Linda are on the right track:
In, “Republicans and Civil Rights” Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002, Diane Alden correctly confirms all that Mark and Linda have asserted:
Republicans did favor 88th Congress, H. R. 7152. Civil Rights Act of 1964 Jul. 1964 voting 138 for and only 34 against.
Contrarily, and par for the course, Democrats grudgingly acquiesced to the civil rights verbiage voting 152 for and 96 against.
This is also confirmed on CNSNews.com, a Cybernet News service who educates us with this truth:
Even the Wikepedia Encyclopedia assures us that
Everett McKinley Dirksen (January 4, 1896 – September 7, 1969) was a Republican U.S. Congressman and Senator from Illinois. As Republican Senate leader he played a highly visible role in the politics of the 1960s. He helped write the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and played the decisive role in its passage. He later offered his support for the Open Housing Act of 1968, another landmark piece of Civil Rights legislation.
In fact, The evolution of affirmative action, Public Personnel Management, Fall 1999 by Lee, R A clarifies that The principal opponent to H.R. 7152 was Rep. Howard W. Smith (D-Va.), a powerful committee chairman, who did all he could to bury the bill. After he was forced to release it for debate on the House floor, Rep. Smith continued to argue against it.
And again, under Civil Rights Act of 1964, in dksopedia.com, we are again confronted with this astonishing truth:
October 13th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Ray since we all can see that you can’t read maybe next time you are on the direct line with God maybe he can tell you exactly what I did say. You quoted me saying “I don’t want adult gays messing with my son”. Can you please send that to me so I could see it with my own eyes. You keep referring to my son as if you know him. Not once did I say he was a minor or that I allowed any one to have sex in my home. Michell and Donna don’t worry about my children, yours are probly getting molested right in your house under your nose. Once again this is not about being Democrat or Republican. Whenever I read the paper or see the news about a child being molested, abused or killed I don’t wait to see which party the monster who did this belong to before I get sick and shed tears for the child. Yes the Democrats that knew should had come forward sooner. They are just as guity as any one eles for not reporting it. If “who” and “when” it was reported was not issues people was debating I would have not be so blinded by angry. The one and only issues should have been if it was true, not how to lose or win seats.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:06 pmDemocrats and Sex Scandals
Patriot Post Online ^ | October 6, 2006 | Mark Alexander quoted
(On his way out of office)…the departing President Clinton was busily dispensing no fewer than 176 last-minute presidential pardons to convicted criminals from sea to shining sea. One of these was for Mel Reynolds, a former Democrat congressman from Chicago. Reynolds had been serving a five-year federal sentence for fraudulent-loan and campaign-finance practices, having completed a 30-month sentence for 12 counts of statutory rape of a 16-year-old campaign volunteer.
[para]Clinton pardoned Reynolds at the behest of Jessie Jackson, had an extra-marital affair with 21-year-old intern Monica Lewinsky (of course, it wasn’t sex because she just sucked it)—land Jackson had a sordid four-year affair with a subordinate, one Karin Stanford, a staffer with Rainbow/PUSH.[para]
So let’s get this straight: A disgraced congressman who’d had sex with a subordinate received a pardon from a disgraced president who’d had sex with a subordinate at the behest of a disgraced clergyman who’d had sex with a subordinate. And what was the Honorable Mel Reynolds’ new position with the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition? Youth counselor.
Space prohibits detailing all the sexual misdeeds of Democrats in recent years, but here are a few: Rep. Fred Richmond, arrested in 1978 for soliciting a 16-year-old girl; Sen. Brock Adams, accused multiple times of drugging, assault and rape beginning in 1988; Rep. Gus Savage, accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer during a 1989 African tour; and Sen. Daniel Inouye, accused throughout the 1990s of sexual assault by various women. Then there are Reps. John Young, Wayne Hays and the ever affable Sen. Ted Kennedy—all Democrats involved in sexual escapades under Democrat majorities, all of which went unpunished by their colleagues.
It’s clear, then, that issues of sexual impropriety don’t faze Democrats any more than do serious breaches of national security or selling cocaine from the House Post Office, as happened under the Democrats’ watch in the late 1980s. They see Foley’s folly only as a political opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of the Republican leadership four weeks before the midterm elections. Tellingly enough, Democrats haven’t called for an investigation into Foley’s actions, but they were quick to call for an investigation into Speaker Hastert’s response.
Mark Foley deserves whatever comes his way, and bloodthirsty Democrats may ultimately claim the scalp of the Speaker, but let’s remember the Reynolds-Clinton-Jackson troika before we ascribe even the slightest virtue to their actions.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:16 pmELAINE, I apologize for attacking you. I am sure you do have good ethics and good morals. As I have attempted to make clear to you, I do as well. I simply despise the unethical and immoral behavior of Mark Foley, but not any more so than the behavior of the individuals mentioned in comment 272 (above).
I think I just wanted for you to acknowledge that it is not REPUBLICANS who behave unethically or immorally. It is not DEMOCRATS either.
IT IS PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS. I will properly quote you now as saying:
And now I am in 100% agreement with you.
We are against pedophilia
We are against Mark Foley’s unethical behavior
We are against minors having sex with anyone (minors or not — but more especially not with unethical and immoral adults).
We are against anyone, Democrat or Republican, who knew of Mark Foley’s behavior but did not come forward sooner.
We will speak out against any one of them just as viciously as the other.
After all, it is the individual who is responsible for his or her own behavior.
I call a truce. You hear that world. ELAINE IS A GOOD PERSON and she is just standing up for what is right. She doesn’t really care what your race, religion, nationality, political affiliation or etc… is —- I think she and I agree that any individual, especially one in a position of power, should be a good role model and behave in an ethical and moral manner. I think she and I agree that any individual who does break those code of ethics should be penalized accordingly as providence may dictate and if laws are violated, then may the full wrath of the law see justice to the Nth degree on their sorry ass.
Don’t beat me up anymore Elaine, I dig your spunk and wish you well.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:38 pmI am laughing at you all. Attack, attack attack. If you guys attacked the terrorists like you attack Hume, the world would be at peace by now. And I think it’s unusual how many attacks there are on Hume. Is that all the left does is watch Fox news? Are are you all on Soros payroll, blogging in your mom’s basement?
The point is that everyone is taking sides, and everyone’s side is the correct one. That’s stupid. Seek truth. Seek justice. The GOP are still angry because Clinton did not abide by the unwritten rules when he got caught AND is STILL loved by the left. The GOP are angry now because Foley got caught, abided by the unwritten rules, resigned, and that’s not enough for the left. There are two sets of unwritten rules of conduct. And the country is confused… like in why didn’t Studds resign? Why didn’y Clinton resign?
October 14th, 2006 at 8:28 amAssociated Press on msn
Updated: 10:58 a.m. CT Oct 14, 2006
..\\
October 14th, 2006 at 11:12 pmHillary’s Democratic constituent has shown contempt to McCain and all Veterans of War by demeaning McCains prisoner of war status. The Democratic Party constituent who made the derogatory statement has made no public apology to anyone.
Instead of the Victimizer making an apology, Hillary did. Of course, she was forced to apologize as a political maneuver. Hillary knows she don’t want all vets voting against her, which would be a probability if her campaign appears to be showing contempt towards those who are vets and possibly even prisoners of war.
October 15th, 2006 at 12:04 pmSome news media such as CNN appears to be using the derogatory remarks made by Hillary’s campaingner’s as reason to glorify Hillary. Instead, we want a retraction statement from her constituent.
Here is a copy of the article where Hillarys unapologetic constituent is disrespectful to War Heroes, vets, and those who have been prisoners of war.
HILL’S SO SORRY OVER ‘VIET’ SLAP
APOLOGIZES FOR AIDE’S MCCAIN RAP
By MAGGIE HABERMAN
October 15, 2006 — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called John McCain yesterday to personally apologize and denounce comments an adviser of hers reportedly made slamming the GOP senator over his time in captivity in Vietnam.
The move from one potential 2008 presidential candidate to another was sparked by a column in The New York Times, in which Maureen Dowd quoted an anonymous adviser talking about McCain’s criticism of the Clintons over their North Korea position.
The adviser said Team Clinton thought McCain was doing the White House’s dirty work by criticizing the Clintons and ended up “looking similar to the way he did on those captive tapes from Hanoi, where he recited the names of his crewmates.”
That was a reference to an unsubstantiated rumor used to tar McCain, a Vietnam war hero, as off-kilter during the 2000 GOP presidential primary.
Aides to both senators said Clinton reached out to McCain to denounce the comments.
Clinton is said to have a good relationship with McCain, and her circle clearly wasn’t pleased with the remarks.
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said, “These comments are reprehensible and they in no way reflect Senator Clinton’s feelings.”
McCain spokesman John Weaver replied, “Senator Clinton is correct, the remark was reprehensible.”
Last week, McCain took what many saw as the first shot of the 2008 race, blasting Clinton for placing blame for North Korea’s recent nuclear test on President Bush – and pointed to husband Bill’s policies as a “failure.”
Clinton has avoided directly criticizing McCain over those comments, instead taking aim at Bush and Republicans at large.
Clinton, facing token opposition in her Senate re-election bid, has said she’s focused only on the 2006 mid-term elections, and has stayed mum about her future.
Both senators lead several public polls for their party’s nominations for the White House including a University of New Hampshire poll released last week showing voters in the country’s first-in-the-nation primary state put McCain and Clinton at the top of the pack.
The comments about McCain’s prisoner-of-war days put Clinton’s camp in damage-control mode with five weeks left in the 2006 cycle, at a time when everyone around her has stayed on-message.
The landscape among the 2008 presidential hopefuls changed last week when centrist Mark Warner dropped out suddenly, saying he wanted to focus on his family.
Warner had been viewed by many as the “un-Hillary” candidate in a democratic primary and his departure made her the straight away front-runner, experts said.
Meanwhile, real-estate mogul Donald Trump in Florida on Friday night talked up Clinton as the Democrats’ presidential nominee, reportedly saying at a state GOP fund-raiser: “She’s brilliant woman and she’s going to be a very, very formidable candidate . . . Absolutely I think she can win, especially if the war’s still going on.”
maggie.haberman@nypost.com
We still have no apology from the person who made the comment. Hillary’s apology is nice. It’s sweet and all that. But why can’t we get an apology from the DEMOCRAT advisor who made the comment. The same person who made the public INSULT should be the same person who makes a pulbic RETRACTION and WHO makes a public APOLOGY.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:11 am[...] (transcript via TP) [...]
October 17th, 2006 at 6:02 amIf you have any doubt about what is IMMORAL and what is not READ THIS
October 17th, 2006 at 3:50 pmMISLEADING GUIDELINES GIVEN TO U.S. BISHOPS
Catholic bishops have been mislead regarding Vatican guidelines on the reception of Holy Communion by Catholic politicians. Consider the following:
“It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error” – Pope John Paul II (Los Angeles speech to U.S. bishops, Sept. 16, 1987).
In June, 2004 Cardinal Ratzinger, (now Pope Benedict XVI) sent a memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick that offered guidelines to bishops for discussing the Communion/abortion issue at their meeting near Denver. However, Cardinal McCarrick did not reveal critical contents of the cover letter to the bishops, but instead suggested each bishop decide for himself the action to be taken.
Some of the key points in that cover letter:
1. In the case of abortion or euthanasia, a Catholic politician manifests “formal cooperation” in grave sins by “consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws.”
2. The politician’s pastor should “meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”
3. “When these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.”
4. “Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.”
Unfortunately, a number of two-faced “Catholic†politicians (especially permissive liberals in the Democratic Party) are taking advantage of this confusion.
Vincent Bemowski – Writer (U.S. Politics & World Affairs & Veteran, U.S. Army)
Menasha, WI
Website: Catholic Messages USA http://www.catholicmessagesusa.com/
October 22nd, 2006 at 1:48 pm4-year-old Children Fold Fully
The hype for 4-year-old children fold fully is not …
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm