Gingrich: House Leadership Would Have Been Accused Of ‘Gay Bashing’ If They Investigated Foley ‘Overly Aggressively’
Gingrich: House Leadership Would Have Been Accused Of ‘Gay Bashing’ If They Investigated Foley ‘Overly Aggressively’
This morning on Fox News Sunday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich excused the House leadership for their apparent cover-up of Mark Foley’s predatory behavior. Gingrich said the emails seen by House leadership were “relatively innocuous, there was nothing sexual in those notes.” Asked if there should be “second thoughts” about the leadership’s conduct, Gingrinch responded:
Well, you could have second thoughts about it, but I think had they overly aggressively reacted to the initial round, they would have also been accused of gay bashing.
Watch it:
Full transcript:
WALLACE: Speaker Gingrich, did House Republican leaders do all they should have?
GINGRICH: Well, I think if you look at what they actually knew, which was that the family did not want anyone involved, and the actual notes were relatively innocuous, there was nothing sexual in those notes. They had him counseled. They had the head of the page program, Congressman Shimkus, talk to him very directly. And I think they thought it was over. The newest incident only surfaced when ABC News interviewed Foley and he resigned within two hours, or I think the House leaders would have moved to expel him.
WALLACE: But, during all those months, they left Foley in the House Republican leadership. They left him as the head of the congressional caucus dealing with exploited children. No second thoughts about that?
GINGRICH: Well, you could have second thoughts about it, but I think had they overly aggressively reacted to the initial round, they would have also been accused of gay bashing. I mean, the original notes had no sexual innuendo and the parents did not want any action taken.
WALLACE: Well, how would it have been gay bashing?
GINGRICH: Because it was a male-male relationship. And it had no — there was no proof, there was nothing that I know of in that initial round that would have led you to say in a normal circumstance that this is a predatory person.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Gingrich: House Leadership Would Have Been Accused Of ‘Gay Bashing’ If They Investigated Foley – -
October 1st, 2006 at 3:22 pmOh dear Lord, these people are pathetic weasels.
Sure, and judicial activism causes criminals to shoot judges.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:22 pmWell, yeah. Lets free all gay convicts now.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:24 pmI agree. I also think this is more of a gay issue than a pedaphile issue. Foley repeatedly attempted to verify age.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:25 pmgay bashing?? GAY BASHING!!???? How about CREEPY PEDOPHILE HYPOCRITE BASHING?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:25 pmSay Anything, Do Anything.
Desperate times for the Republicans. :)
October 1st, 2006 at 3:25 pmThe GOP is pro-gay now? Talk about a flip-flop.
I thought the culture war was the most important issue facing America. If so, the GOP just cut and ran.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:26 pmI agree. I also think this is more of a gay issue than a pedaphile issue. Foley repeatedly attempted to verify age.
Comment by Concerned
wrong, under the NEW Foley caucus the age of consent is 18.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:27 pmHe knew damn well the kid was not 18. Cmon.
“Afraid of being accused of gay bashing”? As we can see, the Republicans have elevated sophistry to an art form. They could teach bulls a thing or two about bulls**t.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:28 pmI wonder how far back the eyes of Newt’s lesbian half-sister, Candace, rolled back and up into her forehead when she heard that.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:28 pmGingrich continues to be a parody of himself. Since when is it ever acceptable for an adult to ask a 16-year-old online “What are you wearing?” or “Send me a photo of yourself”?
But considering that Gingrich thought it was acceptable to give his ex-wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery, I can’t say I am surprised.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:29 pmOh Newt! Thanks for giving perverted pedophiles a new legal defense in your attempt to minimize the actual meaning of ‘gay bashing’. It’s tragic that you failed to protect a minor for fear of becoming even more unpopular in the LGBT community.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:30 pmSo now they are agressive, but not too agressive?
Heck the GOP has been agressively attacking gays for years!!
Give it up Newt, Retire, your a hasbeen.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:31 pmthomas,
Acorrding to the DSM-IV, pedophilia is attraction to “prepubescent children.”
Foley is a homosexual, not a pedophile.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:32 pmThe GOP is utterly shameless. The big question is who else?
Ken Mehlman? Karl Rove?, etc. ….the same sort of “rumors” have been guarded for them as well. How would an isnside look turn out?
How can we have respect for anyone who follows this leadership?
It’s time to crush the GOP.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:33 pmthomas, rochelle:
According to the DSM-IV, pedophilia is defined as an attraction to “prepubescent children.”
Foley is a homosexual, not a pedophile.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:33 pmThey are just throwing shit excuses out there and seeing what sticks. It’ll have to be pretty sticky shit to have this fly by with no damage.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:34 pm#4, even if you don’t consider Foley a pedophile, he’s still a sexual predator and a hypocrite. No progressive-minded person really cares whether someone is gay or not, but it’s entirely irresponsible and wrong for a 54 year old U.S. Congressman to pursue 16 year-old pages, male or female.
Are you saying that a U.S. congressman sending sexually explicit messages to a 16 year old female page would be a non-issue? Please.
The fact that the pages Foley approached were male simply illustrates the Republican hyprocricy over homosexuality. Through all this self-righteous bullshit about how sinful homosexuality is, elected Republicans have been the most plagued by this type of scandal. They’ve also covered it up and the Radical Right has been eerily silent so far.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:34 pmCmon Newt you guys are always talking about the Man-Boy love association [NMBLA] and how evil it is? Now your for it?
Nice try Newt. Go Away.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:35 pmThere is so much wrong with the GOP and its twisted perversion of truth it would be hysterically funni if it were not so serious.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:36 pmSince when are Republiscum defenders of homosexuals?
This is not a homosexual issue – this is about pedophilia.
Consenting adults is one thing that this is not.
Gingrich is a man of no morals, no honesty, and he is the last one to pontificate on sex considering his own history.
Getting a divorce is like being a homosexual? huh?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:36 pmSorry Newt,
your skill at reframing issues does not fly in this case, and you know it.
Consenting adults cannot include a minor/child.
Age is the dividing line.
A minor/child CANNOT GIVE CONSENT.
The age of the boys makes Foley’s actions a crime.
Gay or Straight, involving a minor/child in sexual words or action is a crime, as well it should be.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:36 pmEverytime a Bush Republican makes a shameful attempt at defending Mark Foley, a Conservative Republican decides to sit the November 7th election out. It’s hard for those who have no scruples to understand how much they turn the stomachs of people who innately know the difference between right and wrong and good and evil.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:36 pmLet’s get the talking points right, people. It’s not pedophilia, it’s not homosexuality, it’s a fragile, budding May-December romance.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:37 pm#15: “Foley is a homosexual, not a pedophile.” – - Riiiight. Foley is SO principled that he purposely avoids contact with boys under adult age but does look at them as “future draft choices.” Amazing that anyone would try and defend Foley’s actions.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:37 pmNo charges, no crime. The boy was 16? And 16 is the legal age where the boy lives? I know congress just threw away Habeas Corpus and all but really.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:39 pmDoes Newt really think the gay community condones what this jerk did? Most of us wouldn’t accuse them of gay bashing we’d help them get the pervert removed from office. Let’s face they just asked a couple of quick questions the first time around so they could say they looked into and then push it under the rug. ABC asked three or four questions and hit pay dirt, no one is calling that gay bashing. Newt and company need to stop blaming the GLBT community and the hispanic community for everything and take responsibility for there own inepitude.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:40 pmSo in what kind of universe would trying to get to the bottom of those “relatively innocuous, nothing sexual” notes possibly lead to accusations of “gay bashing”?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:40 pmFoley is a homosexual, not a pedophile.
Comment by ThinkCensorship===============================
October 1st, 2006 at 3:41 pmFoley is a sexual predator. Being gay has nothing to do with preying on underage boys. His behaviour is indefensible and trying to excuse it by saying he is not properly defined is inexcusable.
Badmoodman,
No one defended Foley’s actions, liar.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:41 pmFOLEYS CAUCUS RAISED THE AGE TO 18!
The guy is a sexual predator!
READ IT!
Getting a divorce is like being a homosexual? huh?
Comment by ThinkCensorship
Yes, family values and morals, remember your talking points!
And Clenis!!
October 1st, 2006 at 3:42 pmGery Studds has a sexual relationship with a minor; Democrats reelected him. Foley resigned immediately. That is the difference.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:43 pmI know congress just threw away Habeas Corpus and all but really.
Comment by concerned
On the money, concerned. This scandal makes the Repubs look bad, but they are using it to distract from the real crap going on in this country.
Please TP, some threads on the interrogations bill?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:43 pmOn the one hand, Newt says there was nothing sexual in the first round of information, but when he was asked how would it have been “gay bashing”, he says it was “a male-male relationship”. So did they know there was sex or did they not know? BTW – this relationship involved an older man and a teenage boy. Was Newt drunk when it appeared on Faux News?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:44 pmThinkSenseless:“Badmoodman,
No one defended Foley’s actions, liar.” – - LOLOL
October 1st, 2006 at 3:48 pmRead Foleys caucus and you will see using the internet [email] as a sexual predator is 18, not the local age of consent.
Bwahahahahhaha FOLEY Hamstrung himself.
Thinkcensorship,do you get paid to post such damage control drivel?
I saw this same crap on Kevin Drums blog.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:49 pmDog,
I posted a fact from the DSM. You think facts are “drivel”. Enough said.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:51 pm10 million to investigate clinton and consenual sex and nothing to investigate Foley the Predator?
HYPOCRITES!!!
October 1st, 2006 at 3:52 pmClinton’s sex with Juanita Broadrick was not consensual.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:53 pmWhy do pages hate America?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:54 pmI posted a fact from the DSM. You think facts are “drivelâ€. Enough said.
Comment by ThinkCensorshi
The fact is you should read Foleys caucus, before you continue your apologetics for the deraanged predator.
And yes, your here posting your damage control DRIVEL.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:55 pmThinkCensorship is the same kind of troll who has been here lately, who, no matter what anyone says, they just keep repeating themselves. Remember the idiot with the “anti-semitic” meme? Same thing.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:55 pmClinton’s sex with Juanita Broadrick was not consensual
October 1st, 2006 at 3:55 pmhmm Jason Kello….media contact for Foley…
October 1st, 2006 at 3:56 pmClinton’s sex with Juanita Broadrick was not consensual.
Comment by ThinkCensorship
Then Juanita ought to get herself a lawyer, if the statute of limitations haven’t run.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:57 pmAny decent person should be outraged and nauseated by this fat, spoiled immoral man ( Gingrich) and his party. I have no words….
The GOP is a blight on this country. It will take the victim stance in every single situation no matter how much twisting, lying, and bad it takes. Had enough?
October 1st, 2006 at 3:57 pmI have said nothing that could be construed by any reasonable person as a defense of Foley. Dog+Doo is either a liar, an illiterate, or a moron.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:57 pmExcept that Foley wasn’t an admitted homosexual, so how would it be gay bashing?
Ridiculous as ever Newt. It is your party that wants to ban gay marriage, and force gays to be celebate. Try looking in the mirror before you accuse others of being a big fat hypocritical bigot…
October 1st, 2006 at 3:58 pmAnd of course no one in the Republican leadership has ever engaged in”gay bashing” have they? So, can we assume that had this been a 16 year old girl, Foley would have been kicked out of Congress months ago? I don’t think so.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:58 pmIs this really the best excuse Fox/GOP can come up with? Lame.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:58 pmSo according to Zoophile, if the statute of limitations has expired, that’s all that matters. Sicko.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:59 pmback to Clenis are we thinkcensorship?
Good.
* Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
* Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the internet.
* Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.
* Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
* Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
* Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.
jajajjaajaaa thinkcensorship!!
October 1st, 2006 at 3:59 pmQuit while your behind already!!
Thanks, Foley, for helping perpetuate the incorrect negative stereotype about gay people being pedophiles. It’s not hard enough trying to combat the wave of misinformation about that lie about us (us as in gay people in general, not you and I, Foley), no, you have to go and exemplify the damn stereotype.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:59 pmWay to give homophobes some free ammunition, idiot.
Dog+Doo,
So a few Republicans have committed crimes, which no one denies. Many Democrats have committed similar crimes. So what is your point?
Foley resigned, Democrats reelected Studds. QED
October 1st, 2006 at 4:01 pmhave said nothing that could be construed by any reasonable person as a defense of Foley. Dog+Doo is either a liar, an illiterate, or a moron.
Comment by ThinkCensorship
Yeh right. When you started with your clinton claptrap you exposed yourself.
And now that you have regressed into third grade name calling..
HAHHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:02 pmDog+Doo is either a liar, an illiterate, or a moron.
Comment by ThinkCensorship
TRy GWB instead of Dog+Doo and the sentence has meaning.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:02 pmThinkCensorship,
Since you’re so fond of calling me “Zoophile,” maybe you could share with all the kids exactly what it is you’re calling me.
You have a lot of nerve calling me a sicko.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:02 pmShin Gallon,
According to the DSM-IV, pedophilia is attraction to “prepubescent children.” Stop lying.
Foley is a homosexual, not a pedophile.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:03 pmIt’s the corruption, stupid
One of the keys to winning the upcoming Fall ‘06 election is to show the electorate that the Republican party is fundamentally corrupt to the core. Nobody wants corrupt government. And Republicans set the anti-corruption bar themselves back in 1994. The truth is that Republicans rode into power with their Contract With America. They set the standard. And they aren’t living by it, to say the least.
As we sink into Republican congressional resignations over pedophilia, the Republican corruption gets worse and worse. All this Republican corruption and what do they do? What do our captains of the ship do? Blame the iceberg again.
Republicans are supposed to be leading this Nation. Let’s not let America forget that. That’s what Republicans promised they would do when they ran for office. Lead. And I also seem to remember a lot of criticism of Democrats for being immoral, and a promise to bring a new conscience to Washington, D.C. That contract with America again. Or am I mistaken? Did Republicans run on the platform which says “we’ll be corrupt and immoral and then try to justify our conduct by lamely claiming everybody does itâ€? Because that’s what it seems like to me now.
Where is the Republican responsibility? Where is the accountability? Where is the leadership?
Let’s remember the contract with America that Republicans promised us in return for their votes:
On the first day of their majority in 1994, the Republicans promised to hold floor votes on eight reforms of government operations:
• require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
• select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
• cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
• limit the terms of all committee chairs;
• ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
• require committee meetings to be open to the public;
• require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
• and implement a zero base-line budgeting process for the annual Federal Budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America#Content_of_the_Contract
Republicans are not delivering. This is not the contract they promised us. Except for a brief flurry of activity when they introduced their contract in 1994, Republicans are, have been, and appear like they always will be in MATERIAL BREACH OF THEIR SO CALLED CONTRACT WITH AMERICA.
Let’s review again for our Republican friends how incredibly dishonest Republican Administrations have been starting with Nixon through today. And we’re not just talking lies, we’re talking felonies. Lot’s of them. I think hopefully there’s one thing we can all agree on – this is highly inappropriate and unacceptable. Felonies cross the line. Here’s the Republican rap sheet, followed by the record of Democratic Administrations (hint- there is no rap sheet because there is not one conviction since Nixon despite Republican witch hunts):
Nixon was the epitome of a crook caught red handed (please try to deny it, please do my good Republican friends), followed by his VP crony Ford who amazingly gave Nixon a complete free pass to America’s great dismay, followed by a record busting 29 convicted criminals in the Reagan Administration, followed by Bush I giving the Secretary of Defense under Reagan and no less than five other Reagan officials ensnared in the arms to Iran scandal another complete free pass to avoid getting caught himself (sworn testimony from Cap and crew shows that despite bogus denials Bush I knew all about Iran-Contra), followed by W. whose White House Procurement Officer has already gone from the White House to the Big House due to getting wrapped up with none other than Abramoff – the biggest scandal guy since Nixon.
And let’s look at Republicans in Congress today. It’s another huge MATERIAL BREACH of Republicans’ bogus promises. Republicans have swung so far into the sewer that these people who we entrusted with our votes, our money and our lives to be our REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS HAVE TURNED INTO LAWBREAKERS.
Starting at the top, Republican leader and Speaker of the House Tom “The Hammer” Delay had to resign in disgrace and is on trial for his political life claiming the prosecutor is partisan against him even though the prosecutor has gone after more Democrats than Republicans (something’s not clicking here . . .) Top Republican Bob “The Velvet Hammer” Ney (notice the pattern of criminal gangster names – would be funny if it weren’t so apt) — another Abramoff pal — admits to being a dirty guilty felon politician and that all his prior bogus denials and blaming liberals and the media and blah blah blah for his own big “persecution†were just that.
And we all know what happened to Republican “Duke†Cunningham, whose multiple felonies in taking millions of dollars of bribes even W. admitted were “outrageous.â€
And the leader of the Senate, the Republican Senate Majority Leader and multi-multi millionaire Bill Frist is under investigation by the SEC and other authorities for insider trading in dumping his family stock to get even more money right before bad insider news broke and otherwise has a terrible record for honesty (happy to get into it if you want to).
And that’s just the start. To avoid a bad sentence, Republican ringleader of the massive K-Street scandal (yup, it takes a whole block of Republican lobbyists), Abramoff is ratting out lots more Republican pols.
And this is not to mention “Scooter” Libby who has been indicted and will stand trial for obstructing justice.
Or that little abhorrent thing that our “moral†“law abiding†Republicans don’t seem to be too concerned about — PEDOPHILIA! Look at the PEDOPHILE Mark Foley who just resigned in disgrace after being caught red handed in doing things that are too disgusting to repeat here. And this guy Foley was sitting on committees responsible for dealing with child issues. And what about our new crop of Republican leadership in Congress? What did they do? They saw the warning signs. And they hid them. What about Rodney Alexander (it was his page not to protect) and those senior leaders who learned of the indicators of Foley’s pedophilia? What did they do? Coverup. This fine new “leadership†includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and senior congressmen John Boehner and Tom Reynolds.
This is not to mention those other Republicans in Congress under a serious corruption cloud like Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Alan Mollohan (D-WV), as well as Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT). In fact, out of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress, only 3 are Democrats! http://citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=156. Yup, no less than 85% of the corrupt scum in Congress are Republican. When you hear 4 out of 5 dentists recommend brushing with fluoride, and you think that’s the overwhelming majority, Republicans have the dentists beat hands down on corruption with no less than 4.5 out of 5 of the most corrupt politicians in Congress being Republican.
And this doesn’t even get at the Republican Administration’s illegal wiretapping or torture. They didn’t like the laws so they secretly broke them. Then they got caught so what did they do? What else. Rewrite them. Let’s review: secretly break the law, get caught, deny you broke the law while at the same time desperately trying to rewrite it. Twice. With in not getting warrants to spy on Americans and in ordering widespread torture. Hmmmm.
If these Republicans were in business there would be a real investigation and they would all be fired by now. Shareholders don’t have the patience of the Republican electorate. And by the time these Republicans get through with us we will be morally bankrupt in addition to being financially bankrupt.
In the meantime let’s look at the top Democrats, the Democratic Presidents from Nixon to today. Say what you want about the man’s effectiveness, but Carter was, is and always will be . . . well let me say something understated that even the extremist Bush Republicans will have a hard time arguing with . . . not a President who broke the law. Clinton was persecuted to the point of impeachment by a Republican controlled House of Representatives over blow jobs — only to be . . . again let me say something understated even the Bush Republicans will have a hard time arguing with . . . surprise! . . . not convicted. Yes it’s innocent until proven guilty for the Republicans of course, if you’re innocent like Karl “The Architect” Rove.
You want more criminals in office? Vote Republican. It’s in the bag.
And let’s not let America forget it. Over and over and over.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:04 pmWay to give homophobes more ammo to use against us by perpetuating the incorrect negative stereotype of all gay people being pedophiles, Foley, you great git.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:05 pmI’d like to formally apologize on behalf of all gay people for some of us being horrible perverts.
I’d like to see these “original notes”. Just how explicit were the ones that the house leadership was aware of?
These people are so slimey it’s disgusting.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:06 pmDemocrats relected Studds, Foley resigned. That’s the difference.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:07 pmRE: 59.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:07 pmLying? What the hell are you talking about? I know what the definition of “pedophile” is, idiot.
Foley is a homosexual, not a pedophile.
Comment by ThinkCensorship
A homosexual that seeks young kids, thats a sexual predator, thats an illness, thats a sicko, thats a card carrying member of the NMBLA!
FOLEY= National Man-Boy Love Association predator sicko!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:09 pmShin,
“I know what the definition of “pedophile ”
So then you know you’re using the term incorrectly, i.e. you’re purposely lying. Thanks for the frank admission.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:09 pmDemocrats relected Studds, Foley resigned. That’s the difference.
Comment by ThinkCensorship
Yesterday you were calling him ’stubbs’ lmao!!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:09 pmShin Gallon,
I’m afraid you are right that Foley has re-opened the door to the false sterotype of gay people being after our children.
A sick little bonus to his party, from the self-hating gay man, Foley.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:10 pmI guess they censor or edit out comments here.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:10 pmOh well, back to Eschaton.
#68, prove it, liar.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:10 pmIts pretty sick that the repubs are defending predatory homosexual pedophiles
October 1st, 2006 at 4:10 pmDog+Poo,
“A homosexual that seeks young kids, thats a sexual predator, thats an illness, thats a sicko, thats a card carrying member of the NMBLA!”
So presumably if the kid was 18, then Democrats would be A-OK with Foley, correct?
And your refusal to condemn Studds is noted as well.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:12 pmDemocrats relected Studds, Foley resigned. That’s the difference.
Comment by ThinkCensorship
LMAO!!! What ODD LOGIC!
BTW I’m not a democrat, we are Secular Progressives, didn’t you get the memo?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:13 pmre: 59.
16 years old my not be “pre-pubescent” physically, but it is psycologically and that’s the standard set by our society and by our laws.
You can argue that he’s not a pedophile by the the DSM’s strict diagnostic guidelines. But you can’t argue that he’s not HARMFULL by the standards of our society, or that he’s not a CRIMINAL by the standards of our laws.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:13 pm“Its pretty sick that the repubs are defending predatory homosexual pedophiles”
No Republican is defending Foley, liar.
Studds was reelected by Democrats, Foley resigned. That is the difference.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:13 pm71,
I saw your exact same apologetic reasoning on kevin drums blog.
duhh
October 1st, 2006 at 4:14 pmWhatever he ( Foley) may be clinicaly diagnosed as is irrelevant with regards to him being suitable as a public servant.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:15 pmWhen anyone is false, as in pretending to be one thing when in reality is another, renders that person unfit for public service as an elected representative of the people who have elected him or her.
Watch poor illiterate Dog+Poo be unable to explain this:
October 1st, 2006 at 4:15 pm“What ODD LOGIC!”
ThinkCensor: “#68, prove it, liar.” – - Any moment now TC will break into a chorus of, “Liar, liar, pants on fire…”
October 1st, 2006 at 4:15 pmStudds was reelected by Democrats, Foley resigned. That is the difference.
Comment by ThinkCensorship
So why hasnt NEY resigned?
Your difference makes no difference, I am not a Democrat!!
LMAO!!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:15 pm“16 years old my not be “pre-pubescent†physically, but it is psycologically…”
LOL What nonsense.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:16 pmGary Studds retired from congress in 1997, and lives a quiet life with his husband.
No one covered up for him, the way the Repubs covered for Foley.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:16 pmShin,
“I know what the definition of “pedophileâ€â€¦â€
So then you know you’re using the term incorrectly, i.e. you’re purposely lying. Thanks for the frank admission.
In what manner did I use the term incorrctly? What Bizzaro-English rules are you trying to apply here? Are you high, or merely stupid?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:17 pmI loathe Gringrich as a spokesperson.
richb
October 1st, 2006 at 4:17 pmYep, then Foley would just be a homosexual, not a sex offender.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:17 pmI’m illiterate yet I’m here typing and reading your Foley apologetics. Yeh your a genius.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:18 pmRepublican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:18 pmOMFG, what a swollen penis this guy is. Can’t we shut him up by an Act of Congress?
Elsewhere, Frank Rich asks, “So You Call This Breaking News?”
I just got back home, so better late than never, I guess.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:18 pmZoophile:
“No one covered up for him [Studds]”
He was reelected by Democrats several times. LOL
aguafiero:
“Whatever he ( Foley) may be clinicaly diagnosed as is irrelevant with regards to him being suitable as a public servant.”
Agreed.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:18 pmAre you high, or merely stupid?
Comment by Shin+Gallon
Can we get a vote here?
High – 0
October 1st, 2006 at 4:19 pmStupid – 1
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Now that’s a good one! Since when is the ‘gay bashing GOP” AT ALL concerned about “gay bashing”? ahahahahahahah! They’re not only jokesters but fools as well. People remember…..people remember….people remember…..thank goodness!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:19 pmShin Gallon:
“In what manner did I use the term incorrctly? What Bizzaro-English rules are you trying to apply here? Are you high, or merely stupid?”
I’m applying the DSM-IV, as I said more than once. Are you illiterate as well as dishonest?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:20 pmThere is no excuse for what Foley has done, no excuse for the Repug leadership covering it up and no excuse for any troll trying to make excuses for them .
All have shown what kind of low, scumbag pieces of crap they are trying to excuse and coverup this pedophile.
Thinkcensorship, you are beyond being the lowest scum ever.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:21 pmMaybe you send little boys email as well, since you seem tothinknothingis wrong with it.
ThinkCensorship,
Since you’re so fond of calling me “Zoophile,†maybe you could share with all the kids exactly what it is you’re calling me.
Re-election several is not a cover up.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:21 pmThis GOP is certifiably NUTS now! They must be so desperate that they are willing to make absolute jackasses of themselves when there’s nothing left to “spin”….. let’s see….you couldn’t investigate a “known perv” because he happens to be gay? What kind of legal system are they operating under? Certainly not US law!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:21 pm#94 – correction
Re-election several [times] is not a cover up.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:23 pmMaybe Gingrich has some predatory skeletons in his own closet? It certainly seems like he’s got some “personal” interest in all of this, doesn’t it? Maybe he needs to be checked out.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:23 pmGingrich is a sly fox, but this issue is NOT about Foley being Gay, but it is about him being a sexual predator and pervert trolling for underage boys!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:23 pmWayne,
We have as much evidence, according to the DSM-IV, that you are a pedophile as we have that Foley is. There’s no evidence that Foley did anything related to any prepubescent child (the DSM standard).
October 1st, 2006 at 4:24 pmAlso, I’ve seen the IM messaging between Foley and the child and they were far from “inocuous”. What will the GOP now say….that they didn’t see “the original transcript”? Hell, half of the world has seen it by now – who are they kidding?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:24 pmRepublican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Lets talk about the ‘difference’, huh?
The difference is,,???
JAJAJAJJAAAAA!!
So much for your studds argument, and your ODD LOGIC.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:25 pmHypothetical here:
Video tape surfaces of President Bush having sex with both of his daughters on the White House lawn.
Right wing response: “You have to understand, what we’re seeing here is a loving father performing a medical procedure, as documented by the leader of the United States Senate, himself a noted doctor, and doing that in obvioius pain to himself, but being a Man-of-God, this is just a father going the extra mile for his children…”
I’m a getting warm?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:26 pmIsn’t is a bit odd how Fox News uses such a terrible human example of sexual fidelity, such as Newt Gingrich, as a character witness for a GOPervert Pedophile?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:26 pmDo you think any of the Kool Aid Fox Viewers noticed this fact?
SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN….NOTHING IS GOING TO SPIN OVERT PEDOPHILIA IN THE MINDS OF PARENTS – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THE GOP IS TOTALLY ‘COOKED’ NOW.
NOW IT’S CLEAR THAT WE NOT ONLY HAVE TO “FIGHT THE CRIMINALS IN IRAQ AND WE ALSO HAVE TO FIGHT OUR OWN ELECTED PERVERTS WHO ARE ENTERING THE BEDROOMS OF OUR CHILDREN AND MOLESTING THEM RIGHT IN OUR OWN HOMES”…..WHAT A CAMPGIAN SLOGAN!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:27 pmCrane did not resign did he thinkcensorship?
Your Studds logic aint gonna fly.
As far as your ‘DSM’ logic goes…hahahhahahaaa!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:27 pmOho, I see now…I used a more common meaning for “pedophile” than the strict MI usage, so that equates to me being dishonest and illiterate. Sophistry at it’s finest, in the grand Republican tradition.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:27 pmWhatever. Have fun defending thieves and liars, buddy.
#89…
October 1st, 2006 at 4:28 pmDo you also agree with the second sentence of my post? (#78)
Both Crane and Studds were repremanded by the House.
Studds was reelected by Democrats, Crane was not reelected. You were saying?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:29 pm* Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.
* Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:29 pmAnd when the trolls have to resort to “semantics” and “proper usage of terms”, they also know they’re “cooked”. …You say potato and I say po-tat-a….you say tomato and I say tomata…potato/potata – tomato-tomata…it’s all so Republican to me! trallalalalala
October 1st, 2006 at 4:30 pmAaaaahhhhhh,
No more Katrina …
No more Darfur …
No more “two America’s” poverty speeches …
Just Republicans and Republican wannabe’s
Bwah hah hah hah hah haaaaaaaaa ….
October 1st, 2006 at 4:30 pmShin,
Yes, making up your own definitions is dishonest.
aguafiero:
Your second paragraph would eliminate every member of Congress.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:32 pmYou are right, ruskindoc.
Trolls — Dismissed.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:32 pmMoral Majority? What a joke.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:33 pm“Accused of gay bashing”? The GOP prodded by the American Taliban(Falwell, Robertson, & Dobson), has raised gay-bashing into an art form, part of their “moral values platform. Sheeeesh, you could fertilize the Sinai with this republican bs.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:33 pmDog+Poo will not list any Democrats who have been convicted, proving his own double standard. Thanks Poo.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:33 pmHow can you tell when a troll is posting on a thread?
Because he’s “so Republican”…..hahahahah!
G=Greatest
October 1st, 2006 at 4:35 pmO=Opportunist
P=Pedophiles
ThinkCensorship,
October 1st, 2006 at 4:36 pmIf any of my sons had been subjected to what Foley’s victims had been subjected to by this pervert, I would have given Foley the ability to perform a blow job on himself – I have one of those ultra-sharp Japanese Samurai swords (A token from my Asian trip courtesy of Uncle Sam from 1963 to 1965). Fortunately, for Foley, all of my sons are in their thirties.
Dog+Poo will not list any Democrats who have been convicted, proving his own double standard. Thanks Poo.
Comment by ThinkCensorship
for the third time, I am not a democrat!! LMAO!!!
ERGO, Genius, It cannot be a double standard!!
JAJAJJAJAAAAAA!!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:37 pmIsn’t it comical for the GOP to be worried about “gay bashing” when they’re precisely the ones who have become “experts” at it? I guess the ugly mirror is up for them and they are seeing themselves for who they truly are – finally!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:37 pmRepublican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:37 pm#112….
October 1st, 2006 at 4:38 pmthank you, my point exactly!
So, where do we begin, hmmm?
Aren’t we forgetting the other two branches of government?
And let’s start at the very very tippy top and work our way down, shall we?, it may give some of the more petty apprentices time to straighten up……
And, party affiliation will no longer matter if we apply this simple yardstick to prospective public servants.
I guess Gingrich falls under the Hume standard too.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:39 pmHey thinkcensorship I am a true conservative, I am only trying to help educate the Neo-Cons!!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:39 pmDog+Poo,
“I am not a democrat!! LMAO!!!
ERGO, Genius, It cannot be a double standard!!”
That makes no sense at all.
You are demonstrating a different standard for Democrats than for Republicans. Whether you belong to either group is irrelevant.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:40 pmJust like when we send our children to school, these parents sent their kids to Washington to view our elected “role models” and this is what goes on?
I believe that this is just the tip of the Pedophile-gate and an iceberg that will swallow many, many more in high places when the kids begin to speak.
Didn’t I read that this young man had been “warned” by his classmates about Foley’s “hitting on them” before he went there? Obviously, Foley has a lengthy history of this behavior??
October 1st, 2006 at 4:40 pmThis is all part of a well orchestrated plan. Foley’s out, so there’s no saving his career or his seat. Gingrich purposefully tried to link Foley’s actions – that is, in appropriate sexual advances to a minor, whether it meets the DSM-IV definition of “pedophilia” or not – to homosexuality. Sure, Foley’s gay (or bi, I suppose), but every one knows that the offense is going after someone who’s underage. But Gingrich and other right wingers want to convince people that gay men are more likely to go after underage boys.
Shameful, plain and simple.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:40 pmand BTW thinkcensorship, I am a Christian and I do believe in GOD, and I’m just helping to open the eyes of other good Christians who are being tarnished by the likes of these GOP perverts and pedophiles!!
I am doing GODS work!!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:41 pmAnd to the trolls above, if “education” means learning how to molest minors, take your drivel elsewhere! and fast!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:41 pmTHE GOP is TARNISHING THE NAME OF GOOD CHRISTIANS!!!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:41 pmso why didn’t they contact other pages? They would have found the IMs.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:42 pmThe pages said they were warned about Foley. It was apparently well known and givien the content of the IMs it would have been hard for Foley to conceal it. Those young men certainly got the message from him.
Pedophilia is defined as the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children
In the US, 18 is the age of full citizenship aka adult status. Your attempt to engage in semantics does nothing to change the fact that Foley, a 53 year old man engaged in sexually explicit emails with someone under the age of 18. Pedophile or Pervert – whatever you want to call him – the whole incident is disgusting.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pmKlaus, unlike accused rapist bill Clinton, Gingrich – a) was not accused of lying uder oath, and b) resigned.
So what is your point?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pmYou are demonstrating a different standard for Democrats than for Republicans. Whether you belong to either group is irrelevant.
Comment by ThinkCensorship
change that goalpost!!
Keep helping to tarnish Jesus for your party!!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pm(sigh)
October 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pmBeing a Gay is far different then being a Pedophile…
And, in case you haven’t noticed, this thread is not about “censorship”. It’s about bringing to justice predators who have injured our children!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pmMy what an increasingly unhinged troll we have here.
I see 16 year old boys AND girls everyday at the High School.
They are children. Their hormones may be popping because of evolution, but not a one of them is in any way sexually desirable to me.
I am an adult. I desire adult companionship.
Foley is sick. Period.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:44 pmI am posting facts thinkcensorship, not standards.
You can find your own facts to post.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:44 pmRight on Rochelle! Thanks for the clarification. This is “precisely” what’s occurred here. No argument about semantics will alter that. The trolls need to take their “censorship arguments” elsewhere. They’re trying to hijack the thread and we’re not going to allow it.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pmTC,
October 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pmWHen you find a similar situation with a Dem making advances to an underage boy and the Dem leadership knows about it and does absolutely nothing even though it is quite possibly a crime and they elicit $100,000 from their own little pervert for their campaigns then lets compare. Your “Dems did it too” arguement is about as empty as W’s head.
Hi true,
How’s Miniblue?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pmWe have equal evidence that ruskindoc engaged in inappropriate conduct with a prepubescent child as we do against Foley.
rochelle,
Using the proper definitions for words is not “semantics.”
October 1st, 2006 at 4:46 pmWho cares if Foley is gay or straight? That’s a moot point. Pedophilia is pedophilia – period!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:46 pmBauman was arrested in October of 1980 for attempting to solicit sex from a 16-year old male prostitute, contributing to his electoral defeat one month later. As he related in his autobiography, The Gentleman from Maryland (1986), he had led a secret double life for years. The resulting stress eventually caused him to become an alcoholic. Bauman was renominated in 1982,
The difference is the Democr..er Republicans renominated Studds …er Crane
October 1st, 2006 at 4:47 pmnice try, troll!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:47 pmThey’re trying to hijack the thread and we’re not going to allow it.
Comment by ruskindoc
Apparently we are.
Just sayin’
October 1st, 2006 at 4:47 pmHi.
Well enough to go to school tomorrow.
Thanks for asking.
:)
October 1st, 2006 at 4:48 pmI’m gonna go now, my face hurts from laughing at Jason Hend..err thinkcensorship.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:48 pmTroll attempts to hijack the thread….don’t feed the paid trolls!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:49 pmROFL, trolls! hahahahahah!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:50 pmTroll attempts to hijack the thread….don’t feed the paid trolls!
Comment by ruskindoc
Can you imagine what the general feeling is at the White House today? After Woodward, Foley, Intelligence Reports – all in one week?!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:52 pmThe GOP seems to fundamentally misunderstand its base (and most Americans) on this issue. Soccer moms and helicopter parents (the intensely involved parents who hover over their kids, even after they head off to college) are extremely protective of their children and extremely tuned in to the issue of the sexual exploitation of minors. They do not like the idea of their 16-year-old sons being subjected to pestering by horny adult men (of any political party).
Telling them that unsolicited “overly friendly” emails from congressmen to their sons are “relatively innocuous” and that there’s “nothing sexual” about a 52-year-old man collecting photos of teenage boys isn’t going to fly. Regardless of the clinical definition of childhood and puberty, most Americans do not consider their minor children fair game for sexual advances from adult men. Ask the average church member if an adult man who likes 16-year-old boys is a pedophile and she won’t consult a diagnostic manual, she’ll open her Bible.
Telling people that Democrats have done worse doesn’t give the GOP a free pass on this. Liberals have been so thoroughly demonized by the GOP, people won’t exactly be comforted to learn that the congressional leadership uses them as a yardstick for their own behavior. Their base isn’t into moral relativism.
By the way, Gingrich’s head seems a lot smaller than it used to be. Slow leak?
October 1st, 2006 at 4:55 pmCan you imagine what the general feeling is at the White House today? After Woodward, Foley, Intelligence Reports – all in one week?!
Comment by trueblue
I think that’s why there were no trolls yesterday — they were getting their talking points for today from Unka Karl.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:56 pmAre you kidding me?!? What total, utter crap. This has to be one of the lamest, flimsiest, and most pathetically feeble excuses I’ve ever heard. Foley’s resignation and censure has virtually nothing to do with the fact that these electronic exchanges (e-mail and instant message) involved people of the same sex. It has everything to do with the fact that at least one of the participants was a MINOR who did not invite these overtures, did not encourage them, and considered them inappropriate. If I’m not mistaken, in the private sector, the mere fact that the object of such overtures considers them inappropriate and/or offensive can be sufficient grounds for a harassment suit — sexual or otherwise.
There’s some debate, I know, as to whether the recipient of the e-mail messages was past the age of consent or not — but this is something of a moot point anyway, since the fact remains that the recipient of the e-mail messages found them disturbing and offensive enough to show them to a Capitol Hill staffer and describe them as “sick”. That hardly sounds like someone who’s really a willing and consenting participant, does it? The fact also remains that although the age of consent in DC is 16, the age of consent in Florida (Foley’s state) is 18 — and it seems a bit too laissez-faire and disingenuous, not to mention convenient, to claim that what Foley did wasn’t wrong if he was in DC at the time when it would have been wrong if he was in Florida. Foley’s position as the Co-Chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus also adds fuel to the issue — he’s supposed to be stopping people who take advantage of children, not imitating them.
Gingrich’s excuse might hold a drop or two of water (and only a drop at best) if there weren’t any openly gay members of Congress or if this were prohibited — but there are, and it isn’t. There was nothing explicit in the e-mail messages which originally broke the story, that’s true — but notice that Gingrich only mentions those and not the instant messages to another anonymous page, which were what really served to nail Foley’s political coffin shut.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:57 pmGingrich is basically Gay bashing by claiming this was just male on male action > he fails to clarify that a 53 year old male was going after a 16 year old underage boy! This is Karl Rove’s spin for the GOP: Foley is a closeted homosexual, who hid his sexuality from his party, and was just trying to have consenual sex with another male. Do NOT allow that spin to take hold in the press, because the real fact is that Foley is a sexual predator soliciting underage boys for sex!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:00 pmZooey,
October 1st, 2006 at 5:00 pmI can just see TC, furiously typing at it’s computer to the sound of a whip cracking!
That Karl is one tough cookie!
I thought gay bashing was the GOP strategy to get out the knuckle draggers.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:00 pmObviously, the administration is in a tailspin and understandably so. That’s what occurs when the first lie is covered by a second lie, etc. and the layering process begins. I suspect that it may be a full two years of daily regurgitation of facts proven false, timelines intentionally skewed, and various and sundry skeletons popping out of many GOP closets. Just saw on another site that Rove’s office apparently is being re-investigated for lying about Abrahamoff contacts….what else is new? I think we all expected that?!
I do concur with the previous post, however, that, regardless of political affiliation, what Foley did was improper and potentially criminal and will impeact the quite understandably protective parents of underage children and definitely will be reflected in how they vote in November and in ‘08. People, especially parents where children are involved, do not “forget”.
It’s beginning to shape up as a truly “surprising october” – which I suspect is something less than the GOP termed their “october surprise”.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:03 pmBy the way, Gingrich’s head seems a lot smaller than it used to be. Slow leak?
Comment by Jim+Source
… good one! :)
October 1st, 2006 at 5:04 pmThe reality is that this is about one man – Mark Foley – and his inappropriate contacts with minor children….nothing else!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:04 pmUnitynow,
October 1st, 2006 at 5:06 pmI’m afraid of the “October Surpise”
Going into Iran (which is what I fear it is) would be disasterous.
But that’s another thread!
These guys are nuts. Does anyone expect Gingrich to say anything that does not shed good light on his pals? Just like Stephanopoulos asking a White House spokesman if the Woodward book is accurate. “No George, the whole book is inaccurate…” As if amending the Constitution to deny marriage to gays is not also gay bashing. Hog-wash from a real hog!!!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:06 pmAnd, speaking as a parent myself, I don’t believe parents care one iota if the sexual predator is male or female/gay or straight. Pedophilia is pedophilia.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:06 pmIt looks like the troll knocked off at 5.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:07 pmTrue, trueblue but that’s another thread and I would’t want to be accused of attempting to hijack this very important and worthwhile thread.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:08 pmJim Source,
No one has given Foley a “free pass”.
Bluestocking,
No one has made any excuses for Foley.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:09 pmHuffington Post has some more on this topic; in fact, they have the original transcript of Foley’s IM messaging there. “inocuous”….yikes!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:09 pm#132, rochelle,
Foley had an inappropriate conversation with a 16 year old male. Although the 16 year old male was below the age of consent, and not considered an adult, at 16, he is far from pre-pubescent, and NOT a boy, so pediphilia is not a correct description. Since there was no physical contact alleged, it is NOT statutory rape either, so clearly, what he did is NOT even criminal, but it is inappropriate and unethical, so it was being processed as such.
Now that he has resigned, it is resolved in the minds of most Americans, so once again, Dems are over-reaching, trying to appear tough on crime, when they are not. Again, this makes them Republican wannabe’s.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:09 pmTrueblue and I vehemently disapprove of thread hijacking.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:09 pmunitynow,
Foley’s actions, while wrong obviously, do not fit the definition of pedophilia.
Foley is a homosexual, not a pedophile.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:10 pmGod!!! are these rebublicans confused. Foley is a felon!!!!!! He goes after minors for his pleasure… got that? MINORS…………
October 1st, 2006 at 5:11 pmI would’t want to be accused of attempting to hijack this very important and worthwhile thread.
Comment by unitynow
Hijacking?
Us?
Naaaaah……….
;)
I didn’t mean that sentence as any kind of admonishment, believe me!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:11 pmWas just saying that there’s a lot to talk about.
Want to talk about hijacking, just go ask Zooey….!
;)
I can just feel the daggers thru’ my computer screen, Zooey!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:11 pmBut of course if a 13 year old girl wants to have an abortion without notifying her parents, Democrats have no problem with that.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:12 pmThinkCensorship has changed his name to ThinkNoDissent.
Please ignore it.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:12 pm#174m ThinkNoDissent,
Wow, excellent body slam – you are my hero.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:13 pmtrue, see #169
October 1st, 2006 at 5:13 pmDone!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:13 pmIgnore Jason, too.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:14 pmI read quite a few of the posts and then skimmed the rest, so I haven’t read them all.
It seems to me that current modern society, which includes more than the USA, is really hungup on sex. I feel that the over statement of the place sex plays in this episode detracts from the issue.
The issue, regardless of the specific details, is the breach of trust by an elected representitive of the People and its subsequent cover-up. The breach in simple terms is the misuse of the power of office to coerce an employee.
It is reasonable to make a comparison to what President Clinton’s relationship was with ML. I believe she did not represent herself as a victim of any kind of coercion, infact quite the contrary a willing participant and instigator.
Foley’s IMs are on the other hand are menacing and harrassing to an unwilling participant. Foley did right in resigning over this. However, those who covered for him, kept quite about his contact with the Pages, and who turned a blind eye to his miss deads, and even supported him after the fact deserve the same fate as Foley. They all need to resign from office as swiftly as did Foley.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:14 pmI know, Zooey.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:14 pm#169 had me laughing out loud!!!
This is far from resolved in the minds of americans; in fact, it has awakened many fence-sitters to the obvious problems within the GOP. This is just the beginning of a nut cracking open as I see it. It’s one thing to suggest that we fight a war over there so we don’t have to fight it here. Now parents can switch the conversation to us having to fight both a war over there as well as a war in the bedrooms of our children. This is far, far, far from over I’m afraid. From what I’ve heard and seen, it’s really just the beginning of the october surprise.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:15 pm#169 had me laughing out loud!!!
Comment by trueblue
I could barely make my fingers type it. :)
October 1st, 2006 at 5:15 pmIndeed, Doug,
October 1st, 2006 at 5:16 pmThe GOP Leaders were in fact the Enablers.
Let’s cut the definition crap now….it’s getting pretty pedestrian when there is nothing left to spin I’d say. Let’s just call it “sexually inappropriate” or “morally reprehensible” then, shall we?
October 1st, 2006 at 5:16 pmdoug,
Well said.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:17 pmJason lol > tell Karl Rove that your spin in post 168 will not wash on TP! One of the IMs Foley took part in alludes to him meeting the boy in a few weeks, so it infers physical contact is made with the boy, so that alleges sex could have taken place! Foley is guilty of trolling for sex with underage boys!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:17 pm#182, unity,
OK, please get people riled up about homosexuality with 6 weeks to go in this election – lemme know how you make out. Oh, and talk about war and crime too, please.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:17 pm#174m ThinkNoDissent,
Wow, excellent body slam – you are my hero.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
You 2 get a room.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:18 pmMaybe your other hero Foley will join you.
Oh, wait he only likes Minor boys.
sexual inappropriateness knows no sexual predelection, friend! I could care less about gay vs. straight….pedophilia vs. inappropriate sexual behavior….who cares? bringing a predator to justice is what matters. Personally I think it’s quite humorous to see somelike Gingrich speaking about “gay bashing”. what a hoot! Is that the best you’ve got?
October 1st, 2006 at 5:20 pmFrom a political perspective, it makes no difference what the “legal” definition of “pedophile” is. Parents with teenagers see them as “children”, not “adults”. They won’t worry about the distinction between a 52-year-old man preying on a 16 year old boy and a 52-year-old “gay” man trying to seduce a 16-year-old “straight” boy.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:20 pm#187, Jay,
To quote you: ” … alludes … in a few weeks ….alleges … could have … ”
I agree with unity – it is inappropriate (although not explicitly sexual, but clearly homosexual) and thus morally reprehensible, so he resigned – situation resolved.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:20 pm“…had they overly aggressively reacted to the initial round, they would have also been accused of gay bashing.”
Had they STOLEN HIS CAR, they would be accused of GRAND THEFT AUTO.
Had they SET HIS HOUSE ON FIRE, they would be accused of ARSON.
Had they reacted by KILLING HIM, they would be accused of MURDER.
How FOX can conscience broadcasting Grinch’s above inane gobbledygook is unbelievable.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:21 pmdon’t put words in MY mouth, troll hendler. As I said, I could care less about an individual’s sexual orientation but I care a great deal about sexually inappropriate behavior by a 54 year old man with a minor – ‘nufsaid!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:23 pm#192 the situation is not resolved. Soliciting sex from minors is a federal offense….a law that Foley helped write.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:23 pm#190, unity,
Since it was a first offense, they couldn’t demand an immediate resignation, especially since you have to infer so much from an electronic message. There is no suggestion that there was any physical relationship, so to call for a resignation would be interpreted as an intolerance of Foley being gay.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:23 pmIf that’s the case, Jase….then where there’s smoke, there’s fire….since Foley so hurriedly resigned. hmmmm?
October 1st, 2006 at 5:25 pmGingrich is a typical Republican scumbag. One of their GOP members is outed as a pedophile and he tries to switch it to a gay issue and pretend he is sympathetic to gay bashing. What a slimeball.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:27 pmIn JasonWorld one doesn’t call out inappropriate behavior of alleged gay men because it might be seen the wrong way. Gimme a break…
October 1st, 2006 at 5:27 pmThe person’s sex has no bearing on this.
So Foley is male and it was a male page? BFD.
It is the inappropriate contact with a minor that is the problem – that was covered up for nearly a year, that is disgusting.
Trolls, we don’t care about gay/straight.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:27 pmStop trying to muddy the waters.
Inappropiate contact. Discuss that. Try and defend that.
These kids can’t buy cigaretts at this age. Can’t vote.
They are kids!
For anyone interested, there’s a hoarde of information on how the Foley situation is imploding the GOP on huffington post. check it out.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:27 pmThanks, unitynow.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:28 pmJason World….that’s great! I’ve seen this troll littering the threads with his peculiar form of detritus before so it’s nothing new. We all know he’s a paid troll who gets off duty at 6:00.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:29 pmJason it is not resolved, because other members of the GOP might be involved sexually with underage Pages, plus money was given by Foley to Reynolds apparently as some kind of bribe to keep his association with Pages hushed up?! Go read the IM posted on ABC News blog and other sites > Foley discusses a meeting with the boy and already claims to have met another underage Page friend of his > he even remarks the other guy has a nice muscled body, so how would he know? It implies he saw the young guy naked! Also in the IM Foley asks the boy to measure his penis and he can’t wait to hold it > Very disgusting evidence, so go read it!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:30 pmThe parsing of words on this issue by the Right-wingers on this board is truly nauseating. You people have no shame and think personal responsibilty applies to the other guy.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:31 pmIt is comical how the trolls are trying to sidetrack the discussion to something which is irrelevant – they’re not very smart in their overt transparency. Taking cues from their superhero Gingrich I suspect – ROFL!! ROFL!!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:31 pmJason Troll wishes this were resolved IN HIS DREAMS! This GOP/predator/gate will finish the GOP off entirely. It’s the tip of the iceberg.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:32 pmJason has appeared. Good time for me to peel and quarter the potatoes for my stew.
Be back soon. Take care of the troll while I’m gone!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:33 pm;)
unitynow,
Jason is a pathetic person who claims to be a devote christian, but has admittedly put aside his faith in order to destroy us — the Dems and Progs. Since he is able to put aside his own faith to accomplish this mission, he is also able to justify anything, absolutely anything, the Repubs do. Sad, really…
October 1st, 2006 at 5:37 pmI’m outta here, too.
Have fun playing Whack-a-Troll!
Or just ignore them, which is usually best.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:38 pmWell for once, Newt is right, it’s apparent here. Good day all you defeatist, I’m off, back to Iraq.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:38 pmRepublicans are notoriously anti-gay. It is part of their party platform and posted on their web site. Why are they suddenly pro-gay? Could it be because they are trying to confuse the issue to deflect attention from the real issue; that one of their own is a pedophile?
October 1st, 2006 at 5:43 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6BKR4cTmAg
Mark Foley in his own words about if he was one of these sicko’s. Watch the ending.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:47 pmI’m off to dinner, too. Let’s let Jason talk to himself – what he deserves. Later, guys!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:49 pmWhy does Gingrich get airtime anyway? I guess the Republicans are afraid to put someone who is actually running for office out there to defend Foley. This coverup and weasling on the part of the Republicans is just one more reason to vote the bums out!
October 1st, 2006 at 5:55 pm“they couldn’t demand an immediate resignation, especially since you have to infer so much from an electronic message.”
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — October 1, 2006 @ 5:23 pm
Jason, why don’t you run over to the Huffington Post and read the IM’s. I don’t think you’ll have to ‘infer’ too much, it’s all fairly clear. You’re a real piece of work Jason.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:59 pmI will be back later too > I have to go take a shower after discussing Foley lusting for underage boys {makes me feel unclean} > bye all.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:00 pmFBI is now investigating these scumbags.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:04 pmWell, I guess we know now that there is absolutely NOTHING that the Republicans and Trolls will not defend, as long as it is a Republican who is in trouble. Pathetic and predictable. “Situation resolved.”? Oh I really don’t think so. It is not just about Rep.Foley. It is also about his Republican enablers, and how they worked together to keep this hidden, knowingly protecting the type of person they spend so much time shrieking publicly about. That is CRAP! They have dished it out for years, it’s their turn now. We deserve answers.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:05 pmthinkcensorship…
If Foley had actually had sex with the pages in question, they were of the age of consent in DC, just as was the 17 year old page Gerry Studds had relations with. Foley’s problem is that he sent inappropriate emails and made sexual advances over IM to people who were under the age of 18, explicitly violating federal laws that he himself had a hand in putting in place.
The Democrats censured Studds for his inappropriate behavior, and yet, his constituents still re-elected him. Foley hung himself. Get over it.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:08 pmNow that he has resigned, it is resolved in the minds of most Americans,
You’re so arrogant that you speak for most Americans?
Let me clue you in – most Americans are NOT okay with this.
so once again, Dems are over-reaching, trying to appear tough on crime, when they are not.
This is about outrage that an elected official in a position of power was soliciting a minor for sex. And despite quitting his job, he is still at large to actually do more than have a lewd conversation with his prey.
As a conservative, you should be comdemning this man regardless of party affliation. The fact that you are defending him is further validation that you yourself are a sick pervert.
Again, this makes them Republican wannabe’s.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — October 1, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
Considering you defend the perverts, no one wants to be one of you. You make us laugh with your ridiculousness.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:10 pmAmazing isn’t it Cyra? You’d think this would be the one thing they wouldn’t even try to defend and yet here’s Jason and crew. Just disgusting.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:11 pmMark Foley had some very harsh words for unethical Newt back in 1995.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:13 pmOK, please get people riled up about homosexuality with 6 weeks to go in this election – lemme know how you make out. Oh, and talk about war and crime too, please.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — October 1, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
So you’re admitting that you can’t win on your own merits… And must twist people’s intentions to make yourselves look less evil instead of more moral.
It doesn’t work for you anymore. You’re going down next month, and hopefully not in the vicinity of any 16 year old boys…
October 1st, 2006 at 6:14 pm#222 – Give Jason a minute UB, he’s busy IMing someone……..
October 1st, 2006 at 6:14 pmSo when the hell have the GOP ever worried about gay bashing before?
October 1st, 2006 at 6:17 pmYou’re going down next month, and hopefully not in the vicinity of any 16 year old boys…
Comment by unbelievable — October 1, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Bwahahahahahaha! Nice shot UB!
October 1st, 2006 at 6:18 pmGive Jason a minute UB, he’s busy IMing someone……..
Comment by Quadrajet — October 1, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Hilarious! : )
October 1st, 2006 at 6:19 pmI’m convinced that ThinkCensorship and Jason Hendler are paid to post. How else could one explain their defense of this predatory behavior?
October 1st, 2006 at 6:19 pmNice shot UB!
Comment by Quadrajet — October 1, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Yours was better :)
October 1st, 2006 at 6:20 pm#231 – Well, too bad we didn’t make here a bit earlier so we could have tag teamed this bozo. But it’s Sunday and tomorrow is a school day, so Jason has to line up a date early. Seriously though, Jason & Co.’s arguing about ‘legal age’ and ‘he didn’t actually do anything’ (do we know that for sure?) is just as disgusting as the behavior they’re defending.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:27 pmRobG,
Would a paid poster use his own name?
You do realize that when you talk about a page, you are reminding everyone about what Clinton did, and how he refused to resign after such a lapse in ethics. Here, Republicans demonstrate that when they cross the line, the accept / suffer the consequences (Duke Cunningham, for instance). With Dems, they never are willing to accept the consequences, so the American public will forever punish Clinton and Dems through their votes. Notice how, after 4 years of Carter, the American public went right back to electing Republicans, in spite of the supposed shame of Nixon. Americans accepted Nixon’s resignation and moved on, as they will accept Foley’s, so by all means, concentrate on two topics that work to Rep strengths, homosexuality and an intern problem.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:31 pmJust a thought here, and I should be clear that I have not looked at the criminal code of the state where this took place or the IM chat transcripts, but if he was arranging to meet an underage person for sex in those transcripts (as some have suggested) might he be guilty of importuning? Just a question I was hoping someone with more knowlege of the specifics of the incident could answer.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:36 pmSome people are so thick that they will never understand the difference between sex between consenting adults and pedophilia. Pathetic. Clinton’s poll ratings were in the 70% range during the Republican sham impeachment.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:37 pm#222- Quadrajet- I’m so ready to give one of these ‘Zombies’ an ‘oops upside the head’, like John Travolta got in “Saturday Night Fever”, remember? But, like Lay’s potato chips, I wouldn’t be able to smack just once. :) And I think I’m a bit upset with Newt, and under the circumstances, it seems odd, but some things are just wrong. Did Newt “out” Rep. Foley? I had not heard before this story that he was gay. Seems like it would have been mentioned before now. If Newt outed him for political purposes, that’s bad too. I don’t know…
October 1st, 2006 at 6:38 pmSorry #223
October 1st, 2006 at 6:40 pmDennis Hastert and the GOP leadership now view Foley’s actions as “improper,” “unacceptable and abhorrent” behavior that involves “an obscene breach of trust.” They’re setting up a hotline so kids can report untoward advances from horny congressmen. Funny, I would have thought that reporting unsolicited and unwelcome advances to John Boehner, the majority leader, Tom Reynolds, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, John Shimkus, the chairman of the House Page Board, and Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House, would have been sufficient. Thank heavens a trained switchboard operator is being hired. Finally, someone with good judgment, common sense and political power is involved in protecting our children.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:42 pmI’ve tried twice with no success to post some background on Newter Gingrich. Seems he had his own relationship going with an assistant…it apparently led to his 2nd divorce. Family values guy. Contract on America. Ethics violations and conspiring to violate the terms of a settlement. It’s all on Wikipedia…
October 1st, 2006 at 6:42 pmjust as disgusting as the behavior they’re defending.
Comment by Quadrajet — October 1, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
It’s been apparent for sometime that Jason has major issues. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if he is trying to repress something he deems as unacceptable such as homosexuality. It would certainly explain his constant condemnation of everyone else in the world, except for anyone who is like him.
He seems to hate women, so that would be a good start. He tries to blame his ex-wife – but there are enough re-married men to know that that argument is moot.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:45 pmMan you’re a gasbag Jason. Not that the topic of discussion has anything at all to do with Clinton, but do you morons have anything else but the constant ‘Clinton, Clinton, Clinton’ BS – anything at all? Speaking of republicans crossing the line then ‘doing the right thing’, did Ney not get your memo about stepping down?
October 1st, 2006 at 6:45 pmProminent left-wing blogger and homosexual activist Glenn Greenwald agrees with me:
October 1st, 2006 at 6:46 pm
unbee,
Why make this personal? I am here to discuss the Dems over-reaching, showing them how they are making yet another fatal miss-step in their attempt to win power, and you try to disparage me?
Stop playing the victim and listen to what I am saying – I am showing you the brick wall that you are running headlong into …
October 1st, 2006 at 6:50 pmMore Greenwald:
October 1st, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Aaaahhh did naaaaaht….
have sesual relashuns….
with thut wuhmuhn….
Hill’reh….
naaht once….
evuh….
October 1st, 2006 at 6:52 pmWould a paid poster use his own name?
Apparently so.
You do realize that when you talk about a page, you are reminding everyone about what Clinton did,
Clinton did not chase a 16 year old boy. Monica, a 21 year old woman, pursued him. Not the same.
Even if it were the same, what would one have to do with teh other? You get a pass because a Dem did it? That sis SERIOUSLY f’ed up, Jason. Even for someone as immoral as you. This is what they teach you in church? Jesus would be appalled, liberal hippy that he was.
and how he refused to resign after such a lapse in ethics.
Resigning over having an affair would make the office of President, Prime Minister, etc. a revolving door.
Here, Republicans demonstrate that when they cross the line, the accept / suffer the consequences (Duke Cunningham, for instance).
How is keeping this secret doing that? Point it out.
With Dems, they never are willing to accept the consequences, so the American public will forever punish Clinton and Dems through their votes.
Forever? There is no such thing Jason. You stating such a ridiculous absolute lowers your credibility into the negative triple digits.
Notice how, after 4 years of Carter, the American public went right back to electing Republicans, in spite of the supposed shame of Nixon.
Reagan was a Democrat for most of his career. Bush SR was a one-term wonder riding Reagan’s coat-tails. And Clinton served two terms – for which he was actually elected. Gore won the popular vote, and the election even if Junior’s Daddy’s friends stole it away from him. Hardly batting 1000.
Americans accepted Nixon’s resignation and moved on, as they will accept Foley’s, so by all means, concentrate on two topics that work to Rep strengths, homosexuality and an intern problem.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — October 1, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
Moved on? Not even close. Nixon is still a laughing stock and embarassment to your party – and he didn’t harass any under-age boys…
Your know your days are numbered, Jason. You might pretend to be that stupid, but we know you know it’s over for you Grand ol Pedophiles…
October 1st, 2006 at 6:54 pmClinton’s poll ratings were in the 70% range during the Republican sham impeachment.
Comment by Republicans Are The Fear And Smear Party — October 1, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
Excellent point! Touche!
October 1st, 2006 at 6:56 pmJason, you’re an excellent example of what happens when one runs – repeatedly – headlong into a brick wall, and we appreciate the illustration via your postings. Thanks for stopping by, our thoughts and sympathies are with you. Gotta run, Woodward will be on any minute now…..
October 1st, 2006 at 6:56 pm“You do realize that when you talk about a page, you are reminding everyone about what Clinton did, and how he refused to resign after such a lapse in ethics.”
–Adultery is immoral but how does it pertain to the job as President? George H.W. Bush had a mistress; so did LBJ, JFK, Eisenhower.
“Here, Republicans demonstrate that when they cross the line, the accept / suffer the consequences (Duke Cunningham, for instance).”
–Oh, bullcrap. They covered this up for 11 months. Resigning when your back is against the wall is not leadership. Besides, ever heard of Dan Crane? Republican from Illinois. Had sex with a page in 1983. Apologized, didn’t resign. Lost re-election. So spare me your BS about ethics.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:57 pm“ABC News since has reported that as many as five boys — all congressional pages — have come forward”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
October 1st, 2006 at 6:58 pmWrong statute, people, this issue is under “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 is a criminal offense (see Adam Walsh Act, Sec. 111(14).
And under the statue, “MINOR.–The term ‘minor’ means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years”) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256 (1) (“’minor’ means any person under the age of eighteen years”).
NOTE – DISCUSSION OF SEXUAL ACTS WITH AN INDIVIDUAL UNDER 18. THAT MEANS HE’S A CRIMINAL.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:58 pmDavid,
Crane was not reelected by Republicans. Studds was reelected by Democrats. Republicans have higher standards. QED
October 1st, 2006 at 7:00 pmStop playing the victim and listen to what I am saying – I am showing you the brick wall that you are running headlong into …
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — October 1, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
You’re thinking of yourself. The brick wall is November 7th. It’s going to hurt, yet you keep running straight toward it. What are Congress’s approval ratings? 19%? Ouch!
You’re unethical Jason; I was simply pointing it out. Nothing personal. Just honest. Something I know you aren’t used to from knowing a bunch of hypocrites who smile while stabbing you in the back.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:01 pmunbelievable fantasizes that I’m a 16 year old boy. Creepy. Sick, sick, sick.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:03 pmunbee,
How am I unethical?
As for November 7, as I promised, I will be right here online, helping you understand and cope with yet another failure to seize power – thanks to the recent votes by your party, proving your weakness in dealing with the War on Terror.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:04 pmWallace, it’s not fantasizing, it’s pointing out the obvious.
Time for 60 Minutes.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:06 pmThinkAgin, you never been a 16 year old boy, your creapy. sick, sick sick. By the way i got your email, you lesbian.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:06 pm“American public will forever punish Clinton and Dems through their votes.”
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
Voters didn’t punish the Dems through their votes unless you think 500,000 more votes for Gore than Bush is punishment. The Supreme Court punished voters by stopping the vote count. What type of calculator are you using? Or are you trying to use your head?
October 1st, 2006 at 7:08 pmJason,
For the hundredth time, I am not a Democrat. I don’t like them either – just less than I don’t like the Republicans.
You neocons are over.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:08 pmunbee,
How am I unethical?
October 1st, 2006 at 7:11 pm“Crane was not reelected by Republicans. Studds was reelected by Democrats. Republicans have higher standards. QED”
–Your earlier argument relied on the idea about Foley resigning showing they had higher standards. This guy didn’t resign. And Henry Hyde stood up and said he shouldn’t be censured, even.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:22 pmHow am I unethical?
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — October 1, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
You believe in cheating to get what you want (elected), you defend others who are unethical, you condone the occupation of Iraq even though they don’t want you there, you support a corrupt political party that tramples the Consitution and the lies about it, you want to keep women sub-everything, etc.
Just read your own posts. You’re egocentric, megalomanical, and you get off on the suffering those who are different from you, saying it is in the name of assistance….
October 1st, 2006 at 7:23 pmunbee,
How am I unethical?
Jason, there’s not enough time or server space to give you a complete answer to that one. And I think we both know it wouldn’t make any difference if UB did explain it to you, even in terms that someone with massive, self inflicted head injuries could understand. But maybe after 60 minutes I’ll stop back and help UB weed through your bullshit and try to sort out just the unethical from the immoral, indecent, egomaniacal and imcomprehensible.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:29 pmOnly an unethical person would ask how they are unethical after making so many unethical posts.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:33 pmGeez,
I was hoping the tiny-minded troll was gone by now.
ick.
Let’s not go too off course answering the troll who obviously wants to desperately divert our attention from the deviant behaviour of one of our elected officials.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:40 pmNot to be too Freudian about this, but I think that most Republican politicians today are people constantly at war with powerful and deeply-buried urges they can neither control nor understand. These urges may be healthy or deviant, but they go completely unrecognized by their possessors — suppressed to the point where they wreak havoc on their lives and lead them over time to wreak havoc on the lives of others. Such persons develop fractured personalities in which their public selves do battle against external manifestations of their own sublimated impulses.
If you look at the personal lives of the House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee — the ones who sought Clinton’s impeachment on account of his affair with White House Intern Monica Lewinsky — you will see a group of men whose personal lives would be considered rather unsavory by their conservative, “values voter” constituents. Some of them have cheated on their wives, broken up the families of others, and patronized prostitutes or dominatrixes. Other Republican politicians and operatives are closeted homosexuals who spend all their time trying to strike fear into the hearts of Americans by raising the specter of legally-sanctioned gay marriage. Then you have poor Congressman Foley sponsoring bills to protect children from Internet sex predators, enacting laws that he will no doubt be prosecuted for breaking.
The reason Republicans are so good at stoking fear in the hearts of the public is that fear is the thing about themselves they understand above all else. Bush’s obsession with the right to torture must certainly stem from his own internal battles for self-control.
Samuel Johnson, in his Dictionary, offers us the following definition:
Coward: A poltron; a wretch whose predominant passion is fear.
Sound like anyone you know?
October 1st, 2006 at 7:43 pmAdam Walsh had been conspicuously absent from the media coverage of Foley’s criminality. I would love to get his thoughts on the matter.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:47 pmAdam Walsh was John Walsh’s son……
October 1st, 2006 at 7:50 pmNewt Gingrich doesn’t understand what a sexual predator is? Doesn’t see a problem with a 54 year old man sending sexual emails to a 16 year old boy? Oh yea, Gingrich was a Republican Congressman as well. Another scumbag that is more concerned with his Republican politics than protecting a 16 year old from one of his “colleaguesâ€.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:53 pmYou got to be dumb as dirt to think that there is a connection between pediophilia and homosexuality. Pediophilia occurs between an adult predator and a child victim regardless of sex – it can be the same sex or the opposite sex. Homosexuality is a sexual preference for someone of the same sex. Newt is an ignorant asshole. If he can’t tell the difference, then maybe he is hiding his sexual preference for children.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:53 pmTalk about bad timing: Al Franken: God Spoke, a documentary that spends two years following the comedian-turned-pundit from book tours to a possible run for office, arrives in Dallas today — two days before Air America Radio, the liberal talk network that boasts Franken as its flagship host, loses its Dallas affiliate.
Border Media Partners, which owns KXEB/910 AM, is leasing the station to Guadalupe Radio Network, a Catholic radio group based in Midland. The religiously oriented format is expected to take over Sunday, grounding Air America in North Texas.
Franken, however, is unconcerned, even as rumors persist that the barely 2-year-old radio venture is preparing to file for bankruptcy. (Air America officials have repeatedly dismissed this in news reports.)
Yeah right!!!
October 1st, 2006 at 8:15 pmI’m going to assume that Delay and Hastert (and the trolls posting here) see these young pages as nothing more than pawns in the “culture war” they so desparately need to win. Sexually repressed and mentally scarred future Republicans have to come from somewhere, don’t you know. Someday in the future that information would be used against them, just as Foley was allegedly blackmailed into voting for or against legislation. I can only imagine that there’s a thick file on all of them, full of choice bits of personal data, just waiting for the right opportunity to be used against them in coercion.
It’s a sick, sad culture they’re fighting for. And when warrantless wiretapping is coupled with cheap and unlimited computing power, they’ll have files on each and every one of us.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:16 pmI think this should be a pedophile thing and a gay thing!
If this was a 16 year old girl – many in the flock would not mind as much… hell half of them probably married their 13 year old cousins… they think 16 is old.
But since the republicans have made careers out of gay bashing it should be pointed out at every chance that the Christian Right leadership has been covering for the worst kind of pedophile… a homo pedophile.
You know what they say… live by the homo bashing – die by the homo bashing.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:16 pmG.W.SuperChrist .. your right, cant argue any of your points.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:20 pmBut guess what, it really is… its all about sex isnt it?
October 1st, 2006 at 8:21 pm“It’s vile,†said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. “It’s more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction.†— On Bill Clinton — 1998
October 1st, 2006 at 8:24 pmThe International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (F65.4) defines pedophilia as “a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age.”
Emphasis mine.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:27 pmNot only is there beauty in the GOP’s fall from grace amid a pedo-scandal, they increase the laugh factor by worrying about the reaction if they investigated.
A lot of chickens coming home to roost on that one.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:27 pmSex works with these repressed lunatics!
You can kill all you want… but don’t try to get any in between murders.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:28 pmThe GOPredators are nothing but Media spin and neo-con hypocrisy. They spend millions on propaganda that could have gone to much better things..Sad that
But as George said in his business you kinda have to catapult the propaganda by repeating it over and over.
[INDEED!!]
Remember, when FOX ratings drop so do the Neo-Cons.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:29 pmranken, however, is unconcerned, even as rumors persist that the barely 2-year-old radio venture is preparing to file for bankruptcy. (Air America officials have repeatedly dismissed this in news reports.)
Yeah right!!!
Comment by brandi
I live in Dallas and have never listened to the show. And am not concerned either, big city alot of stations, tuff market.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:37 pmOL Foghorn Leghorn strikes again. This guy plays to the toothless and the unwashed, and they stare straight ahead and nod in agreement. Maybe he will gaze out into the audience one evening and say, “Oh my God, they’re all dressed in clown suits.” Can the right not come up with anything better than this guy, or any of the others ? Sad indeed.
October 1st, 2006 at 10:07 pmLet all the Republican keep talking as much as possible!!!
October 1st, 2006 at 10:12 pmThe demos will have enough sound bites for the next ten elections!!
Is Mark Foley a pedophile?
According to Healthline’s definition of pedophilia:
October 1st, 2006 at 10:45 pm“The focus of pedophilia is sexual activity with a child. Many courts interpret this reference to age to mean children under the age of 18. Most mental health professionals, however, confine the definition of pedophilia to sexual activity with prepubescent children, who are generally age 13 or younger. The term ephebophilia, derived from the Greek word for “youth,” is sometimes used to describe sexual interest in young people in the first stages of puberty.”
How can rational beings listen to the constant lies of the reiechwingnuts? It is pathetic to watch. Why would anyone watch FOX unless Bill Clinton is on to kick their lilly white chickenshit chickenhawk asses?
October 1st, 2006 at 10:45 pmAbsolutely ludicrous. They lie like breathing.
Gay Republicans in Washington politics live in shame and fear of discovery. Unfortunately, that’s how they think all gays should live.
October 1st, 2006 at 10:48 pm[...] UPDATE: In one of the more stunning attempts to turn a wrong doer into a victim (at least since George Allen), Newt says that GOP leadership couldn’t go after Foley because they would have been accused of “gay bashing“. Absolutely shameless. Simply stunning. When faced with a clear example of someone in his party dropping the ball and/or screwing up, he still attempts to flip it back on liberals. [...]
October 1st, 2006 at 11:03 pmOh, please Toady Newt!
October 1st, 2006 at 11:24 pmThey were covering his ass, uh back. They can now justify it any way they want, most Americans see this as the MO of the GOP, the Grumpy Old Pervs.
just sayin’ here… and maybe it was a good thing, as it’s late and all…
October 1st, 2006 at 11:36 pmbut i could scan these comments and see the exact same arguments from think-something as were posted on the previous threads…
i think it just may be wallace…
they are dredging the barrel’s bottom when they send young wallace out to defend… appropos…
Newt, you sad puppy. What a troll.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:36 pmFunny thing, Newt…
The GOP wasn’t too concerned about gay-bashing when they were fighting against same-sex marriage…
Sorry, I forgot, “It’s-OK-If-You’re-A-Republican!”
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:12 amNewt, gay bashing and pedophilia are two completely different things. One is discriminatory and the other is predatory. But, I guess you and the republican base just don’t care.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:23 amSo what does he have, a crystal ball?
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:13 amFox “News” and Gangrich trying to cover for Foley, calling email innocent.
Foley talked to 16 year old page on the phone about him being erect. Foley says he would like to grab the kid’s penis.
If that is “innocent” what is not?
Is there no lower limit to the slime Republicans?
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:48 amGotta respond to the troll.
RE: pedophile definition
As a father of an 18 year old, I can safely say that there is a vast difference psychologically and emotionally between a typical 16 year old and a typical 18 year old. V-A-S-T. A 54 year old making explicit sexual advances to an 18 year old is repulsive and reprehensible. Doing so to a 16 year old is repulsive, reprehensible, and criminal. True, 18 is somewhat arbitrary because many 18 year olds are still emotionally immature. But virtually ALL 16 year olds are emotionally and psychologically immature, reflecting not only their lack of life experience but also the biology of brain development. It’s one thing for two stupid 16 year olds to jump into bed together. Quite another if one of the participants is approaching senior citizenship. That’s predatory.
RE: Suggestions that Foley’s “immediate” resignation is somehow a sign of Republican virtue. Oh, please! There is nothing immediate about his resignation. This crap’s been going on for a MINUMUM of 3 years. He only resigned because his goose was cooked. God only knows how deep this rabbit hole goes. How ’bout some more examples of how Republicans show virtue by “immediately” resigning? Duke Cunningham? Yeah, he denied and denied and denied, and only resigned when he know he’d be nailed. Fact is, anytime someone powerful resigns, it’s not from virtue. Same is true regardless of party, so give it a rest.
RE: Suggestions that this is ok because the victim is gay. Oh, please! First of all, we don’t know that he’s gay. From the chat stream, certainly he doesn’t mind providing graphic details of self-pleasuring when goaded to do so by a powerful congressman who can impact his future. Disgusting, yes, but the Foley is leading the conversation and provoking it all the way. Also, he talks about having a girlfriend. Second, and most importantly, WHO CARES? Last I checked, being gay is not a crime. Soliciting a minor is a crime.
RE: Suggestions that Dems are hypocrites because of Studds. So what, now, do two wrongs make a right? I agree that Studds should have been pursued and prosecuted (at least based on what I know of the case, which is little), but what is the relevance of that to the current situation? You’re talking about a crime that occurred 33 years ago and about congressman who’s been gone for a decade. Let’s be clear: all sexual predators should be kicked out of office and prosecuted, regardless of political affiliation.
RE: Endless comparisons to Clinton. If you have proof that Clinton solicited minors, by all means let’s have the man brought to justice. Otherwise, STFU. Clinton was foolish without a doubt, but he had consensual sex with an adult. Adultery is a bad thing, but if it were illegal, half of Washington DC would be in jail. Getting a BJ and lying about it so your wife doesn’t find out is stupid. Soliciting minors for sex is unethical, immoral, hypocritical, and criminal. Please tell me you see the difference. Please.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:04 amAhem: If it had been an underage girl: Foley would still be in deep shit.
Lets not try and use the “Gay Bashing” card here thankyou.
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:37 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
Basically –
1) sexual interest towards children (inc. pre-pubescent and adolescent)
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:08 am2) post-pubescent minors may be included in the definition in #1
3) there is also an argument when an adult is in a relationship” with a minor (whether they are of consenting age — like 16), I think that they are considered technically pedophiles if they are 5 years older or more say, like Foley
Foley was for the NMBLA before he was against it.
flip flop !
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:59 amstop predator stop !
#268 Thanks for the correction. Apologies.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:08 amYeah, because in every instance of pedophile priests, the Dems were right there screaming “Gay bashing!” Not.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:06 amSince when did “Gay Bashing” bother Republicans? Isn’t this what they do repeatedly in an attempt to get out their “values” voters? Newt, you are being even more of a hypocrite than usual.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:51 amThis is no excuse!
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:35 amWait a minute here, folks. A Republican Congressman resigns over a scandal involving inappropriate contacts with underage children, and they ask the advice of a guy who married his high school geometry teacher?
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:41 amGingrich urges overriding Supreme Court
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:01 amhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1154AP_Gingrich_Scotus.html
The RNC is working hard to spin something positive about this one.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:34 amThe crap that is comming out is simply ridiculous.
Karl must be having an excedrin headache.
Newt didn’t want to appear to to be gay bashing, so his first concern was the political response, not for the the page.
Besides, gay bashing would win points with Republican voters. That would not be a disadvantage, but a solidifying of his base.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:34 amSince when has this group of neo-cons EVER been concerned with gay-bashing???? It’s part of their mantra, isn’t it? Well…until it means losing a member of congress 4 weeks before an election that could possibly turn them into the minority party. I guess maybe if a cigar were involved they’d have more interest?
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:51 amDid it occur to Newt that a party placing their public image above their moral character would end up losing both by protecting a snake in their midst?
And did Newt think that anyone but his mouth-breathing swastika-wearing base would buy his latest line of “It’s all the Liberals’ fault!” horseshit anyway?
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:07 pmBluestocking,
No one has made any excuses for Foley. — ThinkNoDissent
******************
With all due respect, TND, I very much beg to differ! By stating his opinion that this is largely a gay issue — as if Foley’s overtures to underage male pagers were nothing more than a harmless flirtation between two willing participants — Gingrich is trying with all his might and main to make excuses for Foley. Does someone really need to remind you again that in this country, any individual under the age of 18 is not legally considered an adult and is therefore by definition still a child?!?
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:48 pmI’ll tell you what offends gay people. It would not have been that the House leadership would have (should have) investigated Foley “overly aggressively” [a statement which makes no sense at all] to hold him as accountable as anyone else for wrongdoing. Why would this have been taken as “gay-bashing” unless you were still holding to the myth that gay=pedophile! That, people, is the thing that IS offensive to gay citizens. SO the very saying of THIS ridiculous excuse for not doing the job of dealing with this Foley is offensive. It would be an astounding breakthrough for any member of this fascist administration or legislative branch to suddenly be so concerned for the sensibilities of the gay citizens. What this ploy does reveal is that the Republican leadership misguidedly believe that gay people would be sympathetic to a closeted gay man they have invested so much “political capitol” in using his position of power and influence to act out on what he has made a name for himself publicly opposing. Or is it just another of their endless stream of uses and abuses they can put the gay community to for the covering of their miserable asses?
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:18 pmUnthinkingTroll, what about legal vs. illegal don’t you get?
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:21 pmNewt’s worry of being accused of “gay bashing” reveals his utter contempt the American People’s intelligence, for the democratic voting process, and for the American judicial process! Being accused is not to be guilty or even party to a thing. You are either “gay bashing” or you are not. If Newt and Hastert believe in the process which has given them both and Foley so much power then Hastert and Newt should want the truth see the light of day and let the democratic and judicial processes take their course. So the question is a good one, why did Hastert not proceed for a deeper review of Foley and his association with Pages?
But Newt is not in favour of the truth being told. He is afraid for Hastert that people may accuse the House Majority Leader of “gay bashing.” It is Newt that brought up the idea of “gay bashing” in relation to Hastert. Is this a Freudian slip? Has the Majority Leader been known to “gay bash” in some other instance? Is Hastert, in Newt’s eyes, not a fair man? Is Hastert a week person who resorts to predatory behavior like “gay bashing?”
I believe Newt protests to much! Now we have a case of Newt and Hastert “with no clothes.”
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:49 pmExcuses, Excuses……
I’m wondering when the right is going to start deflecting blame for the alleged Foley coverup by comparing the situation to last year’s Jim McGreevey scandal. But to make this argument, you would have to implicitly accept the ridiculous premise……
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:58 pmThinkcensorship is soft on kiddy fiddlers.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:40 pmConservatives don’t need McGreevy, we have Barney Frank’s basement brothel, Stubbs, and Reynolds which proves that when liberals accuse the GOP of protecting perverts they are hypocritical at best.
Foley was asked to resign after the scandal broke. Where was the call for Barney Frank or Stubbs to resign? Why did Clinton commute Reynolds sentence? and why did Ross release the story now when he had it on a shelf for over a month?
October 4th, 2006 at 1:55 pmThe double standard of the left is on full display.
Pelosi said that GOP leaders were protecting Foley to protect his seat. Really? What were the democrats doing when they ignored Stubbs? What were they doing when they ignored Barney Frank? Oh, and let’s not forget Clinton commuting the sentence of convicted pedophole Reynolds.
Foley was asked to resign as soon as the scandal broke, Hastert and Bush have called for a criminal investigation which is being done. yet democrats accuse the GOP of protecting Foley. How? The pages saved the IMs and e-mails and could have or maybe even did send copies to demo leaders in the house. What could the house leadership have done to stop democrats from getting copies of these e-mails/IMs? If the family of the victim wanted charges pressed, how could the GOP stop them? This “scandal” has about as much legitimacy as Plame gate or the Dan Rather AWOL memo. Foley is a creep and may be prosecuted unlike his dem counterparts who got a pass and a presidential pardon.
October 4th, 2006 at 2:04 pmI am new to this board so, hello… That said, I did my best to read all the posts but might have missed something so forgive me if I’m repeating a point or making any “duh” comments…
Okay: done with disclaimers. First, whether the pages were male or female, 16 or 50, the theme seems to be that there’s a power differential at play, meaning that Foley has an unfair and oppressive advantage (in ways that are NOT supposed to be part of the job description). You can call it pedophilia (although clearly there is disagreement on this site about whether that term is appropriate); you can call it sexual harrassment; or you can call it something else. No matter what you call it, it consitutes an abuse of power. Second, the fact that these abuses of power are routinely covered up seems hugely problematic to me…and unfortunately these routine cover-ups also seem to occur time and again, at the hands of both GOPs and Dems. (Maybe one party covers up more or less but I’m not going to split hairs. To do so would be exactly counter to the point I am trying to make). And so, the problem does not seem to start and end with the resignation of one person or the censure of one party. There seems to be a large systemic issue here. Does anyone else notice the hostility and division that exist in this country (hostility and division, not simply “difference of opinion” or “heated debate”)? With such fissures, with both GOP and dems attacking each other for power and control, using whatever tactics they can to smother their opponents and reign, cover-ups are a necessity, simply protecting your “own.” In the midst of this cold civil war, the people and systems we are counting on to lead our so-called society are side-tracked; their attention is divided; their agendas are set by a desire to empower themselves, rather than by the desire to empower the people of this and other countries. I don’t think that politicians are born this way (certainly, not all of them), so what happens? And how do we improve things?
October 5th, 2006 at 12:20 am