I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

The Democrats have never actively tried to really make sexual morality a major argument, I mean Democrats are pro-Gay rights because ultimately, most Democrats just point blank don’t care who is screwing who. The Republicans, however, have made a huge thing of sexual morality. They have also been anti-Gay, as well as being the party which is first in most cases to make sexual misconduct an issue of public debate. I mean, remember the Clinton scandal? That was not an argument over whether Clinton lied in Congress, lets be honest here, it was an argument over Clinton having extra-marital sex.

The major point of outrage is not just the exploitation of a minor, but also the fact that Hastert covered it up for fear of what it would do to the elections. Here he demonstrated that of all the things he was worried about, how it would look to the electorate was the most important, he put the party before the pages, and before what a lot of people see as having been his responsibility. With the Studds scandal so far as I am aware there wasn’t this culture of “Hide it quick” with the Democrats.

Like a lot of people have pointed out, if Hastert had revealed it when he first knew about it, had he called for Foley’s resignation then, then this wouldn’t have been an issue. It was the fact that it was a cover-up and a cover-up that demonstrated yet again, where the Republican’s priorities lie, that has caused the major moral outrage.

The law was different back then. Morally Studds was wrong, but the law was such that his actions didn’t violate it, therefore there wasn’t a great deal the Dems or the Republicans could do about it. His constituents voted for him, as was their right, and he got in.

Now there are new laws which outlaw the behavior demonstrated by Foley, and all we are saying is, enforce the law.

Your argument fails on the concept that you cannot punish old behavior based on new laws.

Take this as an example: Lets say the government changes the law as of today saying that you can’t wear yellow, yet you wore yellow yesterday, can you be punished for that?

I am not saying it’s right, I am saying that you can’t have one set of standards and morals for one group, and hold another group to differing standards.

You also can’t say it’s ok last year, but not ok this year, or vice versa.

All I was saying, hold all senator’s and representatives equally responsible.

According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL IM exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, it was revealed today.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of Dem political operatives.

The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the matter.

The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh attorney, Stephen Jones.

Yesterday, he posted a story alledging that the page was 18 when the incident happened…

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm

Today, he is saying that the whole incedent was merely a prank…

http://www.drudgereport.com/page.htm

What next?

You are a typical Republican, whatever you do it is okay provided some Democrat did it over 20 years ago. Gee I wonder why I keep on bringing up that a country should not be being run by a bunch of four year olds.

In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a “mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults.”

When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds — not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men — defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office SIX more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha’s Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: “It’s the outfit, stupid.”)

Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds’ affair with a teenage page as “a brief consenting homosexual relationship” and denounced Studds’ detractors for engaging in a “witch hunt” against gays: “New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life.”

Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.

No one demanded to know why the Democrat Speaker of the House, Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.

But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush’s National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman’s instant messages.

Let’s run this past the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager — oh also, we think he’s gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy — and a credit check, too!

When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada’s judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.

…was the Repulsivescum leadership cabal will convince hastert to step up and announce that he’ll step down from the House Speakership NEXT YEAR…

…to as the pundits put it, “stop the bleeding and cauterize the wound”…

…the electorate has a short memory and after a week or two will have forgotten all about this latest scandal…

…C-Span had a Repulsivescum lovefest this morning with Repulsivescum callers ONLY the first 20 minutes…

…Democrats ONLY the second answering the “loaded” question, “should Dems take over Congress?”…

…where MOST of the air(chat)time was given to the obviously FAKE Democrats who called in answering “no”…

…what was MOST telling about the segment and the anchor facilitating it was:

during the Repulsivescum ONLY segment the anchor replied to a caller’s accusation that the Repulsivescum callers calling in on the “NO” (republicans should not retain control of the Congress”…

…”What can I say, people lie”…

…implying that no TRUE partisan Repulsivescum would call in on the “NO” line (and break Party ranks)…

…no such mention of “Dems” doing the same was forthcoming…

…Yes, I’m saying that the C-Span anchorwoman named Susan (whatever her last name is- the OLD broad)…

… is a biased partisan Repulsivescum female genitalia…

talk about offensive.

Here are more ads for the GOP we’d like to

see…