posted on October 5, 2006 03:00:30 PM new
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 5, 2006
[urlhttp://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24770[/url]
At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.
The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.
Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)
In 1983, Democratic Rep. 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 five 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 Democratic 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-Qaeda phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.
Let's run this past the 9th 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.
But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.
The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaeda – solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terro
posted on October 5, 2006 03:25:59 PM new
Don't you just love the fact that the only thing Republicans are running to is that this guy is or is not potentially gay? What does being a homosexual or heterosexual have to do with Foley's exploitation of a minor? What? Because the page was a boy? The crime isn't based on the sex of the victim, but the actual crime itself. If it was a female page, the outcome would have been the same.
I also love how Coultergeist states, " But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaeda phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages."
How quickly can you say, "Freedom of Information Act?" The guy is a public official and he was using government resources, something that is of public record.
You'll also notice that again... a neonazicon like Coulter completely misses the mark, fails to recognize, plays ignorant to this simple fact that Foley's "inappropriately friendly" messages were sent to a minor. A FRICKIN' MINOR!!! You'll also notice the appalling spin by Coultergeist using the term, "inappropriately friendly" in reference to sexually explicit phrases made by Foley.
Again, the Republicans can run, they can hide, but America sees them for what they are. It is quite sad that they continue to play these cards when it is the minor who is the victim, not a Congressman, or the GOP, or the Bush Administration. A minor. Simply put, wrong is wrong whether you cite Clinton, Studds, or any other person. It is time for you neonazi's to step up to the plate and accept the fact that a Republican was wrong, and should be punished accordingly. The only real tragedies here are the exploitation of a minor.
posted on October 5, 2006 04:08:17 PM new
You must have read a different post then I left here.
Nazicon? Would that make you a limhanicon?
I know who you are and find your outrage to be bullsh*t.
Foley admitted to his transgressions and stepped down. He tried to blame it on booze of course (didn't Teddy drown someone and blame it on booze?) But accepted his sins in the end.
Coulter’s piece is a satire:
satire: the use of ridicule or scorn, often in a humorous or witty way, to expose vices and follies. 2. a literary example of such ridicule or scorn.
Funny how you all see the satire when George Bush is being ridiculed
True is your point about the victim being “A FRICKIN' MINOR!!!” and it makes no difference if that minor is a male or female.
I’m bothered by all sexual predators especially homosexual predators who wage a campaign to bring young, many times troubled and impressionable boys into their ranks.
posted on October 5, 2006 06:36:31 PM new
"I’m bothered by all sexual predators especially homosexual predators who wage a campaign to bring young, many times troubled and impressionable boys into their ranks. Don’t you agree?"
You should be bothered by all sexual predators. However, You argue your point with the statement, "especially homosexual predators who wage a campaign to bring young, many times troubled and impressionable boys into their ranks." What difference does it make whether they are gay or not? Pedophilia and being a sexual predator for minors is a crime, being gay isn't.
Wouldn't you be the same to argue that owning a gun isn't the problem, but using the gun in a crime is? By the same token, it would be of no value for someone to argue that they have a problem with a murderer, especially those who ride a Harley (if they have some absurd hatred towards Harley owners). What difference does it make, other than they have a prejudice against someone or group before they even do something wrong.
posted on October 5, 2006 09:23:48 PM new
Just goes to show that once again, rusty doesn't have a CLUE as to what he says.
He needs to look up the definition of the word Pedophilia and he needs to do a search on the 'age of consent' in DC. LOL LOL
I guess ignorance must be bliss.....he continues to prove how very ignorant he is to the FACTS.
Pedophiles are NOT sexually interested in 17 year olds. LOL They are 'men' not 'boys' at a much younger age and pedophiles have NO interest in other men. Only very young boys.
Oh....and that holds for BOTH democrat and republican GAY men.
Since some idiots appear to think this is a political issue....rather than the sexual one it is.
And 18 is NOT the 'age of consent' in all the states.
Get a clue for a change.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 5, 2006 09:30 PM ]
posted on October 10, 2006 10:33:59 AM newThat was probably a good thing as it was probably something stupid
Pretty much like anything the demomorons post here.
What's up with rustydumbo. Can't post under his usual scumbag ID? Needs to go by the shaggy dopa. Hey, you could be bigdopa's twin sister.
.
.
.
"Unfortunately there are levels of Stupid that just can't be cured!!" The new Demomoron motto.
