A radical activist on a mission to "out" conservative homosexual lawmakers and Capitol Hill staffers held on to information about Rep. Mark Foley's relationships with underage male pages, suggesting the story would break at the time of mid-term elections.
Blogger Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit points to a campaign by two activists who had Foley on their "target list" of 20 people and shared the information with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
The Democrats knew about this, they were ready for it, it has been in their campaign strategy all along.
Conservatives are sickened by what Foley did...
And the country should be sickened by what Democrats will do to gain power back...
Some more about the liberal hitmen:
Rogers – in a March 4, 2005, post on his website BlogActive.com – declared Foley to be "gay" and, therefore, a hypocrite for voting for legislation against the homosexual agenda. The post said: "MARK FOLEY WILL BE EXPOSED FOR THE HYPOCRITE HE IS THROUGH A MAIL AND INTERNET CAMPAIGN THAT WILL REACH INTO EVERY HOME IN HIS DISTRICT."
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
'Gay' activist held info about Foley
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
Wow, looks like they got a hold of the Republic playbook.
Keep bitching and complaining. It's falling on deaf ears. The Repubics and their leaders have known about this for years. It's their fault for not doing something about it well before election day.
You are trying to blame the Democrats because this came out in the open just before an election? Absurd! If Hastert and company had done their job, had held people accountable a year ago, two years ago, this wouldn't be a nail in their 2006 coffin, would it!
you can't comment on anything being said, because there is nothing you can say...
Dem's have a lower standard of morality...been shown by Studd's and others
Dem's don't care about people in their party doing immoral things, Republicans resign when they get caught...
Dem's are slime, plain and simple...
Your thirt for power makes you blind and dumb...or is that your liberalism...
and I can't believe how you COMPLETELY ignore the information in the post....this flat out stinks...but of course, you must ignore it because it shows what the Dems are all about...I'd like to see this proof of behavior from the right
And here is a source that refutes your claims.
The e-mails by themselves are nothing. They are creepy only with present knowledge of Foley and his character. Even at the time of the e-mails exposure, the parents wanted no publicity from it, only to have Foley desist. Media that became aware, as well as law enforcement, found nothing in the e-mails to warrant any charges or further investigation by the media. In other words, no story. When brought to the attention of Hastert and others, they confronted Foley and requested (as that is really all they could do with what they had) that he back of and not contact the kid who was uncomfortable with the e-mails. So what was Hastert to do? Make trouble for Foley because he's gay? because he corresponded with a page, as if he couldn't have a normal friendship with a teen? To say that there was a cover up or any sort of party chicanery over this incident is ludicrous. Up until the time the IM's were made known (by lib's), there was nothing for Hastert to do about it that wasn't done. Any cries of misconduct on the part of Hastert is, to use Jim's favorite term, bullshit. Nice try, though.
Jim, by your own standards, you are a hypocrite for not calling for Pelosi's resignation along with every Democrat who gave a standing ovation to Gerry Studds.
Jim, you are the type of person who gives politics a bad name.
This is a manufactured scandal. The Dems and the Media are going to pay a price for this.
Jim has the liberal power disease...
marshall, pcd and myself have clearly and easily shown that Dem's have no moral authority to say anything about this
EVERYONE admits Foley is atleast kind of creepy maybe even evil...
But the party of adultry and statitory rape can't possibly be mad about what Foley did, unless they want to get mad because it was not immoral enough...
How is this supposed to look bad for the Republicans?
Many people knew about this already, including three media outlets and didn't see a story in it, but all of a sudden people are supposed to resign???
The Dem's smell blood, and as usual, they don't care what they say or what they have to do to get power back
I should be sickened, game, when our Speaker of the House is U-U-U-G-L-Y, Foley is a perv, leaving the rest of us to wonder about the rest?
Yep, you bet I'm sickened, but not for the reasons you stated. I'm glad to get the sick ugly people out of there. Just get the rest out, ok? I'm tired of looking at them. I'd rather look at barf on the sidewalk than any of those ugly dewds.
Geez.
Dedanna,
You astonish me. Your last must be a joke for I can't believe you would be that shallow. I'm more concerned with ugly hearts. You honestly think Foley is the tip of the Republican iceberg? You're willing to paint the entire party with that brush because of one guy? I had thought better of you. Was I wrong to? Tell me you were kidding. If you're not kidding, then what are you doing to prevent the Dems from success knowing that they have been championing perversity for as long as they have?
Jason,
Who said all homosexuals were creepy perverts?
Jason, that is your Republic spin machine talking again. It's a lie and everybody knows it's a lie.
It's not going to work because nobody is going to fall for that lie except maybe those who worship Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.
You've got nothing but bullshit on this one.
Sorry, Marshall, I call a spade a spade. And it's not just one person in the party, it's a helluva lot of 'em.
It's also not just one in the Dem party, it's a helluva lot of them.
BUT, I still think that Hastert is as fat 'n ugly as they come, and Foley's a perv, GWB's a rich dude trying to sell his soul to the devil, and Donald Rumsfeld is running second for the UGLY list.
For the Dems, hhmmm... that's for another time, another post.
I just love this.
Democrats have been talking up about how soft and gentle they are for being tolerant of alternative lifestyles, and when two consenting individuals send IMs to each other, they call the guy a creepy pervert in light of his homosexuality.
Again, unf---ing believable. This is ***gay bashing*** anyway you slice it.
Jim--
You are either ignorant or a liar.
Have you ever heard of the old Clinton hack Rahm Emmanuel? He's the neo-coM loon up in the 5th District up on the North Side, one of the most powerful Democrats in the House.
Your trigger-happy use of the word 'bullshit' is precisely that. Try logic and evidence instead of emoting for a change.
I am neither, of course. I know who Rahm is. And if there is any possible way for you to prove that I'm lying here, be my guest.
I have read your link and there is not one word in it about Foley's sexual orientation, no mention of the subject of homosexuality. No statement about gays. It doesn't even mention the gender of the teenagers. Nothing.
Only criticism of Hastert's handling of the situation.
So you continue to spin because that's all you've got. Bullshit spin.
Who's lying?
I don't have to give evidence. You are the ones who are accusing the Democrats of gay bashing, but you have no evidence. You are the ones who are accusing the Democrats of orchestrating this scandal, but you have no evidence.
You only have bullshit spin.
jason said...
when two consenting individuals send IMs to each other
And were both parties of age?
If not, then your statement, they call the guy a creepy pervert in light of his homosexuality.
Again, unf---ing believable. is unfrikking believable. For one, if there is even a question of homosexuality in Congress or anywhere within the government reps, then this has always been highly suspect, and most were booted out for it. Hell, people are booted out of the military and police forces to this day for it.
For another, it has always been traditionally "wrong" for any rep or pReZ or anyone in government to be "creepy". They have always been expected to keep up the image of an untarnished reputation.
I call him a perv, because he is one. Foley is a child-molesting, creepy, UGLY pervert. And I want him along with the rest like him, whether Repug or Dem, kicked out of government, hung by their balls, and sent to prison with the key thrown away.
Let's get people who are actually clean in there, huh?And who are actually human, who take that and treat it as a privilege to serve other humans.
To add to that, I will say that at least Clinton was smart enough to get his blow jobs from a female.
dedanna--
Gay people do send lewd messages to each other. Foley's young email buddy was 18 at the time, so there even wasn't any sex involved. There is no reason to say that Foley is creepy or perverted beyond the notion that homosexuality is creepy and perverted.
Now, examine the difference between the GOP and the Democrats. Here in Chicago, the Democrats reelected sex offender Mel Reynolds -- it took a prison term to pry him out of the House of Representatives. Foley resigned. Clinton sexually assaulted women while president. Bob Packwood got caught sexually harassing people and was forced to resign.
See the difference?
& btw, there's no proof of assault on Clinton's part. None whatsoever. Sure, he cheated with them, womanized them (but then what politician doesn't womanize), but there is no proof of assault or rape whatsoever. So, that takes your point & blows it out the window.
Any questions? Don't go there with bullshit with me, Jason. I'll call you on it every time.
No De, they didn't get Bubba on film assaulting anyone. You're right. And the testimony from the women he "allegedly" assaulted must be worthless. I hope you're not on the jury if my daughter is ever attacked.
I have to say, though, I find it funny that the left will portray Foley in such a bad way as if they don't routinely support such crap on a regular basis. They've already had a guy who actually had an affair with a male page, and Foley just sent kinky messages. The ACLU constantly protects the "right" to possess child porn and groups like LAMBDA(?). And the minimum age for a page is 16, which isn't exactly the same as a 9 yr old. And it isn't the right that supports people like Judith Levine, who believes children to be sexual creatures and hey, maybe not all pedophilia is a bad thing. So Foley writes kinky notes and he's some kind of Dorian Grey. Yeah. Those Dems got us now.
So why did foley resign as soon as the information came out? What's he guilty about if he didn't do anything wrong?
I don't believe there is any such "testimony". In what case? Betty Brodrick's story was refuted by your old friend Linda Tripp.
Please link to any information that would demonstrate that the ACLU protects the right to posses child porn. I'll read it if it exists.
Also, the ACLU defended NAMBLA in a case in which the parents of a murdered youth sued NAMBLA claiming NAMBLA's website incited the murder. NAMBLA is a repugnant organization, but the case was bullshit.
And your spinning all around Foley when the real issue is about how Boener, Hastert, Simkus, and Reynolds handled the whole deal.
Another mis-direction play. Nice try.
Jim,
Several women spoke of Bubba's advances. Brodrick was only one of them. So there is plenty of testimony to his infidelity. I wasn't speaking of courtroom testimony, if that's what you thought.
Foley resigned most likely because he knew of the shitstorm that was coming. He may have been pressured to do so as well. Repubs often fall on the sword for the good of country and/or party. Even at their worst, they still maintain more honor than most Dems.
Go to stoptheaclu.com and scroll down to their greatest hits section. There you will find info regarding their stance on supporting the sale and distribution of child porn. Oh, those noble souls oppose the production of child porn. What saints.
I'm not spinning anything about Foley. The details of just how the Congressional higher-ups handled this is still in question. You might be willing to make assumptions, but I'd like all the details.
Marshall said...
Foley just sent kinky messages
I don't think so. Look at an above thread for posts regarding specifically what he sent. Then tell us all how they're just "kinky messages".
Even the Dems at their worst womanizing times couldn't beat this, so stop Marshall. Just stop with the bullshit.
Marshall said...
I find it funny that the left will portray Foley in such a bad way as if they don't routinely support such crap on a regular basis.
No one has to "portray" Foley in any way. Foley's done it to himself, along with the countless people who covered it all up.
Marshall, I'll blow you out of the water on a lot of things with this. Quit denying, and doing stuff just to oppose-party-bash. I'm tired of it from all ends. Quit spinning. Talk real. Talk about what it really is, molesting kids and covering it up.
Which is beyond all decency, and beyond all morality, beyond all law-breaking.
What, kids having sex before they're ready is wrong when it's your regular Joe kids, but when it's a Repug congressman, it's okay for him to i.m. 16-yr-old (or any other) kids with sexually explicit gross stuff?
Good god y'all, get a grip.
IT IS NOT OKAY. NONE OF IT IS OKAY.
Last comment on this:
QUIT saying it's okay too, because you think that Bill Clinton or anyone else in the opposite party did it, or did something similar.
IT IS NOT OKAY.
YOHHHHHHH!!!!!!Who the fuck said it was OK???? I know I never did!!
Yeah, I read the messages. "Kinky" is an appropriate term. Others might use "erotic". Another is "sick". So what? Use whatever term makes you feel the most sanctimonious. I don't care. I do NOT and have NOT denied anything regarding the reprehensible nature of Foley and his actions. EVER! What I've referred to is the over the top nature of the screaming by the Dems who, when things were looking more bleak with low gas prices and Bush's fine speeches about the war, have got their slimey hands on a story they can really pretend to be incensed over, that being a gay Republican sending KINKY messages to teen-aged boys. The humidity went up for the drool alone. The motherfucker resigned!! All that's left is the hand-wringing and finger pointing. That's what everyone's been talking about!!!
That wasn't meant necessarily just for you, Marshall. It's how everyone's talking. This is an issue that's being used to slam each other on their party, and it's not a party-line issue. It's a children's issue. It's sickening to me, that a person who was inviting kids of whatever sexual persuasion, was a head of Mising & Exploited Children, and working with the organization closely. It's sickening to me that this same person was sending i.m.s & emails to children that were sexually oriented in any way. It's sickening to me that it's an issue being used against Clinton & others, as if that makes it right now. It's a totally gross, sickening issue all around. Each one of these cases should be taken on their own individual merits (or lack of merits, rather), on an individual basis. Not one should have anything to do with another, or with anything in the past.
I can guarantee you that right now, if it were one of my kids that Foley bastard did any of this to, I'd have a gun ready for him. It's worth it to me to go to prison to put this sick sonuvabitch out of action. Permanently.
BUT, they're not even trying to think along those lines -- and that in itself pisses me off. Everyone here with the exception of one or two people claims to want to be tough on crime. Well, I see nothing now to back it up, because you are all using the opposite party in effect, to justify this creep's actions.
You all suck.
To add to this, IF Foley were just an average Joe that was caught, he'd have the law crawling all over him, jailing him & throwing away the key. Hell, I've had serious big-time people who were just spammers that I've reported to the FBI and had nothing happen. As it is, they're just "investigating" Foley, when he should have every single letter of the law thrown at him, he should be sent to jail, and the key thrown away.
THIS is what you're justifying & supporting, people. KIDS, being obviously i.m.ed and emailed with sexually explicit stuff.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves. For supporting the FBI, for supporting the party, and for supporting Foley in this instance.
There you go again, as RR would say. No one has supported Foley in any way, shape or form. Stop saying this because it is patently FALSE!!! If Foley stopped emailing the first kid, which he apparently did after sending emails that were NOT salacious, and if it's true the the IMs were sent to a kid aged 18, what would you charge him with exactly? What law has he broken? Are you going to make one up special for him and then have him found guilty and executed? And another thing: stop calling them "children". They are teens and minors under the law if they are under 18, but NOT children. They are adults if over 18. It could be their birthday and they are adults if 18. This is NOT a defense of Foley's actions, only a statement of fact that unfortunately for you, makes every freakin' difference in the world. Being tough on crime doesn't mean breaking the law to get some guy that you don't like.
18, just because it's the legal age, doesn't not make them kids.
Most kids at 18 are just that -- kids.
& he did this with a host of kids who were under 18 at the time --
He is a pedophile. Pure & simple. I don't care how you sugar-coat it, he's a pedophile.
Sorry, but you're wrong, De. A pedophile is attracted to a child or children. A teen may be "someone's" child, but they are not technically "A" child. Most people in their early 20's are children in the sense you've stated. But they, too, are not children in the technical sense. At what age exactly would you not feel this way about Foley, or someone his age? 21? 25? 30? Is there some magical age for you and assuming you have one in mind, how much different is the person the day before he/she reaches that age or how much more mature the day after? Were you abused as a child? I truly hope not, but it would explain your fixation on accusing Foley in this manner. His statutory actions are bad enough without you painting him as someone molesting toddlers. He's only as bad as he is, no matter what lies you say about him.
And you and I have had this discussion on when sex is okay for a child many a time and agreed.
Why is it now that it's Foley, it's okay with you?
For a child and for an adult, and what should be considered an adult I mean.
As to the rest, that's my own business, but I will say that regardless of my attitudes towards kids today, I do love them, teen and all (which is why I carry the attitudes towards them that I do), and think that there is way too much of this going around the world, which is a good deal of why they are the the way they are these days. I am the mother of an 18-yr-old, and would kill any sonuvabitch that dared to recruit him in any sexually explicit manner.
This is a VERY good reason to be the way I am.
To add to that, my son himself will tell you that he has a LONG way to go towards adulthood, and that he's a kid just like the rest.
Just because they say the legal age is 16 or 18, doesn't make it right, marshall, and I think somewhere deep down inside, you know this too, but because it's Foley, you justify it, when in reality there is no justification.
The GOP is also justifying it saying that they don't hire pages under 16, which is the legal age limit anyway for sex.
It's wrong, marshall, no matter how you look at it. It's also wrong because there shouldn't be office/personal relationships going on anyway in Congress, with pages or anyone or anywhere else. Mixing office with personal is a very bad business policy, in particular for the country on the whole.
Post a Comment