10/4/2006
Who’s diss?
Why, it’s the Instant Messenger!
Get Your Lawyers… Foleygate Scandal About to Bust Open!
Yep, it’s coming to a head, and radical gay rights activists are out there trying to ‘expose’ and ‘out’ gay representatives with…I dunno what exactly to call it yet. What would you call this:
Mike Rogers and John Aravosis were “heading an ongoing outing campaign on the Hill” ahead of the Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would bar same-sex marriage. What they’re doing is ‘outing’ gay republicans, calling them out for being “gay” and by extension “hypocrites” for voting “for” legislation which basically calls marriage between a man and a woman the only union that makes sense.
This means, I guess, that gay advocates or activists won’t allow gay people to remain ‘in the closet’, that they must come out publicly and claim their ‘lifestyle choice’, and they must renounce their affiliations with all republicans immediately, because republicans have always held to old-fashioned values. Marriage between a man and a woman, after all, was a part of the Grand Old Party’s platform, the last I checked, even though a considerable number of republicans are RINOs who hedge on the issue, along with other issues conservatives hold important.
What it is–is nasty politics and I don’t condone it. As Bill and others have said, Foley is a scumbag, and where people get the idea that we’re all the same is always a surprise to me. I had one person in comments say ‘foley is one of yours’. What exactly is that supposed to mean?
Foley is gay, they forced that admission out of him before he put himself into rehab. I don’t personally think of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice; I don’t agree with it, for biblical reasons. If the allegations are true about illicit relationships with minor boys he should face consequences, if laws were broken.
But by the same token, if these people who are trying to pull a hatchet job on Foley with information they sat on until the timing was right to pull the trigger, I would say they should face charges such as ‘obstruction of justice’ or something.
In the meantime, keep up on your reading, folks, the exposes on this one are all over the sphere and the leftiest are having a hard time attacking all of us in comments when there are so many to attack!
Where is that guy who called himself ’scooter libby’ who was complaining about my position on Valerie Plame, anyway? He seems to have disappeared.
Gay Activist Held onto Info-Worldnet Daily
Apparently Michelle Malkin doesnt’ approve of the ‘outing’. She calls it the ‘conservative outing mob’.
There are two issues here; the sexual predator issue, which there can be no doubt since Foley came out and admitted he’s ‘gay’ and then put himself in rehab, claiming he was an abused child or some such nonsense, and then there’s the issue of people holding onto information that could destroy a man’s career until just before election time.
RightLinx linked with ABC News Obsession with Sex Chat
October 4th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
????
What this is supposed to demonstrate is unknown. Basically, Cao and her pal, Wild William, seem to be advancing the theory that Democratic “dirty tricks” somehow retroactively caused Mark Foley (GOP) to make sexual advances upon young boys serving as Congressional pages.
This “dirty trick” also caused the senior levels of the GOP to–again retroactively–to conceal Foley’s harrassment of young boys.
I hate to break it to you, Cao–well, not really–but you and Wild William must have been the only folks in this hemisphere who didn’t know Foley was ***. Foley’s sexual orientation isn’t the issue. Preying on young boys is.
You and Wet William also see a conspiracy behind when this info became public. Of course, you ignore the very real fact the FBI and DoJ had this information nearly 3 months ago.
But–let’s entertain your theory for a moment. Let’s say evil Dems were sitting on this info. Why would they release it now? A far better time would have been about 2 weeks from now when Congressional campaigns were in full swing. That would ensure the story was still going strong going into election day. It would also force GOP leadership off the campaign trail and into damage control mode.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Actually, I think you’re not looking at the links. Are you legally blind and not have your glasses, or are you just too lazy to click through the links?
I don’t have enough time to draw you a picture, but suffice it to say that there’s a lot more than you’re willing to look at, apparently. So it’s convenient to come here and call me a liar, and all the other things you do in my comments section without actually considering the material behind the links.
Doesn’t do much for your position since you put yourself at such a disadvantage for debating. You’re more willing to argue semantics than you are facts, which really makes my exchange with you work nothing, in my book.
why don’t you click on the few links that i have in this post and read the material there, take note of it, digest it, and then come back and ask a question?
Otherwise I suggest this convo is over before it began; when you came to this site with your attitude and self indignation and superior elitist attitude.
The link to the Gateway Pundit is already up there, but you are too lazy to click on the link to digest the material there. The link to Worldnet Daily is up there, you don’t acknowledge that material, either. Instead you focus on me and Wild Bill, when Wild Bill is just adding to all that which Clarice Feldman, Hugh Hewitt, Rick Moran and several others have pointed out already. So why are you so fixated on me and Bill?
Super Fun Power Hour is pointing out that the kos kids are taking this Foley thing seriously with a serious revision of history at their dkosopedia or whatever their online disinformation cyclopedia is called.
In the meantime, demonrat mouthbreathers are calling for Hastert to resign even though a democrat knew about this information before Hastert did.
The communications on the Foley thing have been in existence for the last three years. Who was sitting on these instant messages for the last three years and why are they pulling the trigger on them now?
As far as I’m concerned, it’s liberals who are going to take the heat on this one, because they put on their ‘moral suit’ to suit the political party. On the one hand, you’ve got a guy like Gerry Studds, who they apologize for. On the other hand, they put on their moral outrage to condemn Foley. They’re both equally as reprehensible in my book.
This is going to backfire, just like when Kerry called Cheney’s daughter ***. It’s distasteful, and out of line. What more do you want, Foley resigned, and he’s in rehab. Making political hay out of ‘victims’, Coulter is right.
October 4th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Liberals kill me. I mean they’re supposed to be ‘tolerant’, they believe in ‘anything goes’, they teach our kids from 2nd grade on about how to put on a condom, that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle choice’, the ACLU supports NAMBLA, so it’s pretty easy to conclude they support sex with children. These are the same people who don’t see a problem with *** men being Boy Scout leaders, right?
Yet, when it comes to conservative ****, they want to completely out them-they actually conspire to out them and admit that’s their goal-they want to bring them out so they can support the *** agenda on both sides of the aisle. Dispense with the pomp and circumstance and cut right to the chase, ok? Get these things passed so we can defined a family however we want; three, four, five people–maybe all the same gender-we can have dogs and cats in there, love is all you need, right?
So what’s the problem. Stephen Gobie runs a male prostitution ring out of Barney Frank’s basement, but Stephen Gobie doesn’t know a thing about it, in spite of all those fixed parking tickets in the front of the place.
Democrats have defended this kind of behavior way too often to jump all over it now. It looks so funny and fake for them to point the finger about a morality they don’t even recognize in order to shame a republican into stepping out of public life, and now the Washington Post is calling for Hastert’s resignation. It’s simply hysterical. Hastert is calling for an investigation, because he had the emails, not the instant messaging smut that has suddenly emerged. They want people to follow rules they don’t follow themselves. I think if you’re going to talk the talk, you should walk the walk, otherwise–shutup.
October 4th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
I read the links, Cao. And what they are supposed to demonstrate is beyond me. As I noted earlier the links all purport some grand conspiracy by the Dems which caused Repug Mark Foley to prey upon young boys and the GOP leadership to cover up their complicity.
IOW, it’s akin to asserting President Clinton’s impeachment caused him to have a consentual affair with Monica L.
Again, let’s assume your conspiracy theory is true. Why is Hastert toast? You have the Moonie Times calling for his resignation. Human Events is also about to do the same. Doesn’t sound like it’s backfiring on the Dems at all.
You also have the Repugs sniping at each other.
Pass the popcorn!
October 4th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
No, you didn’t read what was at the links, you just go ahead with your goofy theory there as though what you’re saying has anything to do with the content here.
‘what they are supposed to demonstrate is beyond me’
Ah, but then you don’t pay attention to my comments, either. So you don’t read what is behind the links, and you don’t read my comments, and you continue with your little diatribe.
Interesting tactic. Think i’m going to go for it?
think again. Case closed, whine somewhere else.
October 5th, 2006 at 12:20 am
ABC News Obsession with Sex Chat
People are beginning to wonder why ABC News continues with their frenzied publication of Mark Foley�s sex chats with both adults and minors. Why is it that Brian Ross keeps publishing the lurid details day after day after day after yet another day of e…