News-Record.com

If we're gonna' force nonmilitary personel to go to Iraq let's at least be sensible about it.

I would suggest Paris Hilton, Micheal Jackson, Eminem and Donald Trump for starters.

Or, we could just drop off Colin Farrell, tell him the insurgents are all paparazzi and bring the troops home.

jh,

point noted. I was thinking more along the lines of Jean Claude Van Damme, Sylvester Stallone, Chuck Norris, Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, and Tom Cruise. These guys have taken out at least 10 or 20 thousand enemies a piece in their movies.

I thought the letter that is this letter is responding to was pretty dumb. So, this one is kind of a derivative of dumb. And my comment is a derivative of a derivative of dumb.

Nit,

Agreed, it is a terribly childish premise upon which to generate so many lte's.

I don't think it's tooooo childish! Let's send former Republican Congressman Mark Foley to Iraq---would prove a better cure for his pedophillia than rehab!

Oh, and while we are at it, let's send every member of the Republican House Leadership that knew of the pedophile and either did nothing or covered it up.

I'm not sure if somebody urinated in Deacon's coffee or he just took a sip of mine by mistake, but either way he's still stirring it up today.

Got to give the man credit for consistency, if Republicans truly were elephants he'd go on safari and build a trophy room made of ivory.

Fortunately for me I'm safe from his political attacks. Although not a Democrat, I am at times a certifiable jackass.

No. I just cannot stand it when I hear "right wing conservatives" telling me all about morals when they have none.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12318129/site/newsweek/?bctid=240040793

Enjoy the above link that really puts it in perspective.

Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley,and Dennis Hastert are all a bunch of sleezeballs that our own Congressman, Howard Coble has staunchly defended.
Isn't it time that we sent the ruling majority home and sent a new bunch of crackpots up there? Vernon Robinson is starting to look more appealing if it weren't for his swearing of allegiance to the Republican Party.

It is funny to see the "right wing moralists" who post here regularly, start to get angry when put on the spot. Most just disappear into the woodwork like Dan does when Denzien asks him a question he cannot answer.

Deacon,

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here, so I'm not going to take offence at the previous comment, but I sincerely hope you're not referring to me as a "right wing moralist" who posts here.

Such an accusation would be extremely off the mark.

Let's see, a letter about the battle in Iraq leads to a mention of Mark Foley. Quite a leap, but I guess I'm not surprised at the jumper.

At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. 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 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 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."

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-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

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-Qaida — solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.

On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"

Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."

We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:

— Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.

— Priests: No gays!

— Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.

— Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.

— White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.

— Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.

— Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?

This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.

And we haven't even touched upon the people who defended Bill Clinton when he had sex with an intern.

Mark Foley is wrong. He deserves whatever comes his way after the investigation. And the person most likely to accuse conservatives of hypocricy in these threads brings it up in response to a letter with an unrelated subject. Surprise, surprise. Just couldn't wait.

In the days to come, as you read more about this, whenever you read "teenage page" you can substitute "18 year old page."

Nic,
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but Mark Foley crawled off because he knew he had done the indefensible. He had voted as a right wing conservative "moralist" Republican, but he was a pedophile, plain and simple. Certainly wasn't going to be embraced by the other sanctimonious righties because they were running scared too. Now he (through his attorney) wants to hide behind being a homosexual and (supposed) alcoholic. Sorry Nic, that doesn't wash with the picture you paint. There is no excuse for pedophilia--maybe root causes, but no excuses.
Your flawed logic stems from trying to link pedophilia with homosexuality. Better check your science, and your sources.

Hastert floated the trial balloon of blaming the media and the Democrats. Didn't work, as no matter WHO leaked the story, it was Hastert who knew about it and did nothing to protect the children. Protecting a pervert for political gain is something the religious right will have to come to grips with. They may ALL have to check into 're-hab' to get over it!

It is great to see the spin and the usual "They did it too" excuse for these politicians. It is especially funny to see it from the "holier than thou" crowd.

I love the aspect of "he/she did it too" defense! I remember trying that as a kid at home and in school. It never worked, I always had to face the punishment for my actions.

Just because things turned a different way over 20 years ago does not automatically give a free pass now. It is amazing at the reasons are given for Foley's demise. I do have compassion for the man. Sadly, he let his testosterone ruin his life. The man needs to try and curb his "desires" a little better. One can always "window shop," however, that does not mean that the "merchandise" in the store is for one's "age range."

Shalom

Does anyone in here have any information pertaining to the status of the 'New Garden Friends' and their stance on torture?

Who did what with whom in 1983 is of little concern to me, unless it is the arena of an unsolved crime.

What does concern me is the here and now of Foley, Hastert, and company. Especially, when those are the folks who want to act like their morals and beliefs are so much closer to mine, the quinessential "little guy".

I find the whole thing sickening, to be honest. First Foley tries to check into alcohol rehab, of all things. Come on, man. Rehab?

Then he tells us he is gay. Personally, if I were gay, I would be offended that he tacitly uses his sexual orientation as a semi-explanation for his conduct. Dispicable.

Then he states that he was molested as a child. Again, were I a survivor of abuse, I would greatly resent the tacit expression that his culpability is somehow diminished because of what had occured to him, as if such actions make one unable to overcome and rise above such vile acts.

In my humble and honest opinion, everyone of those jokers that was involved have well earned whatever they get. If someone tries to get my support because they are oh so moral, then they better make damn sure that theyr are as moral as they claim to be. Otherwise I view is as outright deceit.

I found it interesting that the far conservative right has been harder on card-carrying Foley than the other fringe group.

Focus here, DD. At least read the entire post, even if it is long, before you respond.

You are one of the posters here I have chosen to regularly ignore, but you are so wrong, and so over the top this time, that I can't let you get away with it.

My point is not that what Foley did was OK - I said he is wrong and deserves what he gets. I am not confusing pedophilia with homosexuality. The point is the hyprocricy of you and those who want to make political hay out of the situation.

Gerry Studds took a 17 year old male page to Europe and engaged in sex with him. He said those who called that wrong were critisizing him for a "mutual private relationship between adults."

Foley - so far as we know now - exchanged sexual emails and instant messages with an 18 year old. When that was made public, he resigned. He may have done more, but so far, that is the extent of what we know.

Which is a pedophile?

What both men did is wrong - and by that I mean, the both violated the trust placed in them. It would be equally wrong if the relationships were heterosexual. Studds (D) gets a pass and Foley (R) is condmened.

My logic is not flawed. I did not excuse what Foley did. On the contrary, I condemn it - not for the sexual aspects but for the abuse of power aspects. I also condemn those who use the situation for political advantage.

Nic, hate to burst your bubble there; however, if Foley exchanged sexual emails with an 18 yo, there is no pedophilia involved. At last check, 18 is the age of consent/adulthood in the USA. So, if that is the case, then there are no legal ramifications whatsoever.

Shalom

Nic,
Again, and I will go slow...
You bring up ancient history to say, "They did it too". Well, THEY were wrong too. Does that make you feel better? That does NOT excuse the holier than thou crowd, in fact it is a much larger indictment for them. Mr. Hastert tried to blame the media, but it backfired on him. A few hours later, he accepted responsibility for NOT doing something about it. Seems the lesson here is actions speak louder than words.

Howard Coble has carried water for Hastert just as he did for DeLay---why doesn't he grow a set and be a statesman instead of a party hack? I would love to see Coble actually do the statesman like thing rather than the expedient political thing. He can forget the plum committee assignment and go for the legacy. Coble could call for Hastert's resignation and STILL continue to be elected. Would it earn him points with Denny? NO. But it would make him one heck of great Congressman.

This one is for the "Moralists" among us: Dan, Oak Ridge Runner, neoCON, and especially Mr. Produce.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12318129/site/newsweek/?bctid=240040793

Such a conundrum for them...going from right field to riding the fence on corruption. As the sign at the Chinese restaurant says, "ENJOY".

Liked your link DD.

Scary link, DD. When will the American people wake up???

I wonder if all those who continue to defend the undefendable are being blackmailed. Maybe they have more to hide than those being accused. Maybe that's how politics works...we know what's in your closet so you have to agree with whatever the party says to stay in power.

Carol,
They are so afraid of what the truth holds, that they harden their positions, making them prisoners of their own world.

Here's a link to the commentary done about our President making things up to justify "his war" on terror.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15147009/

Since Dan will have the "earhooks" on his popcorn bag watching FOXNews, this link is only for the open minded.

Where is joejoe "imploring" us to ignore this stupid letter like we were implored to ignore the lte demanding that democrats go to Iraq?

Neocon,

You should be quite and realize that you are just afraid of the truth and being blackmailed. You and the other half of the country.

NIC DANGER,

DID YOU STEAL THAT LETTER FROM ANN COUTLER? IT IS ON HER WEBSITE AS THE LETTER OF THE DAY.

TSK TSK.

nitpicker, noted and understood... at least I'm honest about it. *grin*