Ummm... you are aware that the page that "outed" Foley was a lifelong Republican, right?

Wow... the things that you pull out of your keister...

The homophobic left is stunning!!

*Shakes his head*

Sheesh... it's amazing that someone's sexual orientation is becoming a political item.

As part of "The Base"... I'm so BEYOND sick of these types of thing happening to "us" with the MSM push during election seasons that it would take an un-penetrable cryogenic force field to keep me from voting. In other words.... I'm MORE motivated to vote now than I was one week ago.

man, b4b is boring today...

Read Drude right now. Parnk gone awry when it got into Democrat operatives hands. Who by the way went to ABC rather than the Police!

Democrats - the Party that lives on smears. Now I hear you're threatening to out as many gay Republicans as you can. All you little donks must be so proud.

You know who should resign? Pelosi. It's her party that took private messages - FROM ADULTS - and sent them to ABC.

Prank gone awry? Got into Democrat hands and now its blowing up in their face? I should pay more attention to politics cause that Rove guy is gooooood

Lowkey

Drudge is reporting that the Instant Messages were part of a prank by pages, which got into the hands of democrat political operatives. These operatives, apparently thinking they had political dynamite, created a bogus website (see radaronline.com) as a cover to spring this October surprise.

If true this could really backfire bigtime on the dems !!!!

BTW Mark, I am having trouble posting to GOPBloggers. Something about waiting to post again when it was my first attempt.

ohh boy - Noonan, you are getting weirder and weirder

That Foley was gay was something lots of folks in his Florida district already knew, or at least had strong suspicions of. Yet, not one of his democratic opponents over his twelve years in congress and 6 elections ever outted him or made his orientation a campaign issue.

And for God's sake, get it straight (pardon the pun): Foley being gay is not the issue (at least not with democrats). The issue is that it is disgusting and unbecoming (if not completely unlawful) to be having those kind of obscene conversations with adolescents of that age. It wouldn't matter whether the pages were teenage boys or teenage girls. Also, I don't want my congressman spending his time on the job - time that I am paying for - texting messages about masterbation and other inappropriate material, regardless of whether the recipient was 16 or 40.

If your employer caught you texting sexually explicit messages at work, would it make everything OK if you said, "well, the person I wrote to was of the opposite sex, and over the age of consent as defined by law!" ?

No, Mark, the democrats aren't interested in exposing anybody's sexual orientation. We are only interested in exposing the Bushicons as incompetent boobs who have dishonored our country.

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

Check this out... if true, it's clear this is a Democratic smear campaign that ended up catching a pervert yet clearly, they were out to RUIN a man they didn't ACTUALLY know was as bad as they were trying to make out.

I hope for the sake of decency this ISN'T true, but at the same time, I'm about 80% liberal individuals planned this in October on purpose.

first of all, kahn, nary a single dem had ANYTHING to do with the release of these emails, nor the IM's. second of all, your rage seems to be a bit misguided. is it the release of this damning information that has got you riled up, or is it the actual underlying crime that's been perpetrated?

Aaron - private communications between two adults are private. Read your own posts on the NSA stuff. The other man in question now says he was trying to goad Foley into getting explicit (know what entrapmet means). But the BIG part of the story is that someone else took the IM string to Democratic operatives - who took it to ABC - who ran with it without knowing all the facts.

You guys are so completly full of Sh*t on this. So the guy is gay? Who cares. Well, since his only proven activities here are elctronic communications with adults - what exactly did he do wrong?

Do you mean that the Boy Scouts were right to ban gay leaders all along? Please, look at your own hypocracy. The "investigation" you've all been screaming for is rolling now - and you guys are going to be the ones burned by it. They're already saying that DEMOCRATS are the ones objecting to the investigatio - which goes to show you where the culpability is.

By all means - lets investigate. I wouldn't miss it for the world. Oh, and actual laws may have been broken by DEMOCRATS! Lets look and see.

hey Democrats - if you're going to go on an anti-gay witch hunt at least get the forms down:

Salem Aprill. 4'th 1692
There Being Complaint this day made (Before us) by capt Jonat Walcott, and Lt Natheniell Ingersull both of Salem Village, in Behalfe of theire Majesties for themselfes and also for severall of their Neighbours Against Sarah Cloyce the wife of peter Cloyce of Salem Village; and Elizabeth Proctor the wife of John Proctor of Salem farmes for high Suspition of Sundry acts of Witchcraft donne or Committed by them upon the bodys of Abigail Williams, and John Indian both of Mr Sam parris his family of Salem Village and mary Walcott daughterof the abovesaid Complainants, And Ann Putnam and Marcy Lewis of the famyly of Thomas Putnam of Salem Village whereby great hurt and dammage hath beene donne to the Bodys of s'd persons above named therefore Craved Justice.

You are therefore in theire Majest's names hereby required to apprehend and bring before us Sarah Cloyce the wife of peter Cloyce of Salem Village and Elizabeth proctor the wife of John Procter of Salem farmes; on Munday Morneing Next being the Eleventh day of this Instant Aprill aboute Eleven of the Clock, at the publike Meeting house in the Towne, in order to theire Examination Relateing to the premesis aboves'd and here of you are. not to faile Dated Salem Aprill 8'th 1692

To George Herick Marshall of the County of essex

Is this the first "sex scandel" where no one had any sex?

Kahn -

oh my gaaaawwd - it is truly flabergasting the lengths you toadies will go to defend someone who was sending sexually explicit IM's and emails to adolescents while at work on the tax payers' dime!

Like I said, lets imagine you get caught sending such filth while you're at work. Try using those same excuses with your boss. Tell your boss that you were discussing masterbation with a 16 year old, but that it is OK because 1) being gay is not a crime, 2) 16 years old is over the age of consent, 3)hey! those IMs are private!!, 4) I was led on!!, and 5) my enemies leaked this. Lets see if your employer is impressed with your excuses.

Then, go explain all that to the 16 year old's Mom. I'm sure she'll be very sympathetic.

There is absolutely no evidence what-so-ever that "democratic operatives" or "George Soros" sent this garbage to ABC. But even if they did, what real difference does that make? Like orangealert said, you seem more riled up about the fact that this scandal was revealed than about the scandal itself. This has become a typical pattern among you toads: you never get upset by the crimes that the Bushicons commit. Instead of being incensed that the crimes were committed, you direct your outrage at the fact that the crimes were reported.

And again, even if there were involvement by "democratic operatives" in getting this to the press, as political dirty tricks go, this one would pale in comparison to the far far dirtier tricks perpetrated by Rove almost routinely over the years. And yet you toads revere Rove as "doing a great job". At least the Foley thing is true (not even Foley is denying it) - as compared to the lying smear fabricated by Rove's Swift Boat Liars for Lies.

But again, there is no evidence what-so-ever that any democrats were involved in sending these IM's to ABC - so the point is moot.

Personally, I am hoping this Foley thing will blow over quickly so we can get back to focusing on the far more horrific crimes and incompetences of the Republicans. All this Foley stuff has been a boon to Republicans everywhere who are desperate to get their Iraq debacle out of the front pages. We have more important things to discuss than Foley.

Kahn (again!)

"Do you mean that the Boy Scouts were right to ban gay leaders all along?"

I have a hard time imagining that you are really this stupid and can still turn on a computer.

In reponse to your "question": um, if a Boy Scout leader sends sexually explicit messages to teenage scouts, yes, he should be banned. If he is a morally upstanding adult who does *not* prey on youngsters, then we should be thankful for his service, regardless of his sexual orientation. Got it?

But I have a feeling I haven't dumbed this down quite enough for you. Let me try making it even simpler:

Gay: OK
Sending explicit lewd messages to congressional pages while you are at work in congress: Not OK

Aarontime....read GayPatriot.org

A website for conservative gays. Talks all about the outting of Foley and others and the hypocrisy of the left.

This should be great for the Dems as they bash one of their strongest constituents groups. HILARIOUS

"Is this the first "sex scandel" where no one had any sex?"

Exactly

Yet these are the same clowns when sexual relations did happen that tried to sell the American public that Oral Sex wasn't really sex.

But apparently Instant Messages are?

These people on the left are complete moonbats.

3 more former pages come forward:

"I was seventeen years old and just returned to [my home state] when Foley began to e-mail me, asking if I had ever seen my page roommates naked and how big their penises were," said the page in the 2002 class.

The former page also said Foley told him that if he happened to be in Washington, D.C., he could stay at Foley's home if he "would engage in oral sex" with Foley.

[...]

An online story on the Drudge Report Thursday claimed one set of the sexually explicit instant messages obtained by ABC News was part of a "prank" on the part of the former page, who reportedly says he goaded the congressman into writing the messages.

"This was no prank," said one of the three former pages who talked to ABC News today about his experience with the congressman.

Do you guys want to continue to implicitly defend this guy? The bigger an issue you make of it, the longer you draw it out.

Winnow - wait a second and THINK about this report. Literally moments after Drudge discredits their first report ABC produces three UNNAMED accusers who were all adults. Aarom "adolescents" at 17, 18, even 21 years old? Give me a break.

Gay people have sex. I would expect their sex to..... sex. And when they talk about it - it's explicit. Foley RESIGNED. He's gone. But this October outing of a gay Congressman for e-mails and IM's and now accusations by ADULTS who refuse to be named is bullsh*t.

Why can't you guys run on issues? Why is this such a common tactic for you?

Swartzenager - women come out of the woodwork - AFTER he starts to look like he might win.

Ryan - a newspaper actually gets a court to force his divorce paperwork into the public light.

Cheney's daughter and Gingrich’s sister - publicly outed and used for political purposes by Democrats.

George Bush's drunk driving arrest coming to light weeks before the election.

You guys are truly the Democrat Party of old aren't you? Any attack on an opponent or HIS OR HER FAMILY is perfectly acceptable.....because they DESERVE it!!!

And AGAIN... Foley is Gone. E-mailing adults about sex is NOT a crime, especially in IM where THEY are responding. You could NOT get a warrant to track that.

And AAAAArrrrooooonnnnn - yes, this is EXACTLY what the Boy Scouts were trying to protect against and YOU and the ACLU attacked them for it.

"- yes, this is EXACTLY what the Boy Scouts were trying to protect against and YOU and the ACLU attacked them for it." Posted by: Kahn

Good observation, Kahn.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/LegalCenter/story?id=2529811&page=1

No criminal charges? Then except for liking men, just what is crime here? Why do Democrats think that gay republicans should be hung (so to speak)?

Ummm Kahn, you were just making the claim that this is all about entrapment and is a "joke." I simply posted it to refute your claim, which I'm seeing all over the place.

And 17 years might be in that fuzzy grey area, but in terms of the law, he is a minor. Soliciting sex from a minor is a crime. Don't tell me it isn't relevant.

Would you allow ABC to publish your identity? Considering your apparent homophobia, methinks you wouldn't want to be associated with this at all. No one would, really.

WRONG 16 is legal in DC. Don't make up facts.

If you are an adult coming forward as part of a campaign to bring down a Republican politician (who has already resigned) then YES. You should be willing to stand up and say who you are. In THIS country you have a right to face your accuser. But NOT if you're Republican I guess.

AGAIN - funny how these additional UNNAMED accusers surface minutes after the first claims are attacked. AND - just how did these people get in touch with ABC anyways? You may note that the article claiming there may have been no crime was also from ABC???????

No crime - just a public outing by UNNAMED people? The possibility (probability) that this was fed to ABC by Democrat operatives?

You guys are scum. Face it. You hate gays. You just pander to them for votes. But yopu're willing to destroy someone (be it a principal or a family member) in an instant.

Meanwhile - look at how VERY SIMILAR TACTICS are working agains George Allen.

"The latest Reuters/Zogby telephone poll shows Sen. George Allen (R.-Va.) with an 11-point lead in his race against Democrat James Webb. The poll is welcome news for a campaign that has been dogged recently by Allen's own gaffes and an ensuing feeding frenzy by the liberal Washington Post."

http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?id=16889&title=va_sen_george_allen_opens_double_digit_l

Late you're anger rule you Democrats. Let the hate flow through you and soon your journey to the dark side will be complete.

Who is defending Foley winnowhead?

No one here is defending him. What we are angry about is the ridiculous feigned outrage by you guys. The total hypocrisy by you guys.

16 is age of consent in D.C. winnowpussy.

Get your facts straight.

Since when did democrats begin hating gays so much?

Well they attacked Newt's sister how many years ago? And they banned gays from the St. Patricks Days Parades like how many times?

I think it's probably a lot like the way they think about blacks. They hate them, but buy them off with welfare and hand-outs. They hate the gays, but placate them with empty talk.

CJ - they hate Republican Gays - mainly because they are Republicans.

For you morally challenged Repubs who tirelessly point out that it isn't against the law in DC to send lewd messages to 16 year old pages -

Look, when Bill Clinton got a nice BJ from 24 year old Ms Lewinsky, no laws were broken either. But I think you all will readily agree that such behavior on public premises with subordinates is inappropriate (though hardly something rising to the level of impeachment).

Similarly, it may not be against the letter of the law for a 52 year old congressman to be sending sexually explicit messages to teenage pages, but such behavior is not appropriate, and should not have been tolerated by house leaders. This kind of thing would not be tolerated in any other work place - why would should it be tolerated in congress?

Further, there are issues here of safety for the teenage pages. This has nothing to do with Foley being gay. But when any person, straight or gay, makes those kind of raunchy overtures to someone that young - regardless of whether they are of "legal" consent age - that is a serious red flag that we may have a sexual predator at work. Ask yourselves this: would you let your 16 year old son or daughter work around someone who had sent those kind of messages? Apparently, safety of the pages was something that the house leadership subordinated to winning elections.

Finally, I would love to hear what you toads would have said if it had turned out that all the democratic leaders in congress had known about Clinton's consentual affair with Monica, but had hid it to avoid losing an election. I imagine it would have been something like "Off with their heads!"

Kaaaaaaahn -

"And AAAAArrrrooooonnnnn - yes, this is EXACTLY what the Boy Scouts were trying to protect against and YOU and the ACLU attacked them for it."

Wrong. The Boy Scouts were trying to descrimate against Gays. Someone is no more likely to be a pedophile if they are gay than if they are straight. The whole "if you are gay, then you are probably a pedophile" is bigoted nonsense. However, if you send sexually explicit emails and IMs to 16 year olds, well, I'd say there is a strong possibility that you harbor some potentially dangerous inclinations towards child molestation.

So again, here's the dumbed down version for you Kahn:

Gay: no increased likelihood of molesting minors.
Sending sexually explicit IM's to 16 year olds: strong indication of propensity towards pedophilia.

Got it?

16 year olds ? Nope check your FACTS AGAIN. The youngest accuser said he was IM'ing when 18.

You are so full of it. You are OK with Democratic operatives smearing a gay republican. You are OK with UNNAMED accusers making claims from the darkness moments after earlier cliams are discounted. Gay = pedophile to you. Chasining a gay man out of office is OK with you?

And you see no hypocracy? Really you don't? Hatred lives in your heart air america on. This is a PATTERN of behavior your party has. You've done it over and over to both Republicans AND their families.

And - I have always said (as have many here) I was Ok with Lewinsky suckin on Bill. Who cares? But again, it was part of a pattern. That regular behavior had led to a lawsuit where old Bill lied under oath. YOU CAN NOT HAVE THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF lying under oath. THAT was THE problem with Clinton. How could he possibly be expected to upholsd the law once he raised his right hand in a United States court and lied his ass off?

But good - switch it back to Clinton now (everything is about Clinton isn't it). You know that you are full of it on this and so you MUST change the subkject. Bring on the investigation I say.

Oh - and Boy Scout leaders take boys as young as 10 years old camping in the woods. We (the BSA) have been burned by inappropriate behavior and decided that this was a way to protect OUR children and OURSELVES. We have the right to protect ourselves. But you are caight in your own web of hatred here and you'll admit none of this.

Just keep talking. You will regret being a homophobe when we the Republ;icans turn this right back on you. Foley commited no crime. Yet, he's gone. You now try to bring down others for a cover-up. Of what? If there is no crime how can you cover it up? Unless people respected his privacy... until of course those people turned out to be Democrat "Operatives".

You are the same disgusting and vile party you have always been. I'll bet your grand-dad could break out his KKK lycnch mob kit and do Foley up the way you'd love. Hey - maybe Senator Byrd still has his?

Right, the GOP is the party for gay civil rights. Try to sell that to your base.

Aarontime,

"Look, when Bill Clinton got a nice BJ from 24 year old Ms Lewinsky, no laws were broken either."

You are a complete moron. No Laws were broken? Try adultry. Try sexual harassment. You do know it is against the law for a person in a position of authority (the President) to use that power to solicit sexual favors from a subordinate (an paid intern). And for the record, she was 22 when she started to have an extra-marital affair with the President, who proceeded to lie to the entire nation about their relationship and obstructed justice in an attempt to cover-up the affair.

The entire point is that this is obviously a politically motivated "October surprise". The newspapers who were tipped off to the emails and IM's last November did not run the story because there was no crime involved. Then ABC jumps into the fray, just five weeks before an election.

There are a lot of questions to be answered. Why did ABC decide to run the story just five weeks prior to the November 2006 elections, when the story had been around for nearly a year? Who gave the story to ABC? Was it democratic operatives as reported on Drudge? Did the Democratic leadership know about Foley for years, but waited until now to voice their fake outrage?

What we conservatives detest is the hypocracy of you liberals. When a Republican embarasses himself, his party, and Congress because of a poor choice of words (Trent Lott), or because of a lack of discretion (Foley), or because of a pending criminal action (Delay), or because of involvement in a cover-up (Nixon) they resign the chairmanships or office.

But when a Democrat disgraces himself, his party, and Congress or the Presidency, virtually nothing is done. When Gerry Studds (D-MA) was found to have had sex with a male page, he did not resign. In fact, his fellow Democrats gave him three standing ovations as he turned his back on the Speaker of the House as his censure was announced. The good voters of Massachusetts then re-elected him six more times.

When the senior Democrat member of the Senate uses the "N" word and joined the KKK rather than serve in the military during WWII, rather than being asked to resign, he gets elected as Senate Majority Leader. Senator Byrd also filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. What a great Democrat.

When the senior Senator from Massachusetts is driving drunk, without a valid drivers license, and is responsible for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, then fails to report the accident for nearly 12 hours, is he asked to resign? No, he's advanced as a candidate for President.

When the current House Minority Leader's PAC is fined for improperly accepting donations over federal limits, did she resign her post or from the House. No way. She is leading the charge in the Page-Gate kerfuffle.

When the 42nd President sexually harasses employees and others, lies to the nation and a grand jury, obstructs justice, and is impeached, does he resign? No. You liberals put him on a pedestal.

Scouting Netherlands has accepted gays as leaders and as scouts for decades. There is no indication that this has caused more cases of child abuse.

WVO - You try to sell it to YOUR base. Expect us to point out that ACTUALLY you hate gays. That ACTUALLY you are willing to attck Republicans and THEIR FAMILIES (even if THEY are Democrat) for political gain. Assuming it is OK to attack people for being gay reflects you TRUE feelings.

You have done it over and over and over. Your party is the party of cynical vile hatred. It was when you were lynching blacks, it was when it voted against civil rights, and it was when it voted in welfare to regain control. It is vile now when you attack people this way in a cold and calculated personal attack just prior to an election. You don't have to scratch very hard to see the pattern.

Wake up and smell the crap. You're standing in it. You're spewing it.

WRONG 16 is legal in DC. Don't make up facts.

This 17 year old page was not from DC - Foley IM'd him soliciting sex in his home state.

Who is defending Foley winnowhead? No one here is defending him. What we are angry about is the ridiculous feigned outrage by you guys. The total hypocrisy by you guys.

Like I said, you are implicitly defending him. And yes, I am outraged by this event and by you guy's response to it; I know you like to ascribe evil motives and values to your political opponents, but doing so is simply childish. If there was evidence a Democrat of rank turned a blind eye to a possible child predator on Capital Hill, you would be all over it. You're the hypocrite.

Since when did democrats begin hating gays so much?

Such perverse logic. Keep it up, at least it's humorous.

A-10 -

"No Laws were broken? Try adultry. Try sexual harassment."

Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, studplane, but adultery is not against the law. And no charges of sexually harrassment were ever sought by Ms Lewinsky. The relationship was completely consentual.

It was unbecoming and inappropriate for Clinton to have had an affair with a subordinate in the House of the People. My point is that those arguing that Foley's behavior is OK because it didn't actually break any laws (from what we know so far) are hypocrits. You know they were going after Clinton, when his affair didn't actually break any laws either.

Kahn, Kahn, Kahn. Foley has co-sponsored the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. It is highly probable that this Act has made his own actions a criminal offence. If he had picked up the boy from a bar and had had physical sex, probably no law would have been broken. Solliciting (cyber)sex via the internet with that same boy however could be a criminal offence. He is of course innocent until proven guilty but when found guilty, that would be quite ironic, isn't it?

Another interesting fact. The Act was signed into Law on July 27, 2006. The IM's we are discussing right now are before that date. Normally, that would mean the law wouldn't apply to those cases. However, Foley made sure the AG has the authority to apply the law retroactively. Ironic, isn't it?

I saw somewhere else that the internets are abuzz with one page being over the age of 18. The actual age of the alleged minor is of no relevance. You've probably heard of those cases were FBI-agents pose as teens in order to ‘catch’ a pedophile. These FBI-agents are no minors so normally the defence would have a field day with that. Don't you think? Well, the Act has made sure that the actual age is not relevant. What's relevant is what Mark ‘thought’ the age of the other party was.

Kahndear, I guess you've missed it a couple of months ago but Keefer and other childish posters here repeatedly try to ridicule my name to something like "Willemena" with a reason.

I know perfectly well which political party is more inclined to stand up for my rights, and sorry to disappoint you but it certainly is not the Republican Party.

Ahh winnow. but it turned out he was 18 NOT 17 as originally falsly reported and the other was 21. There are no minors associated with this story. Get it? You've publicaly humiliated and destroyed a man for being gay. And that was the sum total of his crimes.

Yes WVO and none - read that NONE of the IM's or e-mails are with underage people.

Even these latest "accustations" from UNNAMED people do not claim that they were underage.

The fact that you think the Democrats are looking out for gays in the face of continuued ruthless attacks on Republican gays speaks to something all right WVO. It speaks to blind loyalty. They are using gays. But they actually hate them.

Willem -

Thanks for the legal clarifications. Ironic ideed!

kudos and best regards!
Aaron

Mark,

The democrats setting up the double standard here!

The democrats want the rights for gays to marry, yet, One GR - politician is enough bad, to send us all to hell.

Don't let em get away with it!

Jeremiah

No Kahn, you didn't read the new article I linked to. 3 more pages came forward. You're simply turning a blind eye because you don't want to hear it.

And Kahn, democrats did not "publicaly humiliated and destroyed a man for being gay. And that was the sum total of his crimes." He resigned WITHIN HOURS OF BEING QUESTIONED BY ABC NEWS, before it was even public. He knew where this investigation would lead. In addition ABC was contacted BY A REPUBLICAN STAFFER.

Here we also hear today that he showed up drunk at the Page's dorm building and was contronted by police, who contacted house leadership.

"They are using gays. But they actually hate them." Are you speaking for me, as a Democrat? Because if you are, you are full of sh*t.

Keep spinning, man...

Actually, Lewinsky could have claimed sexual harassment against Clinton. Clinton crimes were commited years earlier when he would have Arkansas State Police bring female state emloyees to him where he would press them for sex. This is what Paula Jones sued him for. She won by the way. When he lied in court about Lewinsky to deny the pattern he commited a crimne with each lie.

He susequently lost the lawsuit against Jones and was dis-barred.

Meanwhile: the Domocrat Party is completely willing to expose gay Republicans and even FALSLY accuse them of sex with minors to win elections. They have repeatedly attacked the gay relatives of Republican politicians for the same reasons.

So where is the outrage? It's the same place as N.O.W.'s outrage for Jones treatment. It's buried someplace where the sun don't shine.

WVO - Air America Radio-on (yes - I remember)why won't YOU stand up for a smeared gay American? Does this REALLY look right to you? Or are you willing to join in on the lynch mob because he's Republican and hatred for them overides you values?

Oh Winnow? What were the ages of these UNNAMED accusers. UNNAMED dammit!!!! Jeeeezzzz, you make McCartyism look tame.

One age is mentioned. Yes it was 17. But again, this may have been legal and the accuser refuses to step up. The second page says he had sex after he was 18. OK, so he's gay also right? And the third age is not mentioned.

All from UNNAMED accusers.

Foley quit immediately to remove himself from the media circus that was sure to explode.

But here are some questions to you; If it was legal then what is your beef? Are you angry because he is gay? Angry because he's gay and likes younger men? Or dammit you think it should all just be illegal?

And - do you really feel comfortable making judments about accusations from men who refuse to come forward and be named? Even when one of them admits being gay himself? And after some of the first set of accusations turned out to be false?

And with no underlieing crime - but just revulsion at an older man sleeping with youger ones, do you think that the House of Representatives should have tapped a members phones and read his e-mail?

Just say it out loud: you are accusing ABC News of fabricating a news story.

I'm pretty much through with you, you're so incredibly predictable. How can you be so blindly partisan?

If when proven wrong, you simply deny the facts as, essentially, coming from "the MSM," then how can anyone have a discussion with you. There is no give and take... if you ever took debate class, I hope your teacher isn't reading this.

Aaaahhhhhhh, The hypocrisy of the left stinks to high heaven! You nov. losers become more pathetic with each and every revelation. Keep up the good work, your making our job easy.

WVO, talk about head in the sand. My homsexual father-in-law see right through you guys and doesn't appreciate it. Oh well, you guys kissed that vote good-bye along time ago anyways. I'm sure he'll bring some friends with him anyways. Nothing like a good ol' fashioned homosacrifice, eh leftys. LOL!

Aarontime,

Actually, in D.C., adultery is a crime. And even if Ms. Lewinsky didn't seek to press sexual harassment charges doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. The President just wasn't prosecuted for it, just as he wasn't prosecuted for the alleged rape against Juanita Broaddrick.

I don't see anyone from either side of the aisle defending Foley. He was scum. He was wrong. His poitical career is over. At least as a Republican. If he switches parties, I'm sure you Democrats would welcome him with open arms. He's just your type. He'd fit right in with Barney Frank and the rest of the wonderful Democrat members of Congress.

Our problem is with the Democratic leadership and the DBM who are fanning the fires to make political points and are calling for for the resignation of the Speaker of the House. Did you call for Tip O'Neill's resignation when he did nothing about Gerry Studds for 10 years? Did you call for Congressman Mel Reynolds' (D-IL) immediate resignation when he was indicted for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer. It wasn't until a year later when he was was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography that he resigned. He was later convicted of 15 unrelated counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. In keeping with the Democrat tradition, your favorite President, BJ Clinton, commuted his sentence.

Do you understand now? We're tired of the liberal double standard. Its alright if a Democrat does it, but its not alright if its a Republican. Then you have the "totally un-biased" DBM releasing these stories to aid the Democrat cause.

It is any surprise that the DBM has unleashed stories about Foley, Senator Allen, Bob Woodward's book, and the NIE leak (which they totally misreported), right before the elections?

I challenge you to find a single DBM story negative to a Democrat candidate. There are plenty of them out there, but the DBM falls in line with the Democrats and suppress the stories.

Do you see the DBM running negative stories about Hillary? There are plenty to choose from: The Rose Law Firm "File-Gate", the FBI "File-Gate", Whitewater (just about everyone else involved went to prison, but not the Clintons), her Cattle Trading scam (where she turned $1,000 into $100,000 in just 10 months), Illegal Campaign donations, "Travelgate", and the Vince Foster "suicide" to name a few. Just because these are old stories doesn't mean that can't be investigated (does AWOL, Drunk Driving, etc., ring a bell). But she gets a complete pass by the DBM.

How about Teddy "Hiccup" Kennedy? If the DBM can use fabricated documents about the President's conduct over 30 years ago in order to influence an election, why can't they bring up the issues about Ted Kennedy killing Mary Jo? He is, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty of drunk driving, driving without a license, and (at the minimum) vehicular homicide. But he gets a complete pass by the DBM.

Or your good friend William Jefferson (D-LA)? Why hasn't the DBM been calling for his resignation? Jefferson has been under investigation by the FBI for suspected corruption since March 2005. He was caught on tape recieving a $100,000 bribe. $90,000 of this was found in his freezer. Why hasn't he resigned? Why haven't you called for his resignation? Why haven't you called for the House Minority Leader's resignation since she has known about Jefferson for over a year and a half, but has done nothing?

Why haven't you and the DBM raised a stink about Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who is under investigation for renting out property to a nonprofit agency which receives federal funds, funds that Menendez helped secure?

You see, it is the left, and their willing accomplises in the DBM, who spring the "October Surprise" time after time after time. Don't you think the electorate is becoming wise to your shenanigans? They are. Since the story of Senator Allen's alleged use of the "N" word over 30 years ago broke, he has doubled his lead over his challenger. You see, most of the electorate doesn't like political dirty tricks. They're honest, law-abiding people. They reject the smear tactics of the left. That's why you keep losing elections. That's why, if you keep up the dirty politics, you'll lose the 2006 elections as well.

Kahn,

They're not angry. They only seek to damage the election chances of all Republicans by painting all Republicans with the Foley brush.

When this blows over (no pun intended), they'll come up with some other faux outrage. You can bet the mortgage on it.

Kahn

The fact that you think the Democrats are looking out for gays in the face of continuued ruthless attacks on Republican gays speaks to something all right WVO.

They are using gays. But they actually hate them.

Here we also hear today that he showed up drunk at the Page's dorm building and was contronted by police, who contacted house leadership.

Luckily, he wasnt driving over a bridge with a young woman in the passenger seat. You never know when your car might suddenly fly into a pond, land upside down, and force you to leave your passenger submerged in the water for eighteen hours while you...ahem...go for help.

Well maybe it wasnt so lucky for him. Accidents like that have been known to propel a guy into the highest ranks of the senate. Or so I hear.

Let's see now:

1. Democrats are AGAINST the NSA wire tapping phone calls with known terrorist...but they are FOR tapping the communications of a Republican congressman they think is a pedophile.

2. Democrats are FOR the privacy of communicatoins between consenting adults but AGAINST the privacy of communications between consenting adults if one of them is a Republican Congressman.

3. Democrats are AGAINST the Boy Scouts for protecting young men from gay adults who express and interest in their growth, development and appearance, but FOR protecting pages from a gay Republican Congressman who express and interest in their growth, development and appearance

4. Democrats are FOR homosexual sex between consenting adults, but AGAINST instant message sex between consenting adults if one of them is a republican congressman.

5. Democrats DO NOT CONDEMN one of their own (Barney Frank) when it is discovered that a gay prostitution ring is run from his house, but DO CONDEMN the Republican Speaker of the House for not acting aggressively against overly friendly emails from a gay republican congressman.

6. Democrats SUPPORT a Democrat Congressman (Gerry Studds) who engaged in homosexual sex with an underage page but OPPOSE a Republican Congressman accused of instant message sex with a page.

7. Democrats are FOR the principal of "innocent until proven guilty" for democrats but AGAINST this principal for republicans.

Do we detect a pattern here??

Name One Democrat attacked by republicans for being gay.

No willow - I'm not accusing ABC of manfaturing evidence. I'm accusing the Democrats of digging up dirt on a Republican and feeding it to a willing press just before an election. Turns out some of the "facts" in the first story were questionable. Not to worry, more accusations.

There are ONLY accusations here. No "facts" that have been proven. And even the accusations are of nothing illegal. The fact that no crime can be pointed at leaves us wondering just what you're angry at if not gayness? The fact that NONE of the accusers (even the first two whose names were leaked by ABC) are willing to go public tell me that this is crap.

Hypocracy? I can (and have) name several Republicans attacked this way. I can name family members of Republicans (some avowed Democrats) attacked this way. And, I can name some Democrats forced from office by their own party for being gay (New Jersey governor for example). And you've got nothing but foaming at the mouth lynch mob hatred.

Oh and WVO...

"When that is hate, than imagine the hostility we get from the Republican Party."

Imagine is exactly the right word. Because you HAVE to IMAGINE it.

Hey, just make something else up. This dog won't hunt.

A-10 - yes, you nailed it. I'm just taunting the hypocrites.

Jesus said:

"How can you love me? When you don't love those whom you can see"

Jeremiah

Winnowpussy, it doesn't matter where the 18 year old page was from. It's where the crime, or alleged crime, was committed.

16 is the age of consent in D.C. Period.

Now...about Studds, Reynolds, Clinton, Frank, etc again?

We're supposed to not vote for conservatives because one guy screwed up but vote for Democrats who reward this same type of behaviour with standing ovations, chairmanships, no resignations, etc?

How stupid do you think the American people are?

You guys can't run on the issues so you're running on this. You're pro terrorist, pro taxes, anti-gun, pro choice (unless it involves school choices or SS investment then no choice), etc, etc.

"Just say it out loud: you are accusing ABC News of fabricating a news story."

Yeah, imagine that...because CBS surely didn't do that in 2004 and got caught. Or the AP didn't do it in 2004...and got caught. And the Guardian didn't just do it LAST FRIGGIN week and got caught.

Yeah, I mean why would anyone even ponder a thought that the media could make up a story or significant portions of stories or choose to only cover one side.

Perish the thought.

Good grief.

Wilhelm...just because you haven't seen attacks by Dems on gays doesn't mean it's happening.

Why don't you ask gays?

Go here...gayPatriot.org who is totally blasting Dems for bashing on gays!!

Willem,

The sad truth of the matter is that the left lives on hate...and the hatred spills over...the angry and mean spirited left has probably done more, in creating a backlash, to set back the cause of gay rights than anything done by the ostensible opponents of gay rights.

You can't do the right thing if you're doing it from hatred and bitterness...it just doesn't work that way.

I guess the Board of the Log Cabin Republicans voted 22-2 to NOT ENDORSE President Bush in 2004 because they felt they were being smothered to death by the love of the President and the Republican Party for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered people?

The Oranje Willy whines on and on and on. Now it's that some gays were not "smothered to death by the love of the President and the Republican Party for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered people..." Huh?

The President of the United States is the Chief Executive Officer of the largest, richest, and most powerful nation in the history of the world, in an era in which a primitive radical psuedo-religious philosophy threatens its very existence and openly brags about its intent to kill all of its citizens. And the off-color willy's panties are in a twist because the Pres doesn't "smother" some subculture with "love"?

Pardon the brightest among us for not getting the vapors over having a President whose goal is the preservation of our country and our way of life, and not the mollycoddling of a few insecure misfits who seem to think that their FEELINGS are all that matter. (And no, I am not calling gays "misfits"---just those who make a crusade out of being gay and think it makes them 'special'). At least you seem to think that merely being lesbian, gay, bi-sexual andor transgendered is all it takes to be lovable. I've known some pretty unpleasant gay people in my time, and they have the same obligations to be nice, decent, and honorable as anyone else. Just being one of those groups is not a free ride.

I have to wonder if Aarontime was as hysterical about Gore using federal telephones, federal offices, federally paid secretaries, federally-owned computers and printers and ink, and whatever other federal assets he wanted to use as he spent his WORK time trying to scrounge campaign contributions.

And Slick Willy was not exactly off the clock when he was being sexually serviced by a young subordinate, who was, I might add, being paid by federal funds while she was earning her presidential knee pads. As a matter of fact, on at least one occasion he was on the phone with a congressman while being serviced. I thought you guys thought this was just mulitasking and an efficient use of time....

Your side got caught playing dirty, and you are trying to get out of your hole by digging faster. Why not just admit it? You think any dirty trick is OK, as long as it gets you what you want, and you have no compunction about lying or doing anything else nasty to achieve your goals. You are so caught up in your emotion-driven hate-based fanaticism that you can't even see yourselves for what you are, which is hypocritical and inherently dishonest.

And BTW "pedophilia" is sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. Even adolescents would not qualify, though the ACLU-beloved NAMBLA clearly does.

Wilhelm, nice dodge. What are gays TODAY saying in 2006....go to the site and hear it directly from gays.