Gay Patriot Header Image

Tuesday Foley Follies

Democrat Talking Head and Clintonista Bob Beckel thinks that being gay in and of itself is worthy of suspicion.  (Hat tip: Ace of Spades). 

Beckel was on Hannity and Colmes Monday night and, according to Ace, said the “fact that Mark Foley was gay should have ‘raised questions’ about other emails.”  And why is that, Bob?

Beckel also compared a gay man around boys as being akin to having notorious bank robber Willie Sutton hanging around banks.  Nice one.

Cue the violent outrage from the Gay Left against one of their own?  I doubt it.  They just don’t do that sort of thing to one of their peeps. 

I’m guessing that the “gays are bad” mantra from the Democrats isn’t over yet.  They smell our blood to spill for their November 7th power grab.

***********

Meantime on the Right, Ben Stein steps in doo-doo and goes down the same gay=pedophile path as many are unfortunately doing in our post-Foley world.

I hope it won’t come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys. (Take a look at anyone renting Endless Summer next time you are at the video store.)

Endless Summer?  I have no idea what movie that even is?!?  Should I have my gay membership card revoked?  Or does that mean I just won’t be issued the pedophila membership card?

Come on, Ben.  You know better than this.  After all, you have gay friends.

***********

And finally, this story has gotten so ugly, twisted and weird that the normally shrill Human Rights Campaign and National Gay & Lesbian Task Force spokesgays are virtually speechless or stammering.

“It’s a tragedy for him and his family. I don’t want to get into the pain of the closet. It’s irrelevant if he’s gay or not,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Luis Vizcaino, communications and marketing director for Human Rights Campaign, declined to discuss Foley’s resignation. “We’re not going to comment on it,” he said.

Only Andrew Tobias, long time gay politico and Treasurer of the Democrat National Committee seems to have his wits about him.

“As somebody who has met Mark Foley personally and has mutual friends, I am sad for Mark and I hope he doesn’t go to jail. The last time I saw Mark, he was 19 years into a relationship. That was sad that it had to be hidden.

“I hope the Republican Party continues to evolve so it’s not so difficult to be an openly gay Republican.”

Amen, brother.  Hey Andy, why don’t you talk some more to your Gay Lefties who want to burn gay conservatives and mainstream Americans at the stake? 

Michael Petrelis agrees that HRC is showing no leadership and urges them to get back the money they donated to Foley’s campaign.  (Hey, WTF is Log Cabin in all of this… speaking of not showing leadership?!?)

***********

*Sigh*  Where will this all go next?  Oh yeah, Hastert’s head is on the chopping block.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

42 Comments

  1. Endless Summer is a film about young men who surf. I had no idea anyone actually considered the film some kind of haven for pedophelia. It’s a cult movie, so much so that a sequel was made in the 90’s. Many surfers are conservative (look at Brian Bilbray, who won CA-50 in an election earlier this year) and the movie appeals to them.

    Stein is a gadfly, and his attitude about gays was probably summed up on his game show (Win Ben Stein’s Money) where his sidekick Jimmy Kimmel used to make fun of gay contestants. What bothers me more is the WSJ editorial board writing this editorial which claims Republicans had to go along with not exposing Foley since it’s not PC to be anti-gay. They go so far as to compare this with not letting gay be Scoutmasters. This is a very unnecessary and dismaying tack for them to take, in my opinion, and I think they are just trying to take attention away from this scandal to try to blame gays.

    http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009033

    Comment by Carl — October 3, 2006 @ 8:34 am - October 3, 2006

  2. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been banned.]

    Comment by raj — October 3, 2006 @ 8:39 am - October 3, 2006

  3. […] Just has a side note, I haven’t seen to much outrage about Foley in his district. This goes to show you that no one may really care! Maybe because It happens every day here! […]

    Pingback by Kapusta Brothers » Blog Archive » Why I’m not surprised about Foley — October 3, 2006 @ 8:48 am - October 3, 2006

  4. The lamentations from the left will be nothing compared to what comes from the right. Don’t forget to point that out.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 3, 2006 @ 9:03 am - October 3, 2006

  5. What disgusts me is that nobody really seems to give a damn about the intern, all anybody cares about is how this affects their political agenda. This is why I and most other Americans hate politics.

    Comment by Nobody — October 3, 2006 @ 9:03 am - October 3, 2006

  6. Endless Summer? I have no idea what movie that even is?!?

    I think it’s a movie about surfing. He should have used L.I.E as his example of a film that glorifies a Mark Foley type of character. Check it out on the ‘Gay and Lesbian’ movie list at Netflix.

    Comment by Nobody — October 3, 2006 @ 9:27 am - October 3, 2006

  7. If the intern claims some damage to himself over emails, he needs counseling for other reasons then. The left would be claiming it was an adult relationship and how dare you question its existence if it was one of their own. Hypocrites the whole lot of em

    Comment by hephastion — October 3, 2006 @ 9:30 am - October 3, 2006

  8. Wonkette asks if Foley is a Scientologist: http://www.wonkette.com/politics/scientology/battlefield-foley-204681.php

    Maybe he can share a closet with Tom Cruise and John Revolta.

    Comment by Nobody — October 3, 2006 @ 9:52 am - October 3, 2006

  9. And for those of you who think that it was only the GOP that “ignored” this story, here’s the latest from al-AP:

    “Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay, and lacking any corroborating information, we chose not to do a story,” said Tom Fiedler, executive editor of the [Miami] Herald.

    In other words, “we’re going to sit on this explosive situation until it is politically expedient for us to do so – and the hell with the page in question.”

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 10:38 am - October 3, 2006

  10. The WSJ has a good editorial about this. The money quote is:

    But in today’s politically correct culture, it’s easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert’s head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts’ decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where’s Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 3, 2006 @ 10:40 am - October 3, 2006

  11. Uh, except that there were rumors of inappropriate emails/conversations with underage boys…so end of story. Hastert if he had heard this had a responsibility to investigate and it has nothing to do with whether Foley was gay or not. It should go either way. In the end, he’s in charge and if he heard the rumors and did nothing, there’s no skirting the blame. I don’t think just because Foley was rumored to be gay anyone should investigate his behavior but if there are specific rumors to his soliciting inappropriate activities with pages who are underage, well, he should have been investigated. End of story.

    Comment by Britton — October 3, 2006 @ 11:04 am - October 3, 2006

  12. Britton, the key word in your above statement is RUMORS. Until we know the facts, the story remains that Foley did not pursue a physical relationship with these young men.

    Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 11:10 am - October 3, 2006

  13. I am a lover of freedom and a defender of the individual over the State, and the truth is that every single member of Congress is guilty of high crimes that make Foley’s emails pale in comparison. (Yes, this includes the “libertarian” hero, Ron Paul, who sounds a lot like Rick Santorum when he talks about gay marriage and Tom Tancredo when he talks about immigration.) They don’t care about individual freedom, the protection of which is their only plausible legitimate purpose, and for that they all deserve to be punished. So I’m not going to get too worked up over some dirty old man having the hots for 16-year-olds.

    Incidentally, getting off-topic, is there any clearer indicator of what the Republicans are really about than the recent passage of the bill banning internet gambling? Every once in a while I still here some Republican apologist claiming that it’s the party of individual freedom, but we all know that it’s now the party of smug moralism and State power to enforce it on all of us.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 3, 2006 @ 11:22 am - October 3, 2006

  14. Helloooooo. None of you libs are taking Bob Beckel to task? Does he get a pass because he is a “D”?

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — October 3, 2006 @ 11:24 am - October 3, 2006

  15. #13: “None of you libs are taking Bob Beckel to task?”

    If he said what you claim – and we’re getting this what, third or fourth hand – then I will gladly take him to task. I will go further and call him a homophobic asshole. OK?

    Comment by Ian — October 3, 2006 @ 11:35 am - October 3, 2006

  16. priceless.

    If he said what you claim – and we’re getting this what, third or fourth hand – then I will gladly take him to task…

    Comment by Tom — October 3, 2006 @ 11:48 am - October 3, 2006

  17. Bruce, Bob Beckel –the homophobe– gets a pass because he is a Party loyalist and junk yard dog in the “news” show screaming matches.

    Plus, I hear he’s reading up on ABSCAM so he can defend John Murtha’s seedy, graft-ridden, corrupt performance as a “young” Democrat Congressman in training. What an incredible, disgusting performance. Everything but $1000 bills in the freezer this time and zippo coverage in the Democrat-biased MSM.

    What draws these scumbags –and guys like Foley/Clinton– to DC and power? And what does that say about the voters, opponents or the free press’ ability to bring these issues into better focus?

    To answer your question, though, we both know that the GayLeftBorg will not attack anti-gay Democrats or anti-gay policies. For them, just like with some gay Republicans, party affiliation trumps any allegiance to the gay brotherhood. Solidarity to gay issues stops, not at the water’s edge, but on the way to the polling booth.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 3, 2006 @ 11:51 am - October 3, 2006

  18. Repubs have been honorable by making Foley resign, and now by going after Hastert who should have worked over Foley sooner. Dems don’t want people to notice because it makes Clinton, Studds, Frank, etc., look even worse by the comparison. Time for the Dem fog machine, confusion and distraction.

    Comment by noname — October 3, 2006 @ 12:18 pm - October 3, 2006

  19. btw – We are screwed bc Dems deserve to lose over national security, but Repubs also deserve to lose over crap like this: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1222.cfm

    Comment by noname — October 3, 2006 @ 12:24 pm - October 3, 2006

  20. Don’t throw in the towel just yet. Four weeks is an eternity in the internet age nowadays. Besides, oil is now below $59/bbl, the Dow is breaking its all-time record set in January 2000, and the economy looks rosier than before.

    Not to mention the fact that the GOP is famous for its all-out effort in the month before an election. Maybe another OBL tape is waiting to be released just prior to the mid-terms a la 2004?

    As Baroness Thatcher once said: “Now is not the time to go wobbly!”

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 12:49 pm - October 3, 2006

  21. Peter, this time if the WH runs a “Wolves in the Forest” campaign ad, the alpha wolf will by Foley and he’ll have a 16 yr old’s used gym shorts in his teeth… and probably nab the GayLeftBorg block vote on grounds of empathy.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 3, 2006 @ 1:26 pm - October 3, 2006

  22. #10. No, it is not a good editorial. You can be “tolerant of private lifestyle choices” and still investigate suspicious behavior. The WSJ editorial board doesn’t seem to realize that.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 3, 2006 @ 3:36 pm - October 3, 2006

  23. #12 and #14

    #12 Yes, Foley is innocent until guilty. But he doesn’t have to have contact with them for it to be bad either. What we know is bad enough.

    And innocent until proven guilty applys to the pages as well. You can’t maintain that “Foley fell into the trap” in the other thread without some sort of evidence.

    #14 If he said that he should be condemned. Particulary the willie horton stuff. The problem I have with your link is that it presents the same false comparison the WSJ uses. When he says “So, true enough– we ought to suspect any man interested in hanging out with kids. Men should be bored by children, even their own” and the rest, he loses all credibility with me.

    Men, gay and straight, are capable of babysitting kids without molesting them. And there is no automatic reason to be suspicious. But there is a difference between any random guy, and guy with allegations and a complaint that his communications are “sick”.

    That seems entirely reasonable to me. But portraying it as a choice between Tolerating gay people and punishing sexual predators is a false choice, and you should be attacking that as well as Attacking the Bob Beckels and other liberals.

    If anyone has a transcript or youtube of H&C I’d be happy to comment some more on Bob.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 3, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - October 3, 2006

  24. The guy has been doing this for over 5 YEARS! I think that it’s obvious that the guy was in the same closet with Jim McGreevey. However, what disturbs me is how the GOP KNEW that all of this was going on and did nothing more to stop this than give Foley a warning. It’s like the LAPD “big-wigs” that tried to cover-up Mel Gibson’s drunken DUI anti-Semitic ravings.
    It is stuff like THIS that makes me lose hope in the Republican party. 🙁 I think that us Republicans have the same problem that the Dems are having with Bill and Hillary Clinton: they know that their party’s leaders are corrupt, but they don’t want to publicly withdraw support for them for fear of getting criticized as being “turncoats” and “traitors” to their own parties and it’s causes…whatever the HECK those are anymore! 🙁

    Comment by Jeffrey Williams — October 3, 2006 @ 5:09 pm - October 3, 2006

  25. Actually, GP, I flatly disagree with you on this.

    HRC, NGLTF, and LCR are taking exactly the right tack in this, which is simply to say, “Foley has not stated that he is gay, nor has he blamed this behavior on being gay. The evidence demonstrates that he is a pedophile, and pedophilia is not determined by sexual orientation. Therefore, for us to comment would be irrelevant — as are the remarks trying to blame Foley’s pedophilia on his allegedly being gay.”

    The whole problem here is that moonbats like John Aravosis, Mike Rogers, Andrew Sullivan, Andrew Tobias, and others are running around screaming that Foley is gay, out of both stupidity and mendacity (as in the case of Tobias) — and by doing so, are playing right into the hands of idiots like Beckel, who, as a former Clintonista, is well acquainted with selling gays down the river for the sake of power.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - October 3, 2006

  26. …”Hey, WTF is Log Cabin in all of this… speaking of not showing leadership?!?”

    Bruce, you’ve fogotten that there no-one home at LCR-Nat’l headquarters; there’s no LCR President, there’s no LCR Political Director, there’s no Exec. Director nor Field Director. There isn’t even a PR-flack or Communications point-man. It’s just a suite of expensive yet empty offices, with several hard-working staffers manning the phones and opening the unanswerable mail. “Inclusion Wins” can run on aoto-pilot courtesy of a diligent webmaster, but there’s no-one to field qustions nor pundit on national TV/cable.

    Until the LCR National Board finally announces an appointment or two, National LCR is a hollow-shell.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 3, 2006 @ 5:43 pm - October 3, 2006

  27. #25 “HRC, NGLTF, and LCR are taking exactly the right tack in this, which is simply to say, “Foley has not stated that he is gay, nor has he blamed this behavior on being gay.”

    No one would believe that before, its simply not credible. And they certainly will not believe that now: A news conference that he is gay and he was abused by priests.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 3, 2006 @ 6:04 pm - October 3, 2006

  28. Oh, and pardon me from linking to Media Matters, but here is moonbat Tammy Bruce:

    Bruce: “All I want, frankly, is a gay person in office who is not a sexual compulsive”

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200610020011

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 3, 2006 @ 6:07 pm - October 3, 2006

  29. Tammy Bruce is a moonbat? I think you mixed your metaphors again.

    Now, Maureen Dowd – SHE’S a moonbat.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - October 3, 2006

  30. Well, obviously that he has stated it, then it’s beside the point.

    However, this also reeks of McGreevey, especially since he’s a) now claiming it and b) trying to link his behavior with being molested by a priest.

    I smell opportunism.

    The man is a pedophile, and it still makes no difference whether he’s gay or not.

    But you can see WHY he’s trying to make these claims when you look at Bob Beckels’s remarks from the Media Matters link (which, one might note, Democrat puppet and perpetual Dem homophobia enabler Brock conveniently glossed over):

    SCOTT: So, is there, Tammy Bruce, a double standard?

    BRUCE: Well, here’s the — one issue is politically getting into that — is that there’s wondering what the Republicans knew and when they knew it. The timing of this release should surprise people, considering Hastert passed this on to the attorney general last fall. The fact is I want to know what the Democrats knew and when they knew it. But the reality is, is that the Republicans themselves, and we can use the 1983 congressional page scandal as an example. The Republican in that was caught with a 17-year-old female page and the Democrat, Gerry Studds, was caught with an underage male page. The Republican did not win re-election, Gerry Studds was re-elected repeatedly. He literally turned his back on Congress, and he was censured, so I think it’s a matter of what Republicans expect of themselves with Foley’s reaction — was not defiance, it was resignation and rehab. And in the instance of Democrats, I think of people like Bill Clinton and Gerry Studds is an example, set the bar lower for Democrats than the bar which is at a normal level for Republicans and what they expect from themselves.

    BOB BECKEL (Democratic strategist): Is that to say that we’re like the lower form of life form, low on the food chain. Gerry Studds, by the way –

    BRUCE: No, not at all. It’s about what moral expectations and who your constituency is.

    BECKEL: Well, but moral expectations, Tammy, it depends on where you are. Gerry Studds was from an area of Massachusetts, Cape Cod, where there is a very substantial gay community.

    Um, yeah. And we’re supposed to vote for a pedophile and disrespectful sicko, why?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2006 @ 6:44 pm - October 3, 2006

  31. I don’t think she’s a moonbat, but I disagree with her comment. I was pointing out a conservative that comments on Foley’s sexuality. My understanding is Foley was outed in the 90s. People knew he was gay, there was just too much info out there. Pretending he’s “not gay” isn’t credible.

    That’s pretty much a moot argument now anyway. Aside from that, I have already expressed my disaproval with people’s blanket association of gay people with sexual predators.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 3, 2006 @ 6:48 pm - October 3, 2006

  32. #30 wrote: “I smell opportunism. The man is a pedophile, and it still makes no difference whether he’s gay or not.”

    Absolutely, and agreed on McGreevey. They are trying to hide, and make this about anything than about themselves. And what a terrible press conference. He was abused, but won’t release any info, and the dramatic “I’m gay” statement. Plus they nailed him on being drunk on the house floor.

    This plays into everyone, that apparently Beckel, Bruce, etc… are doing, linking this with homosexuality in general.

    “And we’re supposed to vote for a pedophile and disrespectful sicko, why?”

    We’re not. That was also despicable.

    And a clarification: I read as far as “Willie” and saw the T’s in the name and thought he was comparing gay people/Foley to Horton, not Sutton. I’d never heard of Sutton.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 3, 2006 @ 7:04 pm - October 3, 2006

  33. “BOB BECKEL (Democratic strategist): Is that to say that we’re like the lower form of life form, low on the food chain.”

    Well, Bob…YES. Does that answer your question?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 7:30 pm - October 3, 2006

  34. #31 – “My understanding is Foley was outed in the 90s. People knew he was gay, there was just too much info out there. Pretending he’s “not gay” isn’t credible.”

    But isn’t that what the GayLibLeftLobby has been trying to say for the past 30-some-odd years? I thought it MADE NO DIFFERENCE what a person’s orientation was, at least according to that intelligensia. All that mattered was HOW YOU DID YOUR JOB.

    At least, that was the Slick Willie argument during the Lewinsky affair. “Oh, leave him alone…he needs to do his job…he isn’t hurting anyone…it was consensual…his wife doesn’t understand him…she’s a carpet muncher anyway.” (Okay, I made that last one up, but you understand the general drift.)

    Again, if there is a double standard being applied here (remember, age of consent in DC is 16, so the pedophile argument is moot) between two consenting adults, my question is WHY?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 7:34 pm - October 3, 2006

  35. The one time I went to rent “Endless Summer”, Bob Beckel and his female prostitute beat me to the store’s only copy. I had to settle for “Ordinary People” and am haunted by it still.

    Comment by Scott — October 3, 2006 @ 8:20 pm - October 3, 2006

  36. How accepting would the Republican leadership have been had Foley been openly gay?

    Comment by Elais — October 3, 2006 @ 10:51 pm - October 3, 2006

  37. #36 – About as accepting as they were in the case of Jim Kolbe (R-AZ). Nobody I know seemed to care who he slept with.

    Contrast that to how the RATS approached Ralph Nader’s candidacy in 2000 – an al-AP reporter was told by a DNC operative that “we don’t know who he’ll be sleeping with if he’s elected president,” obviously a gay jab at Nader who is single.

    Party of tolerance, indeed.

    #35 – Actually, I like “Ordinary People” if only because Timothy Hutton is so awesome in this pic. And Mary Tyler Moore finally shed the Laura Petrie/Mary Richards tag with her BITCHY performance in this film. If anyone deserved an Oscar, it was her.

    Donald Sutherland – well, he was okay. Judd Hirsch was Dr. Berger to a T. (I have the book and the description of Berger pretty much screamed “Judd Hirsch.”)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 3, 2006 @ 10:57 pm - October 3, 2006

  38. Elais,

    That is presuming that GOPers, by an large, are actually bigoted towards homosexuals. The truth is a bit more complex than that, and this stems from the fact that a majority of GOPers are believing Christians who have some rather hard and fast moral rules regarding any sexual activity other than that between married people of the opposite sex.

    For too long, too many of my fellow Christians were unwilling or unable to separate out the issues and to apply Christian mercy and charity towards our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay. Too many of them forgot that, in the end, everyone has to render to God, and what judgement He will make is (a) beyond our control and (b) likely beyond our full understanding in the here and now.

    It is a dicey issue, that of being openly gay and Republican/consevative. The bedrock is that its none of anyone’s business what a man does in his private actions – this is core conservative/liberatarian belief. This tends to argue towards Foley keeping it to himself. On the other hand, anything kept secret can eventually become corrosive. Perhaps if Foley were more out in the open about it, he would not have been tempted into to the back alley sleaze of trying to pick up young boys over the internet. As it is, how the GOP would have handled Foley being “out” would have depended on the overall circumstances…but given that none of us were too frazzled over the VP’s daughter being lesbian, I think that it wouldn’t have caused more than a ripple.

    Comment by Mark Noonan — October 4, 2006 @ 3:12 am - October 4, 2006

  39. #34 “But isn’t that what the GayLibLeftLobby has been trying to say for the past 30-some-odd years? I thought it MADE NO DIFFERENCE what a person’s orientation was,”

    Of course, but what does that have to do with the usefulness of a hypothetical HRC political strategy that denies Foley is gay–when everybody knows that is baloney? Joe Scarborough is telling everybody he knew Foley was gay from day one. Nobody would believe he’s not gay.

    On double standards, It’s possible he could have pulled a Clinton and rode it out. I think that’s what he tried to do in 2005-6 when there were questions. Deny it. The problem is, the story… and the graphic (email/IM) evidence caught up to him.

    Comment by Also from Michigan — October 4, 2006 @ 3:45 am - October 4, 2006

  40. #38, I think my issue is that being gay isn’t just a matter of what one does in the privacy of one’s home. If one has a partner and is in a committed relationship, I don’t find it at all fair that that person should deny or hide that in order to maintain one’s own position.

    I should hope nobody would make any connection between being closeted and engaging in inappropriate communications with minors.

    And it may be commonly known that the VP’s daughter is a lesbian. We’ll have to see what long-term impact that has on people’s (regardless of political affiliation) willingness to not just tolerate, but to fully accept the LGBT community.

    Either way, now that his orientation has been confirmed, Foley’s situation does little to reflect well on our community, regardless of his political affiliation.

    Comment by James — October 4, 2006 @ 10:29 am - October 4, 2006

  41. And it may be commonly known that the VP’s daughter is a lesbian. We’ll have to see what long-term impact that has on people’s (regardless of political affiliation) willingness to not just tolerate, but to fully accept the LGBT community.

    Doesn’t seem to bother the Republicans much, if at all.

    It drives the Democrats so crazy that they unleash their pet gays to smear her constantly — and their VP and Presidential candidates both have to practically scream it to the world during nationally-televised debates.

    Democrats treat gays exactly the same way as they do blacks; do as we say or we will beat the shit out of you.

    It takes a lot of guts to stand up and have hatemongers like Mike Rogers making harassing phone calls to your employer, threatening your friends, etc. — just as I’m sure it stings badly for black people like Condi Rice and Michael Steele to be called “house slaves” and “oreos”.

    And unfortunately, most gays, like most blacks, are too terrified to do anything else but whore for the Democrats.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 4, 2006 @ 5:17 pm - October 4, 2006

  42. […] has a side note, I haven’t seen to much outrage about Foley in his district. This goes to show you that no one may really care! Maybe because It happens every […]

    Pingback by Kapusta Brothers » Blog Archive » Why I’m not surprised about Foley — July 23, 2008 @ 8:33 pm - July 23, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.