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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Regards,
Peter H.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Now, Maureen Dowd – SHE’S a moonbat.

Regards,
Peter H.

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

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610020011

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.

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.

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.

#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.