Well, that would be the headline if US Rep. Gerry Studds were a Republican.
Studds, 1st Openly Gay Congressman, Dies – AP
Instead, the media coverage has glossed over this minor little inconvenient fact and has focused on the reaction of liberals hailing Studds as a “gay pioneer”.
“Gerry’s leadership changed Massachusetts forever and we’ll never forget him. His work on behalf of our fishing industry and the protection of our waters has guided the fishing industry into the future and ensured that generations to come will have the opportunity to love and learn from the sea. He was a steward of the oceans.”
– U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
—
“No one fought harder for human rights, particularly in Latin America; for our environment; and for the fishermen of New England and the entire nation. He was a true pioneer.”
– U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., whose wife, Lisa, once worked as an aide to Studds.
—
“Gerry often said that it was the fight for gay and lesbian equality that was the last great civil rights chapter in modern American history. He did not live to see its final sentences written, but all of us will forever be indebted to him for leading the way with compassion and wisdom. He gave people of his generation, of my generation, and of future generations the courage to be who they are.”
– Dean Hara, who married Studds in 2004.
Yep, Studds is in the same league as other pioneering gay icons like George Michael, Mark Foley and Jim McGreevey. Except Studds actually did have sex with an underage Congressional page… and boasted about it.
Studds was never ashamed of the relationship with the page.
“This young man knew what he was doing,” Hara said. “He was at (Studds’) side.”
Studds told his colleagues in a speech on the floor of the House that everyone faces a daily challenge of balancing public and private lives.
“These challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as am I, both an elected public official and gay,” Studds said at the time.
So bravo, Gerry Studds. You were the first Congressman to be out, proud, and a confessed child predator who is still bravely defended by your political party. What a great role model for gays who followed you. I shall miss you.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Studds is in the same league as other pioneering gay icons like George Michael, Mark Foley and Jim McGreevey. Except Studds actually did have sex with an underage Congressional page…
Bull’seye. I don’t think the problem is that a large number of gay men are engaged in pederasty or sleazy public sex. The problem is, the unwillingness of gays as a whole to condemn those practices. Instead, creeps like Gerry Studds and George Michael are defended (as long as they espouse left-wing politics). Defending bad behavior allows all of us to be stained with it.
V the K: I don’t engage in any of those things. For the record, I condemn them and don’t defend anyone for those actions. But the simple fact that I’m gay obviously doesn’t mean I have any particular responsibility to make a crusade out of it.
#3 – It’s good to hear you condemn it. Many gay men won’t.
#1 – We know poor, banned Kewpie keeps re-appearing under different aliases. But when he/she/it is extra lonely and wants e-mail, I guess, he/she/it will tip his/her/its hand by advertising an address – in a certain characteristic format. Tell us Kewpie, why do you do that? Are you really that poor and lonely?
He admitted to having sex with a 17 year old page in 1973. I know that the age of consent in DC is now 16. Was it not so in ’73? I’m just wondering if you’re headline is accurate. The man is dead and can’t defend himself, after all…
I don’t want anyone to construe my #2 remark to mean a lot of gay men do these things. Mybest guess is the number is relatively small. But, there are a large number of people afraid to appear ‘judgmental.’ And I think a lot of the more outspoken activist types are reluctant to condemn certain behaviors for fear of agreeing with the Christian Right on anything.
#5 – I don’t think the age of consent is relevant. It’s still sleazy and disgusting for a middle-aged man to be chasing teenaged boys, let alone catching them. Abortion is legal, but that doesn’t make it morally right. Bestiality is technically legal in some states (because it is not specifically outlawed), but that doesn’t make it right.
V the K makes a good point-some things, while they may not be illegal feel and look morally repugnant to most people.
The problem for Studds is that even if his action passed the “crime” test, it is still morally repgunant to a lot of people.
JM – I have to slightly disagree.
The problem with Studds’s predation is not that it was “morally repugnant to a lot of people” – i.e., an issue of what people thought, or that it offended some people.
No. The problem is that Studds’ predation REALLY WAS morally wrong. Period. (I.e., regardless of whether anyone knew, was offended, etc.)
Much like Foley’s (except that, as far as we know today, Foley’s predation was only “virtual” – no sex).
5: Are you kidding? In the world of new Republicanism and “do as I say, not as I do”, a dead person is the perfect target….you can say anything you want with refuting him.
7: Interesting you mention beastiality, because you have just used exactly the same response that people with so-called morals use to argue against gays and lesbians having equal rights: “let them gays marry and the next thing they’ll be screwing my dog”.
And by the way, if Gerry Studds had committed illegal acts like Foley may have done, then he should have been brought up on charges for it. Then again, as some people here were quite fond of pointing out in defense of Foley on earlier posts, DC has an age of consent of 16. That then means, that Studds hadn’t really broken the law either, had he?
Nice that you use a dead person like this.
One more thing: Why do you keep bringing up George Michael as some kind of gay leader? He’s a gay media celebrity, who, as far as I know, has never portrayed himself to be any kind of gay leader. Guess if you keep saying saying something over and over again, then that must make it true….
Studds had sex with a 17 year old page as we all know. Another congressman, Dan Crane, also had sex with a 17 year old page. Studds never apologized and turned his back on his colleagues when censured. He went on to get re-elected several more times and was strongly backed by Nancy Pelosi. Crane apologized and was defeated for re-election. Both were morally wrong. Imagine a US Congressman having sex with a charge of his. There is NO defense saying any of it was ‘consensual’. Wrong is wrong no matter how anyone trys to spin it. Foley was also wrong and he is gone. Studds hung around for several more years, warmly supported by his fellow dems, many of whom are still around to praise him today such as Kerry and Kennedy. No parent sends their child to Washington to work as a page and to have sex with their mentor. Studds is going to his grave as cavalier as he was when his immoral act took place.
Democrats prove time and time again hypocrisy is alive and well within their ranks.
little you know about congress. when an individual is censured by the house, it is ritual to turn your back to the body, been that way forever.
-Another congressman, Dan Crane, also had sex with a 17 year old page.-
Which makes me wonder why the headline says Studds was the only Congressman to admit to statutory rape. And didn’t Bob Bauman (R-Maryland, some district) have the same problem, only not with a page, just some young guy in Maryland? Studds
-One more thing: Why do you keep bringing up George Michael as some kind of gay leader? –
I don’t get that either. That’s like saying Paris Hilton is a straight leader.
The biggest problem with bringing up the Gerry Studds scandal is that while what he did was horrible and he should have resigned, that was 20 odd years ago. When people hear this, they are just going to wonder what this has to do with Foley in the year 2006, and why instead of talking about their response to what foley did, the GOP leadership can only come up with, “Democrats do it too!”
first you will be pleased to know that when NPR reported Studds’ death, they led with his indiscretion.
but ask yourself this, how many of us know high schools seniors that have had relations with teachers? while we are pretty much universally disgusted with the idea of teachers preying on junior high students, we moe or less turn a blind eye to teachers and soon to be graduating students.
b/c of my blind action, i am willing to give Studds a pass. the problem as I see it is it feeds into conservative america’s wideheld belief that gay men are predators and should not around children. quite frankly, if i were conservative america, i be more concerned about the underreported student / teacher liaisons
When people hear this, they are just going to wonder what this has to do with Foley in the year 2006, and why instead of talking about their response to what foley did, the GOP leadership can only come up with, “Democrats do it too!”
Dude, there is a HUGE difference between Studds and Foley. Foley is gone because his party was so disgusted by his virtual behavior that he could not remain. Studds stuck around for two decades because his party didn’t think his real behavior was a big deal.
Oh, and another difference, no one in the GOP has tried to defend or excuse what Foley did. He is universally regarded as a sleaze. Studds, on the other hand, had friends and apologists throughout his party and in the gay activist community.
Was gonna post but 17 and 18 express my feelings exactly.
Ditto V the K.
Good God, Ralph! Speaking as a high school teacher, I know of no one who would turn a blind eye to sex between a teacher and a soon-to-be-graduating student. Indeed, I have worked at two different schools where teachers have been fired over exactly that. In one case, the couple flew off to Vegas to get married the day after graduation, in the other it was over a case that was 6 or 7 years old — in both cases the student was 18 when the sex happened.
The district where i currently work has a policy forbidding any dating or sexual relationship with any currently enrolled student — violating it is grounds for immediate temination, no matter how long afte teh fact it is discovered.
I am not condoning the actions of Mark Foley, or Gerry Studs for that matter, but lets step back and realize for a moment that age of consent laws are a societal convention, there is nothing metaphysically evil about breaking them…in the Middle Ages men in their mid 40’s would marry women at 13, seems sick doesn’t it? I believe in consent laws because they protect the young from victimization and the power difference between the two parties is very large, but lets calm down the talk about Foley being a pedophile…pedophiles are involved with pre-pubescent children….there is a difference.
By the way, I have my own thoughts on the passing of Studds here.
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/200639.php
And i have to ask — why did you not include the barney Frank and John Kerry quotes along with the one from Teddy the Swimmer?
It would be interesting to see what Barak Obama thinks about Studds in light of his reference to Foley,
“I’m just not going to take morality lessons from a party — the National Republican Committee is running it — from a party that took hush money from a child predator.”
I’m waiting for his (certain outraged commentators here) condemnation of well known child predator supporters Kennedy, Kerry, Frank, etc
I’ll take a legal 16, 17, 18 year old hottie anyday over a 52 year old troll.
#14 – “when an individual is censured by the house, it is ritual to turn your back to the body, been that way forever.”
Uh, that’s news to me. It was newsworthy when 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.
And while we’re on the topic, the demoncRATS say the Republicans should have done all the things to Mark Foley that the DNC won’t let us do to al-Qaeda — solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Reid and Pelosi to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.
Regards,
Peter H.
“Maybe we could get Reid and Pelosi to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.”
The terrorists aren’t gay, but the list says their chiefs of staff are. 😀
I’m sorry, but to the point made in item #7, the age of consent is one of the most important issues here. If a city (like DC) or a county, state or any other community make a legal determination that those of a particular age are entitled to join the sexual community (in this case at the age of 16) how then can anyone be taken to task for approaching them in a sexual way?!? This seems to me to be the most hypocritcial aspect of this entire matter. If one believes that it is “icky” or “creepy” for a 50+ person to approach a 16 year old, then change the law! Otherwise it is a legal and private affair. I don’t remember hearing about anything in the law that slapped a ceiling on who could approach the now legal 16 year olds anyway. Perhaps we should say that only people 25 and under can approach them? What we now have is like posting a speed limit of 55 mph and then giving someone a ticket because they’re going 54.
Exactly right 27. The headline here is an outrageous lie. Studds did not commit statutory rape. The page was over the age of consent. If you think his behvior violated your moral sense, fine. Thats another matter though. Statutory rape is a legal concept, and it was not violated.
Much as many here seem to wish to ignore it, the truth is that this scandal has been driven largely by the GOP itself. Dems have gotten their licks in, of course – it is a political season, but most of the outrage and the posturing and the calls for this and that have come from Republicans. And the main issue that has dominated the press has far more to do with the failures of the leadership in getting Foley to lay off the pages, than with any of his actions per se. It seems that Foley was urged against retiring (his preference) in order to save the majority, even after the leadership knew of his predilections and habits.
These behaviors endanger the support of the religous right, which is why the Repbulicans have been so desparate to get out in front of the issue – to the point where they are largely out in front of it, and driving it.
Just goes to show that anything from vehicular manslaughter to DWI to screwing pages to pocketing millions from the Big Dig doesn’t matter in Massachussetts (as long as you have a D after your name).
However, being gay is criminal as long as the libs think it will get ’em votes and keeps everybody distracted from real issues.
Oh yeah. I forgot to mention shooting a gook in the back and testifying to Congress on things you never saw.
Bruce (GP), the headline on your post is extremely midleading.
Srudds was a creep for having sex with a page and the Democratic caucus should have demanded his resignation from the House. But he did NOT commit statutory rape. The teenager was over the age of consent.
Please don’t sink to the level of John Aravosis and other leftist bloggers, who regularly use half-truths and untruths to make their points.
Bobo, Harold Ford made those comments, not Obama.
-Dude, there is a HUGE difference between Studds and Foley.-
When Republicans bring Studds up to try to downplay the Foley scandal, they’re basically conflating the two in the mind of the public.
in the Middle Ages men in their mid 40’s would marry women at 13,
Should we bring back bear-baiting, the Black Plague, and burning witches, too? In the past, people married younger, that’s a key difference. They married and made a life-long commitment to each other. Nowadays, predators just go from one conquest to the next. I knew a guy in college who became HIV infected at 17 because he hooked up with a guy in his thirties he met on the internet.
Just because you can get away with something under the law doesn’t mean it’s right.
But having said that, Republicans should call the Democrats’ bluff and call for raising the age of consent in DC to 18.
And #24 is an interesting response. “I don’t care about right or wrong, just my own sexual gratification.” Sadly, it’s an attitude that’s all-too-prevalent in some quarters.
Gauche, Classless and Tacky: Speaking ill of the dead while their bodies are still warm.
#35. Funny, but I don’t see that quote in #24.
#33. Actually, in the early years of the 20th century, the age of consent was 10-12 in most states of the USA. The recent increases in the age of consent are what need explaining. The irony is that it is now right wingers that balk at “pedophilia” and “child sex abuse,” but (those dirty god-hating) feminists initially pushed for raising the age of consent.
Oh, and those life-long commitments to each other? They weren’t very long at all, since life was much shorter.
Finally, I know someone that had a blood transfusion at 17 and became HIV infected because he got blood from someone in this thirties–but it wasn’t over the internet.
When Republicans bring Studds up to try to downplay the Foley scandal, they’re basically conflating the two in the mind of the public.
I’m not arguing political perception, I’m arguing moral reality. And the moral reality is 1.) Gerry Studds was a much bigger sleazebag than Mark Foley and 2.) His party didn’t care.
#20 – James is technically correct that Foley is an ephebophile, not a pedophile.
Still disgusting and wrong, though.
You know, something we’re omitting to talk about here is (I think it’s called?) “Freshmen Magazine”. You know – the fact that a great many *gay men* (so-called) are creepy ephebophiles. I really wonder how they feel about their beloved, lower-the-age-of-consent Democrats pushing the Foleygate story and an anti-gay-ephebophile backlash. They must be tied in knots.
Uh…I have a question…
How can Studds be a “gay pioneer”, and Foley a “hypocritical creep”…when they BOTH did the EXACT SAME THING???
I guess you are seen as a hero if you’re a LIBERAL pervert…
I really wonder how they feel about their beloved, lower-the-age-of-consent Democrats pushing the Foleygate story and an anti-gay-ephebophile backlash.
I think most Democrat Activists recognize that when Democrats pretend to care about morality (or taxes, or national defense) that they don’t really mean it, it’s just a charade to placate the rubes. They know that once elected, most Democrats will follow the ACLU agenda, and appoint liberal activist judges to advance any agenda too radical to put forward politically.
#39: Another thought. Nobody can help who they’re attracted to. But where morality and decency enter the picture is how you act on your urges. Sometimes, we are drawn to commit acts that are wrong, and we have to develop the strength to control our base urges. If we don’t we’re no better than animals. If Studds and Foley had managed some self-control, we wouldn’t have cause to judge them.
#40 – JW, it’s even worse. Foley and Studds DIDN’T do the exact same thing. Foley, though still creepy and wrong, didn’t actually ravish his page.
#41 – Exactly. We all have wild animals inside. No news there. We also have brains. Real human beings use their brains and (when necessary) control themselves.
(continued) Unlike, say, Kewpie (now calling himself FF), who obviously has no self-control whatsoever. LOL 🙂
Ah, but isn’t “self-control” just a codeword used by Right-Wing Theocrats to oppress people by suggesting that they don’t need to act on every urge they feel?
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under other names he uses.]
“And by the way, if Gerry Studds had committed illegal acts like Foley may have done, then he should have been brought up on charges for it. Then again, as some people here were quite fond of pointing out in defense of Foley on earlier posts, DC has an age of consent of 16. That then means, that Studds hadn’t really broken the law either, had he?”
Well, it was a technically a crime because sodomy was against the law in DC back in the 1970s-1980s. One could say that doesn’t count, but, for what it’s worth, there is a school of thought that those states which still have sodomy laws on the books can still prosecute for sodomy those adults who have sex with minors OVER the age of consent (or solicitation to sodomy as the case may be), on the grounds that the Lawrence decision applies to only consenting adults. Probably, Foley is in the clear if he solicited in DC since DC doesn’t have a sodomy law anymore.
Just thought I’d throw that out at everyone.
Studds was a creep. Why oh why did the Democrats protect his hide all these years is beyond me. We have much better role models available.
“if i were conservative america, i be more concerned about the underreported student / teacher liaisons”
We are.
“Only US Congressman Who Admitted to Statutory Rape Dies Suddenly”
As someone else has noted, the headline is simply not true. Regardless what you think of Studd’s action it was not statutory rape. Moreover the man just died and he has been out of public life for years and yet Gay Patriot can’t miss an opportunity to do bash anyone who disagrees with his reactionary politics. As GPW routinely whines (at democrats only of course) Only US Congressman Who Admitted to Statutory Rape Dies Suddenly “Why do they Hate”? Perhaps he should pose that question to his co-blogger. But that might put an end to the endless version of good cop/bad cop played by the two hosts. The original GP spews some of the nastiest venom in posts that increasingly makes one question his mental stability and GPW in some form of cognitive dissonance ignores them and then re-hashes every now and then a post about the need for civility and the bad manners of liberals. How pathetic!
I’m sorry, Brendan, but GP is merely applying the Democrats’ latest rhetoric on the Foley situation to describe Studds.
You really need to explain why Foley instant-messaging former pages who were over the age of consent in DC constitutes child rape, predatory behavior, and other such things, but Studds having sex with them doesn’t.
Moreover the man just died and he has been out of public life for years and yet Gay Patriot can’t miss an opportunity to do bash anyone who disagrees with his reactionary politics.
All he did was molest an underage Congressional page and then brag about it. How dare you criticize him, you big meanie!
The original GP spews some of the nastiest venom…
Well, venom is lethal, and the truth is lethal to leftists. The truth in this case is that Gerry Studds was a sex predator and the Democratic party and the gay left loved him.
ND30, your answer is better.
ND30: What Foley did was incredibly stupid and inappropriate and I would say the same for Studds. But I think the accusation of Foley being predatory and especially referring to him as a pedophile are over the top and at least borderline homophobic.
One not insignificant difference is that it is the Republican party that has cast itself as the protector of “family values” and innocent children, so yes there is a bit of irony that the man who drafted legislation to protect people from internet “predators” (Foley’s words not mine) was using the internet in such a manner. As for “democratic rhetoric” this is a stretch what GP seems to be doing is looking for any possible way of changing the debate to somehow blame democrats. All I am saying is that regardless of one’s politics it is more than a little unseemly to do this–and in that manner–at the expense of somebody who just died. Moreover if GPW really means what he says in his periodic posts on civility and hate he should have the courage to call his blog partner to task, not to mention some of the commentors here who are really vile and nasty (TGC, best example) to anyone who disagrees and yet do not seem to be censored.
Brendan,
You sure are asking a lot, aren’t you?
monty
Brendan writes: “…for any possible way of changing the debate to somehow blame democrats.” LOL. When the shoe is on the other foot… eh?
I think it’s fair to remind voters that the Democrats are not only equally culpable in sex scandals, but return multiple sex scandaleers (love that word) repeatedly to office… Slick Willie, TeddieTakeARideKennedy, PatrickBabySitter –ButDontTakeARide– Kennedy, BarneyGotAHookerFrank, GerryStudds and all the others.
Democrats still have sexual predators walking around the halls of Congress but the GOP seems to boot their bad boys as quickly as CBS picks NewsAnchors. How many other sexual predators are in either Democrat caucus –or for that matter, how about we take a look at the great DrDNCDean’s sex life… it rivals Democrat Strategist DickMorris’ toe fetish with hookers but the good Doctor likes his hookers young, very young. And he likes ’em 2 at a time when in DC.
Pray tell me, Brendan, if longtime Democrat operatives and GayLeftBorg activists like MikeyTheOut-erRogers aren’t to blame for the Foley story… and I think it’s still too early to be claiming Foley didn’t engage in sex with underage minors –in DC or VA or FL or wherever… then who is?
Foley? Right, he’s the guy who leaked the story to the press… I know, if Foley hadn’t done those things, no story. But the Democrats are in “it” up to their cash-stocked freezers.
So blow the outrage in a different direction; that dog don’t hunt.
And wait a bit… I’m betting the gay Congressman (Foley) does turn out to be a pedophile.
The truth is that the Democrats practiced gutter level, dirty politics of the lowest order here. It’s good to be rid of Foley… but the Democrats are far from “clean”.
But I think the accusation of Foley being predatory and especially referring to him as a pedophile are over the top and at least borderline homophobic.
Then it might behoove you to do something about the worst examples thereof — namely, Nancy Pelosi and her hordes. She’s taken every opportunity to scream “child predator” ever since this whole thing started.
And that, my friend, ties to exactly GP’s point — as is immediately obvious if one juxtaposes the title of the post with its first sentence.
“Only US Congressman Who Admitted to Statutory Rape Dies Suddenly”
Well, that would be the headline if US Rep. Gerry Studds were a Republican.
The point being……Nancy Pelosi and the media call people who IM former pages that are above the age of consent “child predators”, but calls people who have sex with them “distinguished colleagues”.
Interesting stat. In the first week after the Mark Foley IM scandal, the three networks did over 150 news stories on the scandal.
When Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds had sex with a 16 year old staffer and attempted to procure her 15 year old friend for a threesome, and was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault and obstructing an investigation, the three networks did only 19 stories on it in the course of an entire year.
Keeping up the Democrat tradition of looking out for sex predators in their own party, Reynolds was pardoned by Bill Clinton.
Michigan’s own Democrat-with-a-Conscience, Dale Kildee –a lifelong big D, inner city, UAW-beholden Congressman sitting on the House’s subcommittee that is looking into Foley– got deer-spotted coming out of a closed session… when asked, he left this bombshell for the Democrats:
“There are more allegations about other Congressmen and this inquiry will extend beyond the Foley to others now, to Democrats. These are just allegations. I don’t care to say more.”
Ohh, and for the GayLeftBorg, Anderson Cooper is busy cleaning up his hard drive to get rid of those IMs to twinks… WolfieBlitzer is getting all over this story up on the Hill. Ding, ding, ding… I think that’s MikeRogers’ bell about to get rung.
Watch out Democrats… there’s room for more turkey in the oven before November. Shake and bake at 450 for 30 minutes.
“How many other sexual predators are in either Democrat caucus –or for that matter, how about we take a look at the great DrDNCDean’s sex life… it rivals Democrat Strategist DickMorris’ toe fetish with hookers but the good Doctor likes his hookers young, very young. And he likes ‘em 2 at a time when in DC.”
Michigan-Matt, why do you hate so?
Alas, as I read his words, I wondered why he hated so much. I realized that I serve just as the object for his animosity, not its justification, nor its explanation. I hope he will take the time to look within and wonder what it is that makes him hate so.
ND-30: “Then it might behoove you to do something about the worst examples thereof — namely, Nancy Pelosi and her hordes. She’s taken every opportunity to scream “child predator” ever since this whole thing started.”
Okay. ND-30, I think Pelosi words are disgusting and if I lived in California I would not vote for her–I would not vote for a republican, but I would leave it blank or vote for some 3rd party. Can you say the same about any homophobic republican or do you insisist on living in the republican plantation?
It’s because “Hate” is the first directive on the GOP talking point memo that Mish-Mash and the rest of the pack get every morning. 🙂
monty
“V the K,” I know the V stands for Victim. But what does the K stand for? I have some ideas.
#51 and #52. Oh, GP is so….clever!! “I’m sorry, Brendan, but GP is merely applying the Democrats’ latest rhetoric on the Foley situation to describe Studds.” What makes this so humorous is that Democrats have been applying the righteous moral standards that Republicans espouse to Republicans in this case. And then you think GP is doing something unique? Not at all. It sounds more like: nanny-nanny-noo-noo.
But the IRONY is that the Democrats don’t run around moralizing about sex like the Republicans do. Instead, they let voters decide who to send to Congress. And Republicans only care when it becomes publicly known that one of theirs is man-handling youngsters. The Party of Values is naked!! And Democrats were having fun with the delicious irony before GP got so clever…with a dead man. Again, tacky.
#58. You still don’t get it. The Democrats aren’t obsessed with controlling the sex lives and bodies of everyone according to some particular understanding of morality or religion. That isn’t government’s job. It is the Republicans who have made sex an issue, over and over again, and it is the Republicans that tout tough on sex crime lines, over and over again. So it makes no sense to complain about Democrats not being so concerned with everyone else’s sex lives, (at the level of the Party, not at the level of local police mind you,) because it only highlights the fact that it is the Republicans and it has been the Republicans for quite some time that have been obsessed with sex and controlling sex. (See the post above about how bad sex is among gays, penned by a softer conservative hand, but decidedly still sex-negative.) Foley was on a pulpit about abusing children and he was involved in the very same activities that he was spouting off about. Democrats don’t spout off about sex as much as Republicans….SO it is no wonder why Democrats have been treated differently. Remember: you people framed the Democrats as soulless and immoral. So when Democrats do something “immoral,” it isn’t really newsworthy, is it? But when Republicans, up there breathing the pure stratified air on the high moral road, do something…you BET it is newsworthy.
So stop your whining.
Okay. ND-30, I think Pelosi words are disgusting and if I lived in California I would not vote for her–I would not vote for a republican, but I would leave it blank or vote for some 3rd party. Can you say the same about any homophobic republican or do you insisist on living in the republican plantation?
No.
If you think whether or not a person is homophobic is the sole determinant of my vote, you’re sorely mistaken.
I’m glad to see you condemning Nancy Pelosi. She is a homophobe, and worse, she’s a manipulative homophobe, who takes money from gays and then promotes homophobic rhetoric like what she’s spewing now.
But that’s just one of the many reasons for which I will vote against her.
So, basically, what the leftoid whiners are saying is, it’s okay for the Democrats to harbor sex predators like Mel Reynolds and Gerry Studds because Democrats have no sexual morality. This would seem to imply that, to the left, Mel Reynolds and Gerry Studds did nothing wrong. If so, they should come out and say that.
They also say, it’s not about the sex, it’s about the hypocrisy. Yet, they see nothing hypocritical about attacking people for falling short of a moral code, when they themselves have no morals at all.
So, basically, to the left, morals are bad, sexually molesting underage teens is good.
So, basically, to the left, morals are bad, sexually molesting underage teens is good.
Uhless of course you are a republican, then morals are still bad, but any violation of those morals makes you worse.
Brendan at #60 asks rhetorically: “Michigan-Matt, why do you hate so?”
About the only things I “hate” Brendan are mushy vegetables, rain soaked rock climbing equipment and underperforming sports cars.
What are you talking about?
ah….
Witness:
1) The non-denial.
2) The “set-up” on the return.
Nice! 🙂
monty
monty, you’ve been outed now by Peter H as the lower-case-sockpuppet known as raj/Ian/blah. Wow, you still don’t get it: sockpuppets lack credibility because of their clearly apparent intellectual dishonesty. I thought it was bad you were labeled: tedious without purpose.
It’s amazing that someone with such a high dislike for all things gay, patriotic or conservative should work so hard to avoid blocking –even to engage in multiple monikers to avoid detection.
You have to find another outlet, monty/raj/Ian/blah. Or another name.
Mish-Mash.
You’ve posted the same tired thing in all the other threads. I guess you’ve taken that dog-earred talking points memo book and are applying the “say it enough and people will believe it” point. Eventually, even you will come to believe it. 🙂 That sockpuppet game is alway your “last resort”. Though tedious, also amusing.
As I’ve said after all your other whiney, petulant posts…..if that’s all ya got….go right ahead on. Makes me no never mind.
LMAO,
monty
That’s ok, monty… as long as folks here know the games you’ve been playing with multiple postings under different names. Sockpuppets are as about welcome here as self-loathing gay hypocrites from the GayLeftBorg. You’ve been outed as a duplicitious, deceitful, dishonest sockpuppet and its time for your latest troll-incarnation to hit the showers.
Time to reinvent yourself.
LOL.
I think people are smarter than that and can see how desperate you all have become. Say anything to bring down your opposition, at any and all costs. Use your own soul for collateral, even. Make up stuff as you go along, etc…..
This whole exercise has been so totally enlightning. I’m sure your ethics professor, not to mention your children and partner are so very proud of you for being the stand up and honest guy you think you are. 🙂 🙂
You all haven’t even got the guts to go “one on one”. Just shows what basic cowards you all are and why you all scattered so quickly when the Foley thing broke. So typical of cowards…….and you prove that much better than I ever could.
You may succeed in drowning me out, at times, but I’m not going anywhere. 🙂 🙂
monty
Fill me in, ‘cos I missed monty being outed as a sock-puppet. Rajian’s shtick was to spew Kostard talking points and leftard myths about the political right and pretend they were making some sort of argument. (M)onty’s shtick seems to be simple deranged, incoherent name-calling.
Thats like saying you missed Bush being awarded his Purple Heart.
Clue for VtK…….it never happened!! LMAO
monty
Studds was not a child predator. The page was above the age of consent at the time and the page also came out in defense of Studds saying he wanted the relationship. Consenting relationships between two individuals both above the age of consent is not predatory in any sense of the word. There are many reasons to dislike Studds but this was not one of them. Meanwhile the page who got this whole thing going regarding Foley says he never received sexual messages at all. See freestudents.blogspot.com for more information.
I should have been more clear. Studds was not guilty of statutory rape because the page was above the age of consent. That claim is just false. Nor was he the only congressman who had sex with a page. In fact Congressman Crane, a conservative Republican had sex with a girl, who was actually younger, while she was a page the same year. His was not statutory rape either since she was also above the age of consent. So it is true he had sex with the page but it false to call the page as underage. He wasn’t.
Once again, CLS: 1.) Legal or not, a middle-aged man hitting on a teenager is still a creep and a sleazebag, 2.) Gerry Studds was a creep a sleazebag and a predator because he went much further than IM’s, and never once expressed that he did anything wrong 3.) Crane and Foley were out on their asses when they were exposed. Gerry Studds remained an honored Democrat and hero to the gay left until the end, and Mel Reynolds was pardoned by Bill Clinton. Thus proving, the Democrat party welcomes sex predators while Republicans ditch them.