BREAKING NEWS: Alleged Child Sex Predator Was Stafferat Human Rights Campaign
The U.S. Senate aide arrested for arranging a three-way with an undercover informant and who he thought was a 13-year-old male was previously an employee with the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest GLBT rights group. Mike McHaney, 28, was fired from his job as a scheduler for Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state within hours his arrest for attempting to sexually exploit a minor.
McHaney, who remains in federal custody without bond at least until a hearing tomorrow, was arrested by FBI agents after showing up to meet a cooperating witness and the fictional teen.
Brad Luna, an HRC spokesperson, confirmed that McHaney worked as an executive scheduler for the D.C.-based gay rights group from September 2005 to May 2006.
The Gay Left cabal must be close to a complete meltdown. After all, for three years they have been criminalizing and personally punishing gay Americans for merely not towing the liberal political line on gay policy issues.
But now they would have to make a moral equivalent of an alleged child sex predator commiting an actual crime to merely denying your gay sexual preferences. Otherwise, wouldn’t they be outraged and condemn the emerging Democrat child sex predator problem they have. Because, there is no equivalent here.
I wonder do the masters of outing gay Republicans believe that being a child predator the same as being against same-sex marriage?
The cricket-chirping silence of condemnation of the liberal bloggers and the MSM about James “Mike” McHaney arrest is now becoming uber-deafening.
In addition to his HRC experience, it turns out that McHaney is quite the seasoned Democratic political operative. Dick Gephardt, John Kerry. Wow.
Picture of alleged child sex predator and
Democrat Party activist, James Michael McHaney.
One has to ask the following question, since it was repeated ad nauseum during the Mark Foley affair: Who knew and/or enabled Mike McHaney’s alleged child sex predatory activities?
Mike Meehan, Sen. Cantwell’s chief of staff, worked with McHaney at Kerry 2004 HQ. Did Meehan bring McHaney along to Cantwell’s office? What does Meehan know about McHaney’s history and when did he know it?
And do McHaney and Lane Hudson — revealer of all things Mark Foley – know each other? After all, they both worked for the HRC, John Kerry for President and Rep. Rodney Alexander. It stretches the imagination to think Hudson and McHaney don’t know each other. If so, what does Hudson know about McHaney’s child sex predatory ways?
If the Republicans have a closeted gay denial issue, it appears the Democrats have a closeted child sex predator who-happens-to-be issue. I’ll let you decide which is the crime.
The onion is just beginning to be peeled back, folks.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
112 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
ummm….what does the fact that someone is a sex predator have anything to do with their political affiliations? Sadly, there are lot of sex predators in this country and they are both democrat and republican, gay and straight. You’re throwing out a red-herring here. How about we trot the sexual arrests/convictions of everyone who’s involved with politics, then we can tote up who on which side has the most.
And where exactly have these laws appeared that have criminalized and punished gay Americans? (except those who whole-heartedly support the ability to deny equal rights and protection under the law to gay Americans)
Comment by Kevin — December 4, 2007 @ 9:25 pm - December 4, 2007
The left does seem to have something of a problem in this area. On the right, when Mark Foley was discovered, he was thrown on his ass. Studds stayed in the House for sixteen years. Ted Strickland became governor of Ohio, and the media is burying the Maria Cantwell story. As for the Virginia ACLU chief, well, I guess we know the real reason the ACLU went to bet for NAMBLA now, don’t we?
Comment by V the K — December 4, 2007 @ 9:32 pm - December 4, 2007
It’s the unwritten, hidden laws of liberal democrats.
Suck on that.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 4, 2007 @ 9:46 pm - December 4, 2007
Wait, what was the kerfuffle not long ago about a HRC guy from Michigan or something like that? Was that the Foley thingy?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 4, 2007 @ 9:47 pm - December 4, 2007
Ooops! Forgot:
Because liberals get promoted and the mindless douchebags who hate “judgemental” people circle the wagons around them and ask stupid questions like yours.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 4, 2007 @ 9:49 pm - December 4, 2007
Speaking of which, do you think Rudy’s collapse in the polls could be connected to his own pedophile problem? Considering that ass (not to mention Bernie Kerick), his disastrous judgment prior to 9-11, his multiple mistresses and his “Sex on the City” corrupt ways, maybe the Grand Old Pervert primary voters are finally waking up to the potential of someone who ostensibly has at least some concept of morality: Mike Huckabee, whom I’m sure you’ll recall I predicted in these very pages would be the dark horse Republick candidate to beat.
Comment by Ian S — December 4, 2007 @ 10:08 pm - December 4, 2007
Hey Ian, do you suppose if Hillary’s elected, she’ll finally get the child prostitution and sex rights for girls as young as 10 pushed through this time? Would we be looking at the pardons for more pedophiles like Mel Reynolds?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 4, 2007 @ 11:22 pm - December 4, 2007
I’ll remind you, we get rid of our offenders whereas the liberals promote theirs.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 4, 2007 @ 11:24 pm - December 4, 2007
#7:
Not going to happen.
Comment by Ian S — December 4, 2007 @ 11:57 pm - December 4, 2007
#9
Well it ain’t gonna be “Osama Obama”. Even with Oprah’s va-jay-jay, he’s still not “black enough”. Plus he’s promissed to unilaterally attack Pakistan so that won’t wash.
Edwards won’t take the pay cut or muss up his hair. He won’t want the job once he realizes that you can’t chase ambulances on the job. I predict a screaming fit that would make Howie Dean say “DAMN!” before it’s over.
And the rest? Well they’re the rest. That eliminates all the liberals.
I’m going to have to go with the appearances that you have no problem with Mr. McHaney’s actions. You seem too busy pointing your finger elsewhere to condemn his actions so it stands to reason that you support a 28 y/o guy FCUKING a 13 y/o boy. Right?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 5, 2007 @ 12:25 am - December 5, 2007
#7, This brings to mind Ms. Rodham’s record re family issues – e.g. her handful of articles on family law, her relation to the Children’s Defense Fund, and perhaps other statements and proposals (legislative record? what legislative record). Hopefully this can bring more scrutiny to all that.
For one thing, imagine her staging – I mean, making – an appearance to comment on McHaney the way she did re the NH hostage situation.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 5, 2007 @ 12:37 am - December 5, 2007
For everyone claiming that the Democrats promote their sexual assaulters, you do know that Cantwell fired the guy about 8 seconds after the story broke, right? So, the lesson is, “Democratic staffer goes after kids, gets fired immediately.” What is the “meltdown” you claim is happening? What’s the problem? Essentially, this shows that when a person, gay or straight, goes after kids, Democrats take him out. Yep, sure is embarrassing for the Ds! Oh wait…
Oh, and for those who keep shouting Studd’s name as if proves a point, the story hasn’t gotten any better. He had a legal relationship with an adult, I don’t believe he was accused or suspected of lying about it, he was censured, and life went on. Again, no real story there “proving” Democratic hypocrisy. But, go ahead, keep saying his name. Someone who doesn’t have access to Google might think it matters, I suppose.
Comment by torrentprime — December 5, 2007 @ 2:07 am - December 5, 2007
@10
Are you playing the, “He hasn’t condemned someone fast enough for me; what is he trying to hide??” card? Old political trick, but I suppose someone might fall for it.
I love this. So desperate to hate the left, so desperate for some good news on any GOP front, that the best you can do is pretend that someone “support[s]” something. Why? Because they haven’t condemned it yet. Something so basic, something so elemental that no one needs to go on record… oh wait. Cantwell did.
So, the pedophile was caught, fired, disgraced. The D politician threw him out on his ass and condemned his actions. You guys really don’t have a lot to work with here, do you, besides fantasizing that maybe Meehan was in on it. Sad for the Bush right, but heartening, I guess, for the rest of us.
Comment by torrentprime — December 5, 2007 @ 2:15 am - December 5, 2007
For everyone claiming that the Democrats promote their sexual assaulters, you do know that Cantwell fired the guy about 8 seconds after the story broke, right?
Key there being, “after the story broke”.
What that means is that the only way to stop Democrats from employing pedophiles is to publicize the hell out of it when they get caught. Cantwell, Kerry, HRC, and Gephardt obviously didn’t care until it was announced in the newspapers.
That’s the application of the Foley theory, torrentprime — you know, nobody can plead ignorance, they obviously knew and were covering it up, etc.
And meanwhile, none of this surprises us; after all, gay liberals and Democrats make a habit of dressing up children in fetish wear and taking them to sex fairs to show them off, all without a peep from Cantwell and her ilk; indeed, Cantwell and Pelosi, good Democrats that they are, fully support this.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 5, 2007 @ 3:14 am - December 5, 2007
Didn’t Nancy Pelosi march in a Pride Parada next to one of the founders of NAMBLA?
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 5:05 am - December 5, 2007
Question: How many GP readers, on glimpsing McHaney’s pic here, thought first, “Oh, he’s so cute!”
Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 5, 2007 @ 6:02 am - December 5, 2007
2: What’s the Maria Cantwell story? McHaney was fired right after he was arrested, no waiting, no stories, no “let’s see what happens”; he’s gone from his government job. Unlike Senator Craig who continues to embarrass himself and the GOP by nonsensically fighting his own admission of guilt. And Studds was re-elected by the people all those years, good or bad, one of the results of democracy and letting the people decide.
Comment by Kevin — December 5, 2007 @ 6:08 am - December 5, 2007
Not I
Comment by Vince P — December 5, 2007 @ 6:11 am - December 5, 2007
Just a few threads ago, that was the exact position of your boy Ian and Felcher In Chief K-Y. Wanna try again?
And once again, TP, you prove my point. Make excuses and never once condemn his actions.
Further, Lukens got bounced out and lives in obscurity. Mel Reynolds, while convicted, was pardoned by the Rapist In Chief, lord BJ, and got a job with Rainbow PUSH.
Needless to say, it’s clear that McHaney will be excused and will go on to lead a fairly good life, if not nominated by apologists like you, for president.
Flail about all you like. You, Kevin, Ian etc. are all part of the same wagon train protecting one sick sonofabitch.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 5, 2007 @ 6:58 am - December 5, 2007
The same type of people who keep reelecting a murderer to the Senate.
Tell me, does that make you proud?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 5, 2007 @ 7:03 am - December 5, 2007
Crud. Anyways, my point remains valid.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 5, 2007 @ 7:04 am - December 5, 2007
Studds was re-elected and Cantwell will suffer no penalties because, to Democrats, child sexual abuse just isn’t that big a deal.
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 8:03 am - December 5, 2007
Ian provides the example of how the moral relativist and modern democrat liberal handles bad news for the other side.
By Ian’s standards, the Gay Patriot should be ripping Cantwell and assuming she was a full participant and enabler in searching for little boys to feed her staff.
Obviously, this McHaney guy is a full blown activist for gay rights. He is the poster child for why parents do not want him in the middle school locker room as a coach for the team.
His type of crime sets the gay rights agenda back a few notches, because it reminds the straight world just why it is they are uncomfortable with the gay agenda.
And then Ian and friends do their best to whistle past the graveyard, which only furthers the suspicion that liberal gay activists really do want to have an anything goes candy store of sexual possibilities.
Comment by heliotrope — December 5, 2007 @ 8:15 am - December 5, 2007
I’m not certain I fully understand the point being made in this post, Cantwell clearly moved quickly in firing this perv. Pedophilia respects no political, ideological, religious, social, or other such boundaries.
As for Mr. McHaney, to answer Jeremy’s question: yes, but not exactly my type. Of course he could be the most attractive man ever to walk the face of this planet and it wouldn’t change one thing about what should be done with him. Buggering children, even if one is caught in a ‘sting’ like this, is one of the offenses for which I do believe the rope industry needs to be put to work on solving.
Comment by John — December 5, 2007 @ 8:17 am - December 5, 2007
Once again Ian confirms my theory.. Leftists defend themselves only through counterexample.
Never address the issue
Comment by Vince P — December 5, 2007 @ 8:35 am - December 5, 2007
#12:
In stark contrast to Rudy who went out and hired his pedophile buddy! Kinda like Foley where the GOP leadership knew for years about his “page problem” but as he was a reliable member of the tribe, they kept it hushed up.
And, of course the tribe member around here will dutifully support Rudy and if, perish the thought, he were to become President, they will dutifully applaud when Rudy creates a new Department for his pedophile friend to run: probably something like “Child Services.” BTW, we Dems applaud Cantwell firing the guy as we applauded the pressure put on Foley when his shenanigans came to light. But I recall all the plaintive support around here for Foley. And in spite of the months it’s been known about Rudy’s support of pedophiles, there hasn’t been a single peep condemning it here.
Comment by Ian S — December 5, 2007 @ 8:35 am - December 5, 2007
He is the poster child for why parents do not want him in the middle school locker room as a coach for the team
Or taking a group of Cub Scouts camping in the woods.
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 8:37 am - December 5, 2007
24 John: Good thing you didnt say noose or else you might be liable for hate crime.
/sarc
Comment by Vince P — December 5, 2007 @ 8:41 am - December 5, 2007
Will Ian condemn Hillary for having an impeached bribe-taker and influence peddler as her campaign co-chair? Will Ian condemn Hillary for having a man who burglarized classified documents from the National Archives as a security advisor? One also notes Hillary’s good friend and chief money launderer was indicted the other day. Will Ian condemn this as well?
What am I saying. Of course he won’t. Just as he won’t condemn Ted Strickland, who kept and promoted a child predator on his congressional staff, and …. along with Barney Frank… refused to vote on a House resolution condemning child sexual abuse.
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 8:45 am - December 5, 2007
…and Cantwell will suffer no penalties…
Why should she? It wasn’t her behavior. She should be punished for the crimes of someone else? Is that really what you’re implying?
Studds’ behavior was his own. Frank’s behavior – his own. Kennedy’s (well, several of them really) – their own. Foley’s behavior – his own. Craig’s behavior – his own.
Cantwell did the right thing – she fired him, guilty or not. (Which, I’m pretty sure we can agree he seems to be as guilty as one can be.)
I have not read anything yet that demonstrates that Cantwell knew she had a sexual predator working for her. If she knew, then she should suffer appropriate penalties. If not, why should she be partly to blame?
Comment by Mike — December 5, 2007 @ 9:25 am - December 5, 2007
At a minimum, she should get a mass media feeding frenzy demanding to know if she knew anything about his proclivities. There should also be a full congressional investigation. Because that’s what any Republican senator in the same circumstances would get.
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 9:38 am - December 5, 2007
Thanks for answering so … rationally. At a glance the pic, whatever naturally shining looks it presents, also smacks of a gooey, prolonged adolescent, untested (hence unconfirmed) masculinity. The gel-spiked hair and surfer beards sure don’t help any.
After a certain age, boys have to become men. They have to become, if not hardened, then certainly tempered in the ways of the world, including the ways to carry themselves in the world. Assuming this pic was taken in recent years, then I fear it shows someone who has grown accustomed, sadly, to being looked at, accustomed to being admired, to being pretty, to being “just a baby.” Something is lacking in one’s manhood if that’s allowed to be the case.
(How that relates to him being into hairless boys, I’m not sure. Am taking a first stab at some verbal pscyhogeography on the guy.)
Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 5, 2007 @ 9:39 am - December 5, 2007
She provided the computer.. how could she not know what was happening with her own equipment? Sounds like a cover up to me
Comment by Vince P — December 5, 2007 @ 9:42 am - December 5, 2007
Ian, torrentprime (and also Mike), you’re doing good work here battling the hyenas in full-throated thirst. They want so badly for there to be a Dem gay scandal matching their multiples, especially the one that r-e-a-l-l-y bugs them — Arch Conservative, Anti-Gay, Self-Hating Republican Senator Larry Craig. They’ll come back and tell you how they want him out. Sure they do. He embarrasses them mightily (as he should). But, worse, he’s an emblem for them and serves as a reminder of all that’s wrong with being a Gay Republican. But, they won’t be getting that Big Gay Dem Scandal they thirst after, ’cause Gay Dems don’t play the hypocrisy game; don’t need to.
[Um, KYKid, do you even read this blog or rant against gay conservatives as you imagine us to be? How do you know what we think? You seem to dismiss that we have called for his resignation because it doesn't fit your image of what we're supposed to be. For all the time you spend on this blog, it would be nice if you actually confronted our ideas rather than your own demons. --Dan]
Comment by KYKid — December 5, 2007 @ 9:46 am - December 5, 2007
#31 – Agreed – she should get the same mass media frenzy and investigation. She won’t, and it’s unfortunate that’s where our media and politics have stand. Personally, I don’t consider that a penalty though – just what we should expect of an open, democratic (small “d”
) government.
#32 – Possible (assuming he was on a Congressional computer), but I imagine most Reps and Senators have little knowledge about what’s going on on those networks. Just a guess though.
Comment by Mike — December 5, 2007 @ 9:48 am - December 5, 2007
You’re going to beat this one to death. Just yesterday you made a comment about innocent until proven guilty but today you are posting the guy’s name and picture on the internet. He has been accused of a crime. Could we let him have a fair trial and then punish him according to the law?
This has nothing to do with outing gay politicians and their staffers. I don’t think anyone in Congress, any state legislature or any executive position in any level of government has a pro-pedaphilia position. This is bad and I think everyone from the far right to the far left agrees (except the people who are doing this I guess).
This isn’t a political issue. This is a child abuse issue. I think we all want this guy to be punished IF HE IS GUILTY. Enough trial by media.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 5, 2007 @ 9:56 am - December 5, 2007
Like I said earlier, Houndentenor, let law enforcement take care of criminal issues. Alas, I don’t think Gay Republicans like law enforcement very much these days.
[And where pray tell, do you come up with that notion? I approve your comments KYKid because they provide yet another example of how all too many critics of gay conservatives have no idea what we believe. --Dan]
Comment by KYKid — December 5, 2007 @ 10:00 am - December 5, 2007
HT, it is a political issue because as we demonstrate time and time again, Democrats are soft on the sexual abuse of minors (Gerry Studds, Ted Strickland, Barney Frank … all re-elected) and Republicans are not (Mark Foley, Dan Crane – gone.)
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 10:09 am - December 5, 2007
Very honestly: not I!
I saw his pic before I read the caption or understood it was the alleged-molester guy, and my gut reaction was “Ew – Shallow, creepy twink.”
For me, this is “The creepiest comment of the thread, so far”.
Senator Craig’s actions showed narcissism and awful judgment. I’ve said repeatedly he ought to do the right thing and resign.
How much *WORSE*, then, would be the actions alleged for McHaney? Remember, all Craig did was tap his foot and move it 6 inches too close to the other guy’s stall… there was a nice big wall there to let the other guy escape. But Kevin, you just implied the McHaney situation is somehow morally better than the Craig situation. And blithely excuse Studds’ re-election. Creeeeeeepy!
And how about a statement from Nancy Pelosi herself, linking gays to pedophilia? Oops, I forgot, that only applies in election years AND when the other guy has an (R) after his name.
Agree. And if there is a broader story here (note IF – or see below), that’s what I think it is: media bias and Democratic hypocrisy. Which, in a way, are nothing too new!
It has taken me awhile, too. Bruce, I can’t honestly say this is your absolute-best-written post. Judging from what you highlighted in bold, though, I think you are trying to take the questions that were asked in the Foley and Craig frenzies – and show how much MORE applicable they are, or ought to be, to an alleged child predator.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 5, 2007 @ 10:49 am - December 5, 2007
spamfilter
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 5, 2007 @ 10:52 am - December 5, 2007
Mike 33: I was just kidding about they should have known. I was arguing as if I was a Lefty.
Comment by Vince P — December 5, 2007 @ 10:58 am - December 5, 2007
Meanwhile, Ian convicts Msgr. Alan Placa and hangs Guiliani out to dry for sticking by his childhood friend. (No charges were brought and no fair trial ensued for Placa.)
Didn’t McHaney navigate rather freely about the democrat hierarchy?
Perhaps he was caught on his first attempt at buggering a child and Cantwell acted immediately. If so, kudos to her. She should take a tip from Bill Clinton and go on national TV and say: “Listen to me. I am only going to say this once. I fired that pervert as soon as there was any hint of impropriety.”
She could wag her finger for effect.
Certainly, McHaney kept his smoking hot fantasies to himself. Certainly. No chance he could be an activist with an agenda. Highly unlikely.
Comment by heliotrope — December 5, 2007 @ 10:58 am - December 5, 2007
#37 – I had to chuckle, Vince, because I did wonder if you meant that tongue-in-cheek.
Comment by Mike — December 5, 2007 @ 11:22 am - December 5, 2007
BREAKING NEWS: Hillary Ditches Celine Dion Campaign Theme Song. John Santos appalled at this affront to gayness.
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 11:35 am - December 5, 2007
This is what we get with the Democrat Congress… bunch of seditious vermin:
Federal employees who work for the Army may get layoff notices before Christmas if Congress and the White House do not reach an accord on funding for the Iraq war, the Pentagon said yesterday.
The warning, posted near the top of the Defense Department’s Web site, was the latest in a series from Pentagon officials in recent weeks.
About 100,000 federal employees and an additional 100,000 contract workers are at risk of being sent home without pay in February and March if the Army and Marine Corps run short of money and have to reduce operations at their bases, according to the Pentagon.
…
Still, such warnings cannot be entirely dismissed. The 1995-96 budget impasse led to a shutdown of the government and, at one point, sent 800,000 federal employees home for three weeks during the December-January holiday season.
Yesterday, Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said “facts are the facts” and that military bases will have to cease operations, terminate contracts and send employees home without pay if a war-funding deal is not reached.
“Anyone who thinks that this is not a serious situation is simply misinformed or is ignoring the facts,” he said in an interview with the American Forces Press Service.
Comment by Vince P — December 5, 2007 @ 12:20 pm - December 5, 2007
#14:
Oh my. NeverDoesTruth seems to have an odd obsession – dare I say fetish – with the Folsom Street fair. You know we’ve seen all these Repub closet cases railing against what turns out to be their very own personal demons – Foley working on Internet child protection legislation while he was cruising teenage boys and Larry Craig railing and legislating against the sins of homosexuality while trolling public “tearooms” for anonymous sex. Now I, who am glad to be gay and wouldn’t change even if I could, can honestly say I have never been to the Folsom Street fair or anything like it nor would I ever desire to. I wonder if NDT can say the same?
Comment by Ian S — December 5, 2007 @ 1:33 pm - December 5, 2007
Can you please just stop writing?
I dont want to read this crap.. your demented neeed to go to the lowest depths to insult people.
Please.. just stop it and get lost. Go write about your perverted fantasies elsewhere.
Comment by Vince P — December 5, 2007 @ 1:49 pm - December 5, 2007
#38
I’m not condoning what Studds did. but the guy he was involved with was over the age of consent. I don’t remember the details of the others. Studds might have done something creepy, but it wasn’t illegal. If you want to change the age of consent to 18 then that’s a separate debate.
This doesn’t have anything to do with Craig. Craig pled guilty to a misdemeanor offense. He’s only in trouble because his party is anti-gay. (And he’s lying, but that’s never been a problem for politicians before LOL). The people calling for Craig to resign are not Democrats. They are Republicans. I think the Craig scandal is hilarious and I hope he keeps on fighting because I get a lot of entertainment value out of watching a self-loathing closet case try to dig his way out of the mess he’s made for himself.
Craig didn’t really do anything all that bad. The current allegations about this staffer are very serious and assuming he’s guilty I have no pity for whatever is coming his way.
Also noted: there were attempts to cover up the Mark Foley problem. Were there any in this case? Or is the Senator’s office cooperating with the investigation? The irony in the Foley case is that he chaired the committee that made soliciting sex from a minor on the internet a federal crime. He can’t claim not to have known the law since he helped write it. Without his own law he wouldn’t have committed a crime since the guy he was chatting with was over the age of consent in DC.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 5, 2007 @ 2:03 pm - December 5, 2007
No Ian. You’ve misunderstood as usual. He keeps bringing it up for the simple reason that you have no good answer to it. (I.e., it works.)
As opposed to, say, Democrat (or other Left) perverts and criminals – like McHaney, Gerry Studds, etc. – who just give up and act out their urges with ‘pride’.
Ian, that I very strongly doubt. LOL
And that! Hmm, what is that famous saying? Oh yeah. “The lady doth protest too much.”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 5, 2007 @ 2:06 pm - December 5, 2007
HT, let me reframe the question for you… Why do Democrats re-elect politicians who sexually abuse minors (Gerry Studds) or pardon them (Mel Reynolds), while Republicans reject politicians (Dan Crane, Mark Foley) who sexually abuse minors?
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 2:16 pm - December 5, 2007
In fact, Republicans are so careful that they even reject politicians (Mark Foley, Larry Craig) who *did not* sexually abuse minors…
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 5, 2007 @ 2:26 pm - December 5, 2007
(and rightly so, in those 2 cases)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 5, 2007 @ 2:28 pm - December 5, 2007
Thanks for the correction. There is no evidence that Mark Foley had sex with any minors. Gerry Studds not only did so but, according to his partner, did not think he had done anything wrong.
But, my question to HT remains. Why do Democrats re-elect sex offenders while Republicans kick them out?
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 2:35 pm - December 5, 2007
Now Ian’s accusing me of being closeted?
ILC and GPW, I can hear you laughing clear over here.
Meanwhile, Ian, as my own blog can tell you, I do not have a problem with Folsom per se.
What I DO have a problem with is gay liberals like yourself who cannot control your sexual behaviors, who insist on having disease-spreading sex, and who bring your children to watch.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 5, 2007 @ 3:14 pm - December 5, 2007
You got it
How very little he knows!!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 5, 2007 @ 3:23 pm - December 5, 2007
Ian’s blowing smoke because he knows what the answer to my question is, and he thinks hysterical arm-waving will distract people from the fact that the sexual abuse of minors is a bigger deal to Republicans than it is to Democrats.
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 3:29 pm - December 5, 2007
#50. The question more specifically would be why did the people in Studds’ district re-elect him. That was ages ago and I don’t have any idea. I probably would not have voted to re-elect him but he wasn’t running in my district so I was never asked.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 5, 2007 @ 3:55 pm - December 5, 2007
So, HT, you basically admit that your fellow Democrats have a higher tolerance for a congressman who sexually abuses a minor than Republicans have for a congressman that sexually abuses, or simply sends inappropriate text messages to a minor.
Just like Democrats have a higher tolerance for influence peddlers like William Jefferson or Alcee Hastings than Republicans do for Duke Cunningham or Bob Ney.
And when they aren’t molesting children or taking graft, how do Democrats spend their time? Eliminating funding to defend our troops against IED’s.
No wonder Ian has to wave his arms so frantically.
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 4:01 pm - December 5, 2007
Oh, and here’s something intersting: Obama calls for re-institution of slavery and child labor. This time, it’s called mandatory community service for teenagers.
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 4:06 pm - December 5, 2007
Or serve in the military.
It is my opinion that every city and town should have a good live oak tree in the middle.
And what color is the sky in your world?
That’s ’cause libs are quick to cover it up like a cat covering up a turd in a sandbox. Add the fact that the liberal drive-by media conveniently has no interest in the story and, well, there it is.
Can we change his name to “Hey Look Over There!!!”?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 5, 2007 @ 4:09 pm - December 5, 2007
Wait. Who the hell around here supported Foley? Oh, wait, I forgot, Ian’s allowed to make sh*t up whenever he needs to hide the fact that Democrats have a higher tolerance for congressman who sexually abuse minors then Republicans do.
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 4:29 pm - December 5, 2007
My stance on Foley was always identical to my ‘stance’ (ha ha) on Craig, and all the Democrats’ offenders: *First they must resign*… *then* we can talk about whether they had any redeeming qualities.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 5, 2007 @ 5:36 pm - December 5, 2007
#54:
Well, you’re the one apparently relishing the Folsom Street fair and making it all that it is. Yet you rail against its debauchery. Just as I thought.
Comment by Ian S — December 5, 2007 @ 6:45 pm - December 5, 2007
#47:
So who’s making you?
Comment by Ian S — December 5, 2007 @ 7:16 pm - December 5, 2007
#34:
Thanks and back at you! I would say this though: much as the hyenas rant and rave against us, I have noticed that the threads in which we proud progressives make our points are also the ones with the most back and forth. I suspect the site proprietors are quite happy with that. In fact, sometimes I think Bruce actually posts provocatively because he knows it will get the discourse going.
Comment by Ian S — December 5, 2007 @ 7:27 pm - December 5, 2007
Yawn…Tempest in a teapot. I hope this staffer gets whatever justice he has coming to him. But, this isn’t the same as Larry Craig, Bob Allen, the former Mayor of Spokane, etc. They were elected officials making policy for others. Even though what this gentleman is accused of is worse. He simply is a peripheral character.
It may be analagous (but closer) to the Midwestern GOP official that got busted for some sex crimes last year. It was reported so heavily that I cant remember much about it.
I’ve seen it in the news and in the Gay media. It seems to be an appropriate response by the media.
Youre comparing apples and oranges. If this gentleman was a Democratic elected official, then you would have a point.
Comment by Tom in Houston — December 5, 2007 @ 7:42 pm - December 5, 2007
Of course, as Bruce etal go on and on about McHaney, lo and behold one of their own tribal pedophiles cops a plea. Oh and it’s that liberal Orange County Register with the story. Must be part of the SCLM.
Comment by Ian S — December 5, 2007 @ 7:45 pm - December 5, 2007
And neither Ian nor Tom can address the demonstrated fact that Democrats re-elect those who sexually abuse minors, Republicans don’t.
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 8:00 pm - December 5, 2007
Regarding Mark Foley
The Democrats had evidence of the logs/phones for about a year before the scandal was made public
Therefore, what was the motivation of the Democrats?
- To protect the pages? No.. If that was the motivation, then the Dems wouldn’t have waited a year
- To damage Foley? Yes, but he was not the main target
- To damage the Republican Party before the election? Yes, that is why the story was held for a year until a month before the election
The Democrats used a gay sex borderline minor scandal in order to alienate voters from Republicans.
That’s not attacking gay people? Nothing is if that isn’t.
The GOP leadership only knew limited information… the Democrats charged that the GOP should have investigated Foley thoroughly and publically. The Democrats alledged that the GOP lack of investigation was because the GOP was corrupt and covering up.
So the Democrats are telling us that because the GOP knew Foley was gay, and that a complaint was received that there were phone calls, that the GOP should have basically performed electronic surveillence on all Foley’s conversations with men.. because foley is gay and talking/writing to men is too much temptation.
That is why the Democrats used Foley in a nasty anti-gay attack.
The Democrats calculated they would destroy a gay Congressman in order to get a majority.
Comment by Vince P — December 5, 2007 @ 8:18 pm - December 5, 2007
#67: And of course, Ian in a desperate attempt to spin away from Cantwell’s employment of a pedophile……tries to claim that employment of a pedophile means you support all pedophiles when it refers to Republicans.
If Ian applied his rules fairly, he would have to admit that, since Cantwell employed a pedophile and she’s a Democrat, all Democrats support pedophiles. But by demonstrating clearly that he doesn’t, he makes his own hypocrisy blatantly obvious.
And then:
Well, you’re the one apparently relishing the Folsom Street fair and making it all that it is. Yet you rail against its debauchery.
So your argument, Ian, is that if you go to Folsom or support it in any way, you support uncontrollable sex, disease-spreading sex, and bringing children to watch.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 5, 2007 @ 8:46 pm - December 5, 2007
No, I think we can call Ian Pinky.
Just finsihed watching the Pinky and the Brain Christmas special. At one point Pinky yells “Look! A Decoy! Narf!” Kind of like our own Ian.
I think we can sum up the conversation with a libral like this:
Me: I think that’s horrible, and condem it, let him get prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law.
Liberal: But the other side does it too!
Me: Yes, and we do police and condemn our own. Can you condem this?
Liberal: But the other side does it too!
Like a broken record.
Comment by The Livewire — December 5, 2007 @ 9:09 pm - December 5, 2007
#70: Cantwell fired the perv’s ass immediately upon learning about what he apparently did while Rudy hired the perv’s ass long after learning about what he apparently did. Big difference. As for:
at least you shouldn’t be railing against its debauchery and blaming liberals like me for it. Most of us have no desire to watch a bunch of out-of-shape middle-aged Folsom Fairies prancing around in ass-less chaps. Not to imply of course that you would own a pair of ass-less chaps.
Comment by Ian S — December 5, 2007 @ 9:16 pm - December 5, 2007
If Ian applied his rules fairly…
I think Ian knows that he’s spewing BS, but I also don’t think he gives a damn about honesty… intellectual or otherwise.
Comment by V the K — December 5, 2007 @ 9:24 pm - December 5, 2007
Msgr. Alan Placa was never charged, which I pointed out earlier. Ian has now reduced him from being a pedophile to an “apparently did.”
However, Placa is still equivalent to McHaney who was caught in a sting.
Never say die. When you have your story, stick to it and don’t let the truth deter you.
Comment by heliotrope — December 5, 2007 @ 10:35 pm - December 5, 2007
#74:
Let’s see, the reason Placa was not charged was because the statute of limitations had run out. Nonetheless, he was suspended from his priestly duties. McHaney was caught in a sting where he was never actually going to allowed to have sex with the “youth.” He will get his day in court and if he is guilty, then I hope he gets the maximum penalty. And if he were to get off on some kind of technicality, I certainly wouldn’t support a Dem Presidential candidate welcoming into his business ventures with open arms like you apparently do Rudy.
Comment by Ian S — December 5, 2007 @ 11:36 pm - December 5, 2007
This post is way over the top. As we saw again today with the tragic events in Omaha, so many choose to break the law and harm others in the process. While in the instance involving McHaney no actual child was harmed, the intent seems clear. However, HRC is no more tainted by McHaney’s work for them, than McDonalds is by the Omaha shooter having worked in one of their restaurants.
One’s own private criminal actions don’t translate to one’s employer.
Comment by Chase — December 6, 2007 @ 12:30 am - December 6, 2007
And if he were to get off on some kind of technicality, I certainly wouldn’t support a Dem Presidential candidate welcoming into his business ventures with open arms like you apparently do Rudy.
Do the words “Sandy Berger” mean anything to you, oh clueless one?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 1:47 am - December 6, 2007
But Ian did support, for Governor of Ohio, a Democrat who kept a convicted sex offender (of minors) on his staff, promoted him, and vacationed in Italy with him. And, apparently, so did plenty of Ohio Democrats.
This is how we know Ian is full of crap when he claims otherwise.
Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 5:26 am - December 6, 2007
Ian, re: your #63, yes I read his #54 and thought “this is like the 50th time I’ve read this supposed gay boy bashing gay boys. Who among us once dumped him and left him so bitter?”
And, in #65, you hit the nail on the head. Often, our special “blogress” here posts what seems designed more for incendiary value (and the resulting hits and returns and revenue) than for discourse. Anyway, let’s hope this is the case for otherwise, we’re only responding to the call of the loon.
And, Chase, your #76 is an apt and brilliant analogy which should put a lid on the issue here. But, of course, it won’t — because let’s face it, they don’t have much else to rage about these days.
Tom — welcome back. I really enjoy your comments.
To each of the above: did you get a load of that former Bush advisor quoted yesterday saying that they learned early on to feed talking points to blogRight and that it was like pumping propaganda directly into the veins of the devoted? Interesting admission of what we’ve all seen over and over again. Though, thinking of that and this blog, I do wonder why our hosts here have missed the latest talking points on the big NIE reversal on Iran. I expected a post header saying “This New NIE Is Wrong And Somebody Must Pay!”
Comment by KYKid — December 6, 2007 @ 7:38 am - December 6, 2007
I had no idea the support for Foley ran as deep among gay conservatives as it seems to have in the comments above.
Comment by KYKid — December 6, 2007 @ 7:51 am - December 6, 2007
Oh….my….goodness! Ian and Chase are actually resorting to the “no child was harmed” defense of a pervert caught in a sting.
Will they step forward and challenge the whole law enforcement effort to catch internet predators?
Shall we ask the police to stand by until the rape has been completed before stepping in?
Talk about being breathtakingly underwhelmed, Ian and Chase have done it for me this time.
Msgr. Alan Placa was not charged with a crime. He is wearing the taint of a grand jury investigation and the accumulated negative comments made about him. Ian is welcome to call him a pedophile. That says a lot about Ian who seems to require completion and proof in the McHaney case.
It also says a lot about Guiliani. Rudy and Placa are childhood friends. Rudy has stood by his friend. Had Placa been convicted, I suspect Rudy would still be a good friend.
Ian has trouble with Rudy hiring Placa in his business ventures and for traveling with him and including him in his close circle of friends. Why? What specifically is the problem with not dumping a life long friend when the friend is charged with unproven allegations? In fact, what would be wrong with Rudy visiting a friend in jail and being supportive of the friend through thick and thin?
Some people can not understand the difference between Christian love and carnal love. Some people can not understand that you can love the sinner and hate the sin. Some people show just how shallow their own integrity is.
Comment by heliotrope — December 6, 2007 @ 9:07 am - December 6, 2007
Yeah, the “no child was harmed” defense. The Democrats have come a long way since Janet Reno decided it was better to burn children alive than risk having them sexually abused.
Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 9:14 am - December 6, 2007
#79:
Where did you get that absurd idea? I’m glad his ass was fired the moment Cantwell found out about the charges. I wouldn’t wait until he was convicted. Now, there’s plenty of evidence against Placa but he gets off on a technicality i.e. the statute of limitations. The Catholic Church certainly doesn’t believe he’s innocent else he’d still be performing his priestly duties. But his benefactor is a tribe member so Placa gets a pass around here. Wow!
Comment by Ian S — December 6, 2007 @ 9:44 am - December 6, 2007
#80:
McHaney is not charged with actually abusing a child but he is appropriately charged with a crime and was fired appropriately. But Placa wasn’t just talk, he did the deed and yet you guys still defend him and his benefactor, Rudy. Wow, just wow!
Comment by Ian S — December 6, 2007 @ 9:50 am - December 6, 2007
Technically, I haven’t defended Rudy on this. But the frantic arm-waving remains entertaining. “Don’t look at the pervert who worked for many Democrats for years! Don’t look at the pervert who Ted Strickland promoted and vacationed with! Don’t look at the fact that all the Congressmen who voted “present” on a Resolution to condemn adult-child sex (HR 107) were Democrats. Don’t look at how many times Democrats sent Gerry Studds back to congress. Don’t look at Bill Clinton’s pardoning of Mel Reynolds for statutory rape. Just look at the alleged pervert Rudy hired.”
Democrats have demonstrated a much higher tolerance for sexual abuse of minors than Republicans.
Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 10:21 am - December 6, 2007
Ian, here are your words in #75:
In response #82 you clarify:
What is your point in #75?
I am the one challenging you on Placa; no one else as you state in “you guys still defend him.”
Surprise! I have not defended Placa in anything I wrote. It is all there for you and everyone else to read. Please do so.
It is you that called Placa a pedophile. It is you that linked to a flaming website. I followed your research lead and posted your chosen site again.
The recent Newsweek cover story on Rudy gives the whole Placa issue less than half of a small paragraph. If you and your ilk can stir this up to a major issue, Rudy will have to deal with it. I suspect he is more than able to do so.
Ian, when you stick your shotgun through the door and fire poison pills all over the place, you should expect that someone will pick at least one of them up and shove it up your nose. But just remember, it was your poison pill to begin with.
Perhaps Placa is in fact a pedophile. Perhaps where there is smoke there is fire. Perhaps Rudy is a pedophile. Perhaps Rudy and Placa have great pedophile get togethers. Perhaps the perhaps of the perhaps has lead to even further perhaps.
Meanwhile, McHaney was caught in a clear cut sting. Yet, you still find equivalence between McHaney and Placa. Golly, gee, you hold a confusing standard.
As for defending Rudy, I find his enduring friendship with Placa to be admirable. It certainly is not very calculating in crass political terms.
If I were to start in on the candidates on both sides for their frailties, I could scribble out a long list. Maintaining a friendship is hardly the same as enabling a predator. Even if Placa had been a convicted pedophile who served his time, why would hiring him be anything other than an act of faith?
Ian, your point is that Placa beat a rap on the basis of a technicality. You find Placa guilty. You find Rudy guilty of hiring a pedophile. As a “progressive” do you mean to imply that once a person is a convicted pedophile, he may never work or be trusted again? Not even you brother? Not even your Christian brother? Not even your friend?
What, pray tell, is your “progressive” standard?
Comment by heliotrope — December 6, 2007 @ 11:00 am - December 6, 2007
45 REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILES
http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/24160.php
Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 11:39 am - December 6, 2007
Speaking of BREAKING NEWS…Oy, they keep popping out from all over the place…
Comment by KYKid — December 6, 2007 @ 12:32 pm - December 6, 2007
And the link…
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-molest6dec06,1,5523433.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=3&cset=true
[My question is the story of the Democratic aide getting as much press as this? Both perpetrators are equally vile. -- Dan]
Comment by KYKid — December 6, 2007 @ 12:33 pm - December 6, 2007
Excuse me! John Santos #87: Did someone say there are no registered Republican pedophiles? Did someone say all pedophiles are Democrats?
I went to your list. I guess that is why you posted it. Seems like a pretty lame lot to me. Would you like me to disown them? After all, Republicans are supposed to be intolerant. Shall I tell them to join the Democrats where they will be welcomed with opened arms?
What is your point?
Comment by heliotrope — December 6, 2007 @ 12:35 pm - December 6, 2007
Ian, re: your #63, yes I read his #54 and thought “this is like the 50th time I’ve read this supposed gay boy bashing gay boys. Who among us once dumped him and left him so bitter?”
LOL…..I criticize gays who can’t control their sexual behaviors, who have unprotected disease-spreading sex, and who dress their children in fetish gear and bring them to sex fairs to “show off”, and that makes me “bitter”?
And people wonder why the AIDS epidemic rages on. It’s the fact that people like KY and Ian are incapable of criticizing the behavior of other gays and claim that anyone else who does is wrong.
That’s what leads to the exploitation of minors that liberal gays support:
The numbers suggesting steady condom use among gay youth don’t harmonize with 23-year-old Kelvin Barlow’s experiences in Atlanta. “A lot of my partners are not thinking about condoms,” said Barlow, who was diagnosed with HIV at age 17. “I think I’m usually the first one to bring [condom use] up [in sexual situations]. Sometimes my partners know my status and sometimes they don’t — they just want to jump in the bed.”
Barlow believes a combination of ignorance and emptiness led to his seroconversion. “At that time I was the dumbest thing walking — I thought I was invincible and could do whatever and not get ill,” said Barlow, who was 15 and dating a 35-year-old man. “I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms?”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 12:56 pm - December 6, 2007
That’s really sick, NDT.
As sick as Planned Parenthood (another organization beloved of Democrats) covering up for adult men who rape young girls.
Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 2:30 pm - December 6, 2007
Umm… Because any 35 year old who dates a 15 year old is a scumbag like McHaney, and likely to have something wrong with him? Tragic. I hope Barlow has sued the guy, or something.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 2:33 pm - December 6, 2007
The 35 year old guy should be in jail. Of course, if he’s a Democrat congressman from Massachusetts, he’s probably just secured a lifetime of re-election.
Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 2:37 pm - December 6, 2007
82: Actually, it was the parents of the children who decided to burn them alive by stockpiling all that ammo & fuel, thereby actively creating the “last stand” situation there.
68: Really? Do you hame some kind of report showing that everyone re-elected to office and convicted of some kind of sexually related crime was always a democrat? I notice you love to throw around some real general statements without much backup to them.
Clearly with Senator Craig’s stupid path of trying to reverse his guilty plea and reverse his promise to resign, then all of this “republicans never do that” theory is blown out of the water.
Just goes to show what I wrote earlier; sexuals predators don’t seem to be limited to choice of political views.
Oh…and let’s not ignore the story came out today that Huckabee pushed for the released of a convicted sex offender who committed murder after he was released. Looks like we’ve got this election’s Willie Horton all sewn up. Not really German to this topic per se, but so much for Republican stand on tough stands on crime.
Comment by Kevin — December 6, 2007 @ 6:02 pm - December 6, 2007
More frantic arm waving does not alter the fact that Democrats have demonstrated a much higher tolerance for sexual abuse of minors than Republicans.
Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 6:34 pm - December 6, 2007
Just answer the question, lefties, why did Democrats repeatedly re-elect Gerry Studds to office after he was caught sexually abusing a minor?
Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 6:36 pm - December 6, 2007
45 REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILES
http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/24160.php
Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 7:10 pm - December 6, 2007
Let’s look at this list.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was
charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom
Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor
working as a congressional page.
In other words, Democrats define “pedophile” as “anyone who has sex with anyone under the age of 18, even if it’s over the age of consent”.
Unless, of course, it’s one of their own like Gerry Studds.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 7:43 pm - December 6, 2007
#97:
Well, the guy was over the age of consent so your depiction is bullsh!t. I still think it was ethically wrong of Studds to do what he did but your attempt to equate it with what either Rudy’s man pal or McHaney did is simply pathetic.
Comment by Ian S — December 6, 2007 @ 8:15 pm - December 6, 2007
I call bullsh*t. Ian excoriated Mark Foley, even though nothing he did was illegal either. So, weaseling out by saying Gerry Studds did nothing illegal ain’t gonna fly.
The reason Gerry Studds got re-elected was because Democrats care less about the sexual abuse of minors than Republicans do.
Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 10:11 pm - December 6, 2007
Ian, you are unteachable. Rudy’s “man pal” is guilty in your eyes only. You have no “progressive” credentials. You are a smug, self-centering adonis with an expanded fascination with your own aura. I sincerely hope your recalcitrance is not due to an inability to comprehend the progression of simple logic.
Comment by heliotrope — December 6, 2007 @ 10:29 pm - December 6, 2007
Sorry to interrupt, kids, but since when did we give up the notion of “innocent until proven guilty”? Or, did we sacrifice that along with all our other civil liberties in the name of political expediency?
A forced leave of absence until conviction might be appropriate, depending on the circumstances; firing someone accused of a crime, no matter how serious or politically charged, is un-American, and a sad commentary on the state of our society’s understanding of basic human rights guaranteed under our Constitution.
Guess we should all just move to France and get it over with.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled bickering.
Comment by cowb0y — December 6, 2007 @ 10:30 pm - December 6, 2007
Left-wing San Fransicko talk-show host indicted for Kiddie pr0n. Gavin Newsom and Nancy Pelosi gotta be very nervous. This guy could easily take either of their jobs.
Comment by V the K — December 7, 2007 @ 7:54 am - December 7, 2007
You guys really need to read full sentences. I wrote that whether or not a child was harmed, the intent rises the offense to the same level as the Omaha shooting, even if the “victim” was a cooperating witness. It makes no difference who was on the other end of the computer and that’s what I wrote originally.
Do you ever think that your rigidity to your own political assumptions impairs your reading comprehension? It seems to.
Comment by Chase — December 7, 2007 @ 10:20 am - December 7, 2007
cowboy,
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept. We can hold whatever opinions we want.
Like my lock them up for life feelings…
Comment by The Livewire — December 7, 2007 @ 7:50 pm - December 7, 2007
Uh…anyone here remember Ruby Ridge? All the government has to do nowadays is accuse someone of something, and their life is over. You don’t think that’s a little…uh…fascist/communist/totalitarian/French? (Lol, sorry, I love silly French people.
).
There is a reason why the Founders insisted on the “guilty until proven innocent” thing, which was (pardon the phrase) revolutionary at the time. It was intended to protect the citizens against abuse at the hands of the government, who (in case you aren’t familiar) control every aspect of the criminal justice system.
To feel revulsion and anger toward a crime and the temptation to feel that way against someone accused of that crime are understandable. To say that we should dispose of the underpinnings of our civil liberties as a result is just foolish and not only un- but anti-American. Especially when one realizes how politicized any action undertaken by the government can be, and the possible consequences of letting them get away with it (Waco).
Just a thought.
Comment by cowb0y — December 7, 2007 @ 9:56 pm - December 7, 2007
I think it’s amusing that 107 felt the need to type what he did.. as if 106 didn’t know it already.
Comment by Vince P — December 7, 2007 @ 10:09 pm - December 7, 2007
What a lot of comments! But, I waited, and waited, and waited and guess what? I have not seen one report of this in the Dinosaur, Drive-By Mainstream Media. Why? Do you think that it is just possible that there is a little problem when an openly gay man tries to solicit sex from a 13 year-old boy? And for a three-way? If the DDBMSM actually does cover this, then they will have to admit that some, and I can not stress enough, some gay men are perverts and like to have sex with young boys. The younger, the better. BUT, it is not any different than a straight who preys on children. A pervert is a pervert, no matter what the sexual orientation is. And ANYONE who tries to have sex with children is a pervert. It is a diservice to all people when the left-wing gay activist groups try to desperately sweep this under the rug. I will thank this post as I have commented on this on my blog with a big HT to gaypatriot.net.
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — December 7, 2007 @ 11:13 pm - December 7, 2007
I wasn’t writing for the benefit of Livewire. For every one person who knows a thing, there are a thousand who don’t.
Comment by cowb0y — December 7, 2007 @ 11:26 pm - December 7, 2007
Seeing how he distingiushed between a legal finding of guilt, and one’s person opinion, i thnk he knew.
But it’s cool… i’m not trying to discourage you from writing…
Comment by Vince P — December 7, 2007 @ 11:39 pm - December 7, 2007
Vince, now if only we could encourage coherency…
Oh, and if anyone tries to make the arguement; I’m a guy sitting on a couch, doing laundy.
Rep Murtha was making accusations on the house floor, speaking in his capacity as a member of the US House. Big difference.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 8, 2007 @ 9:11 am - December 8, 2007