Question for all those lurking freepers

[Horse with no Name]

It comes down to one thing--really.
Would you rather your spouse had oral sex with a consenting adult or would you rather your child be sexually stalked and taken advantage of by an authority figure?
Depending on which answer you choose--you might be a hypocrite.
You were willing to let this country be drug through the tabloid when two consenting adults had sexual relations--but are willing to look the other way when someone in your party diddles with little boys.
You totally disgust me.

[BOSSHOG]

1. "Conservatives" don't care if republican congressmen

have sex with boys, cows, dogs, cadavers, doorknobs. Their only real concern is that those who vote for their agenda of destroying the constitution get caught. Then they get all christian and forgiving. They are totally disgusting.

[jean]

2. and how do you feel about your party covering up the recruitment of

young boys into the homosexual lifestyle?


:sarcasm: (but a deep-seated fear of far right homophobes)

[raccoon]

3. They'd rather be "right."

They NEVER want to admit they were wrong, or, by projection, that their politicians did anything wrong.

They can't admit it. Bring up Foley and they'll bring up Clinton.
As you said, the two are not comparable.

In 12-step meetings, I've heard the question, "Would you rather be right or be happy?"

The freepers would rather be "right."

[kiki]

4. Devil's Advocate here, but they weren't "little boys".

They were at least 16, which is the legal age of consent.

So I'd rephrase the question to say: "So, you 'values voters' are cool with a 52-year-old authority figure chasing after a 16-year-old, just because it's legal?"

Which obviously dovetails into: "So, the fact that something is legal trumps your own moral objections, right? Does that apply to, hmm, I dunno, starting wars? Lying to congress and the American people? Spying on US citizens? Say, was that a bit of freeper skull fragment that just hit my shirt?"

(Of course, the final sentiment of the OP - "You totally disgust me" - remains valid...)

[Horse with no Name]

5. Ask a parent who has a 16-year old son

if they are still their little boy.
I'd venture to say that is how they still look at it--especially when someone is trying to harm them.

[Midlodemocrat]

12. Absolutely. Mine is 14, but I have a 16 yo daughter

and what that sick Foley did would cause me to after him like no other.

[Coexist]

14. Me too, and if I found out some 54 year old pig had been IMing them

in MY HOUSE WHILE I WAS IN THE ROOM, I'd mess them up.

I want my children to have healthy emotional and physical relationships with their peers. I do NOT want my teenagers teased and coerced in sexual discussions with a man MUCH older than their father, while relaxing after practice.

May-December relationships are fine once you are an adult. WAAAAY icky before that.

[Justice Is Comin]

11. It may or may not have been "legal." It depends what state each were in

at the time of the communication.

[Midlodemocrat]

13. Frankly, the 'legality' of the issue is secondary to me.

What I see is a predator taking advantage of young boys. Much the same as it would be sexual harrassment in the workplace.

It's the predatory aspect that I find beyond disgusting. For a 'respected Congressman' to speak that way to a child is disgraceful. He should be tarred and feathered.

[DocSavage]

6. I double

dog dare a repug to respond. Never mind that, I triple dog dare em. Easy for me to say, got an alert button.

Help, administrator, there are repugs on this board.

Post on a board where people can respond, lots more fun.

[zbdent]

7. I always wonder

who taught them how to push the right keys ...

[Wise Child]

8. I read on another freeper - type board,

The one that begins with C and considers themselves "underground". The one that has nothing better to do than constantly post threads about threads over here. I think the thread starter's sarcastic response was "I'm so NOT voting for Mark Foley in my congressional district in Michigan." Anyway, at that poseur board, it seems that they believe Foley was set-up, the scandal is all political, in their minds, and they have drank the kool-aid saying they have no other alternative. (They will never vote Democrat or stay home.) Actually, I've heard this throughout the year. Certain people claiming they have no one else to vote for.(Democrats are not an option.) It kind of scares me. Hopefully, this is coming from the hardcore twenty-nine percenters.

They do feel pretty confident that the Republicans will keep both houses. They must be in denial.

Someone also mentioned that staying home (and voting for Perot)in '92 was a mistake that they will never repeat, because it got that vile moderate Bill Clinton into office.

I'm thinking they are just a piece of the puzzle, and the "swing vote", the average American voter, the "Soccer Mom" will be the key to Democratic victory in November.

I hope the Free Republic crowd is still nervous over this scandal. Or did they gain some denial masked as confidence as well?

Hey, all of you at the above mentioned poseur boards, thanks for banning me, I don't think I've had a better time swinging at strawmen.

[joe_sixpack]

9. Are there actually

Republicans defending what happened?

[bryant69]

10. I think most republicns would respond this way

"We got rid of Foley. He resigned. When this scandal was brought to light we dealt with it. Should we have dealt with it earlier? If we had known about it we would have I'm sure. Where are those media figures and Democratic operatives who knew about this but didn't say anything until the timing was right for their electoral chances?"

Of course, the weak point to this come back is that a) house leadership should have known earlier, and by most accounts did no earlier). b) The last part is paranoid rambling - this story was discovered by a reporter who then reported it - pretending that we knew all about it but kept our mouths shut is disingenuous at best.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com