Spin Doctors, you may step up to the plate now.

Disgusting. The fact that this perv is still walking around a free man blows my mind.

You mean Drudge?

Matt Drudge sounds like he is jelious.

Matt Drudge sounds like he is jelious.

He undoubtedly is if he's anything of the gay blade they say he is.

Definitly jealous.
I doubt Matty has had a sixteen year old boy since he was sixteen.

"And if anything, these kids are less innocent -- these 16 and 17 year-old beasts ... and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet -- oh yeah"

Oh Yeah? WTF?!

It's official, Matt Drudge has gone mad!

Mad! eye tells ya!

Those pages were asking fer it?

Did ya see the way they were dressed?

Spud has coupla questions fer Matt...

Question #1.

Exactly how much time did you spend "researching" wot those crazy kids were doing "all over" the stupid sexy internets?

Question #2.

Wot were you wearing?

Be Well.

PS: Was it one handed research or are you a two fister?

PPS: Spud'll stop when Matt grows a soul

PPPS: Good eye Leftnut!

Matt Drudge Is So Full Of Shit !!!

These NEOCON Homosexual Homophobics Are Totally Insane !!

-Sarge

Next- matt drudge blames his boyfriends brown eye for making him gay.

Matt Drudge must be vying for a job as a Vatican apologist.

Damn alter boys led those priests on!

Matt Drudge is gay. Maybe he has had his own little e-mails going with some 16 year old boys to be so defensive about it to insinuate it's not 52 year old Foley's fault but that he was egged on by a group of teenage pages. Give me a break.

I still find myself shaking my head over these quotes. They could not possibly be coming out of the mouth of a sane person.

Did Matt Drudge really say this? Has it been reported elsewhere and corroborated?

Matt Drudge is a sleazebag, but what does his sexual orientation have to do with anything? This thread is full of gay bashing from the Left, and is no different than the gay bashing practiced by the Right.

It doesn't matter if the pages egged him on or not. What does matter is Foley is old enough to know better. Who cares if the kid is gay or not. He's a kid. Foley has a ton more life experience. He is a creep and should be out of politics.

Do any right wing people agree with Drudge?

hmmmm?

(crickets)

How about... Do any right wing people disagree with Drudge?

hmmm?

Bill,It's about molesting young kids. Not about gay bashing.

My Issue With Matt Drudge Is Don't Be An Homosexual Then Go Around Bashing Homosexuals, Then Blame A Group Of Kids For The Actions Of An Adult.

It So Hypocritical And Blaming The Victim Which The NEOCONS Love To Do !!

-Sarge

"Bill,It's about molesting young kids. Not about gay bashing."

No, it's about gay bashing. Drudge's sexual orientation is irrelevant. His "reporting" is true or false, sleazy or not, regardless. Liberals who keep making the claim that he is gay are hypocrites.

"Drudge's sexual orientation is irrelevant. His "reporting" is true or false, sleazy or not, regardless." BO

Ok! Now that you have put everyone in their place and Drudge's sexual orientation is not the issue, can address what Mr. Drudge said?

Remember, you can't fall back on blaming others for talking about Drudge's sexuality. I give you that. You won as far as I'm concerned!

Just answer:

Do you agree with Matt Drudge?
Do you disagree with Matt Drudge?

I don't agree with Drudge. I said in an earlier post that he was a sleazebag.

I don't care if Drudge is an Homosexual or not, he is Homophobic and a Piece Of Crap, for trying to blame these kids.

What is Up With calling Them "Beast"?

-Sarge

billo, thanks for answering.

I should answer your question.

"what does his sexual orientation have to do with anything?"

I suppose it might have something to do with the conservative view of disenfranchising some group of people while at the same time being the very people they wish would be disenfranchised. I think it's call hypocrisy. That's why it might matter. Otherwise, not much.

AP News report:

October 03, 2006

"Former congressman held male pages in high regard"

Former congressman Mark Foley of Florida told House pages in warm farewell speeches over the years that he took ''a special interest in each and every one'' of them, identifying many of the youngsters by name and thanking them for their service.

Foley, who resigned Friday after being questioned about sexually explicit e-mails to male ex-pages, gave the speeches during traditional June ceremonies honoring pages in 2001, 2002, and 2004, according to the Congressional Record.

The comments show a friendly familiarity with some of the teenagers, who wear navy blue uniforms, open doors, and hand-deliver messages for the lawmakers. In a June 6, 2002, send-off, Foley warned ''all of you not to cry in front of me, please, so I can get through this very important day with you without shedding tears as well.''

''Of course we have got several Jasons, a few Laurens. Adam, thank you for the graduation announcement,'' Foley said in the 2002 speech. ''I sent you a handwritten note, and I was actually going to put some money in it as a graduation present.

''Then I realized he would tell all of you, and then I would get hundreds of graduation announcements. So I chose not to. I hope the handwritten note will suffice for your scrapbook,'' he said.

He described taking one of the young men who was the highest bidder in ''lunch with Mark Foley'' to Morton's Steakhouse in his BMW and thanked the pages for their tenacity and leadership during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. ''I am afraid if I was your age I may have run home. That speaks volumes about the people you are,'' Foley said.

In a June 7, 2001, speech, Republican representative John Shimkus of Illinois, the head of the page board, referred to Foley as someone ''who I know has a vested interest in taking time out to make sure he talks with you and visits with you and he gets to know you.... That is a personal trait that you should emulate. He has been successful, and I know it is from his heart.''

''I do take a special interest in each and every one of you,'' Foley said after taking the podium. ''You never know when you may run for president in the United States, so I may need some help in a lot of different districts,'' Foley said, adding that he was ''just kidding.''

He [Foley] told the teens that ''you have had to take some kidding, some grilling, some jokes, and I will not get into it. You all know who have been the subject of my inquiry.... I did not know they made boots that size. How much hair gel have you used today, Robert? Ryan was the other one. I did not recognize that color hair when you left here on Friday. I will leave that name off. I did not know you wore an earring. Does your dad know, or mom? No, not really.''

In a June 3, 2004, speech, Foley told the graduates he hoped some would become ''teachers, police officers, firefighters, members of the military, nurses, veterans, whatever your chosen profession.... A few may go on to be congressmen, congresswomen, governors, senators. In fact, in this very room may be the future president of the United States.'' (AP)

What BS Foley should have kept his emails professional. He knew what he was doing was wrong.

Matt Drudge is a sleazebag, but what does his sexual orientation have to do with anything? This thread is full of gay bashing from the Left, and is no different than the gay bashing practiced by the Right.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2006-10-03 12:20 AM | Reply | Flag

It's the hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Where's the hypocrisy? I thought the issue was pedophilia, not homosexual pedophilia. Some people really seem to be focused on that, and that's gay bashing.

I was talking about how matt drudge has no credibility...pretty much on any issue.

As far as the pedophilia goes...what is the legal age in in Foley's state?(and no, I am not defending his actions)

Just theoretically, because it is in no way true, it would be hypocrisy if Matt Drudge was a boy buggerer.

But he is not. I swear. He is not. Not now. Not ever. Nope. Honestly.

Why don't Gary Studds, Barney Franks, Jim McGreevy, and Hillary Clinton lead the morals court against this sick pervert. They are such class acts after all.

When did McGreevy resign, what fuckin hate filled universe do you live in Alex. Fuck off two faced hypocrate

If you forget Mcgreevy WROTE A BOOK ON HIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT exploits. You all celebrate his gay outing heh?

Why don't Gary Studds, Barney Franks, Jim McGreevy, and Hillary Clinton...

Studds...33 years ago...attitudes and laws are much different now. Hell, professors ere allowed to bang their students then.

Franks...all adults

McGreevy...I don't see anyone but Oprah supporting him...and it was all adults

Hillary...???

Davethewave:

You can not equate a homosexual relationship between two adults, with the Foley issue.

This has nothing to do with being gay and has everything to do with being a child preditor.

I also wet myself yesterday when I heard Foley's lawyer tell the world that Foley was not a pedophile.

Bullshit!

Once Foley get's out of his "rehab" vacation stay, he'll STILL be a pedophile!!

Foley is a pedophile, Dave.

Apparently that doesn't bother you because you're defending him.

No surprise there.

Hey, dave happened to like those IM conversations. Especially when his mother wasn't home.

Tell me about how McGrrevey is so much better than Foley alex.

Posted by DavetheWave at 2006-10-03 07:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Was the male employee of adult age?
If not, he's the same as foley.
If so, he's just an ass for the adultery, but not a pedo.

I don't give a fuck what party he belongs to.

I've been visiting Bushite blogs.

They're debating why ABC News is more of a threat than Foley, and speculating on how to "scare" voters back into the Republican camp.

Zed, I thought ABC did its job trying to "scare" voters back to the Republican camp with its recent mockumentary on "The Road to 9/11," which I viewed, and which troubled me deeply. It's a slick, very well-made movie that, oh, merely rewrites history. Isn't that called "revisionist history," one of the deadly sins decried by Republicans, along with "activist judges" (gag, cough)?

It just scares me when a scandal erupts and forces Rove to increase the severity of whatever kind of "terrorist attack" to use to reinvigorate the neofascist campaign. If there is any kind of episode I think that the public will perhaps, this time, see through the lies of the Bush administration. Or, just as likely, they will just be the sheep they have been for five years.

I think even Matt Drudge is going to lose credibility this time.

His personal judgement has slipped and I think he'll suffer the consequences.

He forgets there are a LOT of parents in this country (both left and right) who would be very upset if a 52 year old man was contacting one of their sons in such a manner.

Matt honey, I would suggest you print a retraction.

WOW! Republican party, party of child molesting perverts and their simpathizers. Who woulda thunk. Bunch a perverts.

DOGMAN

As far as the pedophilia goes...what is the legal age in in Foley's state?(and no, I am not defending his actions)

Posted by Alexandrite

what truly constitutes pedophilia in the way it actually disgusts us? We can call a 24 year old track coach who slept with a 16 year old student a pedophile but that is not the same thing as a guy who molests a 10 year old. I don't think those 2 guys suffer from the same problem.

Where do we draw that line?

Danni, I am resigned to the notion that Bush will attack Iran's nuclear assets before the end of the month. I only fear some kind of concomitant 9/11-like event here--and I do believe, and the evidence seems to keep mounting, that at the very least the administration knew 9/11 was coming and let it happen so as to launch the neocons' wet dream that has played out since. If we're attacked again, we'll all observe as the conspiracy theorists swarm the Internet and the spin brigades try to shoot them down, as usual.

I am wondering what Matt Drudge's opinion of Monica Lewinski who totally admitted (bragged) that she intended to seduce Clinton from her first day at the White House. I don't seem to remember him calling her a beast or absolving Clinton of guilt EVEN THOUGH she was not under age as were the kids that Foley was emailing. Kids in high school constantly try to embarrass or make life difficult for teachers yet the teachers are still not permitted to have sexually provocative conversations with them. I guess there are two standards of behavior according to Drudge, one for Republican politicians and another for everyone else. P.S. I have always thought he was an asshole, now he proves it.

Hey Danni, we have to give Matt Drudge credit for most of us finding this site while thinking we had Matt's URL entered in our browser header.

Other than that, though, I find him pretty useless except for the occasional cheapo entertainment, as we find in these page attacks.

"I am resigned Bush will attack Iran's nuclear assests before the end of the month...."

I rate the chances as 60-40 in favor.

Recently, however, I've begun thinking such a step will just serve hurt Bush, revealing the man for what he is, to those few that remain doubtful.

Under what authority can he attack Iran???? I'm not saying it will stop him but how is it legal and if it isn't why should our military carry out the order??? Why shouldn't they just arrest his ass like I think they want to do??

Plus, in light of Kim Jung Il planning to actually explode a nuke soon why is the emphasis on Iran???? I mean, other than just American politics.

Under what authority can he attack Iran???? I'm not saying it will stop him but how is it legal and if it isn't why should our military carry out the order??? Why shouldn't they just arrest his ass like I think they want to do??

Posted by danni

My thoughts exactly. However, it would be nice if the Attorney General actually thought upholding the Constitution was in this nation's best interests instead of giving legal cover to torture. If anything is to be learned from the Bush fiasco, its this: Never, ever let a President confirm people for his Cabinet that don't first swear complete, unwavering allegiance to the Constitution, not to the man in the Oval Office giving them employment.

Danni, you touch the heart of this. I, too, think much of the military may want to arrest Bush. But I'm quite sure they are, to put it mildly, quite apprehensive about this. Still, the possibility lurks. It's one of those checks and balances you hope never gets used, but if it has to...others will make that decision, not me. There'd be the Ruby Ridge Republicans to deal with, too.

why should our military carry out the order??? Why shouldn't they just arrest his ass like I think they want to do?

That would be so awesome.

just a question for the dems here...do any of yall remember congressman gerry studs?...he who was caught taking a 17 year old male page to morroco to have sex with him?....he was only reprimanded by the democrat controlled congress...interesting the difference in views...one caught in the act of actual sex with a 17 year old male page...and one caught text messaging a male page...

Plus, in light of Kim Jung Il planning to actually explode a nuke soon why is the emphasis on Iran???? I mean, other than just American politics

1. Iran poked its finger into the eye of America when it had its revolution and overthrew the US-backed shah after years of oppression and attacked the embnassy and took americans hostage. There are those in this country and administration who still want to nuke them for THAT.

2. The Zionist lobby wants to make the middle east safe for Israel. It is their strategic aim to attack/nuke Iran by any means possible. Check out any AIPAC conference and you will see this headlining the agenda with prominent members of the administration attending and promising a final solution to the "Iranian problem". Do not make the mistake of thinking it is just Jews here-- many new-generation zionists are Christian funda-mental-ists who currently have their little automaton in the oval office and would love to see the Rapture occur on his watch.

The idea that DPRK could take focus away from the Iranian problem scares the bejeezus out of this group of neocons-- they aren't THAT dumb after all-- they know that Korea stealing the headlines is not going to make their case for pre-emptive war against Iran any easier...

Anyway, sorry to get this thread off track-- back to the Foley-Drudge brew-ha-ha....

Cheka--no difference of views here--17-year-old, 16-year-old, in the act, explicit messaging--all the same to me. Slime. Clinton getting a BJ in the Oval, Office--disgraceful. Bush et al. lying us into a war of choice, with torture and rendition--disgraceful. Now, which of the above is an international war crime? That is, before the self-awarded amnesty attempts...

Sounds like these texts turned Drudge on too.

Checka...

The difference between Studds and Foley is this: Studds' page was a consenting participant and went on to become his partner even after the "scandal" broke. Now, this isn't an apology for Studds' conduct, but consent does matter in this regard.

Foley's entres were rejected by the ex-page who came forward. That makes Foley's efforts potentially criminal based upon his own law and by using the internet and IM to spread the messages. Unwarranted advances are quite different from mutual consent to have a relationship, although both in this context are distasteful to say the least.

What else would one expect from Packt Fudge, the fawning ass-kisser of the Right. My only surprise is that he hasn't tried ot tie it to the Clintons somehow.

But I did notice he had a misquoting, completely misleading article about Bill Clinton again yesterday. Only the rabid pack-dogs of the right would take this guy more seriously than a self-absorbed compiler of hyperlinks.

just a question for the dems here...do any of yall remember congressman gerry studs?...he who was caught taking a 17 year old male page to morroco to have sex with him?....he was only reprimanded by the democrat controlled congress...interesting the difference in views...one caught in the act of actual sex with a 17 year old male page...and one caught text messaging a male page...

Posted by cheka

Right! How could anyone miss that one. Ya know what's good for the goose....

What do you think a permissable number of predatory perverts per party should be? After all fair's fair, why should the dems get to have all the fun.

LOL!

Matt Drudge is a sleazebag, but what does his sexual orientation have to do with anything? This thread is full of gay bashing from the Left, and is no different than the gay bashing practiced by the Right.

I can't recall Matt Drudge bashing gays or making judgmental statements about them on his site or radio show.

One could make the argument that because he's reported on other people's sexual pecadilloes that makes his own sex life fair game, but I don't think it's fair to call him a gay basher.

As for whether he's gay, David Brock alleged in his book that Drudge pursued a relationship with him. I have no idea whether that's true, and I try as much as possible not to think about Drudge having sex with either gender.

just a question for the dems here...do any of yall remember congressman gerry studs?...he who was caught taking a 17 year old male page to morroco to have sex with him?....he was only reprimanded by the democrat controlled congress...interesting the difference in views...one caught in the act of actual sex with a 17 year old male page...and one caught text messaging a male page...

Studds happened before I was even born, and he's no longer in Congress, so what do you want me to do about it?
This Foley cover-up is right here, right now. That's all we have the power to deal with.
If tomorrow a Dem sexually abuses a 16 year old we'll fry him too.

But this was also a cover-up Cheka. I still haven't seen anything that the Studds thing was covered up to try to save his seat.
That is exactly what has happened here.
Foley's gone, this is now about the coverup in the GOP leadership to hold on to a House seat.

Hey all you Democrats, remember that time when that Congressman back in 1790 did.......

Remember how Ann(thrax) Coulter gushed about Matt? If (s)he likes him, that speaks volumes about his credibility.

comments blown out of proportion again by the left....

I think Drudge's point is valid. What Foley did was disgusting and unforgivable- I don't think that can be argued- there is no excuse for it. But as for the pages, if they behaved in such a way that put themselves at greater risk of advances from perverts like Foley, then they should better consider their behavior, and others should take note as well.

To draw a parallel- if I walked through a back alley in the Bronx at midnight, and got robbed- it's still the robbers fault and what the robber did was still wrong- but perhaps I could have been a bit smarter...

But as for the pages, if they behaved in such a way that put themselves at greater risk of advances from perverts like Foley, then they should better consider their behavior, and others should take note as well.

Don't let your kids work for the GOP, got it!

"To draw a parallel- if I walked through a back alley in the Bronx at midnight, and got robbed- it's still the robbers fault and what the robber did was still wrong- but perhaps I could have been a bit smarter..."
YEAH! In other words --- it's the victims fault. Nice display of faux conviction.

That's right Patriot, these kids should have known better than to be taken advantage of by a 52 year old pedophile pervert.

Spot on, good point.

Sure Norm- do your kids speak, act, and dress in a provocatively gay manner? (perhaps the apple does not fall far from the tree?) If so, perhaps you should keep them away from politicians, mosques, priests, rabbis, and environmentalist conventions- for a variety of reasons...

People like Patriot blame the rape victim for having a vagina.

What a moronic tool. Do yourself a facor and keep your kids out of Patriot's alley! Sounds like it will be your fault if he butt rapes them.

"That's right Patriot, these kids should have known better than to be taken advantage of by a 52 year old pedophile pervert." - BigJackass- nobody excused the behavior of the 52 year old pervert, but for the page to behave in a way that makes him a more likely victim of perverts is simply not smart- it doesn't make it his fault and it doesn't make the pervert any less wrong- but it's not smart.

I think you Libs understand all of this just fine (I find it hard to believe that you're that stupid)- I guess that to expect you to be open-minded and reasonable when you smell political blood is just wishfull thinking.

Many- I know it suits your agenda to oversimplify the argument- but to clarify using your ridiculous example:

If a provocatively dressed woman gets heavily drunk, flirts with a guy, follows him out to a dark parking lot alone, makes out with him, then attempts to back off and he rapes her- it's NOT her fault- it's HIS fault. However, one cannot question that she used poor judgement and allowed herself to needlessly be put in a situation where she was more at risk to be a victim of rape than she ought to have been.

" but for the page to behave in a way that makes him a more likely victim of perverts is simply not smart-"

You need to put yourself in the position of that page.

Here is a kid who may have aspirations of being in politics. Here too, is a seasoned Senator, who should have been a role model.

This kid may have felt that he had to endure this, just so he didn't anger Foley, who he may have felt could stop his dreams from becoming a reality..

I don't know, nor do you have any way of knowing what this kid was thinking.

If you've ever been in a situation like that one, or being raped/molested.... sometimes rational thinking escapes you and in the case of rape/molestation...you're simply in survival mode.

Pat,

I don't think putting your trust in an elected public official, a person who is more powerful than your parents, at that young of age is "using poor judgement" as you suggest. Had these been mature adults, individuals who should have known better and not premature teens, then your 'parallel' may be more that, parallel.

But these were vulnerable teens, subject to an authoritative figure that rivals their own parents and they were taken advantage of.

Please provide pictures that you have suggested of seeing of these kids dressed in 'provacative gay attire'. Or STFU!

Sorry man, but I kind of see the point you are trying to make, and I find that point disgusting and fear for any children in your vacinity.

Lisa- you're right, we don't know the page's frame of mind- but, if it was true that the pages were "talking about how many times they'd masturbated, how many times they'd done it with their girlfriends", etc. - then you have to wonder, assuming they were in a less-than-insane frame of mind, why they were talking this way to someone that they thought was a pervert. Once again, not their fault- perhaps they were trying to appease the guy- but there is no doubt that their behavior put them more at risk than they would have been if they said something like, for example- "with all do respect, this is making me a bit uncomfortable and I'd prefer not to discuss such things...". I'll grant you that victims are not always thinking rationally at the time- I'm looking at this more as an educational opporunity where others can be informed of appropriate responses to minimize their risk when such circumstances arise.

Many- there's a difference between "putting your trust in an elected official" and "talking about how many times they'd masturbated, how many times they'd done it with their girlfriends"- I think that's a tad inappropriate for discussions with a Congressman- in both directions. It was foolish behavior- the fact that Foley made advances towards a fool as opposed to a smart person doesn't make him any less vile or disgusting- and you can't blame the fool for being foolish- you can only point out that the behavior was risky and use it as an example of what not to do in order to help minimize future occurrences.

why they were talking this way to someone that they thought was a pervert.

I heard a former page interviewed last night who said they all thought Foley was gay, but they didn't think he was a pedophile.

'This thing should have been looked into months ago,' said Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.), who said he is 'disgusted' by his leaders' response. 'That's abnormal for a 52-year-old man having those kinds of e-mails going to a 16-year-old child.'

One thing we can count on -- and soon -- something dire will happen (with Rove's help) to wipe Foley off the front pages and the blogs. The "Party of family values" is not about to let this go on until the elections. Hope it's not nuclear.

from the article in my 2:36 a.m. post on here where Shimkus and Foley are speaking to a group of pages:

"...In a June 7, 2001, speech, Republican representative John Shimkus of Illinois, the head of the page board, referred to Foley as someone ''who I know has a vested interest in taking time out to make sure he talks with you and visits with you and he gets to know you.... That is a personal trait that you should emulate. He has been successful, and I know it is from his heart.''"

Sure Norm- do your kids speak, act, and dress in a provocatively gay manner?

Patriot,
You do realize don't you that this line of reasoning is why Muslims put their women in burkas.

It isn't about morality, it's an external control, fighting temptation by removing temptation from their sight.

This is looking a lot like what just happened at the Amish school. The guy couldn't get images of mollesting little girls out of his mind, so he killed the girls.

Sorry, but putting our kids in burkas isn't the solution to this.

Clip #1: And if anything, these kids are less innocent -- these 16 and 17 year-old beasts ... and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet -- oh yeah -- you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven't got the whole story on this.


The simple fact is that it was in him to begin with and while ideas and thought can't yet get you thrown in jail (Bush is working on that) but that's not what happened. He had an explicit conversation about wanting to blow a young boy. How can anyone defend this?

IM SO GLAD THAT THEY ARE THOUGH!!!!

Just more election ammo to point to and say see, they support kid diddlers!! Thank you Matt and FUX news!!

In 1998, Foley said of Clinton's affair with Lewinsky: "It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

Foley really knew what he was talking about, eh? There is something creepy but also sad about a 50 year old man sitting in a hotel room alone, instant messaging a 16 year old about his "one eyed snake."

but there is no doubt that their behavior put them more at risk than they would have been if they said something like, for example- "with all do respect, this is making me a bit uncomfortable and I'd prefer not to discuss such things...".

Maybe the kid wasn't able to be so direct, but did you ever think that he might have made up that excuse about being interrupted by his mother? When he came back online, he said he need to go study and quickly got offline for good.

Patriot-

"Sure Norm- do your kids speak, act, and dress in a provocatively gay manner?"


What the hell is dressing in a provocatively gay manner? Was this page in assless chaps or something? WTF?

First thing to observe with anything Drudge does is the fact that he is not only HOMOSEXUAL, he is also homophobic. I would trust Mr Drudge on the same level I would trust Bush. If I never heard about them or saw them I would be as happy as a pig in shit. Appears to me that parts of Mr Drudge have been right on , right on the way to self destruction.

Okay, have we wasted enough time on this predator politician? Is it time to concentrate on the real issues like Iran under threat and the US throwing away the Magna Carta?

Or do we want to discuss Matt Drudge's sexual orientation some more?

So, if you think Drudge is a scumbag, why are you still on his site? I am completely disgusted and I will not return - I know you could give a rat's ass, but it's my statement for myself.

If any of you feel the same way - boycott this site. When the hits go down so will the advertising money. But you will probably all continue coming here and supporting him financially. All I know is I won't be here. Time to put up or shut up with all the talk of morality. If you continue coming to this site, you are lining the pockets of a pedofile apologist.

Good sleight of hand, Rebel. You talk about Drudge being a scumbag, then you associate him with this site. His site is www.drudgereport.com, and most of us came to the Drudge Retort because we thought Matt's URL was www.drudge.com.

Hello! How did you get here?

BTW, I read today (Wash. Post article) that the price to pay with Foley-Hastert may be that evangelicals will stay away from the polls in droves in November, finally tired of holding their noses as they pull the lever. Ever count how many times the word "hypocrite" appears in the Gospels?

Drudge is wrong. Foley was 52-years old and the page was 16 at the time. If I were a parent and a 52-year-old were hitting on my kid I'd be hitting on them - over and over again with whatever blunt object was at hand.

Foley is a creep at best. 16-year-olds may hit on them (although this kid seems to have been trying to keep him at arms length rather than trying to get him in bed) but the fact remains - Foley was over three times the kids age. He should have known better. If he's not a pedophile then he's just barely on the other side of the line. Barely.

And, for all those who keep trying to distract the issue by questioning everyone's sexuality, get over it. It is irrelevant. This man was trying to have a relationship with a child that was waaaaaaaaaaaa- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaa- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-aaaaaaaaay inappropriate. It would be exactly the same if he were straight and trying to have a relationship with a 16-year-old girl. It's still way creepy and way wrong.

But Foley has his defenders on several Drudge threads today. Vernon gave me a real eye-roll when he blamed the Dems for Foley and then called another poster a "revolting partisan hack" in the same breath. Only on the Drudge.

FOLEY, DENNY, CONDI, RUMMY, DICKIE, BROWNIE, GEORGY

"You're doing a heck of a job".......

Jimi, please don't tell me he blamed Clinton for Foley. That would be shark jumpimg at it's best.

I never put anything past Vern.

Of course, if Vern comes on this thread he'll attack me as a Clinton supporter. Which I'm not, but give me ten of Bubba over one Bush, for way more than ten reasons. OK, have at it, Vern.

"So, if you think Drudge is a scumbag, why are you still on his site?"

Fascinating.

but for the intern to behave in a way that makes her a more likely victim of perverts is simply not smart-"

You need to put yourself in the position of that intern.

Here is a kid who may have aspirations of being in politics. Here too, is a seasoned CIC, who should have been a role model.

This kid may have felt that she had to endure this, just so she didn't anger Clinton, who she may have felt could stop her dreams from becoming a reality..

I don't know, nor do you have any way of knowing what this kid was thinking.

If you've ever been in a situation like that one, or being raped/molested.... sometimes rational thinking escapes you and in the case of rape/molestation...you're simply in survival mode.

Posted by Lisa at 2006-10-03 12:39 PM |

Hey!!

If you are going to quote me, asshole, at least make sure they are MY words and not change them.

You're pathetic!!

Sorry. I do apologize. I changed a few of Lisa's words to make a point.

But you do see how that works, right?

I substitued her for him, she for he and Clinton for Foley. Other than that your text remains the same. So other than those words you do hold to the same opinion, right? I mean after all a truth is a truth and should apply liberally and equally, right?

Lisa

You have to excuse the baby con. He has a very short time to be clever while waiting for the school bus.

Yea, I see how it works....you republicans seem to think that you're above all reprehensible behavior!

Stating after the fact that you falsified someone's words, doesn't cut it!!

GOTCHYA ;-)

What you quoted me as saying, was far from the truth, and changing the words you quote someone else as saying, shoudn't be done "liberally, equally, or otherwise!

If you have a fucking point, use your own words, don't use mine.

Or are you that incapable of thinking for yourself?!!!

So I wonder if Matt Drudge was "egging on" David Brock (founder mediamatters.org and author of "Blinded by the Right") when he was leaving flowers for him back when they were both closeted republicans.

IC,
That's a no-no around here.

"GOTCHYA ;-)"

The only thing you "got" is a warped sense of right and wrong.

Incubus, the proper way to do it is to put the words you changed in ( ).

E.G. This kid may have felt that (she) had to endure this, just so (she) didn't anger (Clinton), who (she) may have felt could stop (her) dreams from becoming a reality..


That way the reader knows that you are manipulating a quote to make a point and not being underhanded.

And until any of those pages make a statement that they came to Washington specifically to seduce Foley, your analogy doesn't work.

No, TFD.

The correct way of doing it would have been to copy my quote. Then repeat it changing the words he wanted substituted.

In no way, shape or form, should my name have to be connected to something that was his thought and not mine.

The correct way of doing it would have been to copy my quote. Then repeat it changing the words he wanted substituted.

In no way, shape or form, should my name have to be connected to something that was his thought and not mine.

Agreed.

I apologize and I won't do it again in the same manner.

It wasn't my thought it was yours. I was pointing out the hypocrisy/double standards I witness in here routinely. If you again post something I read that floats both ways I'll expose it for the hypocrisy it is.

"It wasn't my thought it was yours."

Bullshit! You took my original comment and changed the words to spin them into your own, all the while insinuating they were mine.

Apologized?? You can't be serious. You're still defending your work!

BTW...if you thought my post was hypocritical, I would hope you would know what my thoughts on Clinton's incident were. You don't. Yet claim that I'm a hypocrite.

You, are a partisan hack. Plain and simple and I will expose you for what you really are.

I do agree Lisa, your name should not have been attached.

Incubus, you still haven't refuted my point about how Monica intentionally seduced Clinton, while the pages were stalked.

You don't find a difference there?