Oct 08 2006

Would Liberals Support Gay Staff Or Young Pages?

Published by at 11:53 pm under All General Discussions

One has to ponder what a Democrat leadership would do in a situation like Foleygate. The idea they would come down hard on a gay staffer or representative is clearly laughable. They have a track record on those matters. So what would the solution be if young pages were not to be in the vicinity of the Capitol Hill gay workers? Simple. Democrats would evict the children and protect gay workers right to work without evil distractions. Does anyone think they would do any different?

Addendum: Let me expand on this a bit more this morning. When liberals and democrats attempt to use Foleygate as a sign Republicans didn’t do enough, Republicans need to turn this around and demand a better solution, not a better sounding complaint. They need to point out the problem by suggesting some solutions, like how we would have to know the sexual preferrences of all staff and members if they were going to be in contact with the pages. Democrats should be asked if gay staff or members should be treated differently than straights? Democrats should be required to answer whether being “in the closet” was a signal og hiding something more troublesome?

If we are looking for “signals” then a gay man trying to hide the fact he is gay means he may be hiding his sexuality because of his interest in buff young men. This way Democrats will be forced to explain what to do when faced with a gay man who enjoys being around the Pages.

And when they continue to dig themselves into a hole about “detecting the signals”, I think everyone has the right to ask whether signals include those that came out in 1992 with the ‘bimbo eruptions’ and Bill Clinton? Clearly these were indicators of what was to come, the President seducing an intern woman of 17 (recall the timeline of events) and having sex in the Oval office while dealing with our Nation’s issues. And as I recall, four of those ‘erupting’ signals included unwanted, forced advancements and sexual acts. Simply ask the whining Democrat who says the Republicans where not acting responsible if the news we heard about Bill Clinton is the kind of signal that should have caused action by the Republican leadership.

That will get Foleygate off the front pages real fast.

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “Would Liberals Support Gay Staff Or Young Pages?”

  1. DaleinAtlanta says:

    AJ: what woman of “17” are you talking about?

    Was Monica 17 when she first pulled out the kneepads for Bill?

    I thought she was 21?

    Kindly please clarify…?

  2. AJStrata says:


    I am indeed talking about Monica, but you are right, she was 22!

  3. DaleinAtlanta says:

    AJ: wish she’d been 17!

    Don’t get me wrong, what Clinton did was STILL wrong; I was raised during feminist times, and when I was in the Corps, we had to undergo sensitivity training, implemented by the way, during the Clinton era; and were taught by the Feminazis, that “…any MAN, in a position of POWER, who had Sex with a Subordinate Female….”
    was guilty of Sexual Harrassment, and abuse of power, and taking advantage of using their position of Power to intimidate the woman; and hence it was wrong, and the man should be punished!

    Funny, as soon as Clinton got caught, that “rule” no longer seemed to apply…….wonder why that was……????

  4. garrettc says:

    Instead of going on and on about past misdeeds, it’s time to make proposals.

    Take a look at what other institutions are doing. Mandatory training of all who contact children or young adults. Signed contracts indicating that the adults will abide by the rules. Contact with parent deliniating the routes for complaints or suspscions. Instruction to all youth. And of course weeding out all pederasts, as soon as they may be found. You can be sure there is more than one lurking around the halls of Congress.

  5. Karig says:

    Ah yes, another liberal commandment gets tossed casually aside by the political warfare tacticians of the left. The feminists blew their own credibility right out of the water with their vigorous defense of Bill Clinton against Paula Jones (et al.), and now the leftists in general are going after Hastert on the grounds that Hastert failed to realize that Foley’s homosexuality was cause to suspect that Foley might also be a pederast.

    You’d think that the same people who love to yell “hypocrisy” would understand that hypocrisy wrecks your credibility as much as telling lies does. But then you kinda suspect that “hypocrisy” is little more than a weapon to them, a word useful for making other people mad at other people, like “pedophile”.

  6. Snapple says:

    An FBI official named Chip Burrus is now an Acting FBI Assistant Director. He spoke recently about catching pedophiles on FOX NEWS. This was in connection with the extreme Mormon sect led by Jeffs, the guy who was promoting relationships with underaged Mormon girls.

    I think that if there was a law broken and they have jurisdiction, the FBI will be on it.

    Has the FBI commented officially on this? Why do they have jurisdiction?

    But if what happened was more in the nature of harrassment, I don’t think they have jurisdiction. It seems to me like this CREW was trying to make the FBI look like they weren’t acting on these e-mails they were given.

    CREW wasn’t so much trying to stop Foley as to discredit the Republican leadership and the FBI. They don’t like Foley because, although gay, Foley is not a supporter of many gay-rights issues.

  7. Barbara says:

    What the democrats have never admitted is that Lewinsky was a subordinate employee, just like Paula Jones was subordinate employee. It was never about sex from my point of view. I just didn’t like where he did it and I didn’t like that he broke the law and got away with it when other people were in jail or lost their jobs for doing the same thing.

    The dems would, of course, jettison the pages in favor of any preditory gay. After all, the pages can’t vote.