Sunday, October 22, 2006

The "Double Standard" trick

I want to state that I am not a Republican. I am a Libertarian. I do not vote specifically for one party over the other (I am referring to the Democrat & Republican parties since most people only think we have 2 political parties in this country) but I will admit that I do consider myself to be "conservative" when it comes to politics. But that alone doesn't mean I must be a Republican. I have many issues with how that party does business, which is why I will not register as a Republican for political purposes.

Even though I find fault with how Republicans do business, I have more of a problem with how Democrats and other liberals want to conduct the business of governing the "People".

It is because of this that I have recently been bothered by the ramblings of a member of the liberal Cult that is the Democrat Party. Although I find this mindless drone to be amusing, I now find myself having to address this lemming in a blog entry.

If the cowardly person known at "GT" (Is this a man or a woman? I can't tell for sure one way or the other.) were someone of character, they would allow me to view their blog & have an option for me to comment on their blog. But, for some reason, I can no longer see any entries at the URL and there is no means for me to send a message to "GT". I say above that "if" this were a person of character they wouldn't have hidden from me as they seem to have done. Truth is, if they were a person of character... then they wouldn't be a liberal Democrat, would they? :)

Why am I bringing up this "GT", you may ask? I will tell you:

This is the 2nd comment that "GT" left on my blog. Besides being filled with errors & untrue comments, it's an example of how Democrats in specific - and liberals in general - act when someone points out their flaws. They resort to insulting the person who doesn't agree with them, and then they offer either untrue information as "fact" or they selective cite some article, poll, or report to make their point of view appear to be correct - especially when it's not.

Here is the comment that "GT" left for me on this blog:

Liked your comments on my blog since they prove my point. You mention in here the Gerry Studds scandal, as you did in your response on my blog. Funny thing with trying to mislead people is you often end up looking like a fool. Studds actually had a relationships that started WHEN THE YOUNG MAN WAS LEGAL AND OF THE AGE OF CONSENT(SAME WITH CLINTON, WHAT 2 GROWN ADULTS DO IS FINE REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK). FOLEY WAS GOING AFTER YOUNG MEN UNDER THE AGE OF CONSENT, HENCE DIFFERENT ISSUE. And Duche, if you did any research, you would realize that almost every Democrat has asked Jefferson to resign and they stripped him of all of his posts, guess research isn't your strong suit unless it's to back up your "not a republican, just campaign for them" sort of Fox News approach to fact checking. Reading your blog post makes me wonder about your sanity and if you live in the real world or Bush's lala world with the rest of the sheep. I think it's the latter. Keep up the good republican fight(you really shouldn't try to mislead people, it's very unbecoming, at least us Democrats don't claim to be other parties to try to look independant)
--Posted by GT to The Scandal Sheet at 10/19/2006 07:19:42 AM

Since "GT" has foolishly chosen me as an opponent, (and because "GT" is so cowardly as to not allow me to directly respond to this comment) I will address this comment & the relating subject matter in this blog entry.

1. Gary Studds did NOT have a relationship with someone that was "legal" or "of the age of consent" as we are lead to believe from the comment by "GT".

Gary Studds, in fact, engaged in a sexual relationship with a 17 year old boy. He fully admitted this on the floor of the House of Representatives when he was censured by the House Ethics Committee back in 1983.

Well, let me clarify something. I am not 100% certain about what the "age of consent" was for the District of Columbia or in Portugal back in 1973 as Studds was having anal sex with a 17 year old Congressional page, but he definitely was under 18, so that would make the boy a minor in any state of the country.

And the fact that this was someone who was a current Congressional page at the time makes it more relevant to the current position being spouted ad nauseum by Democrats & liberals. (The one where they assert that Republicans aren't protecting our "underage" children who are in Congress as part of the page program because of what Mark Foley "allegedly" did.)

Foley is a scumbag, there's no deny or defending that.

BUT... there has not been ANY proof that shows Foley was doing anything inappropriate with someone who was currently a Congressional page. The one person who has come forward to be interviewed has stated very clearly that Foley didn't contact him until AFTER he left the page program. And this person further stated that he never had a physical sexual encounter with Foley until he was 21 years old!

In case you can't do the math "GT", that's 3 whole years above the age of 18 - clearly making the former page an adult in what he himself called a "consentual" sexual encounter". Contrast that to Studds physically having sex with a 17 year old who was a current Congressional page when he was under the age of 18. I have to look into the specifics of the law at the time, but I don't think a 17 year old can legally give consent - so that would not only make Studd's anal sex encounters with the 17 year old inappropriate, it might also have been rape.

But, getting back to Foley & the page who has come forward.

In a article reported in an L.A. newspaper, the former page stated that Foley waited until the person in question was above the age of 21 - he said that this was because Foley would NEVER engage in this type of behavior with someone who is "underage". This was something that I heard reported on MSNBC just 1 time over a period of 8 hours that they were repeatedly mentioning the more negative aspects of Foley's inappropriate behavior while he was in Congress.

It makes you wonder why they wouldn't mention this fact as often as everything else they reported. Could it be because this shows Mark Foley as being less of the "sexual predator" - a term used frequently by Democrats, liberals, and the liberally-biased media to describe Foley?
If he was a gay man having consentual sex with a 21 year old man, it doesn't make Foley look as bad as if he were roaming the halls of Congress looking to have a physical sexual encounter with a 17 year old Congressional page...

Oh wait, that's EXACTLY what Studds was doing!!! So, why are Democrats & liberals saying that the Studd's situation isn't relevant when talking about Foley?

2. Another topic in the "GT" comment was how Bill Clinton having an adulterous affair with Monica Lewinsky is ok, because they were 2 adults having a consentual sexual relationship.

Why would I have a problem with "Slick Willy" getting it on with Monica? I'll tell you why:

Bill Clinton campaigned for the Presidency by going on TV and admitting his affair with Gennifer Flowers. Hillary was by his side as he said he had done wrong, but that he was sorry. He also claimed to have learned his lesson, and wouldn't be doing such things again. He used this as a way to counteract claims that this lack of character disqualified him for becoming President. He wanted us to forget that he lied to his wife as he was committing adultery. We should give him another chance, because his wife did.

Forward through many other women that Clinton had indiscretions with to Monica. Forget for now women like Paula Jones & the others that Clinton met as he used his position of power to get what he wanted sexually, as any other sexual predator would. For now, we just want to talk about Bill & Monica.

Monica Lewinsky was an intern at the White House. Basically, Clinton was her boss - just like if she were a cashier at WalMart & Bill was the store manager. If what had happened was actually going on in my WalMart analogy, Bill would have been fired for having an inappropriate sexual relationship with an employee while "on the clock" for WalMart.

Much of the physical aspect of their sexual relationship happened either "in" or "just off" the Oval Office. This is when Clinton was conducting business for the American People who elected him into office. We didn't elect him to masturbate while Moncia was masturbating for him, or for him to get oral sex - we elected him to handle the People's business.

I'm not saying that if Monica were never an intern at the White House, and the affair had happened "after hours" that I would approve... but I might be willing to listen to idiots like "GT" when they try to say it was a private matter between 2 consenting adults. I'd still say it was wrong, and an example of Clinton being unqualified to lead the American People as the President... but I woul;dn't be as upset about it as I am considering he was doing it when he should have been trying to catch Osama Bin Laden & preventing 9/11.

I'll give a comparrison to Foley from the Clinton scandal:

So much is being made about Foley "allegedly" exchanging inappropriate instant messages with a FORMER page at a time when he should have been on the House Floor for a vote on the War in Iraq. Democrats & liberals are just outraged that Foley would do this when he should have been doing the job he was elected to do.

So, why weren't these same people as upset & outraged when Clinton was getting a blow job from Monica in the Oval Office while Yassar Arafat was forced to wait to meet with Clinton in the Rose Garden of the White House?

Maybe we wouldn't have as much tension in the Middle East if Clinton spent more time doing his job and not getting a blow job?

But the Democrats & liberals wouldn't think of applying the same standards to themselves as they do to Republicans!!!

The Bush Administration is under fire because it looks like people either altered the visitation log or they didn't completely & accurately log every time Jack Abramoff was at the White House. Sure, it has legitimate consequences considering that at least 2 Congressmen have been indicted over Abramoff's illegal actions as a lobbyist...

But why didn't people make as big of a deal when the same thing happened for Clinton as he had Monica visit him many times at the White House that aren't in the log record? Witnesses verify Monica's claims, but Democrats & liberals don't mind. If Clinton lied about Monica visiting the White House... were other visitors kept from the record to keep Clinton's misdeeds from being known?

Remember, this is a President who sold our nuclear secrets to China - by means of "donors" who were granted such treats as a) meetings with the President; b) trips on Air Force One; and c) nights in the Lincoln Bedroom depending on how much they gave Clinton for the Democratic Party. What other ways did he betray our country while he was busy hopping in bed with the Chinese & getting some from Monica?

3. In regard to William Jefferson and his bribery scandal, "GT" again misleads while trying to inform what happened.

The only reason that the Democrats voted to strip Jefferson of his position was because if they didn't do something, then Speaker of the House Hastert was going to do much more. What Democrats did was inadequate at best, and not what they would demand be done if Jefferson were a Republican. They would jump right to the extreme of demanding a resignation from Congress if Jefferson were a Republican.

But since he's a Democrat, things like the Congressional Black Caucus take the position that NOTHING should be done to him because he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Nevermind that a sting operation was conducted where he took a $100,000 bribe, and when his office was searched, $90,000 of the marked bribe money was clearly found in his refridgerator. What did the Democrats say about it? They said that his office should never been searched because it's off grounds as him being a member of Congress.

A similar defense was being offered when another Democrat was found to be driving while intoxicated & in an accident. The claim that he couldn't be questioned or detained because he was on his way to vote (which was a total lie) was tossed out so that the police couldn't use any information about this Congressman's alleged intoxication could be used against him.

Or when another member of Congress assaulted an officer who wanted to take a closer look at her because he didn't recognize her as being the member of Congress she claimed to be... Democrats & liberals said she was justified to assault the officer - the race card was even tossed into the mix as a justification for her assaulting an officer trying to do his job.

But back to William Jefferson:

Nancy Pelosi said that Jefferson should step down from his position on the House Ways & Means Committee "only until his situation is clarified". Meaning, if he doesn't get charged or indicted, he can return to his position of power. I'm guessing she's hoping there can be some means of getting the $90,000 found in his freezer excluded from the record so Jefferson can get back to work for her. Nevermind that he's guilty as sin... he has work to do for them!

But forget all the "facts" getting in the way of "GT"'s comment to me. I just love how "GT" went right to insulting me - in true liberal Democrat fashion. It's a tactic that is used by the likes of Al Franken & his ilk to attack their opponents when they don't have facts on their side.

It's really sad that "GT" was too lazy to use spell check, if so, then I wouldn't have been called a "Duche" when it's spelled "douche".

I also like how my sanity is called into question, when it's "GT" who is definitely in need of psychiatric help.

And I am accused of being just like FOX News as I campaign for the Republicans. How funny. :)

I love how "GT" claims that a Democrat would never claim to be of another party so as to appear independant. The problem with that is this: You can always spot a liberal Democrat! They can't try to hide who they are, and they are never independant.

I am not a Republican, as I have said many times before this. I am an outside observer to the Democrat - Republican battle, even if I fully admit to being a conservative.

I am way more objective than "GT" or any other liberal/Democrat will ever be. I do not follow any party line, nor do I spout propaganda as "GT" does.

I take a look at the situation, and I give an honest telling, based on "facts" - not feelings like "GT" does.

Oh, and one tidbit to show I am not trying to "mislead" or hide anything (as "GT" claims I do):

In that same incident where Studds was censured in Congress... there was a republican who was also censured. This Republican was having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old FEMALE page.

It should be noted that when the Republican admitted doing wrong & offering an apology, he did so facing the other members of the House.

Studds turned his back on his fellow Congressmen & faced only the Speaker of the House, like the coward he was. Then he held a press conference.... and went on to staying in his office, being re-elected 5 more times before retiring in 1996.

Compare how Democrats reacted to him sodomizing a 17 year old boy who was a current Congressional page - to how Democrats reacted to Foley, who merely sent inappropriate messages to FORMER pages & only having sex with them once they were 21 years old.

And they want us to believe that only the Democrats are fit to be in power... whatever!

And to "GT"... don't be a coward & hide from me. Either stand behind your opinions & allow someone to prove you wrong... or don't offer a comment, only to hide afterward.

Oh yeah, and please, get professional help. I think your medications have run out.