And, why do these same liberals condemn Mark Foley? Why don't they condemn both? Is it because if you have a (D) by your name, everything you do should be accepted?
2007-09-13 05:11:25 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"moralizing hypocrite?" That's about the most absurb tripe that I've ever heard. Typical liberal.
2007-09-13 05:17:21 · update #1
The people like Farien are the ones that I'm talking about.
STUDDS WAS A PREDATOR! The boy was SIXTEEN and YOU defend STUDDS! Pathetic!
2007-09-13 05:20:19 · update #2
If you don't care about morality, why don't you defend Mark Foley instead of condemn him?
2007-09-13 05:21:52 · update #3
They embrace pedophiles, as long as they're Democrats. They also embrace bribe takers (Jefferson), pederasts (Bill Clinton), liars (Reid), imbeciles (Pelosi), foreign agents (Hillary Clinton), unrepentant alcoholics (Ted Kennedy), Unrepentant drug addicts (The rest of the Kennedy's) and fools (the rest of the Democrats).
Farien3 YOU DO NOT TELL THE TRUTH, the page was underaged when Studds began his homosexual love affair. The Democrats reacted by LOWERING THE AGE OF CONSENT post sodomy.
2007-09-13 05:20:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
I, being a liberal, have never defended Studds, nor have I voted for him. Those responsible for electing him are a small percentage of Liberals who lived in his district in Mass. It isn't as if the entire country votes for Congressmen. That is why I feel justified in my ability to criticize Foley. It isn't a (D) or (R) thing for me. It is a right or wrong thing. Also, did you know that on the O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly put a (D) by Foley's name instead of the (R). I don't suppose there was any attempt at bias there, huh?
2007-09-13 12:33:40 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan H 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Why did the people of Massachusetts re-elect him to the House 7 times? IDK, he must've been popular. Side note: While he did have a relationship with a 17 year old page, and sure it was creepy, it was legal. It wasn't pedophilia.
BTW, why did the people re-elect Strom Thurmond so many times, after that idiotic 24 hour filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1957? Probably because like Studds, the people in his state (South Carolina) liked the guy.
2007-09-13 12:42:01 · answer #3 · answered by Liberals love America! 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
because Studds is a pedophile and acknowledges and acts on his pedophilic tendencies. Therefore he is not a hypocrite. The messenger and the message are the same.
However, if your message is to espouse higher goals, and you personally fail on any given occassion, then the messenger becomes a hypocrite. It is better to be a pedophile than a hypocrite -- in the world of liberal logic.
Which then leads to the next line of thinking, in the liberal world, that the only time a pedophile is hypocritical is when he is not touching children.
So there you have it, liberal logic in a nutshell.
2007-09-13 12:21:17 · answer #4 · answered by Wayne G 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
you asked:
"And, why do these same liberals condemn Mark Foley?"
uh, studds was elected by voters, not liberals, BACK IN THE 1970's.
many of them are probably dead by now - they aren't condemning anyone...
hope this helps...
2007-09-13 12:49:41 · answer #5 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Studds did not pursue underage pages as Foley did. The only page Studd was involved with was over the age of consent. By definition therefore, he was not a pedophile. But then you already knew that and are simply being your normal, dishonest, disingenuous self, aren't you.
2007-09-13 12:18:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
You have your facts wrong the young man was 17 and of consensual age. He was re-elected 6 x not 7. He was censured by the House in 1983.
2007-09-13 12:38:38 · answer #7 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Its called liberal hipocrisy and it is typical of the left when confronted with truth and facts Libs accept this behaviour as normal Another thing Why is kkk Byrd still in office. Maybe the libs like his ideals
2007-09-13 12:16:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
You should really, really get your facts straight regarding Gerry Studds. The relationship he had with a 17-year-old male page was consensual and, according to state law, legal. Besides, this wouldn't be considered pedophilia since pedophilia involves adult attraction to pre-pubescent kids. His crime would have been sex with a minor.
2007-09-13 12:23:11 · answer #9 · answered by OPad 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
The outcry is due to the Republican 'family values' platform. For example people attack Gore for his energy consumption and being hypocritical. Having the lock and family values and then committing acts that flagrantly disregard that are also hypocritical.
2007-09-13 12:18:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋