http://mediamatters.org/items/200610020015

Quote :

"DRUDGE: Well, I don't know if I said that. I'm just saying from reading these instant messages, this wasn't coerced. I mean, this wasn't somebody -- the kid was having fun with this. These LOLs throughout the entire conversation, these "laugh out louds." "

Its cool becuase he wanted it.

Quote :

" DRUDGE: 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. "

[Edited on October 2, 2006 at 9:20 PM. Reason : LOLOLOL]

[Edited on October 2, 2006 at 9:20 PM. Reason : lolololol]

10/2/2006 9:18:43 PM

who cares

10/2/2006 9:20:48 PM

about our leaders

10/2/2006 9:21:31 PM

It's like a frat party

10/2/2006 9:25:19 PM

Perhaps the kids were cooperating a bit more than they should've (who the hell would answer most of those questions to such an old man unless they were getting something out of it?).

It's true though that it's still fucked up and that legally it's the congressman's burden for the whole incident.

I think I was going to make a point in here somewhere...

Whatever, it's still fucked up and wrong, and the kids were cooperating to a creepy degree. It's still the congressman's ass.

10/2/2006 9:37:51 PM

well no shit

10/2/2006 9:38:41 PM

Hey, don't get hostile at me, you made the obvious thread.

10/2/2006 9:39:59 PM

the point is that you dont even need to argue with him

10/2/2006 9:47:01 PM

turn and RUN if a kid talks to you like that

jesus

10/2/2006 11:15:38 PM

Quote :

"DRUDGE: 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.""

How dare these little boy beasts seduce Representative Foley.

10/3/2006 1:13:06 PM

truly

10/3/2006 7:05:28 PM

paging abonorio...

10/3/2006 8:32:39 PM

well technically, and only technically, wasn't the kid like 16 so that's legal in some states, I suppose. I still think le congressman needs to be crucified though.

10/3/2006 11:15:19 PM

16 is a child

10/3/2006 11:34:23 PM

From the reports and interviews of former pages, it looks like it wasn't just one 16 year old, so there could have been younger ones too.

10/3/2006 11:59:30 PM

The man's actions are indefensible. If one is an adult, one has adult responsibilities, which includes not molesting children--among many other things. Why didn't the congressional representative just find some 18-year-old twink--if that's his flavor--and sodomize him until the cows come home? At least it would've been legal--and it has apparently worked for Barney Frank (D-MA).

Shit, the House Republicans are talking about killing the page program! What a stupid idea. That would be like saying, "Hey, we must stop having young people around us letches--I mean, Congress--learning about government and stuff. We just can't control the goddamn pederasts. Sorry." What a freakin' fiasco!

10/4/2006 1:24:07 AM

quiet, we cant bring up barney frank, he is not approved fodder for ridicule according to our official liberal information sources.

what about alcoholism in the democratic party? i dont see you people blasting patrick kennedy for being "sick" as well. sure its not as bad, but hes sick too.

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 1:31 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2006 1:30:54 AM

In absense of comparison to the Foley, addictions like alchoholism and tobbacco are still fairly minor in terms of moral reprehensibility and social stigma. Let's forget the fact that they're also common, fully legal, and arguably insignificant morale failings. Free to compare, I'd say engaging in sex-chat with a minor less than 1/3 your age while in a position of power and publically decrying such acts is not even on the same level. Addiction to children's "cute butts" =/ addiction to alchohol.

10/4/2006 1:46:24 AM

^^ Hold on, Randy. Who is "you people"?

10/4/2006 2:14:25 AM

Not to mention that alcohol knows no party lines. If we had to call out all the alcoholic politicians, we would have no government left.

10/4/2006 2:45:15 AM

^^^,^I can't believe you guys bothered responding to that nonsense.

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 3:13 AM. Reason : I probably would have done it too. ]

10/4/2006 3:13:22 AM

Some part of me still feels that Randy is not a complete idiot, and that some oz of sense can seep in to his brain with enough positive exposure.

10/4/2006 3:25:32 AM

Look closely.

10/4/2006 8:53:06 AM

lol, Is that true or a chop?

I really doubt Fox News would try to be that blatant or make such a convenient mistake.

10/4/2006 8:55:16 AM

If only Dateline could have had him in one of their episodes.

10/4/2006 9:12:20 AM

We Report, You Decide (TM)

10/4/2006 10:58:51 AM

how come liberals arent defending foley since he is a homosexual so hes obviously been victimized his whole life?

10/4/2006 11:31:52 AM

he isn't a homosexual, he's a pedderass.

10/4/2006 11:32:58 AM

he cant be both?

did he come on to any young girls? or just strictly young men

10/4/2006 11:38:38 AM

The Fox News thing was done at least 4 different times, from what I heard.

10/4/2006 2:00:51 PM

^^homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing. Sure there are gay paederasts, but there are also straight pedophiles.

10/4/2006 2:11:25 PM

^he cant be both?

did he come on to any young girls? or just strictly young men

10/4/2006 2:23:39 PM

Quote :

"how come liberals arent defending foley since he is a homosexual"

why would anyone defend a pedophile? i wasnt aware liberals were known for that. who gives a shit what is sexual orientation is

10/4/2006 2:29:48 PM

^^

Quote :

"Sure there are gay paederasts, but there are also straight pedophiles."

10/4/2006 2:35:04 PM

i just figured that since liberals tend to defend homosexuals, yet they dont intend to defend this pedophile, thats why it hasnt even been mentioned that he is a homosexual

10/4/2006 2:56:20 PM

THEY DONT DEFEND HOMOSEXUALS, OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER, WHO COMMIT CRIMES OF THIS NATURE YOU FUCKING DOLT

GIVE IT A REST

10/4/2006 2:57:53 PM

Because his sexual orientation is not the issue. It's the fact that he likes boys is the issue. He is a pedophile. If he was hitting on adult males I wouldn't care. But he was hitting on boys.

10/4/2006 2:57:57 PM

was the youngest guy he was hitting on 16 years old?

10/4/2006 2:59:08 PM

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2006/10/fox_fixes_foley.html

Why do people wonder why Fox news is so disliked?

10/4/2006 2:59:38 PM

He's still a fucking boy

10/4/2006 2:59:45 PM

so if he was hitting on 18 year old boys you wouldnt care?

10/4/2006 3:01:13 PM

that is right.

10/4/2006 3:01:42 PM

i wouldnt

10/4/2006 3:01:55 PM

haha fags

10/4/2006 3:02:37 PM

and you wonder why you catch so much flak?

fucking idiot

10/4/2006 3:03:29 PM

i dont mind catching flak from fags

oh wait, that didnt sound right

but you two are fags and thats perfectly acceptable

10/4/2006 3:05:17 PM

You both didnt post in the TSB with any frequency. And then out of the blue, you both exist here at the same time, with the exact same politics, and equal amounts of inability to form any sort of cohesive argument or stay on track with the discussion. You both arrive to tdub and leave at generally the same time every day, you both don't post much on the same days (9/30 and 10/1 for instance).

If I were to look at a post without the author, I couldn't tell if you wrote it or if he wrote it.


Why are you the same person?

10/4/2006 4:15:32 PM

one word: beast.

10/4/2006 5:38:09 PM