Match the Sodomite and the Pedophile with their picture!
Posted on 10/15/2006 9:20:08 AM PDT by shortstop
There's no mention of his party affiliation because it's assumed!
not only no mention that studds was a lib/dem but also that he was given a standing ovation (3 times) by the lib/dems in the house!!!....it is all foley 24/7 by the msm...who are impartial and have no political agenda...at least that is what they report!
"His husband said"... how can they tell?
There are multiple stories here, all of which should help the GOP, if only the media...aw shucks! How could I expect the old media to see ANY story here?
vaudine
Look, I think Democrats are hypocrites like everyone else with a brain, but the Foley situation was, in my opinion, a lot more troubling than Studds. If it came out 10 years from now that Foley had sent his digusting IMs, no one would have cared. Its worse because the Foley thing was occuring in real time.
Match the Sodomite and the Pedophile with their picture!
Yes and no. Weren't the IMs actually several years old?
Prayers for family/friends/colleagues.
Most of the major "personalities" in the MSM are announced Defeatocrats. Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Fat guy at ABC, Mike Wallace, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, on and on and on and on.
They are simply carrying water for their party. The DNC is going with this Foley thing until election day, and so are they.
Notice how Harry Reid's Mafia connections are being ignored.
Think the MSM is neutral? Not on your life.
A pioneer at chasing sixteen year old boys?
Is walking your dog a new term for AIDS?
No mention of his party afiiliation? He's called "Rep. Studds" so many times in this article, I thought his first name was "Rep."
Correct link to column: http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/15/Worldandnation/First_openly_gay_Rep_.shtml
"His husband said"?
Never thought I'd ever see that in print!
Typical - but Studds has no name recognition and therefore I don't believe it's an issue. It's just some on the democrat side want to try to make a connection - when there isn't one. Studds was having an affair with the Page - while the Page was working for him.
Foley did not do that - and there is no evidence to support any physical contact between Foley and ANY Page. And .. a recent report indicates they have searched the Page's dormatory records and there is NOTHING about Foley ever being there.
It's just the continual smear by the drive-by media - because if the democrats lose the next 2 elections - the MEDIA IS ALSO TOAST!! Consequently, the drive-by is trying to survive .. but they're not going to .. because they no longer deal with the truth but only with how they can damage the repubs.
I'm sick of it .. and I'm voting repub more to dump the media as much as to keep any dems from winning their elections.
And there you have it folks. Possibly the beginning of NAMBLA?
Dims truly believe that if you are 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 years old and consent to having sex with someone 10, 20, 30 years older, and the older person is a Democrat, then it is okay and no one else's business and laws against this be damned.
Shades of NAMBLA.
It IS an AMAZING double standard, isn't it?
And with a 20 year age difference, a May-December romance....PUKE!!! There, I feel better!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.