Posted on 01/22/2003 10:07:38 AM PST by doug from upland
NOTE: although I make light of this and some might think there was no harm no foul because he really didn't meet a little girl, child stalkers need to do serious jail time and perhaps be chemically castrated. If William Scott Ritter Junior is really innocent and the perp is another guy, then this song is about the other guy named Scott Ritter who was arrested twice. Parents, do you know what your child is doing on the Internet? You had better know.
==================================
I just turned 14 years old…I love the Internet
I chat with older guys who sure make my panties wet
Some day we'll meet down at Burger King
Where I'll watch Scotty Ritter doing his thing
My mom and daddy warned me that men are sometimes sick
I'm really hoping he's…perverted like Slick
Some day we'll meet down at Burger King
Where I'll watch Scotty Ritter doing his thing
I'm really excited…we had another long chat
He says he's ambidextrous…oh, I can't wait for that
I had Mel Reynolds call me once from inside his prison cell
He said the day he's getting out…he wants me to ring his bell
Some day we'll meet down at Burger King
Where I'll watch Scotty Ritter doing his thing
I'm really excited…we had another long chat
He says he's ambidextrous…oh, I can't wait for that
His co-author I wish he'd bring…I would like to watch two men
That is, if he can find the time…he's busy on CNN
Some day we'll meet down at Burger King
Where I'll watch Scotty Ritter doing his thing
Where I'll watch Scotty Ritter doing his thing
Where I'll watch Scotty Ritter doing his thing
Sorry, make that 'thrilling'. Well, how about 'entertaining'?
I seems to ME that priests were persecuted to ridiculous ends, whether guilty or innocent, dead and unable to defend themselves or alive, and Democrat moral hypocrisy in the media turned the procedings into a shameful Inquisition, causing the Church to settle every case quickly and out of court...and at the end, neither priests not the Church were offering even a token defense. Perhaps they were all guilty...perhaps, as I believe, some were innocent victims of the left's newest ploy to destroy the Christian foundations of this country...unfortunately, we may never know of any innocents, even if they exist, because of the anti-Christian and anti-Catholic (some of which came from Christians of other sects) media propaganda circus surrounding all the new, daily accusations, which came at near light speed until the public didn't know WHAT to believe anymore.
HOWEVER, in Ritter's case, there WAS NO RIDICULE until conservatives got wind of it, even though the details of RITTER'S case were more clear and better documented. HIS case was SEALED: COVERED UP for TWO YEARS. If it had never BEEN uncovered, he could have done it again and been a three time loser...but only been charged for a first offense as though he had no record if the next court didn't catch wind of the PRIOR. All the while, he would have been preaching to "impeach Bush" and "Saddam's innocent" to the world from his bully pulpit of phoney moral superiority - a platform bsed on a lie - and affecting international policy and possibly the fate of the free world.
Why did the left so gleefully persecute priests? Why is the left NOW so VIGOROUSLY defending Ritter, who was caught red handed because he had HOPED he had lured an underaged girl to satisfy his sick desires??
Why the double standard from the left wing???
I read Scotty has a wife and 2 kids!
As my son-in-law heads for the Gulf on the USS ROOSEVELT, I take this stuff personally
And I don't? Why screw around with some alledged picadillo?
You're not a 14-year-old on mommy's computer, are you?
If you multiply that by 5, you would be closer, but still shy. Now that you have that little tid bit, start ridiculing me as an old fart, it's your apparent style. Like your 'parody', you're off base and ugly in tone.
Good post on your part. The media hates moralists, i.e. Catholic church. They like perverts, like Pee Wee, Rosie and maybe Ritter if he was a Democrat.
If you DID, you wouldn't be asking that question, for two reasons:
1:) There, but for the grace of God, could have been your child...or niece, or nephew, or grandchild...if it had been a real child Ritter had been luring, rather than an undercover officer.
2:) Ritter is turning a well planned international policy, backed by the muscle of the military, into a global powder keg backed by the likes of the group who wants to resurrect the regimes of Cold War communist dictators. Thus, if you DID have a son or daughter or in-law in the military and headed for the Gulf, it would be a no-brainer for you to guess your 'picadillo', who is not an elected official or serving in a diplomatic position is taking it upon himself endanger their lives. And the lives of many others.
Who gave Scott the right to play with the lives of our military and play with underaged girls? Why...the left wing, that's who.
War could have been averted...now it's far less likely to be because of the alleged 'anti-war' movement that Ritter helped start just so he could make money as a talking head and by selling a lousy book.
So he's allegedly registered as a Republican...he's no conservative.
DEMOCRATS, like the rabid anti-war left-wingnuts at the DU, are defending Ritter. Most Republicans are not.
I too hope that the Mideast may someday learn the value of peace and representative government. Neither of which will they ever have as long as Saddam is terrorizing the region. You're right: we don't want their oil. If this were about oil, we'd be drilling through the glass desert to get at it right now.
Thank Heaven for President Bush!
No, I was calling you worse than Ritter. As I read the reports, there was no 'child' violated in this case. You put 'child' in there and not 'teenager'. You made yourself despicable in this case by taking on the mantle of 'accuser', judge, jury, and 'switch thrower'. Sir, you are not the 'legal' system, we already have one.
I'll copy this on a blank, have it spell checked before I post. But you are having no problem understanding what I'm irritated about. Dammit, I just ended in a preposition!
Since Desert Storm, how so? Our war is against the Saudi created Islamists, spread over 60 countries.
Iraq is part of that cabal, and must be dealt with, preferably first. But Saddam is not a mullah, which are much more dangerous because of wanton 'suicide' attacks on Western culture.
Read Rage and Pride by Oriana Fallaci, if you haven't yet.
You mean besides murdering and starving his own people, I guess. Saddam is as mixed up in funding Wahhabi terrorists as the Saudi royal family. Saddam therefore, even if he didn't export terrorists themselves - I need proof that he isn't, and not even the UNweenies will go THAT far - still exports terrorism to every country in the region.
Who's going to be your bog gee man if/when we 'invade' Iran, Saudia, Lybia, Egypt, Pakistan and maybe down the road Indonesia etc. After all, those countries don't have the 'dog in the fight' desire, ability or stomach to rout out 'WMD' para militaries. In the end, it will be up to us.
W said this will be a long, hard 'war', and you better bet on it.
Those last few posts bordered on beingunlebigbleillegiimableugammatikalmizpeld
......well....anyway....there was something wrong.
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.