Posted on 10/17/2006 9:01:21 AM PDT by ReagansRaiders
Back in September, I did a piece on some of the N-Bombs and bizarre sexual content in three of James Webb's books, which to me, seemed to be pretty relevant.
After all, the WAPO has been trying to make the fact that George Allen said the word, "Macaca," which about 3 people had ever heard of before Allen said it, into the biggest story of the election cycle. Meanwhile, James Webb's books feature N-bombs galore and women slicing up fruit with their private parts. But that, the MSM doesn't want to go into detail about.
In any case, recently, someone alerted me to a depraved passage in another one of Webb's other books, that just blows everything away that I've posted so far. For reasons I cannot fathom, in Webb's book, Lost Soldiers, he has a scene that features incestuous pedophilia. Now here's the kicker: not only is it a completely gratuitous scene, the characters in the book, bizarrely, don't even seem to react to a sex act being performed on a child in front of them.
If that sounds surreal, it's because it is. It's like Webb was sitting around one day and said, "You know what this book needs? A father performing a sex act on his child while people act like it's an everyday occurrence. That will really throw people for a loop!"
Now, I'm going to go into detail about what happened, but it will be below the fold in case any of you want to spare yourself something even more disgusting than the Foley IMs.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightwingnews.com ...
Where is that funny looking cat with the WTF on it???
It sounds like he put that passage in there just for the fun of writing it out.
The pervert.
>>>One of my short stories is about an acquitted child molester; another centers around four people who killed for money. Does that mean I sympathize or empathize with or secretly fantasize about their crimes? Emphatically, no.>>>
So fine, you story is ABOUT THAT. There is nothing relevant to the story whatsoever in writing about a father putting his son's penis in his mouth for crying out loud.
>>>And I'm telling you I don't need to read that chapter, >>>
Well then you have shown yourself to be an ignorant sort. To defend something you know nothing about.
Pages don't becomes pages until 16. The age of consent (laws) in DC is 16.
And Foley didn't engage in physical sex with the men while they were pages or minors.
We find homosexuals to be immoral and jr./sr. relationships to be unseemly.
But the hypocrisy among the media and the Congress is insulting.
Bill Clinton was accused of multiple rapes. Clinton was accused of unwanted sexual harassment (dropping his pants and saying "kiss it"), and of having a consensual sexual affair with an unpaid aide who was not much older than his daughter. He received oral sex while he deployed troops on the phone in total dishonor of the lives of the men he was deploying AND in violation of the security clearance that Monica did not have. He lied under oath (and in a sexual harassment lawsuit, office sex IS relevant). His staff brided witnesses to lie under oath. Monica was given a high paying job by one of his buddies (something she doesn't seem to be able to pull down these days).
The honored (and yes the NYTimes glorified him in his obituary this weekend) Congressman Studds had sex with a 17 year old male at a time that same sex sodomy was criminal in numerous states. He was considered a hero for homosexuals (I guess because he didn't vote against same-sex marriage like Foley did). He was censured and remained in office. Bill Clinton was never even censured by those who insisted that he SHOULD be censured (but kept in office).
So if sex fantasy is going to be fair game in THIS election cycle, porno novel writing is open for inspection.
You wrote, "Well then you have shown yourself to be an ignorant sort."
Right back at you, sport. Spitballs from the peanut gallery don't change or challenge the validity of my argument.
Ever read Scooter Libby's book, or Lynne Cheney's for that matter?
>>>Ever read Scooter Libby's book, or Lynne Cheney's for that matter?>>>
Nope. What are they about?
(P.S. I'm not defending either one until I've read it)
>>>You wrote, "Well then you have shown yourself to be an ignorant sort."
Right back at you, sport. Spitballs from the peanut gallery don't change or challenge the validity of my argument.>>>
"Right back at you"? Hmmm, not only ignorant to defend something you admit to knowing absolutely nothing about, you are unimaginative as well.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Why are you protesting so much ?
Everyone knows you reveal yourself everytime you open your mouth, put pen to paper,green light or direct a film....Think Oliver Stone.
What's your real concern here?
No. Clancy writes great fiction. His dialog is realtime; His plots are each unique and unpredictable; His technical jargon is stimulating and accurate; And his villains are excellent archetypes of realistic moles and enemies of the state. Furthermore, he has an uncanny abilty to predict the outcome of certain events and the future course of American history.
You wrote, "...you are unimaginative as well."
That would be some surprise to the folks who buy and read my fiction and to the clients who employ my commercial art talent and graphic design expertise. That is how I make my living. And it's a very good living, thanks.
Ok.
Cool.
***********
I'm not sure I can blame them after reading some of the excerpts.
By that logic, we should ignore just about everything that Larry Flynt has ever done because he doesn't actually do anything more than sell pictured of it.
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.