1 Exactly the kind of sick bastard the ACLU is used to defending.

2 Good use of sick bastard Carlos.  You know the more times we say sick bastard sick bastard sick bastard
sick bastard sick bastard sick bastard
sick bastard sick bastard sick bastard
sick bastard sick bastard sick bastard
sick bastard sick bastard sick bastard
sick bastard sick bastard sick bastard
in comments the higher it's google score for sick bastart sick bastart sick bastart. And if you misspell sick bastard, you get the people who misspell sick bastartd sick bastartd sick bastartd?  It's cool. lets make it a theme.

3 Somehow, I wish this stunning revelation was in fact stunning or surprising, yet given the actions of the ACLU (American Communist Lawyers Union), I suspect that this is typical of ACLU members.
 
 
 
 
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834

4 I'm speechless--nothing can describe my disgust for people who hurt and exploit children.

The death penalty for such types.

5 But somehow I doubt the MSM  will make this headline news for 3 weeks the way they would if a christian preacher or priest was busted for deviancy.  After all, he's one of their own.

6 AHA!

Pull the mask away and here is what we see....  If there was any wonder what the motivation of some at the ACLU is for the crackpot insane law suits they make, we now can show this as proof positive evidence of their sick motivations....

...sick bastard...nuff said.

7 what does this have to do with the ACLU?

he was a former president.



coughmarkfoleycough

8 coughmarkfoleycough

Uh, no.  There's a pretty big difference between a pederast (look it up) and a pedophile.  Nice try though.

9 im sorry, what? theres a difference between a queer pedo and and straight pedo?

oh dear god, you're rationalizing his behavior....

you understand what that means right?

you condone his actions through rationalization...

10 i mean, come on, its still sexual abuse.

11 Like I said, look it up.

12
"In modern academic parlance, “pederasty” is used as a generic term
which includes the cultural phenomenon of erotic relationships between
men and adolescent boys, wherever encountered."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

Mark Foley was into teenage boys.  While this ACLU creep was into children.  A slight difference, wouldn't you agree?

And no, I don't condone either just because I recognize there's a difference, and that one is slightly more creepy than the other.

13
"Mark Foley was into teenage boys.  While this ACLU creep was into children.  A slight difference, wouldn't you agree?"

no, not really. teenagers are still children....

And its STILL sexual abuse even if the younger person consents to it.

and i already read the article, thanks.

the proper response would not have been to attempt to justify foley OVER mister i-just-proved-that-the-entire-aclu-is-made-of-pedophiles
but to have attacked me, and called me a pedophile, preferably using a phrase like "it takes one to know one" or "your a pedo!!!"

YOU fail at being a conservative nutcase.

i'll just have to wait for jeff before the ad hominem begins.

14 no, not really. teenagers are still children....

If he's thirteen, then yes, that teenager is a child.  If he's 17 or 18, he's a young man (see Congressional pages), not  a child.

Nuance, it's a beautiful thing.   Aren't you Libs supposed to be famous for that?  You think you are.

15 "If he's thirteen, then yes, that teenager is a child.  If he's 17 or
18, he's a young man (see Congressional pages), not  a child.

Nuance, it's a beautiful thing.   Aren't you Libs supposed to be famous for that?  You think you are."

But still a minor under law. why should we not allow them to drink, but assume its a-ok for them to have sexual liasons with 64 year old men. (disclaim: i neither know nor care how old foley is. but i know how old john mccain is! hes 72! but, otherwise i have no idea how old any one else political is...)

and you, mister conservative bastard, stop nitpicking and attack me, instead of my argument!!!

16 But still a minor under law.

Agreed.  But a minor under the law isn't always a child. 

And no, I didn't say either was ok.  But I do think one is far more despicable than the other. 

Nuance, ain't it great?  John Kerry would be proud!!!

17 ps., now fuck off.

18 this is somewhat relevant

The attorney for a former Baptist church leader who had
spoken out against homosexuality said Thursday that the minister has a
constitutional right to solicit sex from an undercover policeman.

The Rev. Lonnie W. Latham had supported a resolution calling on gays
and lesbians to reject their "sinful, destructive lifestyle" before his
Jan. 3, 2006, arrest outside the Habana Inn in Oklahoma City.

Authorities allege that Latham asked the undercover policeman to come up to his hotel for oral sex.

Latham's attorney, Mack Martin, filed a motion to have the
misdemeanor lewdness charge thrown out, saying the Supreme Court ruled
in the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas that it was not illegal for
consenting adults to engage in private homosexual acts.

"Now, my client's being prosecuted basically for having offered to
engage in such an act, which basically makes it a crime to ask someone
to do something that's legal," Martin said.

Both sides agree that there was no offer of money, but prosecutor
Scott Rowland said there is a "legitimate governmental interest" in
regulating offers of acts of lewdness.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma has filed a brief
alleging that Latham's arrest also violated his right to free speech.

via the http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16772151.htm

19
Let the record show it's the Liberal on this thread who's equating homosexuality to pedophilia.

20 I was reading this tonight and wanted to see an actual news article.  I googled the sick bastard and all the results were related to him or his wife and their work.  No mention of recent news in the Google results.  I went to Ask.com after that and ran his name and got a ton of results about this.  Why the difference?  Feel free to email me; jlamborn3@gmail.com ... if you can explain this to me.  I understand there is a way to affect how something turns up on Google, but not the process.  Thanks.

21 google orders by popularity and paid sponsorship, ask.com orders by relevancy.

OFN!!

22 "Let the record show it's the Liberal on this thread who's equating homosexuality to pedophilia."

let the record show its the conservative on this thread who misread the article, and threw together a ridiculous ad hominem attack.

23 jlamborn3: Follow the link to Stop The ACLU.  He has links to just about everyone on this including the original ABC story.  I dunno it's probably that one search engine is going by recent links. 

As I understand google its the # of links to a story that increases its score. 

Also google searches the links and indexes the words.  So if you have
sick bastard a lot of times then sick bastard will be rated high on
your "relevance".  Something like that.

On regular google this story is no telling how far down.  Google news
is date driven though so I tried sick bastard there.  No luck but then
click on search blogs and boom #1.  heh.
 
This story generates three links one for Stop the ALCU.  One for Hot Air and one for Ace of Spades HQ.  So I'm linkwhoring for them right now. Stricly speaking I should link those stories with a phrase other than just their name. The words in the links are special or so I'm told, but I get lazy. 

So when google finds my story and logs the link it will read through it, Find all the words and index those.  Say jay gets a lot of links with the same text.  Then when people search tey find Jay's blog.

Sometimes google news picks me up sometimes not. maybe language or orneryness but, I think its becuase they discriminate against Howie becuase they are evil and the man, yeah that's it.  

24 No wonder the ACLU is such a staunch NAMBLA defender. This explains the pro bono support for pervs.

25 let the record show its the conservative on this thread who misread the
article, and threw together a ridiculous ad hominem attack.

jake,

I went back and re-read the article just to make double sure I didn't "misread" it the first time, and no, I didn't misread it.  Got it right the first time.  In a thread about pedophilia, you brought in gay sex.  Not me.  You obviously thought it "somewhat relevant".  Relevant?  To pedophilia?  I can't imagine why in a thread about pedophilia you'd find gay sex relevant.  But you obviously do.

26

I'm not defending any abuse of any human being here, but I have seen some intersting points raised in the comments, and I felt a need to toss my opinion into the ring.

Jake likes his definitions because they suit his agenda. Carlos is actually correct in his representation, as usual, but is any of this the real debate? The only thing I get out of thier argument really, is what constitutes a child is actually subject to interpetation. For example ...
 
'Children' tried as 'adults' for murder, and other crimes ... A judge makes a distiction based on the estimated mental and emotional maturity of the 'child' to determine if they are 'adult' enough to have been responsable for their actions.
 
I think this concept has merit. When I was 13 years old, I had to make a very adult decision about whether to use a gun to stop an adult in my family, from beating on another adult in my family. I'd seen an awful lot by that time in my life, and I'd been choked unconscious myself previously. Where would the judge have placed me, if I had chosen to shoot?
 
These little red legal lines actually piss me off. I took a couple of minutes to decide what was best, even as the violence in the next room continued. I made a choice. It was based on my desire for all of us in the household to survive and find away to grow past the behavior. I made the connection that my actions would have lasting effects, maybe far worse than what was going on already. I made an adult decision.
 
What is or isn't a legal adult/minor, is in reality a subjective decision made by a society. In many civilizations that have come before ours, an adult was an adult, when they assumed certain responsabilities, and were accepted as such. Age related judgements as to when that would occur, were of less importance than when the behavior warranted the change in status. Many cultures still have rights of passage that are used to determine when maturity is acheived.

Foley? Do I approve? Not hardly, but I think it's possible he was set up, and the left played the game of double standards. We do not practice the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' like we should. If someone is our enemy, we are all to happy to jump down their throat on any excuse. Does this serve justice?

If a teen is a half an hour away from being 18, and they get touchy feely with a 30 year old, is it really fair to allow a Parent to pursue sexual assault charges?  How about if the teen lied about their age?The legal line says 'yes' in most places in America. Is that really justice? What if they are a congressional page merely exchanging e-mails? Was anyone even touched?  I'm just saying, this isn't always a clear area.

If your white rich kids who get charged with rape, some people say your finally getting what you deserve, never mind the facts. Never mind the lies. Never mind the fine line between a bad joke, or a racial slur. And never mind the actual damage done by promoting allegations when they remain unproven. It is easy to smear someone over 'allegations' and they don't have to be true. Duke Lacrosse anyone?

Unproven allegations are the sort of thing that allows the ATF to destroy property er- I mean 'evidence', and murder er-I mean 'subdue' citizens after breaking into their houses in the night.

Hell ... getting it wrong allows cops to force their way into an old woman's home and kill her as she defends herself!

I do not support the abuse of anyone, but I also hate witch hunts.  The great majority of those occured in Europe, and Salem was an American anomoly. We are suppossed to be better than that. The left still enjoys them, but we should hold oursleves to a higher standard.  Sometimes you should hold your fire, and see what happens.

USA, all the way!

27

Jake?

Have you ever had a 'gay' friend? When I married my wife, one of the guests was 'gay'. Was this person a pedophile? Are you actually making that broad and generalized accusation? Are you really that kind of person who would take one kind of behavior, and try to damn all who engage in that behavior as being sexual monsters preying on children?

I'm against some of the 'gay' agenda, but I'm not mean enough to do what your doing. Why does it always seem to be the left who starts this crap?

Get a conscience!                 USA, all the way!

28 MarK Foley wrote a naughty email to an 18 year old man who was a former congressional page.


Any reason that information was deleted, Howie?

29 Jeff, I thought I saw that comment also. About the guy being 18. I had read elsewhere that was actually the case with at least one of the Foley incedents, but naturally with everything else going on it seemed to get pushed under the rug.  I'm not saying I approve. I didn't approve of Bill and Monica either. Technically I guess the act itself isn't illegal though, in the context your mentioning. Did you get a comment deleted? I thought I saw it ... but it would be strange if that particular comment got deleted when you think about it. 
 
        USA, all the way!

30 Why does it always seem to be the left who starts this crap?

Yup.  Remember the Leftard PR campaign just before the elections about Foley being gay?  An effort to suppress the evangelical vote.  These Leftards have shown they are more than willing to throw gays into the fire if it means scoring points against Republicans, or in Jake's case the christian right.  They do it over and over again. 

31 Maybe he will pull the Pete Townsend and say he was doing "research", more likely though, he's setting up a challenge for child pornography possession laws.

32 listen, im not even bothering to argue with you hypocritical idiots anymore.

"Foley? Do I approve? Not hardly, but I think it's possible he was set
up, and the left played the game of double standards. We do not
practice the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' like we should.
If someone is our enemy, we are all to happy to jump down their throat
on any excuse. Does this serve justice?"

how does that NOT apply to this guy?

"Unproven allegations are the sort of thing that allows the ATF to
destroy property er- I mean 'evidence', and murder er-I mean 'subdue'
citizens after breaking into their houses in the night."

"                                                          "

"Have you ever had a 'gay' friend? When I married my wife, one of the
guests was 'gay'. Was this person a pedophile? Are you actually making
that broad and generalized accusation? Are you really that kind of
person who would take one kind of behavior, and try to damn all who
engage in that behavior as being sexual monsters preying on children?"

boy, you're good at this. i feel the crushing weight of your all knowing ability to see my life and know everything about it. and you're totally aware of my opinions based on your awesome ability of inference.

frankly, mister weaver, i am no longer taking you seriously, because you are unwilling to take me seriously.

i'm not even going to bother to put together nice arguments. its been a long time since i learned that ideas that weren't put in place by logic, are not likely to be removed by logic.

and, to completely contradict what i just said

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma has filed a brief
alleging that Latham's arrest also violated his right to free speech.

i was trying to point out that the aclu covers the rights of your hypocrites too.

33 i was trying to point out that the aclu covers the rights of your hypocrites too.

My rights?  Esqueeeze me?  I'm not gay.  You see, if you had chosen an article about the ACLU defending my right to practice my religion, or my right to free speech, or association, etc., then you would have a case.  But you didn't.  Of all the "rights" the ACLU defends you chose the right to gay cocksmoke!  On a thread about pedophilia!   LOL.  I'm sure it was totally unconscious, but very VERY revealing.

Also a bit funny how you start your thread saying how you're not going to argue with us hyprocrites anymore, then you proceed to post the longest comment on the thread.  LOL.  It's because Leftards make me laugh sometimes.

34 Jake,    I'm generally saying allegations are abused. In that sense, we probably have common ground. What were you trying to say about Foley, that had any relevance to child abuse, other than that allegations can fuel witch hunts?  Help me out here! My problem with your staements lies in the broad smear, which YES, we are all capable of, but we still need to avoid. I have established elsewhere why I do not like the ACLU, and I'll recap some of that if it will help you understand.  BTW, do you have any 'gay' friends?  I can see that as a fair question.                                         
                             
                       USA, all the way!

35 Jake? What makes you think I don't take you seriously? So your on the left! So people here bicker to excess. Am I singling you out for special treatment? No! I do think your young, and I do think your a little 'spontaneous'. It doesn't mean I discount everything you say. I do read your comments.  Consider my question and tll me why you feel I don't take you seriously?         USA, all the way!

36 "awesome ability of inference"     That is actually a pretty good line                                     USA, al the way!

37 Fake:


The ACLU protects child molesting groups like NAMBLA pro bono, and has selected at least one pedophile as its President.


The vile behaviour of the ACLU cannot be excused away by pointing fingers at a Republican's allegedly poor behaviour. Like usual, you're employing a fallacious argument.


Mark Foley sent an instant message to a grown man--a grown man who no longer worked under him.


Do you have a problem with homosecuals being homosexual?


You hypocritically defend the ACLU's support of pedophilia, but cast stones at Mark Foley, who lost his job simply because he's a gay Republican.


Lefties don't care about gays, minorities or women. Not unless they're leftists, too. Foley is a fag and Condoleeza Rice is Aunt Jemima. Lefties just want to exploit victimology for political gain. How very tolerant.
 
 
Pedophilia is illegal in this country, by the way.

38 Lefties don't care about gays, minorities or women. Not unless they're
leftists, too. Foley is a fag and Condoleeza Rice is Aunt Jemima.

Bingo.  Observe also how they mock Michelle Malkin because of her race, making fun of her name and ethnic features.  Disgusting.  In my own personal experience, it wasn't until I became a conservative that I began to experience racism directed at me-- by leftards.  My race is suddenly an issue where it never was before.   Leftards are some of the most racist bitches on the planet as far as I'm concerned.  And you better believe a gay Republican will be thrown under the bus too.  It's not gays or minorities they care about, it LIBERALS they care about.  Gay and race are just a vehicle, and when it doesn't suit their purposes under the bus you go.

39 I have to absolutly agree with Jesusland Carlos' last statement. Honestly, the race of a person is not an issue to me unless that person makes it an issue. And I really do think the left does all they can to polarize according to race, when it suits them.              
              USA, all the way!

40 This post is soooooo gay. Jesus H., sittin' on a haybale pickin' his teeth, Christ! And Mohammed H. Prophet! too, while I'm at it, so as not to leave out Rusty's good friends.



How about Siddartha H. Gatauma?

41 And the ACLU was one of the biggist defenders of child pornoggraphers and now their chicken have come home to roost