Re: family values

["Petem" <petem001@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bass why don't you post all this crap to Comp.Home.Automation too?

I am sure its only a slight mistake,don't worry I will forward it for you


"Robert L Bass" <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de
news: 1161009227.459426.183510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Echoing Drudge and Savage, Dobson and Henninger claimed Foley scandal
> is "sort of a joke" and a "prank[ ]" by pages
>
>    Summary: James Dobson and Daniel Henninger both echoed a claim
> previously made by Matt Drudge and Michael Savage that the sexually
> explicit communications that Rep. Mark Foley allegedly engaged in with
> former congressional pages were "sort of a joke" or a "prank[]" on the
> part of the former pages.
>
> Commenting on the congressional page scandal surrounding former Rep.
> Mark Foley (R-FL) on the October 6 broadcast of Focus on the Family,
> James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, declared
> that the Foley affair has "turned out to be what some people are now
> saying was a -- sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages"
> who had reportedly come forward with sexually explicit instant messages
> that Foley allegedly sent. Similarly, in his October 6 column, Wall
> Street Journal deputy editorial page editor Daniel Henninger wrote that
> "a rumor emerged that in fact Mark Foley had been pranked by the House
> pages" and then added: "It is the first plausible thing I've heard in
> seven days." Media Matters for America recently noted that in defense
> of Foley's alleged actions, Internet gossip Matt Drudge and nationally
> syndicated radio host Michael Savage also attempted to shift the blame
> to the former pages who communicated with the former congressman. On
> his website, Drudge has elaborated on his suggestion that at least one
> of the former pages was complicit.
>
> On Focus on the Family, Dobson was responding to a New York Times
> column by Paul Krugman, in which Krugman wondered how Dobson would
> respond to the Foley scandal given Dobson's earlier criticism of former
> President Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky. From
> Krugman's column (subscription required):
>
>    It will be interesting, by the way, to see how Dr. Dobson, who
> declared of Bill Clinton that "no man has ever done more to debase the
> presidency," responds to the Foley scandal. Does the failure of
> Republican leaders to do anything about a sexual predator in their
> midst outrage him as much as a Democratic president's consensual
> affair?
>
> In response, Dobson again criticized Clinton and then suggested that
> the sexually explicit instant messages allegedly sent by Foley to
> underage male pages were the result of "sort of a joke":
>
>    DOBSON: We condemn the Foley affair categorically, and we also
> believe that what Mr. Clinton did was one of the most embarrassing and
> wicked things ever done by a president in power. Let me remind you,
> sir, that it was not just James Dobson who found the Lewinsky affair
> reprehensible. More than 140 newspapers called for Clinton's
> resignation. But the president didn't do what Mr. Foley has done in
> leaving. He stayed in office, and he lied to the grand jury to obscure
> the facts. As it turns out, Mr. Foley has had illicit sex with no one
> that we know of, and the whole thing turned out to be what some people
> are now saying was a -- sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other
> pages.
>
> Henninger's column also picked up the rumor that Foley's purported
> victims were to blame, calling it "the first plausible thing I've heard
> in seven days." He also suggested that there is a "scale" of
> homosexuality in which one end ultimately involves a "compulsive,
> predatory sex offender":
>
>    We know when we're beaten. Bowing to the gods of the news cycle,
> let us undertake the great questions of the moment. Where does
> post-modern American ethics place Mark Foley's homosexuality on a scale
> of 1 to 10 -- a 1 being just another gay guy and a 10 being a
> compulsive, predatory sex offender? What might fall in between seems to
> have confused Denny Hastert, two newspapers, one TV network and the
> FBI. In the event, Mr. Hastert, as the point man, is being driven from
> office for having failed, in hindsight, to recognize the obvious.
>
>    [...]
>
>    By midafternoon yesterday, a rumor emerged that in fact Mark Foley
> had been pranked by the House pages. It is the first plausible thing
> I've heard in seven days. Four weeks from the election, I have an idea:
> Let's fire the Members and replace them with the pages. We could do
> worse. We are.
>
> As Media Matters has noted, the claim that gay men are more likely than
> straight men to sexually abuse children, which has been forwarded by
> conservatives such as Family Research Council president Tony Perkins,
> is false.
>
> Stephen Jones, the attorney for the page who reportedly originally came
> forward with explicit instant messages allegedly sent by Foley, told
> The Oklahoman that the suggestion that his client's allegations are a
> prank is "a piece of fiction," adding: "There is not any aspect of this
> matter that is a practical joke nor should anyone treat it that way."
> An entry on the ABC News weblog The Blotter also disputed Drudge's
> commentary:
>
>    An online story on the Drudge Report Thursday claimed one set of
> the sexually explicit instant messages obtained by ABC News was part of
> a "prank" on the part of the former page, who reportedly says he goaded
> the congressman into writing the messages.
>
>    "This was no prank," said one of the three former pages who talked
> to ABC News today about his experience with the congressman.
>