Local ABC Blogger Angered Foley Got To Xxxxxxxx Before They Could
October 1st, 2006 at 7:18 pm by SmantixA local banker’s hours blogger and corporate television personality for our ABC affiliate dared to fill out an Overtime Card and make an uncharacteristic weekend post today in hopes of igniting a conversation – well, maybe not a conversation. Maybe a pogrom – On the Foley IM imbroglio and to light this flaming bag of rhetorical shit on every Republican doorstep:
Democrats hate children, while Republicans ask little boys if their penises are hard. Then the GOP leaders cover up the predatory ephebophilia! … Democrats hate kids, but Republicans? They like them. They like them very, very much. Enough to look the other way while one of their own asks little kids how they masturbate.
….
You are either with the pedophiles/ephebophiles, or you are with the terrorists.
My, my, my. Meet the ugly face of news in the 21st Century. We’ll hide our eyes once again from the snotty tone, unsubstantiated rumormongering, and insinuations that Republicans are child molesters. The shoot first and ask questions rarely (if ever) journo-judge and jury is already waterboarding Republican leadership in her own MSM-sponsored Abu Ghraib. Can we look away before we’re forced to retaliate and symbolically hang a few of them from the lamp posts for such an affront?
Ahh, Screw Them.
I mean, this isn’t just coming from “a blogger” – this is coming from a paid ABC commentator with a degree in journalism. Should I expect better from someone who wrote over 40 posts about Valerie Plame in the last year and not one single update since Richard Armitage was outed as the leaker? Probably not.
But I did find it ironic, considering the current subject matter, since I had spoken with this very same person last year regarding a New York Times story about a 16-year old homosexual boy who was sent to a Christian rehab facility in Memphis after his parents found out about a website he was using to communicate with older men. At the time I wrote:
Amber Alert Issued for “Zach”
As indicated in today’s New York Times, inappropriately in the “Fashion & Style” section, the trauma of being offered a “do over” on choosing your sexuality picked up an odd comment from one “E. J. Friedman, a Memphis musician and writer” who said that he felt “disturbed by what he read and fired off an instant message. “I said: ‘You should run away from home.”
What’s more disturbing in this scenario? The fact that Zach’s parents sent him to Love In Action or the fact that Zach is 16 years old and has 35 year old men acquaintances on the internet suggesting that he run away from home?
I’d “stir the storms” (whatever the hell that means), in the lingo of the NY Times headline writers, and ask why local bloggers have been so gung ho about homosexualizing the nation’s youth and criticizing Zach’s parents…Also, how young is “too young” for your kids to be exploring their homosexual identity? Just wondering aloud here. 16? 14? 12? 8? Seriously. If Zach was 12 and his parents sent him to this camp, would the same parties still be as zealous in their attacks? And would his 30-something year old online male buddies be any less criminal for trying to lure him away from his parents?
The response from ABC’s then neophyte blogger is a textbook example of how one transforms from an open-minded homosexual activist into a hypocrite with an axe to grind in one short year.
But let’s be honest – it didn’t take a year.
The following is the exchange that took place which never notes a problem with dirty old men hitting on this particular “little kid” but dared to implore the youngster to experiment with his sexuality unencumbered and tacit approval of attempts from sexual predators to lure him away from his parents:
“ask why local bloggers have been so gung ho about homosexualizing the nation’s youth”
It is part of our lunatice left-wing agenda. We turn people gay.
Posted by: brittney at July 18, 2005 06:04 AMbrit: As I’ve always suspected.
Posted by: smantix at July 18, 2005 07:49 AM“Having said that, I won’t be defending everything I say. Else I’d be here all day.”
Hahaha. I’m going to have to try that.
Oh wait, you have to not have a blog to not have accountability. MY BAD.Posted by: brittney at July 18, 2005 07:56 AM
Now I have a blog and you have no accountability.
That’s what’s called “foreshadowing”, people.
What should a parent do in this situation? Age is a valid issue here. If Zach was a few years younger and knowing what we know now – that he had these activists saying “they have friends who will help him” to run away from home – what is a parent legally allowed to do?
Because all you’re doing is justifying what they’re doing. Which is disturbing all by itself.
Feel free to tackle the age issue too. At what age should a parent respect their child’s decision on this subject…Posted by: smantix at July 18, 2005 11:20 AM
What should a parent do? Respect their children’s sexuality and brave choice to come out of the closet.
“At what age should a parent respect their child’s decision on this subject?”
At any age.
Posted by: brittney at July 18, 2005 12:15 PMBrittney, do you think it’s okay for an 8 year old to have sex?
Posted by: k at July 18, 2005 12:18 PMNo. Do I think it is okay for an 8-year-old to have sexual feelings? Yes.
Posted by: brittney at July 18, 2005 12:24 PMIs there an age where you would respect the parent’s wishes as to how they chose to raise their child? Obviously, when someone is 18 they can do what they want. But the younger you go, the onus is on the parents to decide what is right or wrong for their own kid.
So if your 10 year old tells you that they’re thinking about playing for the other team, you are going to say “good for you” and get behind that decision without regard to the limited intellectual or emotional development of that age?
Posted by: smantix at July 18, 2005 12:57 PM“So if your 10 year old tells you that they’re thinking about playing for the other team, you are going to say “good for you” and get behind that decision without regard to the limited intellectual or emotional development of that age?”
Yes. Quite simply because I see nothing at all wrong with homosexuality.
Posted by: brittney at July 18, 2005 04:07 PM
Apparently if those homosexual messages are coming from a Republican you can change your tune. So when dirty old men are hitting on a 16-year old Zach and encouraging him to run away from home with them, that’s cool. He’s not a “little kid”. But when one of those dirty old men happens to be a Republican, and is hitting on a 16-year old boy, let’s break out the good knives.
Can I reel off a few Democrat sex scandals regarding underage kids off the top of my head? Sure. Mel Reynolds easily comes to mind. But to what end? Whoever sat on this story was content to let Foley continue with his perversion until 30 days before an election before leaking it on – coincidence – an ABC website.
With great blogging comes great responsibility. But with mediocre MSM blogging, you can lie and cheat and smear with impunity. So you will do well to excuse me if I roll my eyes the next time I hear “October Surprise” and “Fear and Smear” again for the rest of this month.
Or when I laugh because you can’t delete my comments here.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:57 pm
An excellent point – why isn’t the left heralding Foley as a hero? All he was doing was helping a young man blossom into a potential gay young-adulthood, which is surely the best kind of young-adulthood. This is diversity at its finest, yet here they are, attacking Foley for doing their own work. Shame.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Uh, did this Democrat happen to mention Gerry Stubbs or Barney Franks in his rant? Thought not. There is an old saying that applies here, “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. This turd knocked out his picture glass window. Nice try, Democratic hypocrit!
October 1st, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Since when is it bad to protect the sexuality of a minor by suggesting he/she run away?
And since when is it bad to be a homosexual trolling the internet for teen boys?
I’d rather be a morally-bankrupt liberal, than a sexually repressed neo-con…at least I THINK for myself!
October 1st, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Ah, but glass houses do serve a purpose when it’s inhabitant is a feces flinging monkey. All we can do is point and cover our mouths in disbelief at the mess they make and the reputations of their workplaces that they sully.
Mel Reynolds works for the NAACP now after Bubba felt his pain and commuted his sentence for molesting a 15 year old staffer. Je$$e Jr. took his old seat. Barney Frank, well, he had to forsake his pimp cane and stop running a gay brothel out of his apartment. Hell, they even voted NOT TO CENSURE Frank over that one.
Gerry Studds – he got to play the gay card so doing the underage male pages is ok. Jim McGreevey – he’s on Oprah after resigning over giving a top Homeland Security job to his gay lover. Neil Goldschmidt, David Giles. As I said, I could go on….
This isn’t to say that being gay is scandal ridden. The heteros in Congress have done far more to violate the public trust since there are more of them.
But hitting on “little kids” is only inappropriate if you also vote for tax cuts.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:52 am
No comment on the asininity of ‘Democrats hate children’? That’s ok with you?
I don’t give a shit about Foley’s party. What he did was inexcusable. If anyone covered it up, that is pretty rank as well. Don’t you think THAT is the story, rather than what bloggers think about it?
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:55 am
Find where somebody has said what Foley did wasn’t wrong, John. Find it. Or quit your bitching.
Dixie Thoughts has been around for what? A couple of weeks? Two months – tops? Should they have qualified their statement with “Democrats hate unborn children”. Because that’s completely true. Especially black ones.
But what I find so impressive is your calls against partisanship here when you are totally void of such calls in brittany’s post calling all Republicans child molesters and saying that there was a cover-up even though it was turned over to the people who investigate such things when it was first discovered?
You can contend that Dixie Thoughts, whoever it is, is asinine. Are you prepared to say Nashville Is Talking is as well for engaging in the same type of rhetoric?
As for me, I have a hard time believing that the leadership of an entire party looked the other way if they were accurately informed about Foley’s perverted discretions towards a minor. That’s the third rail of politics. No one would defend it and no one has. They called for his immediate resignation and investigation when these IMs came to light.
Who would do that if they thought it would show they were negligent.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:29 am
Yeah, Smantix. Why didn’t you create this post how John wanted? Go back and start over.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:47 am
The issue isn’t me. The issue isn’t Brittney.
Yeah, people called for an investigation after the story came out. The issue is that some people allegedly knew as early as 2005 that the man had a problem. Where was the call for the investigation in 2005?
I’m a Democrat. I don’t see anything unreasonable in confronting someone proclaiming that all Democrats hate children.
Yeah, I probably should have ignored the bait, but as I wrote on my blog, I get really tired when ANYONE says ALL of some group – Republicans, Democrats, White people, Black people are all anything.
Smantix gets to write whatever he wants. I get to disagree. I think that’s how it works.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:50 am
oh yeah, I didn’t say that Dixie Thoughts (the blogger(s) was asinine. I said that what he SAID was asinine. Big difference..at least to me.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:54 am
John – Being from Salemtown, as you well understand, if you continue to attempt to move the goalposts I will have no recourse but to notify the Historic Overlay Commission.
I’m making the post about NiT. Who’s Dixie Thoughts? Some anonymous newcomer. Am I supposed to hold some brand new anon blogger to a higher standard than a professional corporate media blogger whose been doing it for years?
DT could have phrased themselves better but is that supposed to excuse brittany’s non sequitir? How unprofessional is that. As I pointed out above, she’s pretty lax when it comes to condemning what she did in that post yesterday vs. the Life In Action/Zach affair last year.
Same situation or worse and she couldn’t have cared less.
Everybody wants Foley punished. The WaPo already reported that Hastert & Co. turned the accusations over to an investigative watchdog. So all the Donkeys bray about wanting Hastert, Boehner and up to the Pres to resign. No shock – that’s politics.
But that is what Channel 2 is funding as well. Virulent left-wing politics. From her and Harold Gotti, Jr’s favorite cheerleader, Opie Kleinfelter. And I will comment on it as long as ABC, Knight-Ridder and the rest continue to fund it.
Michael Silence is a Democrat or at least to the left of center but I dig his site. He’s fair. What News2 is doing is providing factually-challenged smear sites.
Being a corporate “blogger” shouldn’t mean you have no accountability.
As always, you are free to disagree.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:54 am
I probably shouldn’t get involved in your Tennessee pissing contest.
I’m just a simple Californian. Your world frightens and confuses me.
I am inclined to agree with one or two things John says. There DOES appear to be evidence that the peeps on The Hill have known about Foley’s behavior…perhaps for 5 years now.
This is not a partisan issue. Smantix was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT to call Brittany out for having her moral compass out of whack. But John is correct in pointing out that Republican or Democrat…if someone knew about this behavior and didn’t speak up, they should be nailed to the wall.
One more thing, however. So far there is no HARD (ok, no snickers here) evidence yet of a cover-up. Just allegations and whispers so far.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:01 am
Of course John is correct about that, Billy, but that wasn’t what this post was about. That’s just called “missing the point entirely”. It is a non-partisan issue, but Smantix was pointing out News 2′s history and inconsistency on the general subject matter. If anyone knew about Foley and covered it up (which hasn’t been proven yet), then they should hang as well. It doesn’t matter whether they have a D or an R after their name, as you well know, most of them are scumbags of one stripe or another.
The best part so far is that THE BOOZE MADE HIM DO IT! I wish I’d paid enough attention to get out a satirical “it was the booze/drugs/childhood abuse” post because it’s just too predictable.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:13 am
Lol, Historical Overlay Commission and Salemtown…
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:47 pm
All your Tennessee pissing contest are belong to us………….(Damn, I swear it just slipped out,,, Damn)
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Swampy…
You forgot to post a Youtube, or a link, or at least some good gay…
Oh, Sorry Preston and Smantix, I guess we shouldn’t take our eye off the ball here…
Resume pissing contest…
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Dammit, if ya’ll were going to have a pissing contest, just why in the hell didn’t you notify me? Us Texans are noted pissers ourselves, and have been known to piss as far away as California, expecially after a few Lone Stars. Us pissing on California all the time kinda explains a few things about California, don’t it?
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:32 pm
So that’s what that smell is. I thought it was Mexico…
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:35 pm
I’m just a simple Californian. Your world frightens and confuses me.
If the nasally ejected wild berry smoothie spots don’t come out of my Superbowl shirt, I’m coming after you.
But what I should sue you for is that now I might always read your posts in Phil Hartman’s voice.
Oh, and here’s some gay. Not really good gay, but maybe good enough gay to get you by for a while.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Doug, that’s over-the-top gay. We need some good gay soon to – ahem – wash the taste of that out of our mouths.