<p>like the republicans that care, eh?</p>
<p>come on anyone want to discuss the discrepencies of the house leadershio in all this?</p>
<p>please tell me what democratic leaders are taking glee in this please</p>
<p>and please tell me what the republicans did to protect the pages in this…come on</p>
<p><like the=“” republicans=“” that=“” care,=“” eh?=“”></like></p>
<p>Yes, CGM, that’s why I changed my party affiliation to Republican. They ARE the party of family values (and I don’t care if many of them are hypocrites) because they ARE the ONLY ones out there trying to protect children. You can call them hypocrites all day long (I thought we didn’t care about their private lives, btw?) but at least they are aware of some of the concerns of the average parent. Ummm, let’s see, last I remember Tipper tried to get some advisories on cd’s, Joe Liebermann was out there trying to reign in the peddlars of garbage to kids (we know what happened to him); and… that’s about it regarding the protection of children on their part. Anything in that area has been done by Republicans (Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, for example). </p>
<p>You guys better reign in your glee: this is going to backfire on you.</p>
<p>This [American</a> Thinker story](<a href=“http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6269]American”>http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6269) notes that Kirk Fordham was once Foley’s chief of staff. Coincidently, the story behind stopsexpredators.com is becoming more clear, thanks to Sweetness&Light.</p>
<p>
Same here – and the most important family value to me is protecting my family. Republicans always support the military and defense better than democrats, and I feel safer with Republicans in office.</p>
<p>
well thats that I guess</p>
<p>DJR,
So is Fordham a closet Dem?</p>
<p>See, I don’t think they are the party of family values. The party of family values would be for a living wage and universal health care.</p>
<p>Actually, DRJ4, unless I missed something there’s nothing there - no evidence - that connects the Stopsexpredators blog to Mike Rogers, just blue sky speculation. I agree that its odd that stopsexpredators.com is completely anonymous, but trying to tie it in with Rogers’ penchant for self-promotion and “outing” of prominent gays is completely speculative. That’s not what I call “clear.”</p>
<p>So what if Mike Rogers is behind sexpredators?</p>
<p>Republicans embrace specific (typically traditional) family values. Democrats focus on other concerns such as support for gays and single mothers. It seems hypocritical when either party fails to live up to their goals, but that doesn’t mean that people abandon their values simply because they sometimes don’t live up to them.</p>
<p>gla, they’re still flogging the “Someone (Democrat, liberal) knew for months that pages were being molested and withheld the information so they could use it as an October Surprise - just more proof that liberals are **bad<a href=“and%20ignore%20the%20man%20over%20there%20behind%20the%20curtain”>/B</a>” conspiracy theory. (Yeah - I know it hit the fan in September, but who’s quibbling over details when you’re constructing an entire vile conspiracy out of whole cloth?) SInce Rogers threatened to “out” Foley last March, and the SSP blog posted the e-mails (not IM’s) a few days before ABC, the tinfoil hat brigade is connecting the dots and concluding that Rogers had the IM’s all along, but somehow didn’t let on, despite the fact that the guy has acute logorrhea, set up the SSP website to avoid detection, and then months later posted, well, basically trivial stuff which didn’t include the IM’s on the SSP website. It’s a goofy theory, but about the best the TFHB can come up with at this point.</p>
<p>Kluge and GLA,</p>
<p>I have no idea who any of these people are. I just find it interesting.</p>
<p>Democratics support of families <em>includes</em> that of gays and single mothers. It’s not binary, not exclusive. I’ve had clothes dryers that didn’t spin as well.</p>
<p>SJM, if your family safety is a key issue, then you shouldn’t vote for the idiots who pursue an policy in Iraq that have created more terrorists than they’ve killed and who have absolutely punted in Afghanistan.</p>
<p>Mike Rogers has ties to the Democratic party besides being way, way out there. There will definitely be blowback (sorry) if it’s shown that he was involved with this in any way.</p>
<p>Yeah, his ties are so close that they don’t return his phone calls or e-mails. Rogers has “ties” to the gay community as well - roughly half of which would duck tape him to a migrating humpback whale if they had the chance. He’s a loudmouth, self-important fringe loony. I’ll take responsibility for that nutjob if you’ll take David Duke – deal?</p>
<p>“Same here – and the most important family value to me is protecting my family. Republicans always support the military and defense better than democrats, and I feel safer with Republicans in office.”</p>
<p>That’s why I’m a republican who supports gay marriage and choice on abortion.</p>
<p>TheDad,</p>
<p>I tried to particularize my comment but I can see you felt it was not fair. I stand corrected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What are his ties</p>
<p>
You could also argue that family values means allowing families to keep more of their income (lower taxes), choose the best schools for their children (vouchers) and allowing parental involvement in helping daughters make good choices regarding abortion (no abortions without parental consent for minors.)</p>
<p>TheDad, if the Democrats could ever persuade me that they had a spine regarding military matters, I might listen. As far as Iraq, that’s another discussion. But I’m still sure that having Bush as President on 9/11 has made me safer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think all Democrats allow this. I think most are opposed to requiring it. That really is between family members, no?</p>