blogACTIVE.com - Comments

Can you say "Scott Palmer"?
incontext | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:13 am
Direct link to this comment

Im just a new viewer to this site, and will check in to see the fireworks! Good to see this being being done!
liberalbuffet | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:27 am
Direct link to this comment

Word out in the closet is that Patrick McHenry is GAY! True?
Lou | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:31 am
Direct link to this comment

What about Denny?
fat karl | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:31 am
Direct link to this comment

This site is only the start, too.

Michael Rogers is the registrant for www.pageonenewsmedia.com.

He runs www.pageoneq.com.
Eric | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:34 am
Direct link to this comment

Oh great! Another in blame the media crowd. Eric, do you ever get sick of being yourself? And exactly what is the FBI going to investigate him for? Knowing the names of hypocrites?
Robert | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:35 am
Direct link to this comment

How about telling us about the GAY SENATOR that is also a PREDATOR? Saw something about it over at Americablog, and I thought you knew something about a Senator trolling bathrooms? Lets see it!

GO BOY GO!

GO BOY GO!

Thanks, Mike.
cowboyNEOK | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:37 am
Direct link to this comment

Blame it on the media?

No, I blame it on Michael Rogers, director of development for the National Association of Lesbian and Gay Fundraisers.

Check blogactive.com posts Jan 30, 2006.

Check Dirty Little Secret.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=ca...us&ct=clnk& cd=1

from Foley's political opponent.

Check these on DailyKos

http://www.radaronline.com/ exclu...rnnow_09.24.jpg

http://www.radaronline.com/ exclu...rnnow_09.05.jpg
Eric | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:44 am
Direct link to this comment

Come on, fess up!

You were trying to find a reason for fundraising, weren't you?

But you didn't realize that you would get caught doing the dirty work.

The Republicans were actually working with Foley - a gay man. So you set him up.
Eric | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:48 am
Direct link to this comment

What are you talking about Eric? None of that reflects poorly on anyone other than the Repubs and Foley. I wouldn't be letting that stuff out of the bag, Eric.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:54 am
Direct link to this comment

Wow, I can almost see the sweat trickle down Eric’s temples as I read his words.

Scream as loud as you want to, Eric, the die has been cast.
Jim Randell | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:56 am
Direct link to this comment

New picture released of Michael Rogers

http://thumbsnap.com/v/Ktd3KmV8.jpg
Eric | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:04 pm
Direct link to this comment

Heh.

Got quite a few tricks up my sleeve for you guys.

Can't wait...
Eric | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:06 pm
Direct link to this comment

Well, Robert and Jim... The big problem with outting staffers isn't what you think. There are still civil laws against invasion of privacy.

Staffers aren't politicians - aka - public figures.

Stalking, harassment, et al. are also big dangers Mike is kind of brushing with.

Mike doesn't have to be the one following a staffer to a gay bar. That's where co-conspirator status is added. He just needs to be the one inciting or publishing.

He's been lucky that noone has of yet pulled those cards. Mostly because he's preying on people in the closet that fear the publicity (ironically).

Mike, be careful young padawan... you have taken on the mantra of a reporter and online publisher... with great power comes great liability...
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:14 pm
Direct link to this comment

What law? So long as it is true it can be reported. And they are public figures. They deserve to be outed. Eric, you are starting to sound like a gay hypocrite Republican staffer about to be outed.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:18 pm
Direct link to this comment

" with great power comes great liability..."

There is no liability with the truth.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:19 pm
Direct link to this comment

Robert,

Why do I have to repeat that civil laws protect invasion of privacy even when it is the truth?
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:20 pm
Direct link to this comment

Journalism 101
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:20 pm
Direct link to this comment

Can some one help Eric? He needs to get on some strong meds.
Cinemaniac | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:21 pm
Direct link to this comment

It may be hard now, but after Eric's comrades on the religious right morels police get Eric and his buddies fired, and after they get off the republican welfare roll and get real jobs, then, at that point, they might find peace in their lives and start living as proud people.
Until then, I would recommend upping their dosage of Welbutron
Jim Randell | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:34 pm
Direct link to this comment

Wow...

From the ADA to disabilities advocate organizations, people who use welbutrin would prefer to be considered normal.

Amazing to see that the commenters here that are fighting for inclusion believe that using people with mental disabilities as an insult is ok.

Good job at being inclusive.

Mike, is this your constituency? "Let us be gay, but not disabled" crowd?
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:36 pm
Direct link to this comment

It's people like Michael Rogers that put people on meds.

And in rehabs.
Eric | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:40 pm
Direct link to this comment

Well gee, why don't these poor, put upon fellows sue Mike? Huuum, could it be cause they HAVEN'T GOT A LEGAL LEG TO STAND ON? Mikey, you go girl! I am SOOOOOO lovin this. The most amoral, disgusting crowd of sociopaths this country has EVER been subjected to are FINALLY getting their due. Por lil Jeffy and Eric, just sittin there, all red in the face and sweatin in their stained boxers as they pound away at the keyboard. Will your ugly little heads actually EXPLODE after the election? Will you spend all the allowance yer Momma gives you seeking comfort at the gayphone sex services? Or maybe just put in a call to Foley or Hastert? Or how bout Sully? You people are as disgusting as Jews for Hitler.
secularhumanizinevoluter | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:44 pm
Direct link to this comment

Actually no.

They don't sue out of the same fear of public exposure that kept them in the closet.

Wasn't that clear?

Btw.. sarcasm is funny usually, but you just played urself the way you used it..

I'm not laughing with you, just at you...
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:48 pm
Direct link to this comment

Mike, keep it up. Outing anyone to Hastert will come as no surprise to him because you can't kid a high school wrestling coach. The fact is that being a closeted, socially conservative Republican means you're a self-loathing nut. But being a non-gay Republican and welcoming closeted gays into your party means you're a moral relativist—and that is NOT gonna fly with the Evangelical base. Regardless of where the there came from, and contrary to what Republicans are nervously arguing, there is plenty of there there—and it has nothing to do with being gay and everything to do with being corrupt and deceitful.
Matt | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:49 pm
Direct link to this comment

PS... Foley prefers chat lines, not phone lines...

Please, oh please, get your references somewhat connected to your ridicule...
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:50 pm
Direct link to this comment

I am going to LMAO when these people you out keep voting the way they always have and you've accomplished nothing or worse.
Peach | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:50 pm
Direct link to this comment

Hot Damn...
This is fun!

Eric..

I've deleted a few of your inappropriate comments.

This is your last warning.

I have obviously captured your IP address because you made a threat in one of your comments.

One more inappropriate comment and you're banned. Got it?
Mike Rogers | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 12:59 pm
Direct link to this comment

Wow, it is weird how the slimers and perverts are getting frantic. Poor Eric promises "tricks." Its amazing how the people who claim to "love Jesus" are willing to do anything to support predator pedophiles and the swamp of filth that has taken over the country.

Be careful Michael, these are people without morals who are obsessed with money and power.

They are true fanatic Jihadists.
olpete | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 1:00 pm
Direct link to this comment

Mike you probably know this law well, so correct if this is wrong- the tort of invasion of privacy, includes public disclosure of embarrassing private facts. general requirements, (may vary by state, it's state statute or common law)--

1. true,
2. offensive to reasonable person,
3. not of concern to public, and
4. so intimate that publication outrages the public's sense of decency.

Defenses include that the information is newsworthy, of legitimate public concern, and that it doesn't outrage community notions of decency. Both of these defenses are operative here- a court is not going to hold in 2006 that someone being gay is a public outrage or offensive, thank God. In addition, courts define "public concern" pretty broadly, and it's certainly got the public interested these days.

Long story short, an outed gay Republican Congressional staffer, especially one with any connection to covering up the Foley embarrassment, would get laughed out of court if he tried to sue for being outed.
clb72 | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 1:11 pm
Direct link to this comment

clb72.. that was cute, but problemmatic..

The invasion of pricacy issue traces back to Warren and Brandeis (c. 1890) to combat media damage based on "idle and prurient curiosity."

The key issue is to protect private people from "mental pain and distress far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury."

That's the basis.

A) Public disclosure of private and embarrassing facts.
Question "what point does truthful information about a person give way to his right to be left [1)] alone [2)] free from embarrassment [3)] or unwanted publicity?"

Don't even get started understanding how harassment of a congressman's staff can be viewed as "attempting to interfere or influence" that congressman on votes. Mike, sound familiar? "Anyone that votes for DOMA gets outted, including their staff"

Key issues involved include "sufficiently private" "sufficiently intimate" "highly offensive (average person isn't based on the EU or San Francisco - it's based on his normal peer group)"

In Foley's case, the most salacious aspect isn't the e-mails, because all he asked for was a photo. They were the chat log between him and an 18 yo former page. But Foley is a public figure. His secretary isn't.

So publishing private information about his secretary's sex life is more than problemmatic from a legal standpoint.

The best part of all this is many a person has been bankrupted defending themselves. IF your actions won't get you a solid summary judgment early on, then we bring in another old concept: phyrric victory.

There's more to the privacy issue, but it takes a very long, extremely expensive, time consuming and emotionally draining court case...

Rich people can afford crusades...
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 1:29 pm
Direct link to this comment

PS. The Supreme Court HAS held in the 21st century that gay sex is a privacy issue.

Does anyone follow the news?
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 1:41 pm
Direct link to this comment

BINGO! This total devastates Hasterts claims that he doesn't harbor a homosexual cabal. And specifically one who protected child anal rapists for the sole purpose of retaining political power. These GOP freak/scum are the worst of the worst.

The funny thing is that as fast as the Republicans keep trying to run from this scandal (by blaming Clinton and Pelosi), it keeps coming back and splitting their hypocritical party wide open. I find it laughable that Log Kabin trash still look towards deaf blubber Viagra Dominican Republican whore Limbaugh and high-roller Virtue authority Bill Bennett as 'role models'.
Nate | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 1:50 pm
Direct link to this comment

You guys come here trying to intimidate people are silly. These staffers deserve to be outed and if I had the info I would surely post it. These people are traitors and hypocrites. There is no reason to protect them.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 1:51 pm
Direct link to this comment

LOL.. I just watched Ann Coulter... the hated enemy of democrats and gays...

ACCUSING democrats (and by association Mike) of GAY BASHING...

Hello!!!!!!!!

This is the story dudes and dudettes...
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 1:53 pm
Direct link to this comment

Ann Coulter accusing someone of Gay Bashing is like the Taliban accusing someone of mistreating women. Dear God, will the hilarity never end?
Robert | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:00 pm
Direct link to this comment

clb72: "Mike you probably know this law well, so correct if this is wrong- the tort of invasion of privacy, includes public disclosure of embarrassing private facts ..."

You can stop right there. Sexual Orientation is not a 'private' fact any more than skin color, race, or even a lifestyle choice such as religion. Do you really think Joe Lieberman could sue you for revealing he's Jewish? What about Bush for being het or identifying his bedroom sex partner as a female named 'Laura'.
Chauncy | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:02 pm
Direct link to this comment

Robert...

Do you not understand yet?

Noone is talking about the terrible mental strain middle aged men are going through feeling forced into marrying a woman and having kids all the while they wish society would accept them as being a butt bumper.

They are talking about 1) gay middle aged adults that lie to their supposed love and children all the while trying to attack the butts of teegagers... 2) the hypocrisy of saying gay is ok while attacking gays for being on a different political party and philosophical orientation...

Chauncy:

No, no, no, no!!!!! Nothing less than the United States Supreme Court ruled that having anal sex is a protected privacy issue...

Outting gay people only serves the political needs of two political parties...

Damn the persons it effects... right Mike?
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:10 pm
Direct link to this comment

PS.. After all, throughout all of blogactive's reign... Them hated repugs still controlled all three power centers..

And both gays and straights are working diligently to remove gays from those power centers..

Hail the new regime..

No gays allowed...
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:13 pm
Direct link to this comment

This is the way I see it: each of these gay men, for siding with the Republican anti-gay agenda have contributred to teenagers being beat up at school for being suspected of being gay. Any of these hypocrites worry about those lives they destroyed? No. Each of these gay men who side with the Republican anti-gay agenda contribute to gay teens suicide attempts and suicide completeions. Do they worry about the lives they destroyed then? No. They care about advancing their careers. Each of these gay men who side with the Republican anti-gay agenda contribute to fag bashings every year. Do they care about the lives that are destroyed then? No. They only care about advancing their careers. Each of these gay men who side with the Republican anti-gay agenda contribute to the job, housing and public accomodations discrimination that gays are faced with everyday. Do they care about the lives they destroyed then? No. They only care about advancing their careers then.

Why should anyone care about their lives being destroyed?
Robert | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:19 pm
Direct link to this comment

Hey Jeff, threatening frivolous lawsuits is hypocritical.

Anne/Andy Coulter has been caught bearing false witness so many times that people stopped keeping track. A single book had hundreds of fabrications.

Do you consider yourself part of the "moral majority?"
olpete | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:19 pm
Direct link to this comment

Jeff, thanks for calling me cute, but I've taken the time to review the case law on this tort and it confirms that your outed buddies would get laughed out of court. Such cases are extremely rare (there are only 3 in most surveys of the topic).

And a bigger First Amendment hurdle in this case would be proving that this was not a matter of public concern. This was the biggest news story of the week! It's the subject of a Congressional investigation, such as it is. And it looks to be a huge issue in the election. The public concern defense is construed by the courts quite expansively. This one would satisfy it even if the standard were strict.

You seem to suggest that you know how this case will go. Are you aware of any other such cases that serve as helpful precedent for your unsourced arguments? It's also sometimes called "case law."

By the way, don't worry about the finances, and don't worry about it being a long, drawn-out case. The cost of defending this wouldn't be prohibitive, through a combination of online fundraising, pro bono representation, and whatever book or movie deal the defendant would get out of it. And your outed Repubulican buddy will lose on summary judgment, or maybe even on a motion to dismiss.
clb72 | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:22 pm
Direct link to this comment

Chauncy, sorry, you're 100% wrong. Sometimes outing is legally actionable. It just isn't in the Foley political context. Here's a recent example.

In a case involving a California high school girl who was openly gay at school, a federal judge has ruled that the girl, Charlene Nguon, may proceed with a lawsuit charging that her privacy rights were violated when the principal called her mother and disclosed that she is gay.

Ms. Nguon filed suit in September after a year of run-ins with Ben Wolf, the principal of Santiago High School in Garden Grove, Calif., over her hugging, kissing and holding hands with her girlfriend. Ms. Nguon was an all-A student ranked in the top 5 percent of her class, with no prior record of discipline. But last year, after Mr. Wolf said he wanted to separate her from her girlfriend, she transferred to another school. Her grades slipped, and her commute grew from a four-block walk to a four-and-a-half mile bike ride.

Judge James V. Selna of the Central District Court of California ruled Monday that Ms. Nguon had "sufficiently alleged a legally protected privacy interest in information about her sexual orientation."

"This is the first court ruling we're aware of where a judge has recognized that a student has a right not to have her sexual orientation disclosed to her parents, even if she is out of the closet at school," said Christine Sun, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, who brought the case.
clb72 | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:24 pm
Direct link to this comment

I think you all should go back to high school. If that doesn't work, here's another idea: GET a FUCKING LIFE!
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:28 pm
Direct link to this comment

hey, my tax dollars go to pay these clowns' salaries. so let em rip. they are public officials.
seth | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:36 pm
Direct link to this comment

Robert,

When you have read history books going back more than 2 years then we can talk.

Kids are beat up at school for so many reasons it's ridiculous to blame it on a political party. All you need is a stupid name (thanks mom) or a mom with bad taste in clothes.

To think that 12 year olds beat you up because they read the latest polls or follow politics is about the height of idiocy. Every animal species go through dominancy issues. Argue with PETA if you disagree.

Clinton signed DOMA.. Hillary refuses to embrace gay marriage.. Because of Clinton no out gay man can serve in the military.. Mike apologizes for them. Figure that out.

olpete:

Dude... I don't threaten frivolous lawsuits. Not being a republican or an anti-gay conservative I tend to educate instead.

As for your point on Coulter? DUDE...

The message that the public hears isn't yours.

Complain all you want. Bitch at the latest meth party (another news message that is dominant about gays).

Realize one simple concept. Mike outted who he felt was a hypocritical gay man. The end message in hundreds of millions of households is that gay men try to molest straight male teenagers.

Cry all you want. That's the message. Beat your cat for not being vocal enough. But that's the message.

Either get better at the message or realize that the action "outting" is the wrong action for the message you want out there...
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:37 pm
Direct link to this comment

Since when did I make a threatening post?

You deleted my posts because you don't want your readers to visit my blog smartretorts.blogspot.com and see the truth for themselves about you.
Eric | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:38 pm
Direct link to this comment

CLB72, that's all interesting, and I'm familiar with the case. From my knowledge the girl wasn't a Congressional staffer.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:40 pm
Direct link to this comment

You and your CREW are a bunch of sore losers.
Eric | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:41 pm
Direct link to this comment

clb72...

Look at both of your recent posts...

One says a gay staffer couldn't sue.
The second says that courts have recognized the right to sue on the issue.

Foley can't sue.. I said that..
A previously anonmyous staff member on a congressional staff can.

Make no mistake about it... I'm not a republican or a democrat. I am a conservative and proudly, unapologetically so.

I am also opposed to outting as a political tool. Especially how Mike uses it to attack only one party while apologizing for the opposing parties devastating laws (DOMA anyone?.

Because of how Mike uses outting, the message the public gets is the message that gays are bad.

Don't blame me for pointing out a simple fact.
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:44 pm
Direct link to this comment

Starting Monday, on my site smartretorts.blogspot.com, I am going to "OUT" each member of the Lesbian and Gay Task Force and their roll in the Mark Foley outting.

A name will be released each day...
Eric | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:51 pm
Direct link to this comment

>> Look at both of your recent posts...

One says a gay staffer couldn't sue.
The second says that courts have recognized the right to sue on the issue.>>

Jeff, you clearly don't understand. There's nothing else we can talk about, because you just don't get it. Reread what I wrote and see if you can do any better, but based on what you just said, I don't think that's likely.
clb72 | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:52 pm
Direct link to this comment

Ditto for you Robert.
clb72 | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 2:54 pm
Direct link to this comment

Eric, that's so exciting! So every day, on your website, you're going to reveal what an utter moron you are, and that you have no idea what's going on? Exciting! I hope you get lots of hits.
Eric's closeted gay staffer | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 3:01 pm
Direct link to this comment

"To think that 12 year olds beat you up because they read the latest polls or follow politics is about the height of idiocy."

And when I say they do, let me know. The Republican anti-Gay Hate agenda, however, keeps those kids' parents teaching them ugly untruths about gay people and spreads the hate. Don't need a poll to know what the Repubs mean when they constantly slander Gays for being unnatural and immoral and so on and so on.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 3:04 pm
Direct link to this comment

barea what u need to get through ur thick skull is that closetted gay politicians put all of us in danger because their "keep my secret at all cost" posture makes them prime targets to be blackmailed. Don't u get that? Out gay= good closet gay =bad. Quite simple concept.
anon | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 3:05 pm
Direct link to this comment

" I am going to "OUT" each member of the Lesbian and Gay Task Force and their roll in the Mark Foley outting."

Ooooh. So??? What's that got to do with anything. There a law saying Mark Foley can't be outed?
Robert | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 3:06 pm
Direct link to this comment

anon..

What you miss is that regardless of how "closeted" gay republican politicians are outted, life really doesn't change for most gay people.

Democrats happily pick up the slack.

For gay rights to proceed it can't be against other gays or about one party or the other.

Get that clear.
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 3:16 pm
Direct link to this comment

>> For gay rights to proceed it can't be against other gays or about one party or the other.>>

So if I vote for the party (and their closeted helpers) that uses anti-gay marriage initiatives to political advantage, it's just neither here nor there? Thanks for clarifying.
clb72 | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 3:20 pm
Direct link to this comment

I just said "about one party or the other"

What wasn't clear?

If you vote for one party or the other gay rights won't change.

I'll make it clearer...

A non-affiliated power center

That clearer?

gay organizations that utilize their vote strength to help INDIVIDUALS that are consistent with gay community goals.

If congressional candidate A supports gay community goals, candidate A gets full support. REGARDLESS of that persons party.

Do I have to spell it out like you are in kindergarten? Make pictures?
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 3:24 pm
Direct link to this comment

Truly reprehensible. The only thing that disgusts more is the fact you think you're doing someone a service.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 3:28 pm
Direct link to this comment

Ignore Paul, Michael. You're exposing hypoicrisy and hypocrites -- and my how they whine when that happens. They can dish it out but sure can't take it!
Hypocrite Hunter | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 3:36 pm
Direct link to this comment

>>>Truly reprehensible.

What's reprehensiblke Paul? Telling the truth? Exposing hypocrites? Please, that's the honorable thing to do. It proves he's loyal to the community.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 3:44 pm
Direct link to this comment

I have never commented at Mike's site, but I check it most every day. I do not contribute to political parties (or most anything else, for that matter). But I can assure Jeff Barea that if Mike were to be sued for outing the dangerous, closeted hypocrites he has make it his crusade to out, the money to defend himself would be no problem. No problem at all.
Roy T. | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 4:11 pm
Direct link to this comment

the barea troll rears its incoherent head again. how's traffic on your site Barea? Is it still operating or did it die from inattention? Must not be going too well b/c you're here instead of working on "your very important business" which is how you described it in the spring.
You can polish a turd long and hard but you still have a turd.
Julian Miller | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 4:39 pm
Direct link to this comment

For being all loving and tolerant, there's a lot of hateful and bitter people here. Why do y'all think that is?
scott | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 4:52 pm
Direct link to this comment

Fantastic! Kick down those closet doors, Mike! It's time that justice is served onto those two-faced gays who want to have their cake and eat it, too.

You simply CANNOT walk the halls of Congress helping the radical right persecute gays and not take responsility for your action or inaction.

I don't give a flying fuck about their privacy. They are CIVIL SERVANTS. Anything about their lives is fairgame because they are on the federal payroll. That means gay & straight Americans are paying taxes to fund the persecution of homosexuals in this country.

Our own gay brothers & sisters are aiding the fascist GOP in their non-stop dismantling of civil liberties and the demonization of gays. They deserve to be exposed.

Mike, you are the only person in any form of mass media that is courageous enough to a expose this shameful situation. I support you unequivocally. We are fighting for our lives.

If gay Americans are to move forward in our country, then those gays that want to hold us back must be stopped.
Bill MCO | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 5:10 pm
Direct link to this comment

All you're going to do is alienate a large number of potential voters, along with a significant number of gays. Of course the radicals already in your corner will applaud you, but hey, if it's attention you're after, go for it.
Raebie | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 5:15 pm
Direct link to this comment

Julian

About time we heard from you.

How's that Co-managing of blogactive thing you were supposed to be doing working out?

About as good as I expected it to.
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 5:28 pm
Direct link to this comment

btw Eliot Spitzer just announced that if he is elected governor, he will push to legalize gay marriage.

But I suppose it makes no difference to gay rights if you vote for him or his Republican opponent, who is against it. Darn it, voting is so complicated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/0...r=1& oref=slogin
clb72 | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 5:28 pm
Direct link to this comment

Should I use sign language for you clb72?

One guy says something to get elected, so now we should support that whole party?
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 5:54 pm
Direct link to this comment

Hey Jeff, did you know that a gay bar is not a private place and anyone going there loses the protection of "Invasion of privacy", if outed? Get a grip on reality, because you surely do not have a grasp of the law.
Moses | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 6:19 pm
Direct link to this comment

>>>>One guy says something to get elected, so now we should support that whole party?

Here's an idea you imbecile, vote for the people who swear to their constituents that they hate you, appoint gay-hating judges, write gay hating laws instead of the people who fight for your rights! Yeh, good one you stupid piece of self-hating traitorous crap. You are an embarassment to the gay community --- wait! You're a repug, you don't believe in community --- it's all about YOU.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 8:35 pm
Direct link to this comment

From way above, someone said: " Outing anyone to Hastert will come as no surprise to him because you can't kid a high school wrestling coach."

Nor do I think that their staffers are gay will come as a surprise to pretty much any Republican politician. Personally I think pre-2004 McGreevey type closeted staffers are a rarity (or if they exist, it's not going to trickle down to Mike's list probably). They may be discreet, their sexual orientation may be rarely or never discussed in their Hill offices, and so on... but they're certainly, for the most part, not closeted in the "I've never told anyone" sense. I'm not saying these people would appreciate having their names on Blogactive, but I also don't think most of them are closeted to friends or even family.

And that's part of the story: the hypocrisy and duplicity that allows semi-out gay people to serve as full members of the Republican establishment, while at the same time their bosses beat up our community. And neither the gay staffers nor their hypocritical bosses (who are very gracious and welcoming on a personal level to their staffers) bat an eyelash.

Let's hope the days of that duplciity are over.
Kyle | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 8:48 pm
Direct link to this comment

I am not a lawyer and have virtually no knowledge on legal matters.

However, I have ample experience being a gay person living in the United States from the 1960s through the present. I've known what it's like to be terrified to pursue the reality of who I am (1970s and 1980s), and then still have to be on guard against violence and discrimination (1990s and 2000s). And I've never been able to legally marry (I live in one of the 49), except for the sham type where a gay guy marries a woman and robs her of a comprehensively fulfilling relationship.

I actually try to stay apolitical as much as possible. I don't like us-them-ism. I don't like overgeneralizations. However, the Republican Party has been quite consistent in my lifetime in being substantially more hostile to gay people, and the civil rights of gay people, than the Democratic Party.

It's true that many Democrats have not been OK, either. No, Bill Clinton's signature on DOMA is absolutely not OK. It was a ball-less sell-out. Compare that to Paul Tsongas, who openly supported gay marriage when he was running was president in 1992 -- no kidding (look it up). Bill Clinton also campaigned in 1992 that he would let gays serve in the military; but of course that was watered down into DADT (Democrat Sam Nunn didn't help). Hillary Clinton's opposition to same-sex marriage (ostensibly wanting to support traditional marriage -- like hers, you see) is nothing short of horrifying. I personally have no interest in Ms. Clinton's becoming President, for that reason alone. I don't know Mike Rogers very well, but I seriously doubt he approves of either Clintons' actions. I mean, the opposite of "a homophobic Republican" is not "a Democrat like Hillary Clinton." (Or Howard "700 Club" Dean.)

And yet the great majority of Republicans have been waaaaayyyyy worse than either Clinton. Even William Weld, a Republican who aggressively promoted gay rights in Massachusetts, moved to New York and suddenly doesn't support gay marriage as a cynical move to attempt to become elected as a Republican Senator there.

The Republican Party has sponsored, welcomed, or been allied with people who have said atrocious things about people like myself. These include:
-- Pat Buchanan (remember his 1992 Convention speech?)
-- Jesse Helms (that "damned lesbian")
-- Trent Lott (homosexuality is an illness like kleptomania or alcoholism)
-- Dick Armey ("Barney Fag")
-- Alan Keyes (rejecting his own daughter because she is a lesbian and thus a "selfish hedonist")
-- Pat Robertson (gays, etc. caused 9/11)
-- Jerry Falwell (gays, etc. caused 9/11)
-- Ann Coulter (Al Gore is a "big fag, just kidding")
-- Michael Savage (gays are "filthy vermin")
-- Laura Ingraham (disgustingly harassed gay students at Dartmouth College)

(And while I don't know what George Allen has said about gay people, he surely doesn't seem sensitive to minorities ["Welcome to America"].)

At the same time -- and this is important -- the leaders of the Republican Party have rarely repudiated this kind of language and attitude. So I think it's a fair conclusion that the Republican Party, as an organization, as an institution, harms gay people, and has been harming gay people for years.

So I think it's reasonable for Mike to try to stop this harm. He has chosen a potentially very effective avenue by exposing hypocrisy, in two flavors:

(a) Actual gay men or lesbians who support the Republican Party -- i.e., people supporting an organization that thinks gay people don't deserve equal rights; that thinks gay people are sick and/or immoral; is OK with using the word "fag," etc.

(b) Straight Republicans who employ gay people, and maybe personally like gay people, but publicly gay-bash in order to appease a market that wants them to gay-bash. I'm glad that they like (or tolerate) gay people, but they need to bring their public behavior in line with their "personal" actions or opinions, because their public behavior is hurting us.

Mike's reporting, of both kinds, helps. It helps ameliorate the abuse, harm, and denial of rights to gay people. I definitely have sympathy for people who want to be private. However, if you take a job with the Republican Party, or any job with any party or anything else that harms gay people, it makes the fact of one's own gayness worthy of reporting. Because we need to stop the harm. If, for some reason, you don't want your being gay broadcast, I'd say, don't take a job with any organization that hurts gay people.

The Foley thing presently feels messy, but I think it may lead to a quantum change in what is and isn't OK relative to how gay people are treated...and a quantum jump away from the shame game (and Amen to that). The window of a politician being able to "pull a Foley" (2003) and say that questions about whether he is gay or not are "revolting" and "unforgivable" is rapidly closing. David Dreier, for one, is going to need to act (i.e., come out) very soon. And we'll all be better for that -- less secrecy, less hypocrisy, less harm.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 9:26 pm
Direct link to this comment

never a day of rest for the wicket.

DonPato
San Jose
DonPato | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 9:54 pm
Direct link to this comment

A gay staffer for Hastert who is outed by Mike Rogers is not going to be able to sustain an invasion of privacy claim. To think that such a lawsuit can prevail is laughable. If the staff member is Mr. Hastert's chief of staff, I fully suppirt Mike's plan to publicize his identity.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 10:28 pm
Direct link to this comment

Are you out of your f**king mind?? This is spoon feeding reactionaries a scapegoat. They will blame this person for everything. Hastert will sell him down the river and say that he was responsible for this but never told him. He will be accused of cobering it up to protect another gay person.

Stop
Think

Let them commit fratricide all by themselves

Don't screw up the entire election just to make a (useless) personal point.
imajoebob | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:24 pm
Direct link to this comment

Ahhh, go on. You don't have the guts to out us.
Gay Staff Member | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:26 pm
Direct link to this comment

I can't wait 'til Monday.

Tell us now !!!

'S'
Spiderz Web | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:38 pm
Direct link to this comment

Isn't Scott Palmer Denny's roommate. And they go out and dine together almost every night according to a profile in Newsweek..........the dots.
burp | Email | Homepage | 10.07.06 - 11:40 pm
Direct link to this comment

Barea,
It will be going well again, just wait and see.
So what about that blog of yours, care to give the address so we can all see your hard work?
Julian Miller | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:44 am
Direct link to this comment

oh barea,
be prepared - I'll be reporting on your blog, or lack thereof, really soon. Maybe you should ask Drudge and Mehlman, and more GOP closet cases/kinda-out-but anti-gay-faggot Republicans, to be named very, very soon, for dates - you all can meet in your closet.
Sweet dreams cupcake.
Julian Miller | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:50 am
Direct link to this comment

Jeff Barea, you missed the point of the Foley issue from day 1. America doesn't really care if Foley is gay. However, they do care about the lengths to which House leadership went to cover up unethical (if not illegal) aspects of Foley's activities.

Also, your analysis of privacy issues is 100% wrong. Go email the ACLU if you think you have a case.
migs | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 1:04 am
Direct link to this comment

Julien,

Are you just slow?

The link "Homepage" tells you that.

Really, come on already, stop demonstrating your brilliance.

Oh, and btw... it's political season... so think man, think! What's more important to me? A blog or a campaign?

Seriously, Mike, what were you thinking calling this guy your yang?

His whole repetoire is built around calling people mentally ill as if he wants the public to know that gay people think mentally ill people (which gays used to be called) are subhuman...
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 1:06 am
Direct link to this comment

Here's Barea's web thingee. Kinda puny. Definitely funded by a conspiracy to undermine our nation: click here. Funny but when I click on the Barea institute it gets you to a free web hosting site. Guess Karl pulled the plug on ya hon.
burp | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 1:09 am
Direct link to this comment

Actually burp I maintain the following websites:

bcef.org
collegestandard.net
northtexaseagle.com
nyukidnet.net
educatingyouth.org
yqmagazine.com
barea.us
ncnadnet.com
bareablog.com

When political season comes around they suffer and I don't really care because the greater good is more important than the vanity of self.

Julion, you should think long and hard about that.
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 1:28 am
Direct link to this comment

you are an owned operative with a bunch of empty domain names. I would never admit to owning a website that has no content intact. what are you doing politically that is more valuable than putting your word out via internet. with all your stupid time posting here you could get a website up and running.
burp | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 2:38 am
Direct link to this comment

It would actually be nice to hear from closeted gay Republicans, and find out why it is they stay with and work for a party that villifies them. Anyone want to explain your motivation?
Kyle | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 3:05 am
Direct link to this comment

burp..

That's the difference between you and me... I have no problem admitting....

No shame here in my space.. I am perfectly happy doing what I do and being who I am regardless of whether people approve...

Try that in your life...

And Juliyn... Have at it.. Let loose the dogs of war...

You will find that with people that have no desire to run for popularity contests smarmy and useless insults have no effect on them...

Mike... you really need to find better friends...
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 3:33 am
Direct link to this comment

Kyle,

I've weighed in on this before. Some of them (I used to be one) believe in their political ideology over and above their sexual orientation, and believe they're fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Others are just opportunists.

I'll cross-post a long post I did on one of Pam Spaulding's threads that may provide you with some insights.

Mike: keep doing what you're doing, and ignore the buzzing fly in the room. I notice he shut up w/his bitchy little legalistic nitpicking quick when another threader noted that the outable activities of GOP staffers - and I'd add posting personals ads w/photos and personal information, email from government computers, phone logs, etc., to just visiting gay bars - are almost always in the public domain. I'll also add that if you're a spokesperson for an officeholder, you're IN the public domain. You're not Girl Friday hiding behind a green eyeshade. Nice straw man you got there; even got a few people shooting at it.
ExHack | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 3:36 am
Direct link to this comment

I found that a great many of these people (myself included, at the time) have variously stunted personalities. They've made politics and the insider-baseball political staffer games their whole world, and their identity. They can't imagine life without it ... what kind of life exists without it. And they're terrified of losing their places in that insider-baseball league.

I had the blessing (sure didn't feel like it at the time) of having a massive meltdown - in part due to the stress of my closet - that caused me to leave professional politics fairly early in my professional life. I was then further blessed with a wonderful guy with absolutely no interest in politics (or tolerance for the closet) who led me into the light. Now, I can look at that part of my life with perspective; I realize how utterly insignificant, petty, insular, and trivial the insider-baseball political staffer games are compared with what goes on in real life. Unfortunately, most of these closeted staffers and politicians aren't blessed with that perspective. All they know is the closet - and maintaining it becomes a sick, self-perpetuating obsessive compulsion for them. To this day, it's painful for me to out myself to former associates from that part of my life, even though I'm comfortable with my sexuality nearly everywhere else I go.

All that having been said: they still maintain free will. Their demons are extremely strong and powerful, but these are mostly intelligent people with the ability to make life choices. Again and again they choose the closet. Again and again they choose to oppress their fellow gays and lesbians through their silence and complicity with their right-wing bosses' (and their Christofascist masters') antigay agendas. That's why I support Mike Rogers' outing efforts. I support it for all our sakes, but also for these individuals' sakes. If they can be made to realize that there is another world out there, that no longer requires their silence and self-loathing complicity, they will ultimately be happier, and perhaps free.
ExHack | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 3:37 am
Direct link to this comment

And on that note, I must go to bed now. The buzzfly reminded me it is campaign season. I need to rise early to do a little side work that will fatten my "butter and egg" fund, so I can send a little more money to Angie Paccione, Tammy Duckworth, and Jim Webb. And the excellent Messrs. Rogers and Aravosis of course.
ExHack | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 3:40 am
Direct link to this comment

re: privacy lawsuits. 2 words.

Jim Guckert.

If there was any chance of someone suing for "outing" and exposure of embarrassing personal details, Guckert would be rolling in millions of dollars.

but he isn't.

So when Mike gets around to detailing the role played by Hasterts closeted Chief Counsel (Ted Van Der Meid) in the Foley scandal, he's got nothing to worry about.

I just hope Mike has the sense to frame this as Van Der Meid acting to protect his boss (Hastert). As Hastert's top legal advisor, there is simply no question that Van Der Meid was aware that sending the Foley issue to the Clerk of the House was wrong -- that the behavior of members of Congress was not within the authority of the Clerk ("out" gay Republican Jeff Trandahl) to deal with.

Van Der Meid doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of his behavior -- and he knows it. And by framing Van Der Meid's actions as protecting Hastert, Van Der Meid can only "deny" he was doing so by saying he was protecting Foley -- NOT something that anyone is going to admit to.
p.lukasiak | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 8:17 am
Direct link to this comment

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the[gay]lawyers."

Oy vay. Award a person a JD and he thinks he knows everything.

Outing an ADULT is not illegal. Children in a school setting are entitled to extra protections.

And those of you making threats: empty threats are a sign of weakness.

OUT!!
Aleklawyer | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 8:35 am
Direct link to this comment

Bare is proud that he knows how to register a domain name and then say he has a website - that's so 1992.
Barea knows nothing avout the law. Everything he has said here re: the law is like someone ranting that they know the law b/c they watch "Boston Legal;" he grossly misinterprets the law and makes up new ones to fit his views.

Funny. Maybe he could ask Eric on a date.

You need CONTENT to have a real website. Domain camping is silly in 2006.
Julian Miller | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 10:28 am
Direct link to this comment

Last post to barea blog - July 30, 2006 - ALL posts are by "nyukid" (read barea).
yawn.
Julian Miller | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 10:31 am
Direct link to this comment

Um, Juliyn,

You still don't get it? Shame. Insults only work on those that have a vulgar need to become prom king.

The conservative revolution rolls on despite your insults. That's the beauty of reality. Insult away. Keeps you from noticing the votes aren't there.

Um, Lukasiak,

Read up on how libel became actionable in these United States. One political guy sued another political guy over publishing something and a couple of guys wearing black dresses sided with him.

The process, yo, not libel is what I am pointing out. Creative minds do creative things and get creative results the more unpopular a person is to political jurists.
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 11:16 am
Direct link to this comment

Barea might not sound like such an idiot if he could cite any cases to support his silly views.

"Law and Order" episodes are not case law Barea.
Julian Miller | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 11:24 am
Direct link to this comment

There you go again Juliun...

Are you that incapable of anything but insults?

I can only imagine how well that goes in your personal life...

"Hey moron, give me 4 dollars of unleaded"
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 11:33 am
Direct link to this comment

It's not an insult to ask you to provide a case or statutory authority for the law you think you are citing. That is the basic form of legal briefs.
You don't go into court and just make shit up then ask the judge to agree with you.
So since you are really shrill in your whining about Mike breaking laws, then do show us which laws have been broken.
Wishing and knowing are 2 entirely different things. But the Bush Administration's time in office has given many folks the impression that the law doesn't matter. Well it does and it will.
Julian Miller | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 11:56 am
Direct link to this comment

You still don't see it?

You said and quoteth I: "Barea might not sound like such an idiot..."

So, Jolian, having not quoted a case law directly (though I indirectly described the most famous one of the 1700's) you accuse me of being an idiot.

That's not an insult?

Well, then, Jolian would not be such an idiot if he could manage to say one thing without calling someone mentally ill or an idiot...

See, I didn't insult either.
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:00 pm
Direct link to this comment

PS... Ask a 60 year old black man in Alabama how the application of the law vs. the "thought to be meaning of it" means to him.

Nonetheless, despite my stated opposition to making someone's sexual orientation a political football, Mike seems like a nice guy. And how he's been phrasing things lately has been problemmatic legally.

So, in my infinite goodness, I tried to give him some advice on how to avoid tripping the "could be this or could be that" alarm that so many have accidentally done before him.

I prefer a clean contest of philosophies. Eliminate the BS insulters who think browbeating, bullying, and just plain stupid monkey poo poo throwing elevates society's consciousness.

Then men can stand proudly allowing their beliefs to be tested and to test others to see which way society moves.

Proudly.

Remember that concept?
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:10 pm
Direct link to this comment

Well law EVOLVES; what was a valid law in 1976 may not be valid in 2006 - citing a legal precedent from the 1700's does not help your case. A doctor who used techniques from 1700 would be considered grossly incompetent and probably crazy if that was his method in 2006.
Could you give us something concrete in say the last 10 years?
Really, you seem to want to educate us so please tell us what you know about current laws. If you are just wildly interpreting broad and perhaps invalidated and/or reversed legal precedents then I can't see how that strengthens your arguments.
Julian Miler | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:14 pm
Direct link to this comment

Dude...

Seriously...

The Zenger case is still the overriding case law that affects libel, specifically, in the 21st century.

As far as the butt bumping ruling from the 21st century (if you need a citation you need to look it up yourself - I'm not your legal aide bitch) which established that gay sexual activity is protected under the right to privacy (which itself is based solely on case law - dead fetuses, hint hint) provides privacy protections to butt bumpers.

Now, while going to a gay bar is in the public domain, reporting that a private citizen went there and accusing them of being a butt bumper based on that...

Please...

And anyone that believes that working for the government (like being a typist in a congressional office) is a public figure - look up that legal concept yourself - needs to really relearn the public figure defense.

BTW... As I stated in my arcane and unattractive blog so many months ago, I'm not here to do your research for you.
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:25 pm
Direct link to this comment

Who's insulting now?
So, I simply asked you on what basis you found your wild assertions of illegality and you have a hissy fit. That really works in law - if you can't cite a case, throw a fit. Very "Law and Order" via MadTv.
Maybe you should update your jurisprudence and your blog. Mike's fine w/o the unsolicited and grossly inaccurate rantings about "the law"
Julian Miller | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:33 pm
Direct link to this comment

Wow...

Juliam, you regressed. I cited the Zenger case, used funny terms to cite the overthrow of sodomy, and referred irreverently to the famous abortion case.

For that you decided to call those very correct references "wild assertions" "Law and Order" "MadTV" ish.

To add frosting you decided to again insult "one" of my blogs for not being up to date despite my acknowledging its shortcomings.

Not to mention that my accurate references are now called grossly inaccurate rantings.

Do you need a nap?
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:38 pm
Direct link to this comment

If you work to enact legislation in the US then legislation is by definition a public endeavor. Working for a Senator or Congressperson to enact legislation that affects the country puts one's work up for public scrutiny.

Transparency in government is not something that the Bush Administration can completely overturn.

Why are so many afraid of the light of truth?
Julian Miller | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:39 pm
Direct link to this comment

PS..

It must be the Zenger case you are having problems with.

Well, Peter Zenger quite his job at a newspaper and started his own newspaper so he could attack the Governor of New York (see the Governor of New York and the Publisher of his previous newspaper were great friends).

Well, because Zenger was friends with the temporary Governor that the new Governor stiffed on payments, Zenger made fun of the new Governor (I think they called them Goveneur back then).

The new Govenor arrested Zenger for libel. Blah Blah Blah Blah.

How much info do I really need to state before I'm talking to a 3rd grader?
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:43 pm
Direct link to this comment

Um,

That means the janitor, the electrician, and the plumber that keeps the buildings in functional order so those public endeavors can happen are also public figures.

Basic fact is that the United States Supreme Court outlined a bit more specifically what a public figure is.

If you need the case law then you need to spend time in a law library.

If you're too lazy for that, then enjoy the fun that comes from not knowing... "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:47 pm
Direct link to this comment

Sodomy cases do not provide bases for some expanded, Barea-based right to privacy. Privacy as a right is nuanced; you can't say that b/c the Supreme Court struck down laws that criminalized private, consensual sex then you have a right to be gay, hide and enact anti-gay legislation - that's just silly. or you can just make shit up. That's the general GOP playbook and I think your patrons/pimps are trying to use that book.
Julian Miller | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:47 pm
Direct link to this comment

Dude...

The whole point of why those guys got off (no pun intended) is because there is a right to privacy for sodomy. Unless, of course they do it in the streets or a public bathroom.

That's the whole point of that case!

Because.. and drum roll please... those laws criminalized gay sodomy and oral sex. Not all sodomy.

See, if they had been written to criminalize all sodomy or all oral sex - stare decisis would rule.

Geez..

But, those laws criminilazed GAY SEX.

and, drum roll again, ONLY GAY SEX...

So "then you have a right to be gay, hide and enact anti-gay legislation " you agree that outting might be illegal.

Drum roll once again...

Now if I was a republican and hadn't battled republican organizations many times over the years "you might be a redneck" but I am not, in fact, a republican.

As I have maintained for many years, political parties are socialistic endeavors based on communal think.

So easy to assume.. So hard to unlearn...
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:55 pm
Direct link to this comment

PS... This is a merry-go-round but I do like how you have elevated your consciousness Julian to at least partially discuss the issues without resorting to the kind of "sick sick sick" comments you used to use.

I have some campaigns to win, so pardon me if I go back to work...
Jeff Barea | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 12:59 pm
Direct link to this comment

Jeff,

I appreciate that you are attempting to argue a legal point, but your comments are politcally naive.

No one is going to sue Mike Rogers. The people involved in the hidden network of closeted homosexuals running congress would not initiate a chain of events (law suit) in which more people will be outed, forced to testify publicly, subject to cross examination... and so forth. A law suit would keep this story going for years!

The bottom line, "Jeff," is that you are trying to intimidate Mike to keep him from pursuing this. Have you ever met Mike? He isn't intimidated easily, and I would bet that he is receiving good advice from people who under the law and politics.
Kevin | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 3:45 pm
Direct link to this comment

When you say you have some "campaigns to win," don't you mean you have some hate to foment? Time to fire up the Republican Hate Machine!
Hypocrite Hunter | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 4:06 pm
Direct link to this comment

Jeff displays a character trait that is common to many Repugnican trolls- the conviction that he is brilliant, displayed simultaneously with irrefutable evidence that he is a moron.

P.S. Jeff, if you actually knew sign language, you can now properly visualize me flipping you off.
clb72 | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 6:56 pm
Direct link to this comment

I think you should read this:

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
"The rumors about another top GOP member of the House being involved in sexual encounters with young "men for hire" are confirmed to WMR by well-placed sources in Washington's gay community. The member in question is House Speaker Dennis Hastert, whose "alternate" life style is the primary reason for him and his staff covering up the scandal involving ex-Florida GOP Rep. Mark Foley and his lewd messages sent to underage male congressional pages. Hastert's penchant to receive anal sex is well-known to our sources in DC's gay community. Additionally, Hastert's reported extremely small penis is the subject of many jokes among Washington's gay circles."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ la...er_b_31171.html
"If Fordham did warn Palmer about Foley a long time ago, what are the odds that Palmer did not tell Hastert? As close to zero as you can get. Many chiefs of staff are close, very close, to their bosses on Capitol Hill. But none are closer than Scott Palmer is to Denny Hastert. They don't just work together all day, they live together.
There are plenty of odd couple Congressmen who have roomed together on Capitol Hill, but I have never heard of a chief of staff who rooms with his boss. It is beyond unusual. But it must have its advantages. Anything they forget to tell each other at the office, they have until bedtime to catch up on. And then there's breakfast for anything they forgot to tell each other before falling asleep. And then there's all day at the office. Hastert and Palmer are together more than any other co-workers in the Congress."

http://www.davidcorn.com/ archive...list_of_gay.php
"There's a list going around. Those disseminating it call it "The List." It's a roster of top-level Republican congressional aides who are gay ...
What's interesting about The List--which includes nine chiefs of staffs, two press secretaries, and two directors of communications--is that (if it's acucurate) it shows that some of the religious right's favorite representatives and senators have gay staffers helping them advance their political careers and agendas. These include Representative Katherine Harris and Henry Hyde and Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell and Rick Santorum."
gem | Email | Homepage | 10.08.06 - 9:25 pm
Direct link to this comment

Truth is always a defense against libel damages, so Mike R. has nothing to fear on that front as long as he's correct about whoever he outs.

Invasion of privacy is a very difficult claim to sustain. There is absolutely no way that a court will uphold such a claim by a congressional staffer outed in the midst of public controversy over pursuit of pages by closeted gay Republican congressmen and their closeted staffers.

I don't know who "Jeff Barea" is, but I can say this: He must be panicked about Mike Rogers's stated intention to yank people out of their closets. Let's see if Rogers actually does it; he strikes me as someone who often doesn't follow through on his plans.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 10.09.06 - 2:50 pm
Direct link to this comment

Indeed. We were promised a name from Hastert's office today. And what's up with the still un-named Senator we keep hearing about.
Anon | Email | Homepage | 10.09.06 - 3:53 pm
Direct link to this comment

Using someone's sexuality to blackmail and blacklist them doesn't sound very democratic to me. Hypocrites in action. Thanks for making laugh.
hephaestion | Email | Homepage | 10.10.06 - 3:42 pm
Direct link to this comment

66eacc 12df43674c
Macau | Email | Homepage | 12.15.06 - 11:22 am
Direct link to this comment

Commenting by the fantastic folks at HaloScan.com