Oct
4
4
Coprophagic: The Gathering
Welp, he did it.
We don’t want to be at the front of the line to link, but it won’t matter in a little while, so I’ll update soon with details.
UPDATE: He pulled the post, and now says (again) that he’ll release the information at 4PM.
DOUBLE-UPDATE: It’s back up. Waiting to see who links.
tigrismus said,
October 4, 2006 at 18:51
From blogger terms of service:
You agree to not use the Service to: (a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; (b) harm minors in any way; … (i) “stalk” or otherwise harass another;
I think I might just bring this to their attention.
In Vino Veritas said,
October 4, 2006 at 18:53
Is it a well-read blog? I mean, by pointing it out here, do you kind of throw gasoline on the fire. Not trying to be an asshole, but don’t want the kid this scumbag outs to be more harrassed than is necessary.
Socraticsilence said,
October 4, 2006 at 19:03
Wow, honestly Identifying the person recieving the IM’s is pretty fucking wrong, I mean I honestly can’t think of anything this morally reprehensible, that had real world consequeces –thus differentiationg it from the strum und drang at LGF–except perhaps Malkin’s continued publication of the addresses of anti-war activist after they reported recieving death threats, in the time I’ve been a reader of the blogosphere.
It’s amazing how quickly these people forget that one their major complaints about Clinton was the demonizing that Women who said they slept with him supposedly recieved from the left, I mean htis is a hundredfold more serious but they have no problem naming names, hell the Catholic Church didn’t even go tha tlow in there pedophilia scandals.
The Disgruntled Chemist said,
October 4, 2006 at 19:09
That dude’s post is some creepy, pathetic shit.
I swear, I will never understand Republicans.
Rary Guppert said,
October 4, 2006 at 19:43
The fact is, that page deserved it.
How can good, strong, manly conservatives like me be expected to keep our wing-wangs in our pants when hot, young man-meat is walking around throwing out sweet, hot pheromones like chum off the stern of a shark-boat?
He’s lucky that Foley didn’t take him right there in the middle of the House.
The fact is, I would have.
TC said,
October 4, 2006 at 19:52
Unbeleievable.
There are no depths, I guess. Once somebody’s committed to moral vacuity, why not go all the way?
Party of Values, indeed.
Marita said,
October 4, 2006 at 19:57
Hmmm… I read Mr. Kerr’s post right after Gavin posted that he’d put it up, but now it seems to be mysteriously missing from his blog. Did he cave to immediate pressure, or was it not really meant to go up before the stated announcement time (perhaps Mr. Kerr was suffering from premature congratulations)?
In any case, what a complete scumbag.
I agree with tigrismus that blogger should be notified of this blatant violation of their terms of service. Beyond that, this guy has google ads on his site – why not start a campaign of people e-mailing googleads and telling them their ads in this case are giving money to someone who is driving traffic to his site by identifying the victim of a crime? And also notifiying the advertisers that pop up that this is what their money is paying for? We can’t keep him from outing the kid, but we can make it more difficult for him to profit from it…
PS – if you look at Mr. Kerr’s blogger profile, one of his interests is listed as “writting”. Way to make yourself look smart there, boss.
Thorlac said,
October 4, 2006 at 19:59
Nicely done, Rary. Much closer to the original Gary than that recent poseur. BTW, I think there was a “Gary” sighting at Glenn Greenwald’s place. Looks like he’s scattering his troll fewmets far and wide.
JiuNoon said,
October 4, 2006 at 20:08
The whole issue became very simple for me when I read that bit about how counties where “blue laws” were repealed showed an increase in alcohol and cigarette consumption and a drop in church attendance. Republicans believe that, as human beings, they are incapable of resisting temptation. The only way they can avoid temptation is to keep temptation away from them through laws and even then they will lose their will the second temptation rears its head (see Bush’s cocaine habit).
Therefore, rather than hating themselves for being so weak-willed, they hate the source of the temptation. This all feeds back to why women are traditionally treated poorly for being alluring and, in a very real way, why many Republicans hate homosexuals for not being ashamed of a lifestyle that, at some level, the Republican envies. So, in their minds, it isn’t the Senator who should be blamed, but rather his partner for tricking him into giving him the opportunity to stray.
Or, you know, it could just be an extension of the administration’s mantra of deny, deny, deny. Whatever.
tigrismus said,
October 4, 2006 at 20:08
Blogger has been notified. If he’s removed it, they may not consider it an issue. I think he ought to be booted, but I’m not the decider.
Retardo Montalban said,
October 4, 2006 at 20:16
Could someone please tell me what this is all about?
LA Confidential Pantload said,
October 4, 2006 at 20:18
Retardo,
Some asshole has outed one of the pages who made a complaint against the sainted Foley.
kingubu said,
October 4, 2006 at 20:51
I don’t get it. Outing the kid would not only be the most despicable thing imaginable, it would be political suicide. They think people are pissed off now? Just see what happens if they drag the victim through the mud in their scramble cover their own sorry asses. What the Hell can they be thinking?
Mrs. Norman Maine said,
October 4, 2006 at 20:52
It’s a thin line between this and shooting a classroom full of little girls for the crime of being so tempting, isn’t it?
Mark S. said,
October 4, 2006 at 21:04
If the Republicans think going on the counterattack is a good idea, they are going to get absolutely creamed. This will turn off even the values voters.
Bas-O-Matic said,
October 4, 2006 at 21:33
The asshole’s bragging that he might be on Inside Edition now and that he’s still planning on outing the page.
(as an aside it was very easy to find both the blog and a mirror of the pulled post)
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
October 4, 2006 at 21:34
I can’t listen to this at work, but I heard the open sewer know as Limbaugh let loose some toxic gas.
Bas-O-Matic said,
October 4, 2006 at 21:52
Is it a well-read blog? I mean, by pointing it out here, do you kind of throw gasoline on the fire. Not trying to be an asshole, but don’t want the kid this scumbag outs to be more harrassed than is necessary.
There’s actually nothing that can be done to unshit the bed at this point. The information is out there now and can be found with very little effort. When he “officially” puts the information out there, there’s also nothing that can be done to keep traffic from going to that site. In fact, Gavin could probably put a link to the website on the top of Sadly, No! and it really wouldn’t do anything to keep the kid from getting dragged through the mud. I just hope the kid knows what’s coming and has contacted a lawyer.
The jackass outing the page is basically selling his soul in order to get his fifteen minutes. It’s probably the all time blogospheric low.
Zombiebirdhouse said,
October 4, 2006 at 21:53
Well, he put it back up!
mikey said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:12
It’s pretty incoherent but is he trying to say he’s putting out the kid’s name to somehow punish Foley? Jeez, talk about dishonest. Somehow, I have a feeling this assclown will pay a price for this. He doesn’t even have a modicum of fame to protect him. What, is drudge and savage gonna step in and defend him? Oh wait, they might…
mikey
Steve said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:14
Wow, he really did put it back up. Incredibly sick. I don’t care if the kid is an adult now, the blogger totally comes off as a stalker.
Why, I hereby give the entire righty blogosphere 5 minutes to condemn the post, or else.
Gentlewoman said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:19
If these rethuglican assholes think that this is going to do them any good at all, they are even stupider than I thought possible.
Remember who these pages are. These are politically well-connected kids from families which probably donate a lot of money to their respective parties. That’s how they got into the page program.
I saw that Rush Limbaugh and some others have already started a ‘blame the victim’ campaign. I can’t believe how idiotic these people are being.
In addition to this ‘outing’ being completely and heinously immoral, they are leaving themselves open to lawsuits.
You think some Republican Pioneer or rich Democratic family is going to stand for Limbaugh or some pissant righty blogger insinuating that their son ‘led him on,’ or ‘was enjoying’ sexual harassment from Foley?? To protect Denny fucking Hastert’s fat ass? I don’t think so.
These morons are totally panicked and completely out of control. They have played this stupid goddamn ‘gotcha’ game for so long, they can’t even see how inappropriate it is, or how many of their own base they are alienating.
I hope they go down in flames. Soon. Because this is just getting more evil by the minute.
Marita said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:22
Hey kids,
If anyone else wants to point out to Google Ads that he’s using the outing of a potential crime victim to generate traffic to his site (and their ads), instructions for notifiying them of a policy violation are here.
From the information given about the kid, he appears to be currenty working on the re-election campaign of a Republican congressman. So how does this relate back to the Democrats, exactly?
Gary Ruppert said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:26
I think that when it comes down to it, this isn’t a bad thing.
In America, we are given the right to know who accuses us of misdeeds. Mark Foley didn’t know that until now.
When it comes to this man, who could have been 18 at the time of the IMs, mind you. He’s 21 now, and the IMs were from 2003. It’s good that we know who he is. He’s not a minor anymore.
Now, the obvious fact here is that the media and the Democrats knew just as much as the GOP, and they didn’t do a thing. The GOP investigated and took moves to prevent any pages from falling victim to Foley’s homosexual urges.
The Democrats didn’t do a thing.
Neither did the Media.
They both had those E-mails for a year. And did nothing. Because they want to politicize this matter.
The fact of the matter is that this is a liberal smear campaign to try and defame the Republican party.
Seitz said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:32
Now, the obvious fact here is that the media and the Democrats knew just as much as the GOP
Prove it, bitch.
ACG said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:36
You’re absolutely right, Gary. The fact is, any child molester should have the right to put a six-year-old on the stand and force the little whore to prove she wasn’t gagging for it. It’s his right to confront his accuser!
We need to start right now to launch a campaign against all underage victims of harrassment and/or molestation. Because if they hadn’t wanted sick e-mails from a Congressman, they shouldn’t have shaken that hot 17-year-old ass at him every day in the hallowed halls of Congress. Who cares that he was a minor when a crime was committed against him? That was three years ago; now that he’s had the audacity to age, it’s time for him to start taking his licks like a man!
mikey said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:37
Ahh, you just got today’s fax, eh, Gary? Looks to me like they need to put a little more work into it.
Just how exactly did this kid “accuse” anybody of anything? By being the recipient of some sexually harrassing IMs? Hows that supposed to work?
And how is it that Mark Foley didn’t know who he was when Foley is THE ONE WHO SENT HIM THE SEXUALLY HARRASSING IMS???
Nope, Gary, you’re an idiot. But even so, how’s if feel to defend a child molester?
mikey
Gary Ruppert said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:39
Do the math.
The page is 21 now, and 2006 minus 2003 is 3 years.
Therefore, the page could have been 18 at the time of some of these IMs too.
ACG said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:41
Oh, and Gar? The way we know he wasn’t 18 yet was that he said, in one of the IMs, “I’m not 18.” So even if he was, for whatever bizarre reason, lying out his ass and actually was 18, Mark Foley had every reason to believe that the guy was underage. Which meant he was exchanging seriously sexual e-mails with a guy he believed to be under the age of majority. And as Dateline will tell you, that’s enough for a chit-chat with Chris Hansen and a stay in jail.
tigrismus said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:44
Mark Foley didn’t know that until now.
Ignoring the fact that the right to confront an accuser only comes into play when one is actually prosecuted(your lips to God’s ears, Gary berry), it sounds like you’re saying that he hit on so many page boys for so many years he couldn’t tell which one this was even when reading the unexpurgated text. Zounds! Is this personal knowedge speaking? Was our Gary a page?
Bas-O-Matic said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:51
Do the math.
The page is 21 now, and 2006 minus 2003 is 3 years.
Therefore, the page could have been 18 at the time of some of these IMs too
Unless of course, the kids birthday is in, say, February, and the IM’s took place before his birthday in February of 2003, which would make him 17.
For wingnuts, everybody’s birthday is January 1st.
Melba said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:54
Per Gary:
“In America, we are given the right to know who accuses us of misdeeds. Mark Foley didn’t know that until now.”
Excuse me, but didn’t Congress just approve a law that would take away the rights of the accused to face their accusers? Or does this only apply to terraists, not Good Christian Patriots such as La Cage Aux Foley?
Gavin M. said,
October 4, 2006 at 22:55
Or, unless he was in the class of 2001-2002.
Which he was.
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
October 4, 2006 at 23:01
Marita, are you asking for an explanation of the Chewbacca defense?
luther said,
October 4, 2006 at 23:03
I ain’t the sharpest tool in the shed, but if posting this personal inforamtion prevents this guy from cooperating with the authorities in an investigation of Foley, isn’t the blogger posting this stuff obstructing justice?
Just thinking out loud.
Zombiebirdhouse said,
October 4, 2006 at 23:08
The Corner is in flames. Watching J-Pod work so hard to keep his head from exploding is absolutely delicious.
ahem said,
October 4, 2006 at 23:10
I think it’s time to out Ruppert. Truly. Let’s work out exactly where the genuine Ruppertesque article is commenting from. Dollars to donuts it’s DC.
Woodrowfan said,
October 4, 2006 at 23:18
Gentlewoman makes a good point. This might well be a son of some well-heeled repub fundraiser. we might be able to crank up the ol schadefreude meter a few more notches.
TC said,
October 4, 2006 at 23:19
The Ruppert Cycle is becoming shorter. Normally, you have had to wait a day or two for Gary to contradict himself.
In recent days, he’s gotten so addled trying to keep up with the spin points that he often has contradicted his bullet points in the space of one or two comments.
But right here, today, he actually contradicts himself in the same comment! Well Done, Gary!
If the page was over eighteen, he was of legal age, is what Gary attests. But at the same time, the Democrats and the Media sat on the emails for over a year!
But if the page was legal, the emails didn’t mean anything, did they? Because no crime was being committed? So hanging on to them doesn’t mean anyone was obstructing justice, were they?
Life By Talking Points is no way to live, son…
Dorothy said,
October 4, 2006 at 23:21
In America, we are given the right to know who accuses us of misdeeds. Mark Foley didn’t know that until now.
Wow, this is probably the stupidest thing I’ve heard from Gary in a long time.
Foley and the GOP leadership had the original emails and the IMs…guess what information is on the originals? They also know who the pages were who talked to them. Remember the bit about “the parents didn’t want to cause a fuss” we heard earlier? Gosh, how could they possibly know that if they didn’t know who the kid in question was?
And while I full agree with the idea that Mark Foley has the right to know who’s accusing him, I can’t come up with any reason why we need to know, at least, not unless the kid was proven to be lying and then was in trouble himself.
Mrs. Norman Maine said,
October 4, 2006 at 23:21
Yeah, but what about JERRY STUBBS, huh? Damn, that’s yesterday’s talking point.
MCH said,
October 4, 2006 at 23:22
“In America, we are given the right to know who accuses us of misdeeds. Mark Foley didn’t know that until now.�
Assuming that the set of all underage boys being IMed by Foley is not infinite, I would presume Foley at least had a good idea who was accusing him.
a different brad said,
October 4, 2006 at 23:22
Mark Foley for pope.
This is the most perfect political scandal I’ve ever seen.
I half hope Hastert does find out who started this, I want to buy them more than a few beers.
As someone who travels to Florida for family purposes a couple times a year, I can’t effing wait to say, “oh, so you’re a Foley republican” and watch’em lose it.
Just for the record, I’m not saying whatever the pages who were victimized went through makes it worth it, but as an American I’m proud of them for taking one for the team. They did not suffer in vain.
Sir Oolius said,
October 5, 2006 at 0:37
I think it’s time to out Ruppert
The younger picture of the kid kinda looks like Gary without the costume.
Otto Man said,
October 5, 2006 at 0:43
Just when you think the Republicans have hit rock bottom, they find a way to tunnel through.
Marked Hoosier said,
October 5, 2006 at 1:08
Wow, I just looked at Technorati, and wingnuts are getting drunk off the Kool-Aid of that site!
Just when you think they won’t go any lower, they somehow pull it off.
jeff said,
October 5, 2006 at 1:10
Drudge is publicizing ID of kid now. Oh well.
Pfc. Leftard said,
October 5, 2006 at 1:25
Roger L. Simon linked, while shaking his head over the loss of privacy in the internet age.
Lesley said,
October 5, 2006 at 2:40
I saw that Rush Limbaugh and some others have already started a ‘blame the victim’ campaign.
Wasn’t this asshole caught with his viagra filled pants down in Haiti or some godforsaken third world hell hole where child prostitution is rampant? It wouldn’t surprise me to learn thugs like Rush are treading a thin line.
CaseyL said,
October 5, 2006 at 2:59
“The fact of the matter is that this is a liberal smear campaign to try and defame the Republican party.”
Wait, this makes no sense.
Are you saying Foley didn’t actually mess around with underage kids? Are you saying the GOP leadership didn’t clap their hands over their ears and eyes and say “I know nothing! Nothing at all!” even when the pages and the chiefs of staff were trying to get their attention?
Because if you’re not, I don’t see how it’s a smear, and I sure as hell don’t see how it’s defamatory. Since, see, smears and defamation are when you say things that aren’t true.
And if you are, then you’re… well, you’re just being silly.
And, no, you’re not cute when you’re silly.
JiuNoon said,
October 5, 2006 at 3:02
Let us not forget about Frank Figueroa – Former head of Homeland Security’s Operation Predator who pleaded guilty of exposing himself to minors – and fellow pedophile former Homeland Security Deputy Press Secretary Bob Doyle. If this is a Democratic party plot, it’s a pretty far reaching one.
mikey said,
October 5, 2006 at 3:22
Bingo!! But can I just say that I find this whole “Homeland” descriptive of America to be creepy, Nationalist, Jingoistic and somewhat fascist? Well, I do.
mikey
In Vino Veritas said,
October 5, 2006 at 3:47
I see Drudge has posted the website that outed the kid. I guess it’s a well-read blog now. What can one say? Oh yeah: this country is fucked.
michilines said,
October 5, 2006 at 4:38
Add my personal pet wingnut, rightwingsparkle (44 y.o. female cheerleader) to the link list. I’ve been checking all evening to see when she would do it. The thing is, this wingnut also has a “reader blog” on the local paper’s web site (chron.com). Her latest post is titled “Sex.” No, really, it is. Even though there is a disclaimer, I sent the chron a complaint email. It’s worked before — she had to change a post because of an email I sent. Hope this time they just boot her off completely.
Thanks for keeping track of this you guys.
Smiling Mortician said,
October 5, 2006 at 5:24
But can I just say that I find this whole “Homeland� descriptive of America to be creepy, Nationalist, Jingoistic and somewhat fascist?
Yes! Thanks, mikey. Y’know, there’s so much abomination to respond to (jeepers but that fourth reich keeps us on our toes!) that I admit I’ve let slide for months my desire to comment on the absolute, gut-level revulsion I felt (and continue to feel) from the first moment I heard of this new “department” in our federal protectosphere. Have these people not read Orwell? Did they read him and just not get him? Did they read him, get him, and decide, well shit, I guess it worked out for the proles trying to keep Eurasia and Eastasia from clashing in their lobes?
I mean, it’s not just somewhat fascist: it’s the quintessence of fascist. Aside: I told my students today that one of the biggest problems in American discourse today is that people use terms they don’t understand to try to prove political points. They didn’t believe me. I pop-quizzed them: “Define fascism.” Not a one of them could. Or, I should say, they either couldn’t offer a definition or they offered the Garybot version. But (thanks to the OED) they all had a valid working definition by the end of class.
So . . . well . . . it felt good for the moment . . .
Pinko Punko said,
October 5, 2006 at 5:34
I am so sick. So so so sick.
merlallen said,
October 5, 2006 at 11:13
I agree about the Homeland bit. It creeps me out. I was raised in Germany and every time I hear about Homeland Security, I think of Oma and Opa. Not my grandparents, I just called them that.
Richard 23 said,
October 5, 2006 at 12:30
Did anyone notice that Michelle Malkin got this one right?
The Conservative Outing Mob
Nice going, Michelle!
Peter said,
October 5, 2006 at 14:47
Re: the “Homeland” thing…is it excessively paranoid to notice how close “Department of Homeland Security” is to “Committee for State Security”?
Shygetz said,
October 5, 2006 at 17:05
Now, the obvious fact here is that the media and the Democrats knew just as much as the GOP, and they didn’t do a thing. The GOP investigated and took moves to prevent any pages from falling victim to Foley’s homosexual urges.
The Democrats didn’t do a thing.
In America, we are given the right to know who accuses us of misdeeds.
That tears it. I’m a Democrat, and Gary Ruppert just accused me of misdeeds. I demand to know his identity!
Pfc. Leftard said,
October 5, 2006 at 17:15
Guest poster at protein wisdom linked and put the kid’s name in the post.