Post by: Leatherneck on October 03, 2006, 03:09:07 PM
Isn't it interesting that now that the Congressman has been caught with his pants down he is blaming it on being an alcoholic, gay and having been molested by a priest when he was 13. Give me a break!
Post by: SomeKid on October 03, 2006, 03:12:01 PM
I would go out, and publicly say that anyone who kills Foley gets a pardon.
Post by: thebaldguy on October 03, 2006, 03:46:44 PM
The effective range of an excuse is zero meters.
I don't know if he's sorry for what he did. He's sorry he got caught. Thank God he was, but it seems like this behavior could have been going on for a while. If I remember correctly, he was in favor of coming down pretty hard on child abusers/molesters. I hope he gets his punishment, and doesn't get cut slack because he's an elected official.
Post by: Sindawe on October 03, 2006, 03:48:41 PM
Yes, it is interesting Letherness. Sounds like a cop-out to me. "Its not my fault! I was molested and I'm an addict!"
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 03, 2006, 03:58:58 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 04:01:04 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
The guy is a freaking pervert *expletive deleted*bag. What I do not understand is how come out of a nation of 300 million, the parties cannot come up with several hundred decent individuals to put up as elected officials, but instead have to install child abusers, embezzlers, commies, genetic disasters, certifiable lunatics, pedophiles, and other types of human polution instead.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: fistful
Yes I am. He, apparently, never even touched anybody. Democrats have done worse, and remained in power. So, he got the boot. Case closed. But the only people who agree with me are spending all their airtime going on about it.
I wish he would just shut up already. His appeals for mercy from the public are downright unseemly.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 04:21:17 PM
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on October 03, 2006, 04:48:35 PM
Quote from: Sindawe
I have to wonder if the mess with Foley is being used as a diversion to keep the MSM watching populace from taking note of what looks like an uptick in preparation for an attack on Iran. The USS Eisenhower is set to deploy to Iran ahead of schedule, and IIRC some subs are also headed toward the sandbox.
I think there's a coordinated effort between the military and the intelligence community to prevent that from happening right now. I think the NIE results were leaked to hopefully prevent the administration from launching an October surprise attack on Iran. I also think that is why heavy hitters like retired Army Generals John Batiste and Paul Eaton and retired Marine Corp Colonel Thomas Hammes testified before the Senate that Rumsfeld is incompetent. These are not lightweights in the military. Paul Eaton has been dubbed "The Father of the Iraqi Army," according to "Defend America," (http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jun2004/a061404e.html) the terrorism newsletter of the U.S. Department of Defense. John Batiste led the First Infantry Division in Iraq, and Thomas Hammes served as a Marine Senior Military Fellow in the Institute for National Security Studies, National Defense University, (and whose excellent book, "The Sling and the Stone," was published by the company that publishes my books, by the way). All three of these men are soldiers' soldiers, dedicated military men who are not in the habit of getting involved in politics. I believe that their coordinated attack on Rumsfeld at this time is meant to discredit the man before he and Dick Cheney can lead us into another disasterous war.And Fistful and Rabbi, I don't think you've seen anywhere near the end of this yet. The Washington Times (that fringe left-wing rag with an editorial board headed by that Communist liberal Tony Blankley), published the following editorial on the subject this morning:
Quote from: washington times
-----------------------------------------------------------
RESIGN, MR. SPEAKER
-----------------------------------------------------------
The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal -- behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley of his committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened.
Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, said he learned about the Foley e-mail messages "in late 2005." Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority, said he was informed of the e-mail messages earlier this year. On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could be prowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything relate!
d to this matter with any Democrat.
Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109th Congress. Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," and they shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. Sexual predators come in all shapes, sizes and partisan hues, in institutions within and without government. When predators are found they must be dealt with, forcefully and swiftly. This time the offender is a Republican, and Republicans can't simply "get ahead" of the scandal by competing to make the most noise in calls for a full investigation. The time for that is long past.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.
A special, one-day congressional session should elect a successor. We nominate Rep. Henry Hyde, also of Illinois, the chairman of the House International Relations Committee whose approaching retirement ensures that he has no dog in this fight. He has a long and principled career, and is respected on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Hyde would preside over the remaining three months of the 109th Congress in a manner best suited for a full and exhaustive investigation until a new speaker for the 110th Congress is elected in January, who can assume responsibility for the investigation.
I believe this is one of the first times I've ever agreed with a Washington Times editorial. At the very least Hastert is guilty of gross incompetence; at worst he is guilty of aiding and abetting a sexual predator for the purpose of political gain. Either way, he has to go (and in the past I have supported Hastert). When Tony Blankley and company are calling for Hastert's head over this, the GOP is in deep, deep trouble.
RESIGN, MR. SPEAKER
-----------------------------------------------------------
The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal -- behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley of his committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened.
Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, said he learned about the Foley e-mail messages "in late 2005." Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority, said he was informed of the e-mail messages earlier this year. On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could be prowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything relate!
d to this matter with any Democrat.
Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109th Congress. Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," and they shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. Sexual predators come in all shapes, sizes and partisan hues, in institutions within and without government. When predators are found they must be dealt with, forcefully and swiftly. This time the offender is a Republican, and Republicans can't simply "get ahead" of the scandal by competing to make the most noise in calls for a full investigation. The time for that is long past.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.
A special, one-day congressional session should elect a successor. We nominate Rep. Henry Hyde, also of Illinois, the chairman of the House International Relations Committee whose approaching retirement ensures that he has no dog in this fight. He has a long and principled career, and is respected on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Hyde would preside over the remaining three months of the 109th Congress in a manner best suited for a full and exhaustive investigation until a new speaker for the 110th Congress is elected in January, who can assume responsibility for the investigation.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 03, 2006, 05:23:52 PM
What did they guy actually do? Didnt Clinton do much worse?
Post by: mustanger98 on October 03, 2006, 05:33:23 PM
In Hastert's case, I noticed the same thing Sean Hannity and Dick Morris were talking about... "what did Hastert know and when did he know it?". To my mind, it ain't Hastert's problem because Hastert isn't the offending party in this case. Yet, I agree that the Dems will use this to make political hay and the more Reps they unseat with this, the better they'll like it.
Yeah, I'm annoyed.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 03, 2006, 05:59:56 PM
Exploiting children to gratify you sexual desires is despicable. Exploiting a sexual abuse crime to gratify your electoral desires is also pretty shameful.
Post by: Sindawe on October 03, 2006, 06:06:08 PM
Quote
What did they guy actually do? Didnt Clinton do much worse?
IIRC, Clinton's sexual hijinks where committed with other ADULTS, be they consensual activity such as that with Jennifer Flowers & Monica Lewinsky or as reputed by some sexual assaults on other adult women. What Foley is facing is accusations of is sexual excapades with MINORS, even if they are "just instant messages". Such is a big NO-NO in our culture (and rightly so IMAO), folks loose careers, homes, spouses and a goodly chunk of their rights when convicted of such deeds.I've not been following this all that closely, but if others in either party knew about Foley's activities (should they have actually occured), they share a measure of guilt for not speaking up and acting to put a stop to it. Frankly I'm not really surprised at this, given the "fun" that has occurred in other Administrations and Sessions of Congress. Its 2nd hand data so take as you will, but I have a cousin of good character who served as an page/intern with one of our august Congress-critters a few years back, and this individual has told their parents that the level of corruption and depravity in Washingtion D.C is beyond belief.
"...never will you find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy..."
Lobotomy Boy: I hope you are correct about the Military and Intelligence communities actively working to prevent another attack on a sovereign nation based on bad and/or bogus information. The Republic would be grievously injured by such, and should an attack be nuclear in nature the United States would become a pariah among the other nations.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 06:10:45 PM
Quote from: mustanger98
I also wonder, if he was abused as a kid, why he'd want to pass that on to more kids.
They usually do.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on October 03, 2006, 06:13:04 PM
And yes, this is a whole lot worse than Clinton and Lewinski. If anyone tries to tell me that a middle-aged man having consensual relations with an adult women in an office is as bad as or worse than a middle-aged man stalking underage boys on the Internet, well then I suspect we'll be seeing that person on "Dateline's" "To Catch a Predator" series sooner or later. Anyone who believes that what Clinton did is in the same league as what Foley did better stay far, far away from my sons.
Sindawe, I hope I'm right too. If we end up in yet another quagmire in the Middle East, I'm afraid our military will be so overstretched that our enemies will have their way with us.
Post by: Stetson on October 03, 2006, 06:14:39 PM
Gerry Eastman Studds (born May 12, 1937) is a retired American politician, born in Mineola, New York. He served as a Democratic Congressman for Massachusetts from 1973 until 1996. He was the first openly homosexual member of the US Congress and, more generally, the first openly gay national politician in the US. In 1983, he admitted having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male page a decade earlier.
And he. Gerry Studds, was still re- elected.
I still think he, Foley, is a sick SOB but someone needs to get their collective panties unbunched.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on October 03, 2006, 06:18:18 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 06:22:49 PM
Quote from: Lobotomy Boy
I don't believe that even the Democrats would re-elect a perv like that today, except maybe in California.
Why wouldn't they? The press would never report it, so it wouldn't matter.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on October 03, 2006, 06:29:00 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 06:48:25 PM
But you're right about Jefferson. Everywhere I go, it's Jefferson, Jefferson, Jefferson. And they made him resign from his committee seats. Wait a minute, none of that is true.
Lobby, do not pretend that the majority of press outlets are not biased to the left. Everyone knows it.
Post by: Stetson on October 03, 2006, 06:51:47 PM
It isnt a political issue. It is a criminal issue. It has happened on both sides of the political aisle and in every facet of society.
*Department of homeland security, religious leaders, truck drivers, students, teachers. It isn't just 50 yr old politicians.
*See "To Catch A Predator" with Chris Hansen and Perverted-Justice.com
Post by: roo_ster on October 03, 2006, 07:00:38 PM
Folks (in House leadership) who read the emails in their entirety really ought to have applied some of their critical reading skills, as some emails refer to other pages having problems with congresscritters hitting on them. I think Hastert was ill-served by his lackeys.
I do believe that Hastert & his boys were doing the "Queer Two-Step" to dance around the elephant in the room: nobody wanted to "jump to conclusions" about a gay man's partiality toward young men. Yeah, everybody was likely thinking it. But nobody wanted to be accused of being the queer-baiter by the PC priesthood which has christened gay men as secular saints.
The funny thing is, the Democrats & their water-carriers in the media insist that Hastert & Co ought to have assumed that a gay man who had writen overly-familiar email to an underage male was a chomo. I wonder if they will withdraw their criticism of the Boy Scouts, in light of their new understanding?
Nah, cognitive dissonance is their usual state of mind.
Oh, and I hope Foley rots in Hades. If convicted of some crime, may he spend his days (& nights) as the object of some other prisoner's desire.
LB:
I do recall the early 1980's page scandal as well as the Barney Fag (..er, Frank!**) prostitution ring. There was some reporting, but not nearly this intense...and not with the oh-so-convenient timing we see in the Foley mess.
*Corroborated by others
** Two cheers for the first to recall the person who made that particular slip of the tounge.
Post by: Vodka7 on October 03, 2006, 07:06:21 PM
Maf54: I may be now that your coming
Maf54: who you coming to visit
Teen: haha good stuff
Teen: umm no one really
Maf54: we will be adjourned ny then
Teen: oh good
Maf54: by
Maf54: then we can have a few drinks
Maf54: lol
Teen: yes yes ;-)
Maf54: your not old enough to drink
Teen: shhh&
Maf54: ok
Teen: that's not what my ID says
Teen: lol
Maf54: ok
Teen: I probably shouldn't be telling you that huh
Maf54: we may need to drink at my house so we don't get busted"
"Maf54 (8:03:47 PM): what you wearing
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:04 PM): normal clothes
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:09 PM): tshirt and shorts
Maf54 (8:04:17 PM): um so a big buldge
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:35 PM): ya
Maf54 (8:04:45 PM): um
Maf54 (8:04:58 PM): love to slip them off of you
Xxxxxxxxx (8:05:08 PM): haha
Maf54 (8:05:53 PM): and gram the one eyed snake
Maf54 (8:06:13 PM): grab"
ABC News is saying that they have 52 chat logs from two teenagers. At least one of the teenagers was supposed to be 15 when the conversation occured. Now, ANYONE inviting a FIFTEEN year old over for drinks and Lord knows what else deserves to go to jail. Now, I don't care who knew what I don't care who knew it when--I want this child molester to go on trial ASAP. Get this creep off our streets, then we can think about other things.
This is a 52 year old man talking like that to teenagers. Ugghhh.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 07:57:50 PM
Quote from: jfruser
** Two cheers for the first to recall the person who made that particular slip of the tounge.
Hmmm. If that wasn't Ted Kennedy, I think it was some other Democrat.
Post by: HForrest on October 03, 2006, 08:05:33 PM
However, being that Foley crusaded for strict laws against "internet pedophiles", I'm glad it's coming back to bite him in the ass.
Post by: Vodka7 on October 03, 2006, 08:22:31 PM
This freak is right up there with molester priests and troupe leaders as far as I'm concerned. He deserves to go to jail.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2006, 08:30:56 PM
Quote from: Vodka7
This freak is right up there with molester priests and troupe leaders as far as I'm concerned. He deserves to go to jail.
Only if he actually carried out the stuff he talked about. Don't get me wrong, it's still abuse of power and sick behavior, especially considering the age of the boys he was talking to. But the "it's just sex" defense seems noticably lacking from the Democrats who said that a few years ago.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 03, 2006, 08:42:14 PM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: Vodka7
This freak is right up there with molester priests and troupe leaders as far as I'm concerned. He deserves to go to jail.
Only if he actually carried out the stuff he talked about. Don't get me wrong, it's still abuse of power and sick behavior, especially considering the age of the boys he was talking to. But the "it's just sex" defense seems noticably lacking from the Democrats who said that a few years ago.Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 02:47:51 AM
Quote from: Lobotomy Boy
And yes, this is a whole lot worse than Clinton and Lewinski. If anyone tries to tell me that a middle-aged man having consensual relations with an adult women in an office is as bad as or worse than a middle-aged man stalking underage boys on the Internet, well then I suspect we'll be seeing that person on "Dateline's" "To Catch a Predator" series sooner or later. Anyone who believes that what Clinton did is in the same league as what Foley did better stay far, far away from my sons.
I'll stay far away from your sons then.What did Foley do? He typed inappropriate messages on the internet. That's it. What did Clinton do? He had a sexual relationship with a subordinate. Any CEO of any company would lose his job over that (see, Harry Stonecipher). That is a no-no. Monica was not "consenting" in that situation since Clinton was her boss.
Unless you think thinking and writing and saying is the same thing as doing.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 03:12:36 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 04:08:40 AM
But it is a far cry typing inappropriate messages on a computer to having subordinates blow you in the Oval Office. And Clinton had a history of power abuse this way. Supposedly when he was governor he would send state troopers to female gov't workers and basically say "the gov wants to meet you and he can do big things for your career." Sorry, that is far more abusive than anything Foley did.
Post by: mtnbkr on October 04, 2006, 04:30:30 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
...But it is a far cry typing inappropriate messages on a computer "for minors" to having subordinates blow you in the Oval Office...
You left out two important words. I also believe it is quite illegal to have such online discussions with minors. Either that or our elected officials wanted to enact such laws. I'm hazy on whether or not they actually passed them.Chris
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 04:42:32 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 05:16:40 AM
Quote from: mtnbkr
Quote from: The Rabbi
...But it is a far cry typing inappropriate messages on a computer "for minors" to having subordinates blow you in the Oval Office...
You left out two important words. I also believe it is quite illegal to have such online discussions with minors. Either that or our elected officials wanted to enact such laws. I'm hazy on whether or not they actually passed them.Chris
Look, Barney Frank had his gay lover running a male prostitution ring out of his Georgetown condo. And he is not only still in Congress but keeps getting re-elected. N.J governor McGreevey was getting blackmailed by his homosexual lover. And he finished his term in office.
When Republicans commit the slightest infraction, even if it is legal, they are forced to resign in disgrace. When Democrats do it they are given sympathy and re-elected. It is the double standard I object to.
Post by: richyoung on October 04, 2006, 05:17:45 AM
STATUS: martyr
Ted Kennedy: 1 girl dead, one raped on lawn.
STATUS: still in office
Patrick Kennedy: DUI with accident
STATUS: still in office
Frank: Fixed parking tickets for the clients of the prostitution ring that his "boy toy" was running out of the representative's office.
STATUS: still in office
Jefferson: Diverted Katrina rescue efforts to secure refrigerator full of bribe money
STATUS: still in office
Studds: Had ACTUAL SEX with underage male page.
SATUS; re-nominated and re-elected five times. Now retired.
Reynolds: Had ACTUAL SEX with underage schoolgirl working on his campaign, in between diverting campaign funds into personal use and beating his wife.
STATUS: sentence commuted by Bill Clinton. Hired by Jesse Jackson as a "youth counselor".(Who sez those dems have no sense of humor?)
Condit: Had ACTUAL SEX with barely legal intern/Mossad honey trap, who later disappears - skeletal remains found 1 year later.
STATUS: renominated, but loses election. No criminal charges.
Clinton: Had ACTUAL SEX with barely legal intern, including oral and instrumental sodomy AND use of tobacco in a government building. Then commited perjury about it, while serving as the highest law enforcement officila in the country.
STATUS: re-nominated. Re-elected. Party hero and spokesman.
Thank GOD we have the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, full of men of such moral calibur, to protect us from the likes of:
Foley: sent naughty IMs and emails to underage pages. No actual sexual contact.
STATUS: hounded from office.
Packwood: clumsily asked for sex from various aquaintances,
STATUS: hounded from office
Ryan: allegedly tried to "get it on" with his wife, 7-of-9, with people watching.
STATUS: hounded out of Senate race.
...no double standard here!
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 05:22:41 AM
Post by: BryanP on October 04, 2006, 06:00:20 AM
Also, the Dem's don't hold themselves out as being the final bastion of Family Values, holding the bulwarks against a tide of vileness.
Let me put it this way: Given a choice I'd let Clinton, McGreevey, or Frank babysit my nephew before I'd let Foley near him.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 06:08:26 AM
Quote from: BryanP
Let's see here. Clinton ... relations with an another adult. McGreevey, relations with another adult. Frank, relations with another adult. Foley ... oh yeah. There's the difference.
Also, the Dem's don't hold themselves out as being the final bastion of Family Values, holding the bulwarks against a tide of vileness.
Let me put it this way: Given a choice I'd let Clinton, McGreevey, or Frank babysit my nephew before I'd let Foley near him.
You must define relations differently from the rest of us. You must define lots of things differently not see the difference between coercing actual sexual acts out of subordinates and suggestive chatting on the internet.
Also, the Dem's don't hold themselves out as being the final bastion of Family Values, holding the bulwarks against a tide of vileness.
Let me put it this way: Given a choice I'd let Clinton, McGreevey, or Frank babysit my nephew before I'd let Foley near him.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 06:10:10 AM
Quote from: BryanP
Also, the Dem's don't hold themselves out as being the final bastion of Family Values, holding the bulwarks against a tide of vileness.
Let's see here. Because the Dem's have lower moral standards to begin with, that makes them better? richyoung has listed more than one minor victim of Democratic politicians. Care to comment on those? In any case, Democrats pretend to defend the rights of women, while using them for their pleasure. They scream about the intransigence of Republican leaders who didn't do enough to stop Foley's advances to minor pages, while it is obvious they would have criticized them for "homophobia," had they done so. They pretend to work for the well-being of American Blacks, while doing all they can to encourage the total destruction of their families and culture. We can sling charges of hypocrisy all day. Big deal.
Post by: richyoung on October 04, 2006, 08:36:51 AM
Quote from: fistful
richyoung has listed more than one minor victim of Democratic politicians. Care to comment on those?
The silence. Deafening.
Post by: Darwin on October 04, 2006, 09:51:59 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 10:04:46 AM
Quote from: Darwin
If the best that y'all can come up with as a defense for Hastert's inaction in following up on the Foley complaints is that the Democrats are scumbags (which they most certainly are), it looks to me like Hastert is sunk. Good luck with that.
See Fistful's reply up above. they were damned either way.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 10:06:27 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
See Fistful's reply up above. they were damned either way.
I don't really think that's a defense of Hastert. Republicans get smeared for everything they do. That's no reason for Republican inaction.
Post by: Darwin on October 04, 2006, 10:11:34 AM
Quote from: fistful
Are you going to ignore that like you've ignored other points that contradict you?
I'm not sure I get your drift. Please define "that."
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 11:18:55 AM
Post by: Darwin on October 04, 2006, 11:20:23 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 11:28:03 AM
Anyway. Jfruser is the one who is defending Hastert - the rest of us are just annoyed at everything the Dems get away with. You seem to be interested in Mr. Hastert, so why not respond to jfruser's defense of Hastert? Why not defend your own statements in post 20 and answer my critique thereof? Or do you admit that your point of view has been demolished?
Post by: Darwin on October 04, 2006, 12:27:25 PM
Regarding my statement in post 20, I haven't defended it because in spite of your blustery blather, you have said nothing to refute it. If the press hasn't reported all the examples of despicable behavior of the Democrats, how then do you know about them? To prove your point about the press not reporting Democratic deviance you cite example after example of Democratic deviance that you read about.... in the press. I see no reason to try to correct such circular (lack of) logic. I think the matter speaks for itself.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 04, 2006, 12:39:34 PM
Quote from: Darwin
I stand corrected. I am so used to correcting misplaced modifiers that I misspoke and said "modifier" when I meant pronoun. Thank you for correcting me.
Regarding my statement in post 20, I haven't defended it because in spite of your blustery blather, you have said nothing to refute it. If the press hasn't reported all the examples of despicable behavior of the Democrats, how then do you know about them? To prove your point about the press not reporting Democratic deviance you cite example after example of Democratic deviance that you read about.... in the press. I see no reason to try to correct such circular (lack of) logic. I think the matter speaks for itself.
Are you suggesting that the degree of mainstream press coverage over sordid Democrat behavior is equal in magnitude and vigor to the mainstream press coverage of sordid Republican behavior? Are you asserting that the only possible way to learn about the behavior of our elected representatives is via the reporting of the mainstream media?
Regarding my statement in post 20, I haven't defended it because in spite of your blustery blather, you have said nothing to refute it. If the press hasn't reported all the examples of despicable behavior of the Democrats, how then do you know about them? To prove your point about the press not reporting Democratic deviance you cite example after example of Democratic deviance that you read about.... in the press. I see no reason to try to correct such circular (lack of) logic. I think the matter speaks for itself.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 12:52:45 PM
Stop pretending that you don't get the point. The point is the intensity of reporting on Democrat vs. Republican scandals. Of course Jefferson's alleged crimes were reported, but how much play did they get compared to those of Tom DeLay or even the non-leaking of a non-covert identity (Valerie Plame) by those who didn't leak it (Rove, Libby and Cheney)? You know the answer to that. You know that the drive-by press decides what we talk about, and that they are the reason why we are talking about Foley and not talking about Jefferson or some other scandal on the Democrat side.
But there's more to it than that. Conservatives and Republicans can call for the resignations of leftists all day long, but the press doesn't care. But let one well-placed leftist demand the resignation of Hastert, Shimkis or Rumsfeld, and the headlines read, "So-and-so refuses to resign." Just as they read, "Congress refuses to renew Assault Weapons Bill."
But I'm sure you're not denying the bias of the old-line press, right?
Post by: Darwin on October 04, 2006, 12:56:07 PM
Question 2: Again, no, but I learned about these things in the media, so it can be done.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 12:59:07 PM
Quote from: Darwin
I stand corrected. I am so used to correcting misplaced modifiers that I misspoke and said "modifier" when I meant pronoun. Thank you for correcting me.
Regarding my statement in post 20, I haven't defended it because in spite of your blustery blather, you have said nothing to refute it. If the press hasn't reported all the examples of despicable behavior of the Democrats, how then do you know about them? To prove your point about the press not reporting Democratic deviance you cite example after example of Democratic deviance that you read about.... in the press. I see no reason to try to correct such circular (lack of) logic. I think the matter speaks for itself.
I dont think its an issue of whether they report it but how they report it. Minimally and as no big deal. Meanwhile Republicans are out committing the next Watergate.
Regarding my statement in post 20, I haven't defended it because in spite of your blustery blather, you have said nothing to refute it. If the press hasn't reported all the examples of despicable behavior of the Democrats, how then do you know about them? To prove your point about the press not reporting Democratic deviance you cite example after example of Democratic deviance that you read about.... in the press. I see no reason to try to correct such circular (lack of) logic. I think the matter speaks for itself.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 04, 2006, 01:00:15 PM
Quote from: fistful
That was richyoung citing the Democratic misdeeds.
Stop pretending that you don't get the point. The point is the intensity of reporting on Democrat vs. Republican scandals. Of course Jefferson's alleged crimes were reported, but how much play did they get compared to those of Tom DeLay or even the non-leaking of a non-covert identity (Valerie Plame) by those who didn't leak it (Rove, Libby and Cheney)? You know the answer to that. You know that the drive-by press decides what we talk about, and that they are the reason why we are talking about Foley and not talking about Jefferson or some other scandal on the Democrat side.
But there's more to it than that. Conservatives and Republicans can call for the resignations of leftists all day long, but the press doesn't care. But let one well-placed leftist demand the resignation of Hastert, Shimkis or Rumsfeld, and the headlines read, "So-and-so refuses to resign." Just as they read, "Congress refuses to renew Assault Weapons Bill."
But I'm sure you're not denying the bias of the old-line press, right?
Actually Jefferson was even worse because the press turned him into a martyr for the Constitution, claiming his rights had been compromised and ignoring what he obviously had done.
Stop pretending that you don't get the point. The point is the intensity of reporting on Democrat vs. Republican scandals. Of course Jefferson's alleged crimes were reported, but how much play did they get compared to those of Tom DeLay or even the non-leaking of a non-covert identity (Valerie Plame) by those who didn't leak it (Rove, Libby and Cheney)? You know the answer to that. You know that the drive-by press decides what we talk about, and that they are the reason why we are talking about Foley and not talking about Jefferson or some other scandal on the Democrat side.
But there's more to it than that. Conservatives and Republicans can call for the resignations of leftists all day long, but the press doesn't care. But let one well-placed leftist demand the resignation of Hastert, Shimkis or Rumsfeld, and the headlines read, "So-and-so refuses to resign." Just as they read, "Congress refuses to renew Assault Weapons Bill."
But I'm sure you're not denying the bias of the old-line press, right?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2006, 01:03:48 PM
I could also point out how something embarassing was leaked from a Democratic memo a few years ago, and the press was only concerned with who had leaked the memo, that scoundrel. Anybody remember the details on that?
Someone's still declining to answer jfruser's defense of Hastert, I see.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2006, 02:06:27 PM
Post by: Antibubba on October 04, 2006, 03:24:04 PM
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on October 04, 2006, 04:07:22 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 04, 2006, 04:22:26 PM
Quote from: Lobotomy Boy
Jfruser, a self-described "fundie," defends the cover up of a sexual predator. CAnnoneer advocates genocide. I need to start hanging out with a better class of people.
I've yet to see credible evidence that such a coverup ever occured. The media is acting as if the coverup was done and proven, in a vain attempt to make their reporting come true by virtue of having reported it. But do we know yet, with any degree of certaintly, that Hastert was aware Foley was diddling little boys? For that matter, do we even know that Foley was actually diddling those little boys, as opposed to just talking about it on the net? All we really have are some shady and creepy internet text messages.
Let's not put the cart in fron of the horses here, fellas.
Post by: roo_ster on October 04, 2006, 06:11:20 PM
Quote from: Lobotomy Boy
Jfruser, a self-described "fundie," defends the cover up of a sexual predator. CAnnoneer advocates genocide. I need to start hanging out with a better class of people.
Uh, what cover-up? Just because folks squeal, "Cover up!" like a stuck pig does not make it so. Facts matter.According to all the reports, Hastert's minions had only access to the emails, not the IMs. Hastert supposedly did not actually read the emails, but relied on his minions for a digest & told Foley to knock it off. If you know that Hastert & his folks had access to more data, do please enlighten us.
So, was Hastert supposed to get out the pitchforks & torches and gin up a game of smear the queer? Hey, I'll go along with the policy you advocate (distrusting homosexual men around teenaged boys and assuming the worst given any evidence), but you might want to run your standard by the PC police to see what they might think of the policy.
Post by: LAK on October 06, 2006, 12:40:46 AM
--------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: stevelyn on October 06, 2006, 03:40:59 AM
Quote from: Sindawe
[tin-foil hat] I have to wonder if the mess with Foley is being used as a diversion to keep the MSM watching populace from taking note of what looks like an uptick in preparation for an attack on Iran. The USS Eisenhower is set to deploy to Iran ahead of schedule, and IIRC some subs are also headed toward the sandbox.[/tin-foil hat]
I agree that this is a mindless political and media diversion and we need to start watching our flanks. As to the real motive? I have no idea, but I do know that somehow or another we're about to get bent over.He's resigned, the FBI is investigating if there is possible criminal wrongdoing. Congress pukes need to move on and focus on important issues.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 06, 2006, 03:46:48 AM
If this is a concerted effort to distract us, the left and right wing media are both part of it.
Post by: Dannyboy on October 06, 2006, 04:05:18 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 06, 2006, 04:20:07 AM
Quote from: Dannyboy
I don't know if it's been corroborated yet but it's been reported that the underage former page was actually of legal age and this whole thing was a big "prank."
There was more than one page, but one of them was 18, yes. Won't change a thing.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 06, 2006, 04:23:37 AM
As Rabbi says, I think there were other pages involved. What's stupid about this (but par for the course) is that this is being tried in the media well before the facts have all come out.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 06, 2006, 04:34:24 AM
I dont remember who said that but its still good.
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 04:36:04 AM
Quote from: Darwin
If the best that y'all can come up with as a defense for Hastert's inaction in following up on the Foley complaints is that the Democrats are scumbags (which they most certainly are), it looks to me like Hastert is sunk. Good luck with that.
Don't give a fig about Hastert either way, other than to see he has due process. Look at the list again:Dems: 2 dead, multiple rapes, at least 2 statutory rapes.
Repubs: asked for sex, asked for sex via IM, asked for kinky sex with own wife.
Now look at the punishments: only REPUBLICANS are hounded out of office or races for office.
Hmm - mehtinks the punishments don't match the crimes...
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 06, 2006, 07:15:47 AM
Quote from: richyoung
Now look at the punishments: only REPUBLICANS are hounded out of office or races for office.
Double standards. If married Clinton does an intern in the Oval Office, it is nobody's business. If a repub wants to do his own wife in a social setting, he is clearly a dangerous amoral pervert.
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 07:31:20 AM
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 09:05:45 AM
I seem to recall hearing that line from a lot of Democrats, about the time Prez Bill was using Monica's nether reagons as a field-improvised humidor...
Post by: Unisaw on October 06, 2006, 09:17:30 AM
Quote from: richyoung
about the time Prez Bill was using Monica's nether reagons as a field-improvised humidor...
Despite one spelling challenge, that writing is a literary accomplishment of the first order... 
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 09:25:19 AM
Post by: richyoung on October 06, 2006, 09:53:05 AM
Post by: Strings on October 06, 2006, 12:05:58 PM
Anybody got the mental Draino?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 06, 2006, 04:01:25 PM
I kinda like cigars. Not so much anymore. You're a bad person, richyoung...
Post by: richyoung on October 10, 2006, 06:28:53 AM
Rich