|
02 Oct 06 - 10:44 AM (#1848273) Subject: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: SINSULL Bad enough that Mark Foley was caught sending "salacious" emails to underage boys, now it seems that Republican higher ups knew about it, warned new Republican pages about Foley as early as 2001 BUT chose not to warn Democratic pages. What the hell??????? |
|
02 Oct 06 - 10:50 AM (#1848281) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Rapparee If ANY member of Congress is a pedophile -- straight, gay, bi, whatever -- if ANY member of Congress is a pedophile and their party hides that knowledge, the party becomes an accessory to any child sexual abuse. At least Barney Franks is open about being gay -- and he isn't pedophilic. (The general feeling about pedophiles out here is best summed up in the phrase, "Get a rope!") |
|
02 Oct 06 - 11:02 AM (#1848293) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Richard Bridge Will he turn over a new leaf? Or does he want to get to the bottom of this page first??? |
|
02 Oct 06 - 12:09 PM (#1848368) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Mudjack Everything is OK now, Mark Foley has checked himself in for alchoholic treatment. The booze made him do it. Upon completion of the booze program, He'll be OK and won't bother young boys anymore. Isn't that how it works? It should all be blamed on something else besides what it really is. That's the Republicans way of life, they dont't even know how to lie honestly. Mudjack |
|
02 Oct 06 - 12:34 PM (#1848400) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Paul Burke Funny, just last night the BBC ran a program about child abuse being hidden by the Catholic Church, and Rat Singer's role in the policy. Could we be seeing the precursor of a reconciliation between Rome and the Republicans? |
|
02 Oct 06 - 12:42 PM (#1848408) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. No, no NO! Its perfectly OK for "christian"[sic] fundamentalist Republicans to be perverts and pederasts! Just as long as there are no blow-jobs between consenting adults. |
|
02 Oct 06 - 01:00 PM (#1848426) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: George Papavgeris So, we can summise from the behaviour of the Republican senators' leadership that their party now condones such behaviour as Mark Foley's, and bugger the "family values" - literally... The unspeakable hypocritical bastards! |
|
02 Oct 06 - 01:20 PM (#1848437) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST It's all a diversion. Got to get your attn off the signing of the Military Commissions Act. Don't fall for the sexcapade stories. The U.S. congress just passed the equivalent of the Reichstag's Enabling Act, which allowed Hitler to assume the role of dictator. The Commissions Act will make the president (who happens to be GWBush at the moment, but will be some bloodthirsty "democrat" next time around), to secretly kill you. And that's just what's going on on the domestic front. Internationally, Dick Cheney has said he'll nuke Iran if there's one more act of terrorism committed against America. Cheney ordered the interceptor jets to stand down on 9-11, so I don't doubt he's serious. And when he nukes Iran, the world will HAVE to gang up on the US and put us down like they did Nazi Germany. But the social engineers know you're more interested in where someone you hadn't even heard of yesterday put his dick the day before. Forget Foley. Find out how your congressional reps voted on the Military Commissions Act. Call them. Ask why so many Democratic Senators voted for it. Find out why the US Senate just voted 100-0 to fund the Iraq war with countless more billions of dollars. 100-0. And you dumb-ass liberals still believe the media garbage that there's a difference between the parties and Republicans are the bad guys. Hell, Barney Frank does boys, so where's your outrage over that? |
|
02 Oct 06 - 01:24 PM (#1848440) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: jeffp Tin helmet a little tight this afternoon? |
|
02 Oct 06 - 01:31 PM (#1848445) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos The American Free Press, adherents of Lyndon La Rouche, reports the above as follows: A number of political observers and activists today sounded "a red alert" after allegations surfaced this week that Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to make contingency plans for a nuclear strike against Iran in the aftermath of another "9-11 type attack" on the United States. Cheney's orders first surfaced in an article by Philip Geraldi in the Aug 1, 2005, issue of American Conservative. Geraldi was unavailable for comment, but excerpts of the article went on to say: "Vice President Cheney's office has specifically told the Pentagon that the military should be prepared for an attack on Iran in the immediate aftermath of 'another 9-11.' " However, that's "not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States," notes Geraldi's article. The purported statement was then distributed widely as a number of political observers have issued "worldwide" warning statements," declaring Cheney's order to be interpreted as "sounding the bell for World War III." GUNS OF AUGUST In response to Cheney's order, one outspoken political activist issued an Internet notice covering the time period of August 2005, saying: "Vice President Dick Cheney, with the full collusion of the circles of British Prime Minister Tony Blair unleashed the recently exposed plans to stage a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against Iran. "The danger of such a mad, Hitler-in-the-bunker action from the Cheney circles would be even further heightened were the United States Congress to stick with its present schedule, and go into recess on July 30 until Sept. 4. With Congress out of Washington, the Cheney-led White House would almost certainly unleash a "Guns of August" attack on Iran." And as reported several months ago, La Rouche said the Bush Administration, under CONPLAN 8022, had already placed the relevant "mini-nukes" under the control of theater military commanders, as part of a new global strike doctrine, a doctrine originally conceived when Cheney was secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush. I concur that the readiness of Cheney's mob to deploy nuclear weapons is ten times as uncoscionable as the readiness of his cohorts to overlook child abuse. But they both speak to the deep, foul rot in the nation's capitol. BTW, Guest, are you trying to get an idea across? Because if you are, it is pretty dumb-ass of you, yourself, to lard it with insults to those to whom you are communicating. As to the Military Commissions Act, some slightly stale statistics from the House: H.R. 6166: Military Commissions Act of 2006 Overview Amendments Floor Speeches Other Info Official Title: To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes. Status: Passed House (96% of Republicans supporting, 83% of Democrats opposing.) This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. Introduced: Sep 25, 2006 Last Action: Sep 27, 2006: The Clerk was authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 6166. A |
|
02 Oct 06 - 02:14 PM (#1848482) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Richard Bridge Amnsety International's view |
|
02 Oct 06 - 04:26 PM (#1848603) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Time says:"...The scandal involving Mark Foley, the Florida congressman who resigned last Friday after the discovery of lurid e-mails and instant messages he sent to teenage congressional pages, has the potential to reshape the election landscape. It was the latest blow in a bad week of news for Republican congressmen getting ready to leave town to campaign - following a congressional report linking the White House to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and showing dozens more contacts with him than the White House had admitted, and a book by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward strongly suggesting the Administration has mislead the public about the Iraq War. The Foley scandal could well be the most damanging of the three. Woodward's book, even with all of its details about Administration infighting and blunders in Iraq, reinforces a notion most Americans already hod, that the war in Iraq isn't going well. The Abramoff revelations, too, simply added more specifics to bolster what Americans already think: that congressmen are too close to lobbyists. ..." |
|
02 Oct 06 - 04:50 PM (#1848635) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Rapparee Neither hate nor pederasty are Family Values. In fact, I'd really like someone to tell me what exactly "Family Values" are. Those of the so-called American Middle Class? Those of the Rural African-Americans? Those of the Inuit? The Hawaiians? The Sioux? Of the South Side of Chicago? -- and if so, of the Blacks, the Irish, the Poles? Yup, I'd sure like to know.... |
|
02 Oct 06 - 06:18 PM (#1848697) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. ...has the potential to reshape the election landscape. Not at all. The election is five weeks away. It'll all be forgotten by then by the ADD afflicted U.S. electorate. |
|
02 Oct 06 - 06:39 PM (#1848725) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Bobert Yeah, a couple more Repub reps whoes seats were considered safe blow up in the next few weeks an' the dems might just take the house... Nah.... We still got Diebold.... |
|
02 Oct 06 - 07:47 PM (#1848789) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: open mike i also heard that this guy was on the committee whose job it was to prevent or find solutions to child abuse. |
|
02 Oct 06 - 07:56 PM (#1848795) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: artbrooks SINSULL said: Republican higher ups knew about it, warned new Republican pages about Foley as early as 2001 BUT chose not to warn Democratic pages. Source, please. |
|
02 Oct 06 - 08:44 PM (#1848844) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: curmudgeon From AP: "Rep. Thomas Reynolds of New York, head of the House Republican election effort, said he told Hastert months ago about the allegations involving a 16-year-old boy from Louisiana. Hastert acknowledged that his staff had been made aware of concerns about what they termed "over-friendly" e-mails Foley had sent to the teenager _ including one requesting his picture _ in the fall of 2005, and that they referred the matter to the House clerk." |
|
02 Oct 06 - 08:54 PM (#1848853) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: artbrooks Not really what I'm asking about, curmudgeon. I'd like the source for the statement that the Republicans deliberately choose not to warn the Democratic pages. |
|
02 Oct 06 - 09:24 PM (#1848873) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: curmudgeon Sorry, Art, but I couldn't see the whole story at this link. The fact that Republican and Democratic pages are supervised separately would indicate that what was known to Republicans would probably not be freely shared with Democrats for fear of alerting the "other side" to the problem -- Tom |
|
02 Oct 06 - 10:42 PM (#1848899) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: SINSULL ABC and others have quotes from GOP pages who were warned as far back as 2001. So far, no Dem page can say the same. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/gop_staff_warne.html |
|
02 Oct 06 - 11:14 PM (#1848926) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: 282RA Keep your eye on this one, folks. This might be the one to "bring down the House." If top GOP congressmen knew and did nothing, all their sanctimonious crap and hypocrisy is exposed. There's no way they could keep their posts. The midterms become superfluous for the democrats because the GOP will be finished. And there can be little doubt that top congressmen knew. It's really a matter of how early they knew and just what they knew. But it would appear to have been known in Congress for several years that Foley was a problem and that Foley was warned to cool it at least once. That's very damning. There can little doubt they were protecting him in order to protect their image as moral crusaders and their majority. It's still too early to say but at least a few big dogs are going to get tossed outside. It's impossible that Hastert didn't know, for example. How could it not have been brought to his attention when lower-level congressmen knew about it for years? No way. Absolutely no way. Impossible. Either that or Hastert has no idea what's going on in his own party and I find that very difficult to believe. He knew. They all knew. Had Foley been busted with only his dick in the wind, it would mean nothing but senior republicans participating in hushing it up can't be overlooked or excused. This may very well be it for the republican party. I would warn the dems not to get too openly gloaty. This is where the republican party excels: dirt-digging and character assassination. The Dems can't ignore it, of course, but they need to speak only when spoken to. Don't goad the pubs because if there's dirt to find, the pubs can and will find it and won't hesitate to smear someone else with it to get the heat off themselves. You betcha. Just let the pubs frantically run about in damage control mode. That's all the public needs to see. They don't need dem color commentary. The media will do all that--they totally love stories like this. Well...we all do, I guess. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 01:07 AM (#1848956) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: 282RA This could be a real coup for the democrats. If the top GOP congressmen get removed, control shifts over virtually by default to the dems. Then they could impeach Bush and Cheney both and have them removed from office and then the acting president shifts to a democrat in Congress. The last two years of Bush's presidency could be taken over by the dems. That's a possibility. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 07:33 AM (#1849112) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel Aww S**t Another Republican term added to our lexicon... Overly Friendly Now all someone has to do on our street is suggest so in so is "overly friendly" and all hell will break loose. If you are an affable jogger and cut yourself shaving you are now an overly friendly cut and runner. When the electrodes of freedom are applied to the tesicles of terrorist loving liberals they whine about the quaint Geneva Conventions. Forgive my digression...anyway about Foley , it is a good example of how politics work: "You protect my BS and I'll protect yours unless it hits the TV screen" |
|
03 Oct 06 - 08:16 AM (#1849136) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel The Korean Reverend Moon's newspaper, The Washington Times has called for Hastert to resign. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 08:59 AM (#1849164) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. all their sanctimonious crap and hypocrisy is exposed. Been exposed for years, and it doesn't seem to bother their core constituency one iota. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 11:56 AM (#1849299) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing One report I read on google news said the GOP decided to keep it "internal" when they first heard about it. We need a Dem-friendly Ken Starr! |
|
03 Oct 06 - 12:11 PM (#1849314) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,you didn't vote them out, so live with them So this is the Party, and the Government, and the country, that will teach the Iraqis and Iranians about democracy, when its own systems and institutions are creaking at the seams and are unable to protect its own young. And it will bring its wonderful morals with it... "Beautiful world, so ethical, created by the angels...". NOT. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 12:16 PM (#1849318) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing Boy, did he know what he was talking about! (My emphasis): The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, toughening laws designed to shield children from exploitation, represented "a huge step forward," Foley told USA TODAY in an interview just before the ceremony in July. The Internet had given sexual predators new ways to reach kids, and the laws needed to respond, he said: "We track library books better than we do sex offenders." Foley's worst moment was, presumably, nine weeks later, when he resigned in the wake of allegations that he had sent sexually suggestive e-mails and instant messages to teenage boys who had worked as congressional pages. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 12:37 PM (#1849336) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: pdq Does anybody remember this guy? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick William Richmond Democrat, New York (1975-1982) The Honorable Fred Richmond plead guilty to tax evasion and two other federal charges in 1982, and agreed to resign from the House of Representatives. But when charges first surfaced, Richmond asserted his innocence: "I don't feel one ounce of embarrassed. I'm not ashamed of anything I've done. I've done nothing wrong." There had been an eight-month Justice Department investigation, and Richmond pleaded guilty to deliberately under-reporting his federal income by $50,000, possessing marijuana cigarettes obtained from his Congressional staff, and having made an illegal $7,420 payment to a Navy employee who had been helpful in obtaining government contracts for the former Brooklyn Navy Yard. Richmond was one of the wealthiest members of Congress, and he engaged in a wide array of civic and charitable activities in New York. In college, he supported himself by playing the piano and forming the Freddie Richmond Swing Band. Then he made, and lost, and made again, a fortune in the import-export business. He was a very insecure man with 32 million bucks in his pocket. He thought he was bigger than the rules." Oh, did we forget to mention the sex? In 1978, Richmond admitted that he had solicited sex with a 16-year-old boy and then with an undercover policeman at his Washington home. The misdemeanor charges were dropped after Richmond agreed to undergo professional counseling. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 12:48 PM (#1849346) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: dick greenhaus Goddammit! We have an administration that's just suspended Habeus Corpus, come out for torture, invades countries for no reason, blocks stem cell research, tries to reestablish the scientific precepts of the early twelth cenury, spends money like a fleet of drunken sailors, cuts taxes for the rich and won't provide a livable minimum wage, tries to totally destroy the environment and puts us all in debt to a luiterally unimaginavle extent...and all that we can worry about is one sexual pervert.....sheeit! |
|
03 Oct 06 - 01:06 PM (#1849356) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: pdq "We have an administration that's just suspended Habeus Corpus, come out for torture, invades countries for no reason, blocks stem cell research, tries to reestablish the scientific precepts of the early twelth cenury, spends money like a fleet of drunken sailors, cuts taxes for the rich and won't provide a livable minimum wage, tries to totally destroy the environment and puts us all in debt to a luiterally unimaginavle extent" No, that statement is not true. The only part that has any truth at all involves the minimum wage. An increase is 'on the table' but Democrats failed to press the issue, feeling that an increase in the minimum wage this summer would make George W. Bush look better going into this fall's election. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 01:25 PM (#1849372) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel Unless you put the Republican spin on a subject or dot your i's, pdq will often say you are lying. So far the prisoners in question have been tortured, executed or accidently executed while awaiting trial in a military tribunal. Since the Supreme court said certain Bush tactics were unconstitutional, Bush has said the Geneva Conventions and Court rulings are vague and his new torture definitions and military tribunal rules await signing this weekend. A US citizen was put in this military tribunal system. When push came to shove Padilla was given a change in status so as to avoid a court challenge. He is still "detained" |
|
03 Oct 06 - 01:27 PM (#1849374) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,TIA No, it is true. Habeus Corpus is no longer garaunteed for anyone. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 01:35 PM (#1849382) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: pdq I did not say anyone was "a liar". Just mistaken. "Habeus Corpus is no longer garaunteed for anyone." ~ source please Remember, the Bill Of Right applies to US citizens only. Always has. Let us hope things stay that way. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 01:46 PM (#1849393) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth No mistakes, pdq. Get away from Fox News Service and read the goddam papers! Everything Dick G. said is true. Don Firth |
|
03 Oct 06 - 01:49 PM (#1849395) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/terror_laws_bush_given_authority_sexually_torture_us_kids.htm |
|
03 Oct 06 - 02:03 PM (#1849409) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: pdq OK, Don Firth: Please answer one simple question. "Does The US Constitution (and therefore the Bill Of Rights) apply to foreign nationals caught in foriegn countries conducting tacts of terror?" |
|
03 Oct 06 - 02:22 PM (#1849428) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. If they're tactful in their tacts, what's the problem? |
|
03 Oct 06 - 02:25 PM (#1849432) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: TIA Assuming that you won't accuse the Washington times of liberal bias, I provide them as the ~source. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washington/29detain.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin The recently-passed torture bill "…would strip detainees of a habeas corpus right to challenge their detentions in court..." Aha you say, so it doesn't apply to US citizens! Au contraire. "The measure would broaden the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include…anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense." And what are these criteria? Well, the bill says that unlawful enemy combatants include those who give "material support" to anyone fighting against the USA. So, I'll answer for Don Firth. The Bill of rights is now irrelevant. I sure hope you have infinite trust in the Bush and Rummy, 'cause their treatment of you is no longer bound by the "quaint" Bill of Rights. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 02:54 PM (#1849455) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: jeffp The Bill of Rights refers to "the People." No qualifiers. Read it. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 03:07 PM (#1849463) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: kendall pdq the real reason that the minimum wage bill didn't pass is because the republicans, who are against it, tacked on their favorite piece of pork, the so called "Death tax". They knew damn well that the democrats couldn't swallow that on top of the huge tax windfall the rich have already received. Guest Barney Frank likes boys? First I've heard of that, what is your source? |
|
03 Oct 06 - 03:40 PM (#1849487) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: pdq Thanks Kendall, but I live in farm country. The 1 million dollar estate tax exemption is a joke when dealing with farms. One harvesting machine might cost 1/4 million by itself. Pork? Winfdall tax break for the rich?? Hell, the people who built the farm up from bare dirt already contributed a huge amount in taxes. Taking their equity is an illegal case of 'double taxation'. They also employ lots of people. They also feed us all. What kind of twisted thinking leads one to want to punish such people and force them to sell-out to big agribusiness? |
|
03 Oct 06 - 03:41 PM (#1849491) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: pdq Both John Walker Lindh "The American Taliban" and Jose Padilla did have their days(s) in court, represented by legal council. They just happened to lose. Since they are US citizens, the US Constitution does apply to them. Walker serves his prison time in a medium-security prison in Victorville, California, not in Guantánamo, Cuba. There are only about 650 detainees in Guantánamo, 70% are low-level Taliban and have little valuable information to impart. They also have no home to go back to. They will either re-join the Taliban or be arresrted/killed by the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The US does not want either to occur, so in Gitmo they will sit. They get Islam-friendly food and mediacl care. Boring but that is the best we can do. This is a bit off from Foley but I am just responding, not hijacking. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 04:05 PM (#1849511) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: TIA Please don't fall for the farm state Republican propaganda. I'm dead in the heart of farmland too. The "double tax" is a myth, and the burden on farms is wildly exaggerated. Here's just one source: http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html It's really about CEO's of major corporations. Not family farmers. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 05:46 PM (#1849591) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth "Does The US Constitution (and therefore the Bill Of Rights) apply to foreign nationals caught in foreign countries conducting acts of terror?" Yes, pdq. This whole "War on Terrorism" business is a farce. A terrorist act is a criminal act, not an act of war. An act of war is an act of one nation, sanctioned by that nation's government, against another nation. The attack of a group of self-proclaimed "freedom fighters" or jihadists, no matter how legitimate their grievances may be, against innocent civilians, is a criminal act, and should be treated as such. Because of the international nature of their crime, it would be better if they were tuned over to an international court. But if we insist on keeping alleged terrorists or "enemy combatants" prisoner ourselves, they should be subject to due process of law. As in any criminal procedure, the same questions of guilt or innocence pertain and the same rights should apply. To all. Otherwise, we're hypocrites. Or worse. Don Firth |
|
03 Oct 06 - 06:01 PM (#1849612) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. Both John Walker Lindh "The American Taliban" and Jose Padilla did have their days(s) in court... Umm, I hate to point out the obvious (obvious to everyone except pdq) but those cases were BEFORE the legislation under discussion was passed... |
|
03 Oct 06 - 06:21 PM (#1849625) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: artbrooks And Jose Padilla had his day in court on the charge of terrorism when, exactly? At last report, he was still in jail (and has been for the past 3 1/2 years), without his case going to trial. He had to go to court in order to get the right to go to court! |
|
03 Oct 06 - 07:00 PM (#1849671) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Bert And just what has all this got to do with Mark Foley? Is it your philosophy that "other wrongs make this one right" or is this just an attempt to draw the thread away from it's initial subject. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 07:24 PM (#1849681) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/02/foley_and_scientolog.html More bizarre every day! A |
|
03 Oct 06 - 07:35 PM (#1849691) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing I wondered when they would trot out the "he's been molested" defence: On Tuesday night, Foley's attorney, David Roth, said Foley was molested as a teenager by an unidentified clergyman. Foley plans to discuss the molestation after he finishes a 30 days stint at rehab -- where he is right now for alcohol abuse treatment. Foley's attorney also confirmed that Foley is a gay man. However, the lawyer insisted that there was never any inappropriate contact with any of the male teenage pages Foley wrote to on the Internet. Those e-mails were sexually explicit and led to his resignation last week. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 07:58 PM (#1849705) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: dick greenhaus Mark Foley's behaviour, while deplorable, is of equivalent importance to the real world as was Bill Clinton's blowjob. Zilch! |
|
03 Oct 06 - 08:02 PM (#1849709) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing Except that it may bring about a Democratic majority and that's a GOOD thing, imo, Dick! AND, children were involved. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 08:04 PM (#1849711) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Bobert Ya' know what I've been wonderin' here??? Like who knows that Foley hasn't had sexual relations with other kids??? (Well, Bobert, he says he hasn't...) Like how many crooks get caught the first time out into crookdom??? Not many, I'd bet you, so I'm thinkin' that if this man has been a homosexual for going on 40 to 50 years there's more to this story that meets the eye... But here's my second question: Does alcoholism turn folks into perverts??? My thinkin' is that it doesn't... Yeah, it might push aside some judegement but a pervert is a pervert... That's why you hear that some drunks are fun drunks and some drunks are mean drunks... I think that whatever a person is, he or she is more so drunk... So entering an alcohol treatment program, while probably good if Foley needs help with alcoholism, doesn't buy him any cover in my book for being a danged pervert... Bobert |
|
03 Oct 06 - 08:13 PM (#1849716) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: pdq "Mark Foley's behaviour, while deplorable, is of equivalent importance to the real world as was Bill Clinton's blowjob. Zilch! " Now there is a statement with ringing clarity. Also should be clear that he resigned and has left the stage. There are real problems to deal with. The Dems should accept the gift of a free House seat and move on. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 08:17 PM (#1849719) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing Bobert, I know you know this, but being homosexual does not equal being a pedophile! |
|
03 Oct 06 - 08:28 PM (#1849728) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: frogprince "Mark Foley's behaviour, while deplorable, is of equivalent importance to the real world as was Bill Clinton's blowjob. Zilch!" So far as Foley's behaviour, in and of itself, the difference is the age of Foleys's targets, which is not irrelevant. But a genuinely equivalent scenario would have to involve Clinton eating out underage girls (or at the least looking for the opportunity) for a period of years, while a substantial number of leading democrats knew about it and helped to cover it up. But hey, that wouldn't reflect on his fitness for national office or anything... |
|
03 Oct 06 - 08:30 PM (#1849729) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST Foley needs to switch parties. The Democrats are all-embracive. Do you think we should start a petition to recruit him? Long live the right to choose! |
|
03 Oct 06 - 08:52 PM (#1849742) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Bobert Yer right, kat, I know that... |
|
03 Oct 06 - 09:42 PM (#1849756) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: dick greenhaus I'm not trying to say that Foley isn't a scummy low-life. I'm just trying to point out that, from a larger viewpoint, he isn't getting people killed, nor spending billions or piling up a dept of trillions or attempting to destroy (or at leat ignore) the Constitution of the United States. Perspective, please. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 10:10 PM (#1849764) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST The Bush mafia fried a pervert just before the "Enabling Act" was coming up for a vote in congress. While Foley fried, the rest of congress nervously eyed the keys to their own bony closets...which key would Bush/Cheney use next? The outcome of the vote? Adios Habeas Corpus. lol. But with luck, this will become corrosive. The Yale men in the CIA and the Bush mafia are all homosexuals (Jeff Gannon, white house correspondent & gay hoor, look it up). I just hope Foley spews names like a phone book before they Ken Lay him to rest. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 10:25 PM (#1849772) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,TIA Sorry, I vehemently disagree with any analogy between Foley and Clinton. there is a HUGE difference between two consenting adults (albeit cheesey consenting adults) and a 52 year old man chasing a 15 year old boy. No analogy. No equivalence. One is not our business, the other damn well oughta be. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 10:27 PM (#1849777) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST This book goes into some detail on the govt-run sex-slave and pedophilia problem: http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Cover-Up-Satanism-Murder-Nebraska/dp/0963215809/sr=1-1/qid=1159928301/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7258461-57 |
|
03 Oct 06 - 11:04 PM (#1849786) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST June 29, 1989. Boys in the White House while Reagan/Bush were there: http://www.thelawparty.org/WTpage1.gif From a blog found here (links buried in text): http://www.blogmark.co.za/index.php?q=node/495 |
|
03 Oct 06 - 11:10 PM (#1849787) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: George Papavgeris Dick, there is a difference. One is defined as a punishable crime, the other (Clinton's) isn't. But the issue surely is not simply what Foley did - it is the fact that the Republican leadership in the Senate knew about it for some time and did not refer it to the FBI for an investigation till July; and then the Feebles did nothing in turn, until the scandal blew up in public. |
|
03 Oct 06 - 11:29 PM (#1849791) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies "The Dems... should move on"---sorry pdq--the problem the Bushites have now is not the Democrats--but their own true believers. The Bushites have set themselves up as the standard of "family values". This scandal--and refusal to take responsibility-- is the ultimate betrayal of that constituency--and they know it. The Bush team has blown it badly--no pun intended--perish the thought. It now looks like the Bush core supporters--the "Religious Right"--on Election Day in a month--will sit at home--in droves. Flaming liberals like Richard Viguerie--do you know who he is?-- are apoplectic with rage. Unless something happens--real soon--to turn it around-- it's goodbye to the Bush Congress. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 12:10 AM (#1849803) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: dick greenhaus If you wish to quibble about whether Mr. Clinton's lying is more or less serious than the current Repub cover-up, I'll concede the point any way you wish to mke it. I'll still maintain that, as a voter, I should be more concerned with what's happening to the country than with some pervert's choice of E-mail correspondent. And I'd say the same thing if Cheyney were to go out and shoot somebody else, or if Ted Kennedy were to go joy-riding with a campaign worker. Again, PERSPECTIVE! Please. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 12:25 AM (#1849809) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,282RA It's useless to blame "liberals" for this story being so huge. When you pass yourself off as society's defender of morality, you're going to get held to it. It's the conservatives who can't let it go or they will look like hypocrites. That's the beauty of it--liberals can sit back and watch while munching some Orville Redenbacher. See, if Congress was liberal then this WOULD be old news now and it would be over. But you wanted this conservative, self-righteous, stuffy-arsed Congress who now must hold themselves to account. Sorry, but I don't have a wit of sympathy. In fact, I think it's damned funny and I'm loving every second of it. And I hope this lasts a very long, long time. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 12:28 AM (#1849810) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST I'd like to go at length about this but ... The Republicans are as cold and calculating about each other as they are about Democrats or anybody else. They truly live in a dog eat dog world. The only reason this has hit the news is to divert attention away from yet another attempt to curtail the freedom of Americans. Wise up. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 12:45 AM (#1849815) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Thomas the Rhymer Although I can sympathize with dick greenhouse's predilection for substantive policy making... I can't even begin to analogize Clinton's 'looseness' with Foley's alleged homosexual pedophiliaries. As much as I am repulsed by the 'take what you can get' attitude of the lax sexual morality as exemplified by Clinton, it does appear to be rather commonplace, and it breaks no civil laws. Pederasty and pedophilia are criminal acts... ...(shudder)... and rightfully so. Foley's immediate resignation was well received... but sadly, will be politicized heavily by those seeking retribution for Clinton's 'monkey trial'. ttr |
|
04 Oct 06 - 12:55 AM (#1849818) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: fumblefingers Has Foley been accused of actually cornholing anyone? Have any pages actually been converted to buggery or were they poofs to begin with? The media, the FBI as well as the GOP House leadership have reportedly been in possession of these emails for months. The FBI didn't think they had enough to make a case so they did nothing. "In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with. Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996. In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie. What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him -- a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."--http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs_ibd_ibd/2006102issues01. This isn't the Manson murders here. The Democrats are going to wring everything they can out of this, because the election is coming up and their platform is Attack, attack, attack and nothing else. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 01:58 AM (#1849832) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: George Papavgeris Agreed, Dick, about the relative importance to other issues affecting the country. Some of them are indeed discussed at greater length than this on other threads. It's just that, as 282RA says, when one has consistently taken the high moral ground only to be found wanting, this can be particularly vexing. And for an outsider like me, it sticks out over local or country issues. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 02:08 AM (#1849835) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST George - I think thats because the so-called, 'moral high ground', was used to fool the American public. This will be the straw that broke the camel's back, which is why the U.S. needs all those new laws and restrictions - to keep you all scared that you could be next. The Republicans will need another war to win the election. Cheney for President! ;>) |
|
04 Oct 06 - 08:28 AM (#1850004) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: kendall FIRE ALL INCUMBENTS |
|
04 Oct 06 - 08:31 AM (#1850006) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies So now we have the edifying spectacle of high-ranking Bushites falling all over themselves to blame each other for not nipping this in the bud. Schadenfreude, get thee behind me. At this point, it looks like the only thing that could save the Bushite majority is another terror attack on the US mainland. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 10:06 AM (#1850093) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal TIMELINE From: Donuel Day 1 ABC recieves a story from Mark Mywurds that friendly emails to Congressional pages were made by Congressman Foley. Day 2 Hastert is questoned and says that he could not recall the incident but his staff was made aware of the situation and told Mark Foley to stop emailing the young man. Day 3 Hastert is questoned and says that he could not recall the incident but his staff was made aware of the situation and told Mark Foley to stop emailing Overly Friendly emails to the young man. Day 4 Text messages are released of a more graphic nature. Hastert is questoned and says that he is shocked and outraged and can recall even less of events over a year ago. Foley resigns. Day 5 Foley checks into rehab for alcoholism. Day 6 Foley says he was raped by Catholic Priests Day7 Foley says he was anally probed by aliens Day 8 Foley says the alien drunk priests were Democrats. Day 9 The Democratic Congressman Stubbs affair from 11 years ago is revisted and revised so that the consenting adult that he had sex with was in fact a minor at 19 years of age. Day 10 Foley is visted by Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and is gloriously born again in the shower facility at an undisclosed rehab. Day 11 Republican house reveals that all the pages involed with the Foleuy affair were coerced by Democrats who encouraged them to email Foley. Day 12 John Walsh is arrested for attmepted assasination of Mark Foley with a 12 inch dildo. Day 13 Terrorist attack of tainted holy water in 9 Catholic Churches steal the headlines. Day 14 Anthrax laden toilet paper is found in the Congressional rest room. The Capitol goes into lock down. Day 15 Foley says he is feeling much better now and has photo op with Arnold Schwartenegger. Day 16 - election day. Capitol remains in lockdown. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 10:13 AM (#1850103) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos LOL DOnuel!! If only it weren't so close to the truth as it has unrolled in past episodes!! A |
|
04 Oct 06 - 10:22 AM (#1850116) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel edited version you can forward Day 1 ABC receives a story from Mark Mywurds that friendly email to Congressional pages were made by Congressman Foley. Day 2 Hastert is questioned and says that he could not recall the incident but his staff was made aware of the situation and told Mark Foley to stop emailing the young man. Day 3 Hastert is questioned and says that he could not recall the incident but his staff was made aware of the situation and told Mark Foley to stop emailing Overly Friendly emails to the young man. Day 4 Text messages are released of a more graphic nature. Hastert is questioned and says that he is shocked and outraged and can recall even less of events over a year ago. Foley resigns. Day 5 Foley checks into rehab for alcoholism. Day 6 Foley says he was raped by Catholic Priests Day7 Foley says he was anally probed by aliens Day 8 Foley says the alien drunk priests were Democrats. Day 9 The Democratic Congressman Stubbs affair from 11 years ago is revisited and revised so that the consenting adult that he had sex with was in fact a minor at 19 years of age. Day 10 Foley is visited by Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and is gloriously born again in the shower facility at an undisclosed rehab. Day 11 Republican house reveals that all the pages involved with the Foley affair were coerced by Democrats who encouraged them to email Foley. Day 12 John Walsh is arrested for attempted assassination of Mark Foley with a 12 inch dildo. Day 13 Terrorist attack of tainted holy water in 9 Catholic Churches steal the headlines. Day 14 Anthrax laden toilet paper is found in the Congressional rest room. The Capitol goes into lock down. Day 15 Foley says he is feeling much better now and has photo op with Arnold Schwartzenegger. Day 16 - Election Day. Capitol remains in lockdown. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 10:33 AM (#1850125) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel Speaking of revising history look closely at what FOX has done. screen capture: http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/4896/foleybodemib1.jpg |
|
04 Oct 06 - 10:43 AM (#1850135) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: George Papavgeris D for dunce, presumably... ;0) |
|
04 Oct 06 - 11:27 AM (#1850184) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: dick greenhaus Straight from Orwell's Ministry of Truth: A ploy by the Democrats? In addition to expressing his support for Hastert, Boehner also wrote in his letter to the editor that the timing of the allegations against Foley was odd. "We also need to know why these messages surfaced only last week, on the final day of legislative business before the November elections," the House majority leader wrote. "If this evidence was withheld for political purposes, one can only speculate as to how many additional children may have been endangered before this information was finally revealed," he wrote. See- It's all Clinton's fault. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 12:53 PM (#1850281) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: 282RA Haha! I love how the pub-lovers once again attack democrats and their indiscretions as though it matters. It's not dems, folks. It's RW Christians making the trouble now. Trying to quash the outrage by saying dems are as bad won't work. RWs don't care. They aleady hate dems and think they are scum. They feel the pubs have betrayed them and, boy,are they mad! Hee-hee! |
|
04 Oct 06 - 02:07 PM (#1850330) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel RA Will they form their own Puritan party then? The fight over what to call the Christian right would be huge. CRP christian right party IDP intelligent design party GP gods party FP family party FTLOGP for the love of god party |
|
04 Oct 06 - 02:55 PM (#1850391) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,ron there seems to be a new meaning for the term " Pork Barrel" |
|
04 Oct 06 - 03:34 PM (#1850418) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: McGrath of Harlow What's a "page"? Apart from inthe context of knights in armour and weddings, I mean. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 03:59 PM (#1850446) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Skivee Pages are young assistants in the U.S. Congress. These are youths who are brought to Washington to do administrative scut work such as running paperwork from representatives to the podium, and other small tasks. They are not payed, live in dorms near the Capitol, and are schooled by tutors when not working. They are generally in their mid-teens. Being chosen as a page is considered an high honor for a young man or woman. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 04:03 PM (#1850451) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: McGrath of Harlow Like ballboys during Wimbledon. I can't imagine them going in for this in the British Pariament. Asking for trouble. Jailbait. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 04:03 PM (#1850452) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing Excellent article on why we need a huge turnout this election: HERE. Now, Foley's lawyer is saying Foley is NOT using the abuse of himself as an excuse...only being under the influence of alcohol and he is NOT a pedophile according to his lawyer. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 04:08 PM (#1850454) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth A page is basically the same thing as back in historical times. They're usually high school kids (mid-teens or a little older) who do a stint as "gofers' for various senators and congresspersons. They do various jobs such as answering phones and taking messages and running up and down the halls of the Capitol Building delivering messages or generally helping out with whatever the congressperson to which they're assigned wants them to do. Barring predatory government officials, it's a good way for a kid to get an idea of the way government works (but is that really a good thing!??). Don Firth |
|
04 Oct 06 - 04:12 PM (#1850455) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Wesley S So if the excuse is that he was drinking - and it was known that he was sending messages while on the floor of the House - does that mean he was drinking on the job? Oh the shame of it all ! |
|
04 Oct 06 - 04:20 PM (#1850466) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing No kidding, Wesley! Here's a great op/ed blog piece: Click Here. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 04:38 PM (#1850485) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,282RA >>Will they form their own Puritan party then? The fight over what to call the Christian right would be huge. CRP christian right party IDP intelligent design party GP gods party FP family party FTLOGP for the love of god party<< Christian Right Agape Party. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 04:44 PM (#1850492) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Now, now, 282, that's not nice. Reminds me of the problem a rival choral group had here. They didn't like the name they'd had for about 25 years--wanted to update. Old name was Oratorio Society of Washington. Name they chose was Washington Chorus. Whoops. |
|
04 Oct 06 - 08:12 PM (#1850630) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: McGrath of Harlow "Know Nothings" |
|
04 Oct 06 - 08:39 PM (#1850639) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,282RA >>"Know Nothings"<< I believe that's "Neocon." |
|
04 Oct 06 - 09:14 PM (#1850655) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST An article of several parts. Get the background story on how we got to the pustule known as Foley. http://www.konformist.com/2001/pedophocracy1.htm |
|
04 Oct 06 - 09:28 PM (#1850660) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel edit I said Stubbs The name should be Studs. My apology goes out to Mr. Stubbs. The Republican counter charges: R This is a planned October surprise by Democrats. D (thats reasonable) R There was NO molestation, only word play. D (no bodily fluid exchange has been admitted to...yet) R Top level Republicans have not admitted a cover up. D (they have only admitted not knowing what they knew 2 years ago) The religious forgiveness stuff will probably be next. BUT FIRST there is a $20 MILLION DOLLAR Congressional party planned to celebrate the Victory in Iraq. I kid you not. We are not invited! Whats up with that? About now loyal mudcatters probably wish they could hood me like a Falcon so there will a few hours of peace and quiet, but we are down with pneumonia here so I fet my low energy cheap thrills at the computer keyboard as of late. cough |
|
05 Oct 06 - 03:47 AM (#1850772) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: JohnInKansas For those curious about the "pages," Wikipedia has an extensive article. As has been already described, pages essentially are "errand runners" in the House of Representatives. A similar group, with different name, performs similar services for the Senate. Pages generally are nominated by individual Representatives, and by custom it's one nomination per Rep, although there have been exceptions. Pages are paid $17,600 per year, with $400 per month for "room and board" - plus taxes - deducted. Pages must serve during their Junior year in high school (11th grade, nominally) or during the summer immediately preceding of immediately after their Junior year. This places most of them at about age 16 - 17 yrs. Appointments are partisan, and it is likely that a "Republican page" would have little actual contact with Democrat Representatives, and vice versa. Each party has its own "managers" for its own pages, and they are largely independent of each other. "Party loyalty" apparently counts for quite a lot in selection of pages. The pages do tend to form "friendships" with other pages of their own party, and of course with the Representative who sponsored them. Pages do have "alumni organizations" intended, apparently, to foster and continue the "political friendships" formed during their time at the Capitol. John |
|
05 Oct 06 - 08:32 AM (#1850903) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies From the Wall St Journal today 5 Oct 2006: "An aide to disgraced ex-Rep. Foley quit and said he first warned Hastert aides more than three years ago about his boss's worrisome conduct toward young congressional pages, and had 'more than one conversation' with senior House Republican staff ' asking them to intervene." As a result Hastert "ran into new setbacks in his battle to hang on as speaker". Gee, we haven't heard from pdq in a while--or Doug R., hubby, Old Guy or Mr. Bush's other stalwart supporters at all on this topic. Can't understand why. At this point even starting a war will not save the Bushites. Even the sheep-like US electorate has learned--only if it is a clear reaction to another clear attack--with an obvious culprit. Fool me once, shame on you..... |
|
05 Oct 06 - 09:14 AM (#1850932) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: TIA DougR would simply say "horsepuckey". |
|
05 Oct 06 - 09:15 AM (#1850933) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Leadfingers 100 ?? |
|
05 Oct 06 - 09:15 AM (#1850936) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Leadfingers Bugger ! It was definately at 99 wen I clicked on it !! |
|
05 Oct 06 - 09:43 AM (#1850963) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: open mike it was on 99 when i clicked on it too.. and now he is saying he is gay.. well, that does a terrible dis-service to all those who are gay as there is a big difference between people who are attracted to people their own age, and pedophiles, which this guy seems to be. geesh, maybe he was molested, but that doesn't give him the right to abuse others. maybe he is a drunk but that is no excuse. the other dis-service is to all of us who are spending so much time on this topic when there is so much more that deserves our attention! |
|
05 Oct 06 - 09:44 AM (#1850964) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel :) memo from Karl Rove All the pieces are now in place to claim victory even if there is a rollback of our numbers in November. Talking points: The remnant scurge of corrupt liberal Catholic Priests and liberal supported homosexuals in our midst have disgusted us all. But Americans see from the hill tops that the mandate for the war on terrorism, despite the best sordid efforts of rich elite Democrats to drag the country into the gutter, remains to be the crowning glory of God, Liberty, Freedom and civilization itself. |
|
05 Oct 06 - 10:35 AM (#1851014) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: TIA Yup, the new spin is pure Rove. "Foley is a pedophile/homo (no distinction)" "Foley is the product of permissive liberal society" "Foley is actually a Democrat" (I shit you not, FOX has already trotted this one out -- see Donuel's link above, and I saw it live THREE TIMES!) "Therefore, it is even more important to elect Republicans to protect the moral values of our good Christian society" I'm afraid the Values Voters will once again fall for it. |
|
05 Oct 06 - 10:47 AM (#1851030) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. Actually, reviving the "Know Nothings" moniker (the Native American Party) is pretty appropriate for the current crop of neo-con Republicans, considering their virulent xenophobia, anti-immigrant bias and "christian"[sic] fundamentalism. The party in the 1840s & 50's was viciously anti-immigrant & anti-Catholicm and harped upon the "immigrant menace" [sound familiar? They wanted a 21-year wait to be imposed before an immigrant could become a citizen and vote, lobbied to have only the King James version of the Bible read daily in public school classrooms & to restrict public-school teaching to Protestants, among other charming platform planks. Plus ça change... |
|
05 Oct 06 - 06:45 PM (#1851487) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel The value voters have been taught they are answering to God & the Republican party. one and the same Well the whole matter is a tempest in a crock pot full of crap BUT--- Something NOT widely publisized... Hassert has called an investigation into the matter. Guess who he called... Jeb Bush and Gonzales. ya know, people would have been better served by Columbo. Louis Frie said no thanks and the current FBI said they are just now begining a preliminary investigation... BUT THANK GOD, super sleuth Jeb Bush and 'Gonzales the fascist toady' are on the case. |
|
05 Oct 06 - 08:46 PM (#1851570) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Actually, I was a bit hasty. There's still one way--other than an attack on the US-- that the Democrats can lose the midterm elections. That would be if they have the unfathomable stupidity to bring up, in the next month, --any number of--Mudcat favorite hobbyhorses--e.g. taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, pushing homosexual marriage, taking the 10 Commandments plaques out of courthouses, declaring religion to be mental illness, etc. That would bring the "values voters" out again--and--again--doom the liberals. Just wait a little while for these topics, please. |
|
05 Oct 06 - 08:57 PM (#1851585) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: number 6 All this rant about how they should protect these pages ... ok, I can't argue that ... I don't know if this victim of Foley was 17 1/2, 17 3/4 but when ya think about it .... when he turns 18 he can go off to fight in Iraq ... put his life on the line for 'congress' .... yeah, once ya turn 18 they no longer look out for them. sIx |
|
06 Oct 06 - 10:27 AM (#1851991) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing And now they are blaming it on ABC news and the Dems: But in an interview published Thursday morning in the Chicago Tribune, he (Hastert) blamed the news media and politically motivated Democrats for fomenting the scandal. "The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros," Hastert said in the interview. |
|
06 Oct 06 - 10:49 AM (#1852007) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Big Mick So, Speaker Hastert, this is somehow different than the Bill Clinton time, when the Repubs did every thing possible to keep the media heat on WJC? What goes around, comes around. And more importantly, all that moral high ground worthless rhetoric now comes home to roost. Time and again you have played that "traditional values" card. Since Newt Gingrich's time, you have played the "fiscal responsibility" card. Since shortly after the 9/11 tragedy, you have played the "only Republicans can keep us safe from terror" card. Today we have a high ranking Republican, who hypocritically made his name on protecting the youth of our country from sexual predators, resigning over advances he made on teenage boys entrusted to Congress for safekeeping to learn about Congress and how it works. We have Republican leadership that has known about it for a year, and took no action to safeguard these young folks. How is this traditional values? Fiscally responsible? What a laugh. We have the biggest deficit in history after being handed a budget and deficit that was in great shape. Safe from terror? We have created more terrorists, by a large measure, than we have killed. The world is more dangerous, we have made Iran the crucible from which will be forged the future and we have almost no hope of it coming out well for us, let alone the Iraqui's who trusted us. Congrats, Hastert. You and the President will certainly be remembered by history. Somehow I don't think it is quite the legacy you had hoped for. See you in a month. Mick |
|
06 Oct 06 - 02:12 PM (#1852157) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Ye Olde Double Standarde: both the Democrats and several newspapers seem to have known about Foley's problem as far back as November ...Why didn't they come forward then? Who dredged up these e-mails — and why did they hold them until now?... ...• In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page — something Foley hasn't been charged with. Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996. • In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank, also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie. What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him — a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party." • In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.) You get the idea. Democrats not only seem OK with the kind of behavior for which Foley is charged, but also they protect and excuse it. Only when it's a Republican do they proclaim themselves shocked — shocked! — when it comes to light... |
|
06 Oct 06 - 02:16 PM (#1852159) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos OG: MEthinks your eyes are brown. I don't think anyone here feels "okay" with any of the stuff you are citing. A |
|
06 Oct 06 - 03:05 PM (#1852192) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: artbrooks What is the point of a link that goes back to the beginning of this thread? |
|
06 Oct 06 - 06:18 PM (#1852320) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: dick greenhaus Old Guy- Regardless of previous pustules, these slimeballs are the ones in power now. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be removed? |
|
06 Oct 06 - 07:24 PM (#1852367) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: kendall Why don't congressmen use bookmarks? they prefer to have their pages bent over. |
|
06 Oct 06 - 07:26 PM (#1852369) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: kendall Seriously, John Warner (R) top dog in the republican party just returned from Iraq and all but said we are screwed over there. Ok, will this news take the heat off the Foley scandal? |
|
06 Oct 06 - 10:56 PM (#1852469) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: SINSULL Old Guy, I am confused. Are you suggesting that it is better to keep this stuff secret and thereby not play party politics? |
|
07 Oct 06 - 10:00 AM (#1852715) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel Exactly OldG, Every time we turn a criminal over to the authorities WE ARE JUST AS BAD AS THE CRIMINAL (depending on the timeing and political affiliation) There have been 4 attempts to bring the Foley matter into the limelight over the last 5 years. By God if it turns out there is a democrap lurking behind any of these attempted expose' they must be jailed immediatley. meanwhile back in reality Poor Foley must be the loneliest and most UNLUCKY guy in the USA. Good God, 100's of flirtations, invitations and propositions and NOT ONE SCORE? Jeezuus, I haven't dated since the 80's, and I'm not bragging - but it rarley took more that 3 attempts to score at least once. In fact it seems I was the one to say no more than the women said yes. Poor Mark, not even one score... or did he? |
|
07 Oct 06 - 10:31 AM (#1852733) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel But then again I wasn't 57 back in the 80's. I wonder what the batting average would be for a guy wanting to play the field at 57? Seems like it must be bleak for Sugar Daddies trying to get laid. Sure this scandel is not even a comma in US history but I said 6 years ago that the Democrats needed a good sex scandel to lay on the Republicans. To my way of thinking the Foley affair is pathetic and without honor compared to one Easter day when Clinton made Arrufat wait and wait and wait for a meeting, while Bill was getting a blow job from a Jew in the next room. Now thats Kutszpaw that can make a patrriot proud. |
|
07 Oct 06 - 10:40 AM (#1852737) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. Kutszpaw? That's a resort in the Catskills, isn't it? And of what interest is the religion of the participants to anyone but a bigot? |
|
07 Oct 06 - 11:01 AM (#1852747) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Kutzpaw is what you see when Catspaw practices huzpah, I think, especially with a klezmer band. A |
|
07 Oct 06 - 11:28 AM (#1852762) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing I said 6 years ago that the Democrats needed a good sex scandel to lay on the Republicans. I KNEW it, Donuel! It's all YOUR fault!**bg** |
|
07 Oct 06 - 12:14 PM (#1852788) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST I'd like to take exception to the position dick g. is taking here. First and foremost, Rep. Foley wasn't just any ole pervert. He was a high ranking member of the House Republican leadership. One of his assignments, and a very good argument can be made that it was his most visible, was as House Chair of the Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. There is a reason why Democratic House candidate Patty Wetterling, from Minnesota, was chosen to deliver the Democratic response to the Bush weekly radio address today. As a child protection advocate, she has worked with Rep. Foley over the years to get legislation passed to protect children from sexual exploitation, abuse, kidnapping by non-custodial parents, strengthening laws against sexual predators and pedophiles, etc. Her 11 year old son was abducted by a stranger, believed to be a pedophile, just about 17 years ago. He has never been found. She began a lifelong crusade of child protection advocacy in the wake of her son's kidnapping and presumed murder. This is a story that hits very close to home for her, because not only is it her story of why she decided to run for US Congress. In the wake of the institutional cover-ups of sexual abuse by the US Catholic clergy, her personal working relationship with Rep Foley on missing and exploited children's advocacy issues, and the widely presumed institutional cover-up of Rep Foley's predatory sexual behavior towards House pages, she felt she could not remain silent. This isn't a "sex scandal". The Rep Foley case isn't comparable to Bill and Monica's. It is comparable to the institutional cover-up of sexual exploitation of children by the Catholic clergy. Nearly everyone here in Minnesota I have spoken to in the last week is comparing this scandal to the clergy abuse scandal, and they view the Republican leadership as those in power with an incentive to keep Foley's predatory behavior under wraps. We mustn't forget that besides the possibility of egg on their "family values" faces, Rep Foley's other big assignment as a member of the House Republican leadership team was as a fundraiser. Already, several candidates and incumbent Republican House members from Minnesota have "returned Foley's funded campaign contributions" or "donated the money to charity". This isn't about consenting sexual behavior between adults. This is about predatory sexual behavior by an extremely powerful adult, towards minor children. Just because they are teenagers doesn't make it "natural sexual curiousity". Adults rape teenagers all the time. It is devastating to the teen, their families, etc. I recently sat on a jury in a case where a mother's trusted and long time live-in boyfriend, repeatedly raped and molested the teenage daughter. The molestations began when she was 15 years old, and the rapes began occuring when she was 16 and continued until she was 18, and "caught" by the mother walking in on them. A friend of the daughter testified to the predatory nature of the behavior by the boyfriend. How he would come into the daughter's bedroom in middle of the night, and take her out of her room (the friend observed this happening 3 times over a period of years doing sleepovers at the house). I assure you dick, there was no indication this girl appeared to anyone as sexually precocious, or coming on to the boyfriend or any other adult males, in any way. Yet, the one hold out juror in the jury room seemed to think that the girl had "asked for it" because she hadn't come forward and told the mother of the abuse. In fact, this woman even thought the daughter might be trying to steal the mother's boyfriend from her. While her opinion boggled my mind, I now realize how common that perception is of teenagers "asking for" sexual attention from sexual predators. It seems some people only believe sexual abuse occurs when it is done to very young children. There is, apparently, a societal belief among many people, that teenagers are so sexually active and precocious nowadays, that powerful adults preying upon them for sexual contact isn't wrong. But especially in cases like the Rep Foley and Catholic clergy scandal, where the adult is in a very powerful position vis a vis the child, it doesn't have anything to do with healthy, natural sexual desires. It has to do with power, punishment, and vengeance. That is why some victims of childhood abuse grow up to abuse others. They can't pull themselves out of the dark, abusive desire to "get back at" someone for their pain and suffering. I believe that is a dark side to human nature that we need to protect children from, regardless of where the chips fall. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. It is about the lengths powerful institutions will go to in order to protect sexual predators in their ranks. And THAT is why the Republicans may lose. They just happened to be the foxes guarding the hen house this time. But it just as easily could have been the Democrats, and most Americans realize that fact. Nonetheless, because it has happened on the Republicans watch, they will pay the price for their arrogance of power. As well they should. |
|
07 Oct 06 - 01:14 PM (#1852821) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies With all the easy cynicism that seems to pervade Mudcat, I hope people realize that if they want the Bush regime defanged, if not gone, they actually have to overcome their world-weary attitude next month and actually vote against the supporters of the Bush "team". "Values voters" and other core Bushites may sit at home--and they may not. This is at least the opportunity to stop Bush from any more undeclared pre-emptive wars, stop his assault on the environment, possibly end the tax cuts for the rich, etc. But the Bush opposition needs to vote. This shouldn't need saying at all--but with all the talk of throwing out one set of bastards and voting another set in---maybe it does need saying. |
|
07 Oct 06 - 06:55 PM (#1853010) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST Your view Ron, and the other tired old Bush bashing Democrats around here, are about as cynical and demoralizing a reaction to this scandal as anything I've ever seen. You are every bit as amoral as the Republicans you so zealously seek to punish. You have lost all perspective--and a good amount of your humanity, if you think this scandal is about what politicians can win or lose in November, by politicizing this. It's attitudes like yours that have so many Americans totally disgusted by "politics as usual". Did you even for a moment, consider the kids who were on the receiving end of Foley's predatory actions? No--what you and so many other partisan hacks think is "oh goodie, finally a scandal to drive the Republicans out of power". Try winning elections the old fashioned way--you know, by actually having policies and plans that benefit the good of the nation. OH WAIT--Democrats not having actual policies and plans with a shred of integrity is why we now have to stomach the Republican agenda. |
|
07 Oct 06 - 07:44 PM (#1853038) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth The Republicans. Having a little trouble seperating men from the boys, are they. . . ? Don Firth |
|
07 Oct 06 - 09:04 PM (#1853081) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Alice Guest, this was rather "cover up a scandal to keep Republicans in power". Sheesh, you've got it backwards. |
|
07 Oct 06 - 09:06 PM (#1853083) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Alice ... and it was those covering up the scandal who didn't care about protecting vulnerable teens. |
|
08 Oct 06 - 01:28 AM (#1853134) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy the Democrats and several newspapers seem to have known about Foley's problem as far back as November, according to research by several enterprising blogs. Why didn't they come forward then? Who dredged up these e-mails — and why did they hold them until now? |
|
08 Oct 06 - 02:02 AM (#1853140) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: dick greenhaus Old Guy- What are you suggesting? That we ditch the overwhelming Democratic majority in Congress? That we ignore Foley and the cover-up because some blog suggested that the Dems knew about Foley for a year (as opposed to the honorable Speaker of the House who knew about it for five years?) That the E-mails didn't really exist? Get, as the expression goes, real. |
|
08 Oct 06 - 03:13 AM (#1853148) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth Okay, Old Guy, let me see if I have this straight. Hillary Clinton wrote a book some years back entitled It Takes a Village, based on the saying that "it takes a village to raise a child." And here is Foley, just trying to be a good villager. So all it's Hillary Clinton's fault! I get it now. Don Firth |
|
08 Oct 06 - 04:04 AM (#1853163) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: JohnInKansas Although I did look at the first few emails and text messages that were cited in early news articles, I have not made any effort to follow all of the later revelations; but the first few that I found posted, while in bad taste, and possibly somewhat suggestive, were no "smoking gun." Compared to "conversations" that some in the "Big Brothers" program report having with very juvenile "little brothers" the first few reported messages were pretty mild. Foley may have overstepped his charge to act as a "mentor" to the pages, but ... It seems inappropriate to casually toss about the accusation of pedophilia in this case. Pedophilia is most generally used to describe the attraction to children prior to the development of overt sexual characteristics - i.e. children, and in this case, the "object(s)" are late teens, barely a year from being considered adult. In most circumstances, the most Foley could be charged with would be "contributing to the delinquency of a minor," possibly with "sexual harassment," or, if actual sex has occured, with "statutory rape." The pages are a very select group, chosen to somewhat rigorous standards, including that they should represent "the most mature and politically knowledgeable" of their class. It is not uncommon for "kids" of this age legally, with parental permission, to marry in several states. It is fairly common, either by court permission or simply by "acting as an adult" for "kids" of this age, and significantly younger, to be judged "emancipated juveniles" and thereby to be removed from parental control and responsibility, and be permitted to act on their own. They can be, and frequently are, charged as adults in criminal prosecutions if the emancipation is based on their "acting as adults," and where it's by a court order they commonly acquire many adult rights - to buy and sell, make contracts, rent apartments as adults, etc. At this age the typical ("unemancipated") persons are very much in a "shadow zone" between adolescence and adulthood. They are technically "not quite adult;" but especially with a select group like the pages they should not be considered - or treated as - children. Being attracted to an "inappropriately young" adult in a group of this kind is not particularly "unnatural" and with some limitations should not be referred to as pedophilia. Anyone who thinks that at least some of these pages, and or some "kids" of this age, don't appear quite "sexually mature" hasn't visited a local high school recently. Obviously, any sexual activity with a minor is a criminal act, but treating a "very near adult" as able to converse about adult activities and feelings is a pretty grey area. Foley was accused of being homosexual as early as 1972, and the charges have resurfaced in virtually every one of his campaigns for office since that time. He has not previously admitted or denied such inclination. That has not seemed to be a factor in his approval with voters of his district, and his legislative activities appear to have satisfied the Florida voters of his district. Noting that there are some several hundred members of Congress, all of whom have contact with pages and interns - about half of whom are female - does anyone think that at least a few of the female pages haven't been "inappropriately messaged" by a few Congressmen? Would your level of indignation be different if female pages were involved? (Quite probably some are, or have been.(?)) While it does appear that "inappropriate conduct" has occured, the media reports at this point seem more intent on "whipping the froth" than on finding and reporting any factual and/or useful information. It is quite obvious that there is a political motivation for the creation of this issue, although I'm not sure yet which side thinks they have most to gain from it. If a real investigation comes from the purported FBI involvement, and if criminal charges are filed by civil authorities (i.e. NOT BY CONGRESS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES) I'll be ready to believe that there's something in this case other than "politics as usual" to get excited about. Getting in a frenzy over it merely contributes to the goals of those who seek political benefit from it. Frank and rational discussion of what's actually known may be impossible without "playing the game" of the politicians behind it all. John |
|
08 Oct 06 - 08:30 AM (#1853225) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: jaze Frank and rational discussions? You're talking about politics! |
|
08 Oct 06 - 09:51 AM (#1853253) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: SINSULL Actually, guys, as far as I can tell it was Republicans who gave the info to the Press and Republicans who broke the scandal. |
|
08 Oct 06 - 10:53 AM (#1853281) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- Anybody who relies on blogs--on either the Left or the Right-- for facts-- needs to have his or her head examined---or cannot expect thinking individuals to have any respect for that poster's opinions. Not that we want to cast any aspersions on your views, of course. |
|
08 Oct 06 - 10:57 AM (#1853285) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. Give him a break, Ron- at least he hasn't made it up himself out of whole cloth this time! |
|
08 Oct 06 - 11:42 AM (#1853312) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,07 Oct 06 - 12:14 PM Nowhere in my post did I suggest that Rep Foley was a pedophile. Nor did I suggest this scandal had anything to do with Rep Foley's sexual orientation. But I did say this scandal was about sexual exploitation of minors, by a congressman masquerading as a champion of child protection from sexual exploitation and abuse. Because that is what this case is about. It is also about an institutional cover-up of that congressman's predatory behavior towards minors entrusted to the care of that institution by their families. It is absolutely sick to suggest that because teenagers have reached sexual maturity, and are "ready and raring to go" due to hormones running wild, that they should therefore be fair game for adults in positions of power and authority over them, to sexually prey upon them. REALLY sick. There is a HUGE difference between teenagers being physically capable of being sexually active, and being emotionally and intellectually mature enough for being sexually active. Some might be, most aren't. There is also a huge difference in teens being sexually active with one another, and teenagers being sexually coerced and/or raped by older adults in positions of power and authority, like congressmen, clergy men, teachers, older relatives, etc. The term for that is NOT pedophilia, but sexual abuse. And in many states, statutory rape. Which is why this scandal is so much like the Catholic clergy scandal. The Republicans trying to blame the Democrats for it is akin to the Catholic hierarchy blaming the Protestants for their sexual abuse scandal. But none of this appears to matter anyway, as Rep Foley and the Republican leadership have already gotten away with it. It looks like it has already been neatly swept under the rug, where it will remain until after the election. |
|
08 Oct 06 - 12:31 PM (#1853328) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Barry Finn JohnInKansas While you have a point I would rather think that it's more inappropriately young if Foley were 19 yrs old not old enough to be their grandfather. I would consider him pedophile wither he chose to target a male or female. I'd also like to point that his being homosexual has no place in this argument being an alcoholic does though that's an argument of a different type. He was trusted with their care. This is the same as the Catholic Priests scandel. These pedophiles held power, trust, sway & position over these pages & that trust was abused. He didn't wait until they turned of age & there is an age limit set for a purpose no matter what the world thinks. He didn't go after one kid that he had an attraction for, he went after many as it turns out. He's targeting kids between the ages of 15-17 "Pages must serve during their junior year in high school (11th grade, nominally) or during the summer immediately proceeding of immediately after their junior year. This places most of them at about age 16 - 17 yrs." My daughter was 15 yrs old going into the 11th grade. This is not a grey area this is a criminal act. When a pedophile attempts to entice an under aged child to enter into a sexual act it is criminal whether the act occurs or not. If the act occurs it's not considered just "statutory rape" it is rape of an under aged child, child endangerment, enticement to engage a child in a sexual act, etc. There is no consideration nor room for adult consent here. Any one knowing of this behavior & not acting in the child's best interest is not worthy of holding a public office that their is bound to uphold the laws of this land. If any are by law considered to be a mandated reporter they ARE guilty of a criminal act if they refused to report Foley. Those that knew & covered up the fact knowingly ARE also guilty of a criminal act. Barry |
|
08 Oct 06 - 12:56 PM (#1853339) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos I would be curious to o know how it happens that DC has an "age of consent" of 16, while the majority of the country sets the bar at 18. Maybe there is a lot of precedent for Foley's brand of dirty-old-man-ness. A |
|
08 Oct 06 - 04:05 PM (#1853447) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST John in Kansas, you have lost my respect. Whether you think Foley is a pedophile in the medical sense of the word or not, a man of 55 years is crossing the line when he tries to seduce a 15 or 16 year old boy. I'm no longer going to consider you a reasonable man. Another one to stay away from.... |
|
08 Oct 06 - 05:07 PM (#1853489) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Barry Finn "I would be curious to o know how it happens that DC has an "age of consent" of 16, while the majority of the country sets the bar at 18. Maybe there is a lot of precedent for Foley's brand of dirty-old-man-ness." Amos, I'm shocked, I'd like to know how happens to be, too. Did congress pass a law to give themselves an excuse? Probably. Barry |
|
08 Oct 06 - 05:26 PM (#1853502) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy So it is OK for Democrats to withold the scandal until election time but it is not OK for the Republicans to allegedly withold anything? When the same type of thing, only worse, happened with a Democrat, Gerry Studds, Where was the demand that anybody resign? Also it has not been proven that Republican with held anything. That is an allegation. |
|
08 Oct 06 - 05:27 PM (#1853504) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: JohnInKansas GUEST - As usual, you've missed my message, however it matters little whether I have the respect of one who leaps at convicting anyone based on what apparently is a politically motivated smear campaign before factual and confirmable evidence is presented. If you have more information than I've seen, your conclusion may be appropriate to your "great leap," however I see more politics than substance here. There is sufficient evidence of Foley's stupidity in this matter to demand an investigation by appropriate authorities of his conduct. That is a matter for those authorities, and after a credible investigation has been made it may be possible to form an opinion based on something other than knee-jerk political bias. There certainly is significant evidence - at least in hindsight - that those responsible for administering the pages have failed to show appropriate interest, and to take appropriate action and that's something that merits investigation and public disclosure and discussion. At present however, all we really have is a bunch of people calling each other liars, key ones of whom are hidden behind the "anonymous" label. I have made no judgement about whether Foley has acted as a pedophile, and based on what has been quoted there is insufficient confirmable information for anyone else to make that judgement. If he is indeed guilty of actions of that sort, then he should be held accountable. Given the presumed "tender age" of the "victims" it is not appropriate that they be openly identified to anyone other than those appropriately involved in the investigation of whether actual crimes have been commited. Until they are identified to the appropriate investigators, and their credibility is affirmed, there is very little on which we, the innocent bystanders, can use to have an opinion. I can wait. Obviously you cannot. John |
|
08 Oct 06 - 10:16 PM (#1853697) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- Would you mind supplying one iota of proof that the Democrats withheld evidence of the Foley problem? That's proof, if you please--as distinguished from blogs. Hope it's not too much trouble. Thanks so much. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 08:13 AM (#1853959) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy RD: To be honest, I have no hard evidence. Nor do I have any hard evidence that Hastert knew. Can you tell me why the Democrats do not demand immediate resignations when one of their own are involved or allegedly involved in a scandal? Plese lets be gentlemen and not engage in personal attacks. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 08:43 AM (#1853989) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- Nobody has any requirement to demand anybody's resignation when caught in a sexual scandal. Foley had the right to stay as Congressman--and take his chances with the next election. But, as I said before, the Democrats have not set themselves up as the moral yardstick by which conduct is to be measured. This bunch of Republicans has definitely done so. In fact, as I also noted, Bush's strongest supporters, the ones who provided his foot soldiers in the 2004 campaign, are the "religious Right"--for whom any sexual impropriety, especially involving homosexuality, is anathema. They seem to feel that this sort of problem is far more significant than starting an unnecessary war by choice, to pick a purely theoretical example. As soon as this scandal broke, the Republican leadership, realizing how the "religious conservatives" would feel about Foley's conduct, would have demanded his resignation--even if the Democrats had said absolutely nothing. Also look at the way this crop of Republicans pushed the Monica scandal--I suspect the Democrats are, at least partially, paying back for that. I feel Foley's conduct is despicable---he was using his position to exploit people over whom he had power. But, as far as I know, there's no smoking gun that proves he in fact had sex with an underage page--so there's actually no federal case. But for many Republicans, as well as Democrats--look for instance at the Washington Times editorial page--not only should Foley have resigned---but many up the chain of command in the Republican leadership--having known about Foley's tendencies, and done nothing--should have also resigned. One of the ironies of the case is that Foley himself did not want to run again---but the Republican leadership convinced him to do so. But I'm glad you've learned to not spout rumors on blogs as the truth. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 08:47 AM (#1853992) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: kendall I still say that what's going down in Iraq is much more important than this scandal. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 09:10 AM (#1854008) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies One more thing--Republicans have not always resigned when faced with sexual scandal. But when they haven't, they have usually lost their positions soon thereafter--partly since their own base feels very strongly about such things---more strongly than the Democratic base, by a lot. Part of the record: Daniel Crane R-IL admitted having sex with a 17-year old female page in 1980---censured in 1983, defeated in 1984 for re-election. Donald Lukens---R-OH convicted of sexual encounter with 16 year old girl--resigned in 1990, before term ended--as Congress began investigating a separate allegation. By the way, Barney Frank was reprimanded in 1990--and his crime was not with a page--so there was no exploitation of an underage person by somebody who had power over him. Studds was also censured in 1983 for having sex with a 17-year old male page. But his constituents felt his conduct was not serious enough to warrant defeat. And it's up to the voters to decide that. It's just that the leadership of a party tries to guess what the political impact of a sexual problem will be--and given the current rabid anti-homosexual climate-- especially due to Republican "religious conservatives"--it was quite clear Foley would have been defeated. You can bet Democrats would not have voted for him--for other reasons--primarily his support of Bush. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 09:14 AM (#1854012) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies And Kendall is dead right--this thing is incredibly stupid trivia--compared with what Bush has done. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 09:17 AM (#1854015) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. The whole Foley scandal was probably engineered by Rove to distract what passes for peoples' minds from the real issues in the coming election. And, once again, its worked like a charm. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 09:36 AM (#1854027) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies No, Greg--this is not Rove's idea. No matter what the outcome, it has not helped Republicans--who wanted--and still want--to try to return the focus to the "war on terror"--which they think is their strongest issue. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 09:46 AM (#1854033) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- Also, if Hastert didn't know, he should have known--otherwise where do you think the buck stops? According to the Wall St Journal today 9 Oct 2006 "In 2005, a Louisiana couple complained about overly friendly e-mail from Mr. Foley to their son a former page. A Louisiana congressman forwarded the complaint to the Speaker's office". Jeff Trandahl, the House clerk until last fall "went with Rep John Shimkus (R-IL), the head of the House Page Board, to tell Mr. Foley to cease contact with the teenager". Politics is a rough game--as Hastert well knows. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 10:20 AM (#1854066) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy "Nobody has any requirement to demand anybody's resignation when caught in a sexual scandal." Nobody is required but Democrats do demand immediate resignations as long as it is not one of their own. Why? Have they demanded the resignation of William Jefferson, Cynthia McKinney or Patrick Kennedy? Why not? |
|
09 Oct 06 - 10:55 AM (#1854098) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- I told you--you obviously weren't listening. Sexual scandals are not as important for Democrats as they are for Republicans. And nobody has obligation to resign for a sex scandal. Republicans tend to give a lot of leeway to their candidates on financial impropriety. Now I ask you--which is more important for the country at large--a politician using his position to have sex or using his position to benefit himself financially--thus discriminating against firms which are unwilling to help him do so? If nothing is done about this sort of thing, the government is then for sale to the highest bidder. Is this OK with you? |
|
09 Oct 06 - 11:09 AM (#1854113) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. I dunno, Ron- even Rove can screw up now & again. Besides, the election is a whole month away- Foley'll be forgotten by then by the majority of the ADD aflicted electorate. They'll be all riled up by then about some other meaningless twaddle. Essential point is to keep 'em from being concerned about anything substantive. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 11:39 AM (#1854138) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies The "religious Right" probably does not forget such things that fast. As I've said earlier, as long as the Democrats are not stupid enough to push hard, in the next month, to take up the Mudcat causes of taking "under God" out of the Pledge, push for 10 Commandments plaques to be taken out of courtrooms, move to take "In God We Trust" off the coins etc.---the Republicans will take losses in the midterms. The main question now may be to what extent the Republicans can sell that myth Old Guy was just pushing--on how the Democrats withheld Foley info. It's awful hard to try to read the mind of a member of the "Religious Right". And what they do will probably determine the extext of the Bushite losses. As you know, the party in power often takes losses in midterms anyway. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 11:45 AM (#1854142) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies And the "war on terror" is in fact substantive, though a misnomer. If the Republicans have their way, the midterms will be a referendum on that---trying desperately to make the case that the Iraq struggle always was a central part of that war---and not a stupid, needless distraction. It is a part of the "war on terror" now--but that's due to Bush's own actions. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 11:55 AM (#1854150) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel There is a new law that punishes people who solicit sex from minors via the internet. A legal question may be if 16 is an age of consent that should apply here, or is it 18, or 21 the drinking and voting age? States vary from 14 to 18 for legal marriage. The other legal question is if Foley broke the law. Not being a lawyer or an FBI agent I do not have the answers. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 01:58 PM (#1854223) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Even if he did solicit sex via the Internet, did he do it before or after the law was passed? Retroactive conviction will not fly. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 02:02 PM (#1854226) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies |
|
09 Oct 06 - 07:25 PM (#1854521) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos WASHINGTON (CNN) -- About half of Americans believe the scandal over former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley's contacts with teenage congressional pages should cost House Speaker Dennis Hastert his leadership post, according to a CNN poll released Monday. The poll, conducted Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corp., found that 52 percent of the 1,028 adults interviewed think Hastert should step aside. Thirty-one percent said they think he should keep his post, and 17 percent had no opinion. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points. (Full poll results) The poll also found that Americans are generally dissatisfied with how the GOP handled the Foley matter. Seventeen percent of those polled said it was handled appropriately, while 75 percent said Republicans took inappropriate steps. Fifty-two percent also said they believe the GOP leadership didn't investigate the charges earlier because they were deliberately covering the scandal up. Thirty-eight percent said they thought the leadership was unaware of how serious the allegations were. |
|
09 Oct 06 - 10:51 PM (#1854610) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth The ruler of Imperial America, Darth Cheney and his flaky side-kick, Jar Jar Bush and their army of 'droids and clones appear to be in deep doo-doo. In the words of that other Jar Jar, "me-sa boomed da gasser!" There's a glimmer of hope. Clicky Don Firth |
|
10 Oct 06 - 08:56 AM (#1854827) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST What a coward Foley is. Hasn't the guts to appear publicly, apologize, etc. And as to this whole "the pages were old enough to give consent" business, here is a link to an article about a 24 year old teacher being fired for having sexual contact with a 17 year old student: Another sad case Here, it clearly isn't a question of age but of the teacher abusing his power and authority. I would argue that this case is as important as Iraq, etc. Because when the political leadership is guilty of abusing their power and authority over others, it is time for new leadership. I believe the US was poised to see a big loss in Republicans in Congress and state houses this year without the scandal anyway. So I don't think this scandal will be make or break it. As I said above, it's already been swept under the rug. Rep Foley resigned, to avoid having to pay the piper for his misdeeds. Congress can't touch Foley or the aides that have assigned in the wake of the scandal now. And it is clear the Republicans won't do anything to rock the entrenched leadership boat before November, because their entire house of cards would collapse if they did. It would be akin to admitting wrongdoing, which is something this arrogant bunch simply doesn't do. Will this scandal end up pushing the country over the edge and result in enough anti-incumbent voter anger to oust the Republicans from power? I doubt it. The Democrats are just too damn incompetent, lacking in vision, and are every bit as entrenched and arrogant as their Republican counterparts. I'm thinking Karl Rove is sleeping just fine this week. |
|
10 Oct 06 - 10:58 AM (#1854884) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy RD: I could be 100% wrong about Democrats knowing. From what I am reading, it looks like gay Republicans were the operatives. "I told you--you obviously weren't listening. Sexual scandals are not as important for Democrats as they are for Republicans. And nobody has obligation to resign for a sex scandal." You did not tell me that so don't accuse me of not listening. You are still into the personal attack mode. And why do I have to listen anyway? No it is not alright to have our government, such as the Lincoln bedroom, for sale for campaign contributions. And you dodged the question of why the Democrats do not demand immediate resignations, even though they are not required to, when one of their own are involved or allegedly involved in a scandal? Why didn't they demand the resignation of William Jefferson, Cynthia McKinney or Patrick Kennedy? Why do they hold themselves to a different standard than they hold the Republicans to? This has nothing to do with requirements. |
|
10 Oct 06 - 11:20 AM (#1854896) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ebbie I didn't know that Hastert is gay. :) |
|
10 Oct 06 - 12:26 PM (#1854954) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing Don, thanks for the link. Hope, indeed. Commenting on the congressional page scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) on the October 6 broadcast of Focus on the Family, James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, declared that the Foley affair has "turned out to be what some people are now saying was a -- sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages" who had reportedly come forward with sexually explicit instant messages that Foley allegedly sent. |
|
10 Oct 06 - 12:27 PM (#1854955) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: TIA "Why didn't they demand the resignation of William Jefferson, Cynthia McKinney or Patrick Kennedy?" Please educate me. What were the offenses for which they should resign? |
|
10 Oct 06 - 01:14 PM (#1855005) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos What blows me away to the point of stunned incredulity is that one dickwad can, by stupidity and personal insanity, bring about the horrors of mutilation and death to thousands of men, womeen and children under the pretense of "saving them" and this mindless mass we call the Republican Base will stand stock-still for it like a huge herd of stunod beeves lining up to contribute to In'n'Out Burger. Mayhem, murder, the death of infants and young girls, blood in the streets and complete chaos in the land, no problem. But one fat white guy whips out his dick at the wrong moment and, oh, Katy-bar-the-door, the entire party is suspected of deep immorality. The suspicion is right enough, but for all the wrong reasons! This is absolutely mind-bogglingly insane. Are these people so deep in their hypnotic sleep that they will countenance raw bloody murder in silence, but scream bloody murder because someone sends dirty emails? Foley is unforgiveable, in his little world of lust for young men, because it is so blatant a breach of his notional conduct code. But the net harm done is a mere scratch on the paint compared to a drunken driver causing a head-on collision and wiping out two families in a minibus or something. Jumping Jesus Christ on a crutch--what IS it with these people? A |
|
10 Oct 06 - 01:29 PM (#1855021) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing Exactly, Amos! Goes back to pseudo-patriotism, Christian-Nationalists, brainwashing at Jesus Camp to what they think is a "pristine mind" as opposed to the Puritan idea of "dirty-mind," not questioning authority, rabid prejudices, etc., etc. ad nauseum. |
|
10 Oct 06 - 01:44 PM (#1855045) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth "There is much reason for the weeping of Jesus." —Anonymous Don Firth |
|
10 Oct 06 - 01:51 PM (#1855052) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Wesley S Kat - How do Christians enter into any of this? It's a simple case of sex and a cover-up. |
|
10 Oct 06 - 02:36 PM (#1855081) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Barry Finn In the state of Maryland in some one is convicted of 'solicitation of a minor via the Internet' they by law will be placed & registered on the sex offenders registery. Sounds like Foley is skating by. I'd think that he's guilty of this by the fact of his own e-mails. If so why isn't he being charged instead of just resigning? Barry |
|
10 Oct 06 - 02:51 PM (#1855095) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth Not all Christians do enter into this, Wesley. Many liberal and progressive Christians see it pretty much the way Amos sees it in his post just above (10 Oct 06 - 01:14 PM). They may not phrase it as vividly as Amos did, nevertheless, the feeling of anger is there, especially because one particular set of Christians with a much ballyhooed but extremely questionable Scriptural base arrogate to themselves the claim that they speak for all Christians. They do not. A large proportion of Christian fundamentalists, and particularly the Christian Nationalists, back the Bush administration and it's actions and policies all the way. Their only concept of sin seems to orbit around things having to do with sex. Note their opposition to sex education in schools, contraception, abortion even when considered medically necessary, gay marriage and anything else having to do with gays, and on and on ad nauseum. But they seem to have no objection to senseless and illegal wars, and indeed are highly enthusiastic about stirring up hostilities in the Middle East, hoping that this will precipitate the Battle of Armageddon and hasten the second coming of Christ that they believe in so explicitly. The Rev. Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners Magazine and author of God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, points out that, in the Bible, there are three or four verses at the most presumably referring to homosexuality, but there are over 3,000 verses talking about the poor and the moral obligation to take care of them. There is much more to moral values than merely matters of sex. Don Firth |
|
10 Oct 06 - 03:01 PM (#1855100) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth But rereading what I just posted, apparently I neglected to bring this up to date. The Foley affair is like discovering a big, nasty piece of fecal matter floating in the Republican punch-bowl, and now the Christian fundies and Nationalists find they have a bit of a dilemma on their hands. They're staring into their cups and wondering what to do now. Don Firth |
|
10 Oct 06 - 03:12 PM (#1855119) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Drink the Kool Aid, is my recommendation... A |
|
10 Oct 06 - 03:27 PM (#1855145) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth (Yup. Works for me. . . .) Don Firth |
|
10 Oct 06 - 04:24 PM (#1855226) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel Barry, first comes the investigation. THe FBI refused to investigate 6 months ago but are now starting what they call a preliminary investigation. In 2 or three years all will be revealed/forgotten. In a Dave Barry vein; In MD "The Association of Citizens for Moral Indignation" ACMI are posting thousands of signs on telephone poles that read: This neighbor has not yet registered as a sex offender. Their reasoning is that a shot gun approach is bound to be right at least once. |
|
10 Oct 06 - 04:32 PM (#1855232) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy All Clinton got was a blowjob from a White House intern? What's wrong with that? Are you homophobic or something to say that a Republican can't get a blowjob from a Page? |
|
10 Oct 06 - 04:35 PM (#1855236) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: TIA How old was the intern? |
|
10 Oct 06 - 04:49 PM (#1855248) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth They were consenting adults. That makes a substantial difference that a lot of people just don't want to see for purely political reasons. Rubber ethics. Don Firth |
|
10 Oct 06 - 05:07 PM (#1855264) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing Thanks, again, Don. That's pretty much what I meant. Wesley, whether liberal, reasonable Christians like it or not, Christian Nationalists are very closely linked, in the public mind, and in reality, to Bush et alia. They are the ones who have driven the "moral" values Bush purports. Hell, Dobson and others of what was called the "Conservative Agenda" on CSPAN, have been to the White House and told by Bush to continue to pray for him and his administration in order to reach their mutual goals. I KNOW many Christians who are not at all like that, but the extremists are the most vocal and have long been known to have co-opted the GOP; that's how Bush got in there in the first place. Most GOP congresspeople have gone along with that...to their detriment, now. kat |
|
10 Oct 06 - 06:45 PM (#1855328) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Barry Finn Maybe now we'll see the seperation of Congress & page & well get the seperation of church & state to boot. Barry |
|
10 Oct 06 - 08:00 PM (#1855386) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos OG: If you don't know the difference between soliciting a minor and consenting adults, maybe you should get one of those placards for yourself. A |
|
11 Oct 06 - 08:45 PM (#1856373) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST I didn't read all the posts. Did the topic of Hastert come up? Gay. Leader of the House. Gay. There's a long history of homosexuality among the Republicans. George W. Bush. Gay. Mayor of Memphis. Look it up. This story and North Korea setting off a nuke probably derailed the plan to attack Iran during the dark of the moon this month (20th-21st). |
|
11 Oct 06 - 09:11 PM (#1856390) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Alice Amos, that link to Foley and Scientology..... of course, Clearwater, Florida! curiouser and curiouser, said Alice |
|
11 Oct 06 - 09:14 PM (#1856392) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Alice Sonny Bono, also a Republican, was recruited into the cult of Scientology. C o S likes to have puppets who are near power and money. |
|
11 Oct 06 - 10:23 PM (#1856443) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,TIA Don't forget...Rove-gay. I have it from someone who supposedly KNOWS. But, aren't you sick of Fox News et al. conflating "gay" and "pedophile" |
|
11 Oct 06 - 10:30 PM (#1856451) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ebbie I doubt it. My guess is that you guys are fantasizing, but on the other hand, if every single - or married - one of the Republican leadership were gay it wouldn't worry me. It's what the leadership covets, plans and does that appalls me. |
|
11 Oct 06 - 11:07 PM (#1856463) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST Maybe we're in such trouble now because they're all gay. George W's pet name for Rove is Turdblossom. Typical gay nomenclature. |
|
11 Oct 06 - 11:10 PM (#1856465) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,TIA Oh, believe me, I've got no problem with the gay part. But, the hypocrisy is delicious. |
|
11 Oct 06 - 11:30 PM (#1856473) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST Hitler had to keep casting a broader and broader net over "undesirable" groups. Gypsies, the mentally ill, intellectuals, communists, Jews. Arabs have been used to get the new fascist American government to this point, and soon a new group will need to be singled out. Looks like that distinction is about to fall to the gays. What are they, about 1% of the population? Same as Arab-Americans? You KNOW the public is going to support the disappearing of all gays. Then who's next? |
|
12 Oct 06 - 12:01 AM (#1856483) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies What's interesting is how desperately the Republican "leadership" is grasping at straws--the Democrats are withholding evidence, it's homosexual Republicans who leaked it, the whole thing is just a joke among the pages----every possible crackpot theory other than that the leadership itself made a complete hash of dealing with the problem. And then of course, how many of the giant intellects who support Bush will actually buy one of these?--knowing their delight in conspiracy theories, more than one Bushite certainly will. |
|
12 Oct 06 - 09:48 AM (#1856754) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: TIA GUEST - I think GLBT makes up 10% of the population - minimum. Could be a lot higher. |
|
12 Oct 06 - 11:25 AM (#1856887) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy So how old was the Page? Did they claim it was rape like Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Wiley did? |
|
12 Oct 06 - 11:32 AM (#1856899) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: TIA Exactly when will it no longer be about Clinton? The key word is "claim". Anything ever proven? Certainly wasn't for lack of investigation was it? Do you remember how much Ken Starr's investigation cost? Now look up how much was spent on the 9/11 commission investigation. Compare those two numbers and tell me how the Republican government doesn't have massively fucked up priorities. |
|
12 Oct 06 - 11:35 AM (#1856906) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: SINSULL Gay does not = pedophile. Old Guy - do you really not see the difference between two consenting adults having sex (yeah I know, "I never had sex with that woman") and a grown man asking a 16 year old to measure his penis, describe his hard-on, and describe how he masterbates? Again - the Republicans broke the story not the Dems. But should all have waited until after the election? Why? Should this pervert not have been thrown out when his "inappropriate" PMs and emails first surfaced whether that be in 2001 or 2006? He was protected out of political or personal loyalty while those in the know continued to allow him a position of authority over underage boys. How is this any different from the Catholic Church's actions with paedophile priests? Explain to me how you believe this should have been handled in order for all to be treated fairly and appropriately. |
|
12 Oct 06 - 12:07 PM (#1856953) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing Gays have been "undesireables" already for a long, long time. And, NO the public will NOT support them disappearing. We proved that when the white supremacists lost their bid to annexe the northwest states for their own "pure" country. According to the GOP, everything is now Clinton's fault. I used to have some respect for McCain, but no longer. He claims North Korea's maybe having a nuclear bomb is Clinton's fault! Self-deception is really something innit? |
|
12 Oct 06 - 01:09 PM (#1857023) Subject: Republicans on Record for Scandal From: Amos (R-FL) Foley is a prime example..as these guys also are: * Republican executive Randall Casseday of the conservative Washington Times newspaper was arrested for soliciting sex from a 13-year old girl on the internet. * Republican chairman of the Oregon Christian Coalition Lou Beres confessed to molesting a 13-year old girl. * Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable. * Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation. * Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy. * Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business. * Republican County Chairman Armando Tebano was arrested for sexually molesting a 14-year-old girl. * Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls. * Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester. * Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls. * Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the internet. * Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls. * Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison. * Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17. * Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor. * Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida. * Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered. * Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor. * Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl. * Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child. * Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile. * Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl. * Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two 8-year old girls, one of whom appeared in an anti-Gore television commercial. * Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s. * Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s. * Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail. * Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos. * Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children. * Republican campaign chairman Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child and was arrested again five years later on the same charge. * Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page. * Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter. * Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography. * Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar. * Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped. * Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD. * Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography. * Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media. (From a newsblog site) A |
|
12 Oct 06 - 02:43 PM (#1857094) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel Amos you're not being fair and balanced |
|
12 Oct 06 - 03:47 PM (#1857136) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST No way 10% of the population is gay. Weak groups present themselves as larger than they actually are, to put up a more formidable front, but it's not one in ten. And even if it is 10%, it'll soon be down to 1%. The U.S. now has laws in place whereby people can be "disappeared." The weak and unpopular will be picked off first. And even if 10% of the population is homo, the 90% hetero won't really care if "those perverts" disappear. Bad, bad times to be homosexual in America. Look at what Hitler did to them. The ironic thing is that the fascists are either overt or covert homosexuals themselves. Witness all the macho posturing on the part of the Bush regime. That's typically fascist. Uncertain or weak sexual self-image, so they behave in an over-manly fashion. And they're homosexual. The Big Lie. Study homosexuality in Hitler's upper cadre. Same thing as now, in America. |
|
12 Oct 06 - 04:07 PM (#1857149) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth For your information. Homosexuality: Kinsey said in both the Male and Female volumes that it was impossible to determine the number of persons who are "homosexual" or "heterosexual". It was only possible to determine behavior at any given time. (See Kinsey's Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale.) Instances of at least one same-sex experience to orgasm: • 37% of males • 13% of females, (p. 650, Male, p. 475, Female) Males: • 10% of males in the sample were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55 • 8% of males were exlusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. (p. 651, Male) • 4% of white males had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of their interviews, (p. 651, Male). Females: • 2 to 6% of females, aged 20-35, were more or less exclusively homosexual in experience/response, (p. 488, Female) • 1 to 3% of unmarried females aged 20-35 were exclusively homosexual in experience/response, (Table 142, p. 499, and p. 474, Female). Masters and Johnson's findings tend to corroborate those of Alfred Kinsey. Don Firth |
|
12 Oct 06 - 04:17 PM (#1857152) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing LOL...homophobes always claim they are in the majority...it's the fear which overtakes them, poor things. |
|
12 Oct 06 - 04:27 PM (#1857159) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Based on the above figures, heteros ARE in the majority, which accounts for the dratted persistence of the species, but perhaps less so than the homophobes envision. A |
|
12 Oct 06 - 07:21 PM (#1857293) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ebbie As different as our climate is today, I wonder just how valid the data are? These days people would probably be far more likely to admit deviations from the main. |
|
12 Oct 06 - 10:55 PM (#1857464) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Well, maybe we could start an argument that would really give a boost to cutting down fuel usage, boosting alternative energy and so on. Just tell them there's been a huge increase in homosexuality as a direct result of the climate changed linked with our fossil-fuel-addicted civilization. If you could get them to worry that every time they fired up their SUV they were contributing to the growth of homosexuality we'd be hydrogen-powered in a New York minute!!! LOL!!!! A |
|
12 Oct 06 - 11:01 PM (#1857467) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Amos: Where is the list of Democrats? |
|
12 Oct 06 - 11:23 PM (#1857476) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST Of course I'm a homophobe, but they still have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit, etc. Which means they better buy guns. Fast. There's a good chance they're going to be the next target group. Bubba six-pack is already saying "bomb them AY-rabs to a glass parking lot," so do you think he's going to be any more understanding toward gays? And the gays will be betrayed by their "Democratic leadership," just as Republicans have been betrayed by Bush. Republicans want smaller government, Bush has tripled the size of the govt. Republicans want more states rights, Bush has taken away states rights and centralized federal powers. The same will happen to the Democrats. When "their team" gets into power, Democrats will do whatever "their" president says. Even get on the busses for the "relocation" camps. Buy guns. Especially you gay folk. Do some reading about how Hitler's thugs treated gays, then remember that when they come to kick in your door. Get a semi-auto so you can at least empty a clip into them. :) Gays arming themselves...now THAT would be a cool, cool message to send to Washington. |
|
12 Oct 06 - 11:39 PM (#1857483) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- You really don't learn very fast, do you?--or read carefully. For the n th time, the Democrats have not set themselves up as the ultimate standard of moral purity in sexual matters. This bunch of Republicans has done so. So any sexual failing of a Democrat is immaterial--but for the Republican true believers, it's the sky falling to hear that not just those Democratic scum but their own good morally upstanding Republican leaders are not only capable of--but actually engaging in--despicable moral behavior---a sizable list--as Amos points out. Hope you don't drown in your river of denial. |
|
12 Oct 06 - 11:40 PM (#1857485) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Was the page of legal age? Was there a claim or rape yes or no? |
|
12 Oct 06 - 11:48 PM (#1857487) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Legal age? The page was 17. Rape? No. SOlicitation of sexual favours from a minor? Yes. Violation of trust? Yes. Broken integrity? You betcha. A |
|
13 Oct 06 - 12:28 AM (#1857507) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Rep. Foley has not been accused of physically or sexually abusing any minors. He is alleged to have sent sexually explicit electronic messages to pages. Did he say lets have sex? |
|
13 Oct 06 - 09:09 AM (#1857776) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. Dear Jaysus...... |
|
13 Oct 06 - 09:44 AM (#1857808) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: George Papavgeris There's none so blind as them that won't see... |
|
13 Oct 06 - 10:59 AM (#1857864) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 -- The total buying power of the U.S. gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) adult population in 2003 is estimated at $485 billion, according to updated analysis by Witeck-Combs Communications and MarketResearch.com. The latest projection was originally derived in a joint study by both organizations entitled, "The Gay and Lesbian Market: New Trends, New Opportunities," 2002. Last year, Witeck-Combs and MarketResearch.com gauged GLB annual buying power at $451 billion - - a benchmark cited frequently by business analysts. Rest of article HERE. The presence of homosexuals, particularly gay men, in crucial staff positions has been an enduring if largely hidden staple of Republican life for decades, and particularly in recent years. They have played decisive roles in passing legislation, running campaigns and advancing careers. Known in some insider slang as the Velvet Mafia or the Pink Elephants, gay Republicans tend to be less open about their sexual orientation than their Democratic counterparts. Even though the G.O.P. fashions itself as "the party of Lincoln" and a promoter of tolerance, it is perceived as hostile by many gay men and lesbians. Republicans have promoted a "traditional values" agenda, while some conservatives have turned the "radical gay subculture" into a reliable campaign villain. And there are few visible role models in the party; Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona is the only openly gay Republican in Congress. More, HERE. The trouble with trying to come up with any legitimate numbers of population based on sexual orientation: HERE. Not saying I agree with it, totally, but there are some interesting links and examples. |
|
13 Oct 06 - 01:07 PM (#1857979) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: SINSULL Old Guy, I am still waiting to hear what you think would have been a fair way to handle Mark Foley. SINS |
|
13 Oct 06 - 01:21 PM (#1857991) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Wesley S Sinsull - Good question. I'd like to hear the answer to that one too. Old Guy? |
|
13 Oct 06 - 02:57 PM (#1858085) Subject: RE: BS: Republicans on Record for Scandal From: Amos WASHINGTON -- Rep. Bob Ney, with his guilty plea Friday in an influence-peddling case, was on his way to becoming the fourth House member this session of Congress to be forced from office because of legal or ethical problems, a dubious distinction that hasn't been matched in a quarter-century. The scandals that have roiled the 109th Congress now nearing its end drew comparisons to the 96th Congress of 1979-81, when six House members and a senator were convicted in the FBI sting operation known as Abscam. One House member was expelled and two others, as well as the senator, resigned as a result of Abscam. Another House lawmaker had resigned earlier in 1980 after facing unrelated corruption charges. Ney, R-Ohio, pleaded guilty in a federal court to conspiracy and making false statements as part of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. |
|
14 Oct 06 - 01:06 PM (#1858774) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy CLEVELAND, Ohio (CNN) -- A jury found flamboyant U.S.Democrat Rep. James Traficant guilty of bribery and all other charges against him Thursday after a two-month federal racketeering and corruption trial. The jury of 10 women and two men convicted the congressman on all counts against him, covering charges of taking bribes, filing false tax returns, racketeering, and forcing his aides to perform chores at his farm in Ohio and on his houseboat in Washington. |
|
14 Oct 06 - 01:31 PM (#1858795) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — Representative Bob Ney, the first member of Congress to confess to crimes in dealings with the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, pleaded guilty to corruption charges Friday but said he would not immediately resign. Ney, Republican of Ohio, announced last month that he intended to plead guilty, admitting that in return for official acts, he had accepted tens of thousands of dollars' worth of gifts from Mr. Abramoff that included lavish trips, meals and tickets to concerts and sporting events. He faces a prison term of more than two years. |
|
14 Oct 06 - 02:09 PM (#1858836) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Republicans on panel have ties to Hastert Posted 10/5/2006 10:57 PM ET E-mail | House Ethics Committee Chairman Rep. Doc Hastings, second from left, huddles with aide Ed Cassidy on Capitol Hill in Washington, following the panel's first meeting on the House page scandal. Rep. Judy Biggert is at left. Both representatives have financial ties to Speaker Dennis Hastert. FALLOUT OF FOLEY SCANDAL By David Jackson and Matt Kelley, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Both Republicans on the House ethics subcommittee investigating the Mark Foley scandal have financial ties to Speaker Dennis Hastert, whose handling of the former congressman's lurid Internet messages to House pages is under scrutiny. Ethics Chairman Doc Hastings received $2,500 during the 2000 campaign from Hastert's political action committee, Keep Our Majority, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks money in politics. The six-term Washington Republican, who became ethics chairman last year, will lead the Foley investigation. Rep. Judy Biggert of Illinois, received $6,000 from Hastert's PAC and $2,000 from Hastert's own re-election fund during the 2002 campaign, according to PoliticalMoneyLine. Biggert, whose district neighbors Hastert's, said personal relationships and financial ties will not affect the investigation: "I think that all of us on this committee were chosen because we are thought to be fair." Fred Wertheimer, president of the watchdog group Democracy 21, said the Hastert contributions undermine the subcommittee's credibility. "They should have brought in an outside counsel," he said. Two Democrats, Howard Berman of California and Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio, round out the Foley investigative panel. Berman, who is in his 12th term, is the top Democrat on the full ethics committee. Berman recently replaced Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., on the ethics panel. Mollohan stepped down amid charges that he funneled federal money to home-state foundations and increased his own wealth. He has denied wrongdoing. Tubbs Jones is a former municipal and county judge in Cleveland and served as the elected Cuyahoga County prosecutor. |
|
14 Oct 06 - 02:12 PM (#1858844) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Longtime Republican was source of e-mails By Alexander Bolton The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley's (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide. That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim. The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House. But the whistleblower was a paid GOP staffer when the documents were first given to the media. The source bolstered the claim by sharing un-redacted e-mails in which the former page first alerted his congressional sponsor's office of Foley's attentions. The copies of these e-mails, now available to the public, have the names of senders and recipients blotted out. These revelations mean that Republicans who are calling for probes to discover what Democratic leaders and staff knew about Foley's improper exchanges with under-age pages will likely be unable to show that the opposition party orchestrated the scandal now roiling the GOP just a month away from the midterm elections. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) yesterday called for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) to testify about what and when they knew of Foley's contact with former pages (see related story). (From The Hill) |
|
14 Oct 06 - 05:07 PM (#1858927) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing It is facetious to post something like that, OG, without including the date, which was 2002. The GOP is so rife with hypocrits, you will never make it to the top with tit-for-tat posting, esp. if you continue to dredge up old history. Amos, thanks for the latest. Of course they should have called for an independent counsel to investigate, but are there any to be found these days?! |
|
14 Oct 06 - 06:30 PM (#1858966) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. It is facetious to post something like that, OG, No, its just stupid, juvenile & self-serving. Facetiousness is WAY beyond him. |
|
14 Oct 06 - 07:06 PM (#1858981) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: SINSULL This thread has taken a strange turn: Power corrupts but if it is the other party's corruption and election time is drawing near it is unfair to report it. |
|
14 Oct 06 - 07:15 PM (#1858994) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos The issue is not that corruption is peculiar to one party, which it obviously it is not. But rather, the issue is that one party pretends vociferously to a purity of conscience and ethical standard which they do not in fact attain, and insists that it represents the misled, authoritarian religious factions who believe themselves to be the source of all morality, which they are not. A |
|
14 Oct 06 - 07:19 PM (#1859001) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: SINSULL I did a Google search on Corruption among Democratic candidates. The link is here: http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Commentary/Corruption.htm Really tough when they include a tire slashing on Election Day and a politician's brother-in-law getting a year after pleading guilty. The politician was not involved. And once again I ask: How should this scandal have been handled to be fair to all parties? Does the fact that a Republican broke the scandal still make it Democratic political posturing in time for the election. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 12:13 AM (#1859150) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth This quite probably deserves a thread of its own, but I'll post it here anyway, at least for openers. David Kuo is a conservative Christian Evangelical (that's how he describes himself) and he has quite a bit to say about what he has learned about Bush and the Republican Party's hypocritical "seduction" of the Christian Right. He's been very close to it, a former Special Assistant to the president, and he's become so disillusioned and disenchanted that he can't stomach it anymore. He's written a book on the subject . Clicky #1. And an MSNBC report (video, Windows Media Player), Clicky #2. What, I wonder, is the Christian Right going to do now? And what is the Republican Party going to do without them? Don Firth |
|
15 Oct 06 - 01:55 AM (#1859171) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds had sex with a subordinate, won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate as a Youth counselor. He received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud, lies to the Federal Election Commission and convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. He also was convicted of having sex with an underage campaign volunteer. Jesse Jackson put him on the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition payroll as a youth counseler and Bill Clinton pardoned him at the urging of Jesse Jackson. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 02:31 AM (#1859175) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Amos posts the cut and pastes below with no dates and is thanked, in compliance with the liberal crybaby double standard. Old guy posts one and is told in accordance with the liberal crybaby double standard: "It is facetious to post something like that, OG, without including the date, which was 2002. The GOP is so rife with hypocrits, you will never make it to the top with tit-for-tat posting, esp. if you continue to dredge up old history. Amos, thanks for the latest. Of course they should have called for an independent counsel to investigate, but are there any to be found these days?!" From Amos: (R-FL) Foley is a prime example..as these guys also are: * Republican executive Randall Casseday of the conservative Washington Times newspaper was arrested for soliciting sex from a 13-year old girl on the internet. * Republican chairman of the Oregon Christian Coalition Lou Beres confessed to molesting a 13-year old girl. * Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable. * Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation. * Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy. * Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business. * Republican County Chairman Armando Tebano was arrested for sexually molesting a 14-year-old girl. * Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls. * Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester. * Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls. * Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the internet. * Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls. * Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison. * Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17. * Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor. * Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida. * Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered. * Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor. * Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl. * Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child. * Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile. * Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl. * Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two 8-year old girls, one of whom appeared in an anti-Gore television commercial. * Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s. * Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s. * Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail. * Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos. * Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children. * Republican campaign chairman Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child and was arrested again five years later on the same charge. * Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page. * Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter. * Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography. * Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar. * Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped. * Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD. * Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography. * Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media. Republican zoning supervisor? Any Republican dog catchers on your list Amos? Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child This goes back 80+ years |
|
15 Oct 06 - 02:34 AM (#1859176) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ebbie It may go back 80 years, OG, but his admission does not. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 03:09 AM (#1859182) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy I would expect nothing less than a liberal crybaby than to protect a fellow crybaby. Amos is hereby excused from having to include dates but old guy is not. Furthermore I don't recall any date restrictions anywhere in this thread. Amos you toothless old fumdart :) this is for you: Thomas Jefferson fathered 5 children with Sally Hemings, a teen-aged black slave in his employment. An example of good ol' Jefersonian Democratic policy that Amos and Bobert like to quote frequently. Sally Hemings In the Richmond Recorder in 1802, James Thomson Callendar first began to publicly allege that Thomas Jefferson kept one of his slaves as his "concubine" and fathered children with her. "The name of SALLY will walk down to posterity alongside of Mr. Jefferson's own name," Callendar wrote in one of his articles on the scandal. What is known of Sally Hemings? She was a slave owned by Thomas Jefferson, inherited through his wife Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson (October 19/30, 1748 - September 6, 1782) when her father died. Sally's mother Betsy or Betty was said to be the daughter of a black slave woman and a white ship captain; Betsy's children were said to have been fathered by her owner, John Wayles, making Sally a half-sister of Jefferson's wife. From 1784, Sally apparently served as a maid and companion of Mary Hemings, Jefferson's youngest daughter. In 1787, Jefferson, serving the new United States government as a diplomat in Paris, sent for his younger daughter to join him, and Sally was sent with Mary. After a brief stop in London to stay with John and Abigail Adams, Sally and Mary arrived in Paris. Whether Sally (and Mary) lived at the Jefferson apartments or the convent school is uncertain. What is fairly certain is that Sally took French lessons and may also have trained as a laundress. What is certain is that in France, Sally was free according to French law. What is alleged, and not known except by implication, is that Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings began an intimate relationship in Paris, Sally returning to the United States pregnant, Jefferson promising to free any of her (their) children when they reached the age of 21. What little evidence there is of a child born to Sally after her return from France is mixed: some sources say the child died quite young (the Hemings family tradition). What is more certain is that Sally had six other children. Their birth dates are recorded in Jefferson's Farm Book or in letters he wrote. DNA tests in 1998, and a careful rendering of the birth dates and Jefferson's well-documented travels, puts Jefferson at Monticello during a "conception window" for each of the children born to Sally. The very light skin and the resemblance of several of Sally's children to Thomas Jefferson were remarked upon by a good number of those who were present at Monticello. Other possible fathers were either eliminated by the 1998 DNA tests on male-line descendants (the Carr brothers) or dismissed because of internal inconsistencies in the evidence. For example, an overseer reported seeing a man (not Jefferson) coming from Sally's room regularly -- but the overseer did not start working at Monticello until five years after the time of those "visits". Sally served, probably, as a chambermaid at Monticello, also doing light sewing. The affair was revealed publicly by James Callender after Jefferson refused him a job. There is no reason to believe she left Monticello until after Jefferson's death, when she went to live with her son Eston. When Eston moved away, she spent her last two years living on her own. There is some evidence that he asked his daughter, Martha, to "give Sally her time", an informal way to free a slave in Virginia which would prevent the imposition of the 1805 Virginia law requiring freed slaves to move out of the state. Sally Hemings is recorded in the 1833 census as a free woman. Thomas Jefferson himself publicly stated his opposition to miscegenation. "The amalgamation of whites with blacks," he wrote, "produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character, can innocently consent." And even Bubba gets in on this one which brings the Jefferson scandal up to date so as to meet the crybaby liberal requirement of being recent: Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Joseph Ellis: "President William Jefferson Clinton also has a vested interest in this revelation.... Jefferson has always been Clinton's favorite Founding Father. Now, a sexually active, all-too-human Jefferson appears alongside his embattled protege. It is as if Clinton had called one of the most respected character witnesses in all of U.S. history to testify that the primal urge has a most distinguished presidential pedigree. The dominant effect of this news will be to make Clinton's sins seem less aberrant and more palatable. If a vote against Clinton is also a vote against Jefferson, the prospects for impeachment become even more remote." |
|
15 Oct 06 - 03:39 AM (#1859192) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Maybe Scientology drove Foley off his rocker just like it did to Amos. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 09:41 AM (#1859316) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. Yup, with some cretins it'll ALWAYS be about Bill Clinton, whatever "it" is, and whether "it" has anything to do with the point under discussion or not. Bringing Thos. Jefferson in as a putative "Democrat"(in the current sense of the word as a member of the Democrat party) demonstrates such monumental ignorance of history - possibly simply such monumental ignorance - that no comment is necessary. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 10:12 AM (#1859332) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Alice It's "Democratic Congressman". Republicans have taken to using a noun, Democrat, instead of the adjective, Democratic. Deliberately being grammatically incorrect just makes them look dumb. Limbaugh uses that incorrect grammar all the time, so I'm not surprised old guy does, too. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 10:48 AM (#1859354) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- You've been asked several times how you think the Foley scandal should have been handled. So far, all we've seen is another extended fishing trip to your favorite lake--where the only fish is red herring. How about actually answering the question? |
|
15 Oct 06 - 11:20 AM (#1859362) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos I don't believe Jefferson belonged to the Democratic Party, In those days the party system was pretty different than it is now. According to the Americana Encyclopedia, Jefferson was a Republican, but in those days, "Republican" meant someone who stood up against Federal encroachment on individual rights, rather than someone who espouses, them as today. A |
|
15 Oct 06 - 11:40 AM (#1859375) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: dick greenhaus OG- If a Democrat in a position of power does something wrong, he should be punished. Same goes for Republicans. Just seems that at this point in time, the Republicans seem to me to be monopolizing the field. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 11:53 AM (#1859386) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy You mean all these years Amos has been quoting a Republican as a shining example of Democracy? Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 "At the start of the 21st Century, the Democratic Party can look back on a proud history — a history not just of a political organization but of a national vision. It is a vision based on the strength and power of millions of economically empowered, socially diverse and politically active Americans. Over two hundred years ago, our Party's founders decided that wealth and social status were not an entitlement to rule. They believed that wisdom and compassion could be found within every individual and a stable government must be built upon a broad popular base. The late Ron Brown — former Chairman of the Democratic Party — put it best when he wrote, "The common thread of Democratic history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves a piece of the American Dream. We remember that this great land was sculpted by immigrants and slaves, their children and grandchildren." And a little puddin' on the side. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 12:02 PM (#1859389) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy All of their infidelities pale in comparison with those of John F Kennedy. His sex drive, which some have put down as a side-effect to treatment he was receiving for Addison's Disease, was seemingly awesome. JFK's many conquests included the film stars Marilyn Monroe and Angie Dickinson, a stripper 'Blaze' Starr and Judith Exner Campbell, who was also the mistress of a Chicago mobster, Sam Giancana. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 12:12 PM (#1859396) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos It seems the esteemed Thomas Jefferson was Bi, OG. A |
|
15 Oct 06 - 12:20 PM (#1859403) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Barry Finn All of their infidelities pale in comparison with those of John F Kennedy. Were they consenting adults? Please That's a horse of "some" different color Barry |
|
15 Oct 06 - 12:46 PM (#1859425) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth Wotthehell, let Old Guy rant on. Ancient history's all he's got. But that's not going to help the Republicans now. Don Firth |
|
15 Oct 06 - 12:53 PM (#1859434) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/gobie2.htm Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, confirmed Friday that he paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that clients were visiting the apartment. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 12:58 PM (#1859437) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy "Were they consenting adults?" Who did Foley have sex with? Were they adults? Was it consenting? All Liberal crybabies can do is rant about ancient history. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 01:09 PM (#1859444) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth You are the one who is delving into ancient history. Old Guy, face it! You got nuthin'! Don Firth |
|
15 Oct 06 - 01:29 PM (#1859467) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy You are the one ranting, not I. All you can do is attack what I post while you have nuthing factual to present, just personal rants. Can you tell us who Foley had sex with, how old they were and if it was consentual? |
|
15 Oct 06 - 01:53 PM (#1859487) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos OG: You posted about Kennedy,m whose peccadilloes were buried forty years ago. Then you posted about Jefferson, who peccadillos took place two hundred years ago and more. Then you accused "cry-baby" liberals of bringing up ancient history. Doesn't this strike you as a bit desperate, or perhaps hypocritical, or inconsistent? BTW, next time you re-post "my" list, please include the attribution I made for it when I first posted it. As for Kennedy and Jefferson, they each had more brains and soul in their little fingers than remain to be found in your entire GOP Reich. A |
|
15 Oct 06 - 01:54 PM (#1859488) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth No, and you don't know either, one way or the other. The fact--FACT--remains that the evidence is there that he was behaving in an thoroughly inappropriate way toward the pages, one in particular, and that page (age 16) found it "creepy and upsetting." And there is also evidence that this was standard operating procedure for him. Is that how you want your representatives in Congress to behave? Or does the fact that he's a Republican give him carte blanche to graze wherever he wishes? Don Firth |
|
15 Oct 06 - 02:11 PM (#1859504) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- Still waiting for your answer as to how you'd handle the Foley affair. Thanks so much. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 02:32 PM (#1859528) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Alice Old guy, your partisan blinders are making you look pretty foolish, excusing the way Foley acted toward MINORS. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 03:05 PM (#1859546) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth By the way, in reference to what I posted at 15 Oct 06 - 12:13 AM, watch "60 Minutes" tonight. David Kuo is going to be on. Don Firth. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 03:07 PM (#1859547) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: SINSULL Time to stop asking, Ron. Old Guy has no answer. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 03:32 PM (#1859561) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy "It's "Democratic Congressman". Republicans have taken to using a noun, Democrat, instead of the adjective, Democratic. Deliberately being grammatically incorrect just makes them look dumb." Evidently the grammar is good enough for the New York Times: and the Democrat Congressman, Dan Rostenkowski. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 03:42 PM (#1859572) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Alice Yup, I know the bad grammar is being pushed, and I've seen it more places than the NY Times. IT IS STILL WRONG! |
|
15 Oct 06 - 03:43 PM (#1859574) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Alice Interesting you respond to a matter of grammar and ignore Ron's question. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 08:03 PM (#1859795) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST Perhaps if some people insist on being grammatically incorrect and calling the "Democratic Party" the "Democrat Party", we can also be grammaticaly incorrect and simply call the "Republican Party" the "Pedophile Party." |
|
15 Oct 06 - 10:39 PM (#1859922) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy "the way Foley acted toward MINORS" Define what a minor is. Whoever said what Foley did was OK? What Gerry Studs did was Ok according to Democrats but he got a pass and did not have to resign. As for the question, how ould I handle the affair, Foley resigned and Hastert is being investigated. What else needs to be done except to expose the Deomcrat's double standard? Now who can tell me: Who did Foley have sex with? Were they adults? Was it consenting? Nobody holding up their hands. Here's a hint: The age of consent in Washington DC is 16 |
|
15 Oct 06 - 10:46 PM (#1859932) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos The students who came to Washington to learn how government works in the Great Nation's Capital were not (as far as they knew) volunteering as jailbait for perverted pedophilic representatives, OG. Stuff your rationalization. A |
|
15 Oct 06 - 10:47 PM (#1859933) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST Who did Foley have sex with? --I don't know Were they adults? --ditto, but some of the people he reportedly approached were not. Was it consenting? --Who knows. Now for my question. Would it be okay for me to send similar emails or IM's to your teenage daughter or grandaughter? Here's the crux O.G.-- you seem to be implying that only the actual sex act can be inappropriate. Are you saying that if there was no sex act, there can't be any problem? |
|
15 Oct 06 - 11:41 PM (#1859957) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy "Would it be okay for me to send similar emails or IM's to your teenage daughter or grandaughter?" No it would not and I have never said it what Foley did was OK. I haven't heard or read where anybody said it was OK. What has Foley been charged with that is as bad as what Democrats like Gerry studs actualy admitted to? That is what I am getting at, The double standard. |
|
15 Oct 06 - 11:46 PM (#1859961) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Ron Davies: "Anybody who relies on blogs--on either the Left or the Right-- for facts-- needs to have his or her head examined" Amos:(From a newsblog site) Amos gets a pass from RD as per the liberal crybaby reciprocal double standard of ethics. |
|
16 Oct 06 - 10:44 AM (#1860337) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,TIA Seems to me the crybaby response is "Studds did it too....." |
|
16 Oct 06 - 10:49 AM (#1860343) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Alice Pages were back in their home states where they were of minor age when Foley IM'd and emailed to them. Wow, you are an incredible sicko, too, old guy, to keep rationalizing what Foley did just because you love republicans. |
|
16 Oct 06 - 11:01 AM (#1860348) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos OG: I attributed some opinions I forwarded to a newsblog, since that is where they came from. There's a world of difference between saying "This is what this newsblog is saying about things", and saying "These are the facts (which I got from a blog)." Or asserting the blog's facts without any attribution, as though you knew them to be facts. I am sure you can appreciate the difference. I usually post excerpts from blogs to show what the ebb and flow of opinion in the world is doing, not to rely on them as a source of facts. A |
|
16 Oct 06 - 12:33 PM (#1860444) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Charlie Baum Obit: Gerry Studds, October 14, 2006 |
|
16 Oct 06 - 01:40 PM (#1860505) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth Reading through much of this discussion (keeping an airsick bag handy), it becomes pretty obvious that if Atilla the Hun or Hagar the Horrible and their legions strode across the land raping and pillaging, it would be hunky-dory with Old Buy. As long as they're Republicans. But, of course, if an adult Democrat has a little sex play with another adult, and the whole pat-and-tickle session is consentual, said Democrat should be publicly flogged, then hanged, drawn, and quartered. I may be naive here, but do I detect a tendency on Old Guy's part to think in slightly partisan terms? Don Firth |
|
16 Oct 06 - 06:20 PM (#1860773) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: SINSULL Very kind of you, Don. I thought he simply didn't think at all. |
|
16 Oct 06 - 08:00 PM (#1860859) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Fox news reports (!): WASHINGTON — FBI agents raided the homes of Pennsylvania Rep. Curt Weldon's daughter and her business partner Monday as part of an investigation into whether the congressman helped them win lobbying and consulting contracts. No federal agents were seen at the congressman's home or Capitol Hill office on Monday. Karen Weldon is being investigated on allegations that she obtained $1 million in lobbying contracts from foreign clients with the help of her father, the 10-term congressman representing the Philadelphia suburbs. "I can confirm that we conducted a number of searches regarding an ongoing investigation," Jerri Williams, an FBI special agent in Philadelphia, told FOX News. "Details regarding those investigation cannot be provided because the accompanying affidavit is sealed." |
|
16 Oct 06 - 08:42 PM (#1860879) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. Amen Sinsull. Continuing to respond to the guy's psychopathology is only enabling him. Maybe this should go on the Amish thread, but there's this quaint custom they have- "shunning"- that comes to mind........... |
|
16 Oct 06 - 10:59 PM (#1860965) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- You bid fair to be the slowest learner it's ever been our privilege to have on Mudcat. Foley did not have to resign. His own party leaders forced him to--or he anticipated this and did it himself. Studds did not have to resign. His own party leaders did not force him to. Are you starting to get a glimmer of understanding? There are also reasons for this. If Foley's own leaders had not forced him to resign, his own supporters would very likely have deserted him in the election in a few weeks. This is not true for Studds. By the way, did you notice in the Studds obituary that when Studds had his (consensual) homosexual relationship with a 17-year old page, the page was of legal age according to Massachusetts state law at the time? I suspect this is no longer the case--but it was then. The main factor here appears to be the horror that a good part of Foley's own base feels towards homosexuality. Consider the huge outcry-- including in such deep dyed Red southern states as Michigan--at the idea of homosexual marriage More late. |
|
16 Oct 06 - 11:33 PM (#1860985) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- One more thing: The most significant fact is obviously that in Studds' case, since the leadership did not force him out, it was up to the voters to decide. I'm so sorry to tell you that that's the way democracy works--it matters remarkably little what you think should have happened. You can cry and moan about the unfairness of it all you want--but the Massachusetts electorate had the right to reject Studds--or not to. They chose not to. Foley could have stuck it out (no pun intended), refused any attempt of his leadership to force him to quit--and taken his chances with his constituents. He chose not to. Too bad for your conspiracy theory. |
|
16 Oct 06 - 11:59 PM (#1860989) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies The visceral nature of the anti-homosexual reaction can be clearly seen in the success the "Bush team" had in appealing to this prejudice in 2004. They had amazing numbers of people come out to rallies to pressure their legislatures into opposing the idea of homosexual marriage. And they were only too happy to vote for somebody--who just happened to be Bush--who they perceived had a similar attitude. And clear-thinking people saw it coming--and tried to prevent the push for homosexual marriage--realizing the reaction it would cause. One of the people who tried to head off his own true believers from pushing for homosexual marriage in 2004 was that well-known reactionary bigot Barney Frank. He realized 2004 was not the right moment--but of course his own idealists pushed on and had their way. And we saw the result. Timing counts. And in the reaction to the Foley affair you can see clearly that not much has changed. |
|
17 Oct 06 - 12:30 AM (#1860997) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy "The most significant fact is obviously that in Studds' case, since the [DEMOCRATIC] leadership did not force him out, it was up to the voters to decide." However Democrats take a different course when Repulblicans are involved. And there is no sexual acts involved with Foley, Just emails and IMs but they are treated wuith more importance that actual sex acts by a Democrat. "If Foley's own leaders had not forced him to resign" Foley resigned voluntarily, unlike the Democrat that engaged in actual sex acts. "But, of course, if an adult Democrat has a little sex play with another adult , and the whole pat-and-tickle session is consentual, said Democrat should be publicly flogged, then hanged, drawn, and quartered." From The Congressional Report On Gerry Studds: Studds went to D.C. in '73. It was learned the same year he was having a sexual relationship with a 17 [the boy was born in the spring of 1956 and the trip occured in August 1973 when the boy was 16] year old page. This "investigation" conducted by the House Ethics Committee (a Democratic controlled House) took TEN years. In '83 Studds was censured but not asked to resign and the Democratic leadership rallied around Studds to get him reelected again, and again and again. Many of them voted against centure. According to DF: if an adult Republican sends inappropriate emails and IMs to another adult, said Republican should be publicly flogged, then hanged, drawn, and quartered. You can continue your supercilious personal attacaks all you want. They are very entertaining and revealing. |
|
17 Oct 06 - 12:35 AM (#1860999) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Barry Finn The folks of Massachusetts kept voting Studds back in & the same goes with Frank. This time around they're gonna dump the republican Governor for a democratic one, watch Heely eat crow. Barry |
|
17 Oct 06 - 12:39 AM (#1861001) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy "I attributed some opinions I forwarded to a newsblog, since that is where they came from. There's a world of difference between saying "This is what this newsblog is saying about things", and saying "These are the facts (which I got from a blog)." Or asserting the blog's facts without any attribution, as though you knew them to be facts. I am sure you can appreciate the difference. I usually post excerpts from blogs to show what the ebb and flow of opinion in the world is doing, not to rely on them as a source of facts. A" Do you post anything from a blog that does not support your hate bush agenda? Nope. You scour the net and cut and paste anything negative you can find, even if it is satire. Like Bobert, you post things that you don't even believe if you think it will make GWB or a Republican look bad. Shame, Shame on you, you old frumoius bander snatch. |
|
17 Oct 06 - 12:52 AM (#1861003) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth Old Guy, as usual, you're misrepresenting what I said. I invite people to re-read what I actually wrote and they'll readily see how far off base you are. But if you feel your points are so weak that you need to misrepresent, then go right ahead. Everyone here is pretty used to that from you. Don Firth |
|
17 Oct 06 - 12:57 AM (#1861007) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy The Redder They Are, The Harder They Fall Republicans More Damaged by Scandals By Paul Farhi Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, October 3, 2006; Page C01 Sex scandals involving politicians are as old as Thomas Jefferson, but the outcome seems to depend on which party you represent. In recent years, for the most part, Democrats have been able to survive their sordid escapades while Republicans have paid with their political lives. The latest example: Mark Foley, a Republican congressman from Florida, who abruptly became an ex-congressman from Florida last week amid revelations that he had sent sexually explicit e-mails to teenage boys who were serving as House pages. Tuesday, Oct. 3, 1 p.m. ET Station Break Washington Post staff writer Paul Farhi takes your questions, comments, rants and reviews on the best and worst pop culture has to offer. Also In Style * The Master Cubist, Cubed * For Neil Simon, Great Reviews * The Latest Chapters On the War * In the Beginning, Such a Happy Couplet * NAMES & FACES * Style Section Who's Blogging? Read what bloggers are saying about this article. * NewsBusters.org | Exposing Liberal Media Bias * The Weblog Gazette Full List of Blogs (70 links) » Most Blogged About Articles On washingtonpost.com | On the web Save & Share Article What's This? Digg del.icio.us Yahoo! Foley's creepy behavior might have done him in even if he'd been the most liberal of Democrats. But that's not assured. With a Republican at the center of the seamy scandal, however, it was almost a slam-dunk that Foley would have to quit. That's how it usually turns out for members of the conservative, traditional-family-values party. Just ask Bob Livingston, Jack Ryan, Bob Packwood, Dan Crane or others in the GOP who've watched their careers go pffft! with salacious disclosures. Or ask Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds, Barney Frank and other Democrats who've withstood embarrassing revelations to govern another day. Consider, for example: · Packwood, from Oregon, resigned his Senate seat in 1995 amid repeated allegations that he had sexually harassed women. A few years earlier, Rep. Jim Bates, a Democrat from the San Diego area, faced similar allegations by two female staffers. Bates refused to resign and won reelection (he eventually lost his seat to Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who ran into his own ethics problems last year, and resigned after being convicted of bribery). · In 1998, Livingston won the Republican Party's blessing to succeed Newt Gingrich as speaker of the House. But Livingston, of Louisiana, never served a day in the job. He was sunk by revelations that he'd had an extramarital affair, a disclosure that carried the additional baggage of hypocrisy since, at the time, Livingston was leading the Republican impeachment of President Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton, of course, ultimately survived impeachment. · Rep. Thomas Evans (R-Del.) was voted out of office in 1982 after he publicly regretted his "association" with a lobbyist named Paula Parkinson, who later posed for Playboy; Evans and two other Republican House members (including one named Dan Quayle) had shared a Florida cottage with Parkinson on a junket. Contrast this to the reaction to allegations of an affair between Sen. Chuck Robb (D-Va.) and Tai Collins, a former Miss Virginia. Robb claimed that Collins had only given him a back rub in a hotel room. Robb won reelection three years later. · The clearest illustration may be in the divergent outcomes of the cases against Crane (R) and Studds (D) in 1983. Both men were censured by the House for having sex with underage congressional pages -- Crane with a 17-year-old girl in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old boy in 1973. Crane, of Illinois, apologized for his actions, while Studds, who declared he was gay, refused. Crane lost his reelection bid the next year; Studds, of Massachusetts, kept winning his seat until he retired in 1996. A double standard? And if so, by whom? "The reality is that Democrats seem to get away with more," says Chuck Todd, editor in chief of the Hotline, a daily political journal. "They can have an affair and bail [themselves] out. There's a lower threshold for Republicans. I guess it's more of a hypocrisy thing," he adds, because such scandals put Republicans at odds with the party's socially conservative image. Todd thinks he knows who's to blame for this: "It's the media, to be honest. What is the standard 'gotcha' story in the media? It's hypocrisy. If we can prove hypocrisy, we have a story. . . . So in a sex scandal, the bar for Republicans is lower." He cites the case of Jack Ryan, the Illinois Republican whose bid for the Senate was derailed in 2004 when his wife, actress Jeri Ryan, alleged in divorce papers that he had taken her to sex clubs and had asked her to engage in sexual activity in front of other patrons. "What's amazing is that his candidacy hit the wall not because he had sex, but because he was thinking about having sex," says Todd. But it's tough to blame the media when it's the electorate that determines who stays and who goes. In Studds's case, he happened to represent a liberal (and apparently quite forgiving) district, while Crane came from a conservative rural district. Ditto with Barney Frank, who was reelected in his liberal Massachusetts district after it was revealed that he hired a male prostitute in 1985 to work in his District apartment, and the young man used the apartment to run a prostitution service. Clinton, meanwhile, was elected president twice, which may have had something to do with his ability to survive the storm over alleged extramarital affairs. "A scandal's a scandal and the media will jump on it, no matter what party," notes Michael Farquhar, author of "A Treasury of Great American Scandals." On the other hand, notes Farquhar, a reporter who is on leave from The Post, "there's probably that extra twinge of delight [in the media] when, say, a gay-bashing Republican gets caught soliciting sex in a men's room, or a pious espouser of family values sleeps with his secretary." There are exceptions, of course. A few Democrats have lost their jobs as a result of scandals. Wayne Hays, a Democrat from Ohio, resigned his House seat in 1976 after the disclosure of his affair with Elizabeth Ray, the curvaceous blonde who "worked" in Hays's office despite no evident secretarial skills. Gary Hart, who famously dared reporters to follow him around to prove he was squeaky clean, blew up as a Democratic presidential candidate in 1984 after reporters found him leaving a Capitol Hill townhouse after spending the night with a woman not his wife. And Gary Condit, a conservative Democrat from Modesto, Calif., lost his seat in 2002 following saturation coverage of his relationship with murdered intern Chandra Levy. It's also true that Wilbur Mills, the powerful Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee in the 1970s, lost his chairmanship after cavorting in the Tidal Basin with Fanne Foxe, "the Argentine Firecracker." What's forgotten, however, is that Mills won reelection after his Tidal Basin romp; he was stripped of his chairmanship only after he appeared on a stage in Boston with Foxe, apparently drunk. House Democrats demanded his resignation, and got it. |
|
17 Oct 06 - 01:01 AM (#1861008) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy "Everyone here is pretty used to that from you" As usual, DF speaks for everybody. Due to a lack of substance, DF needs to bolster his ego by demeaning others. |
|
17 Oct 06 - 02:06 AM (#1861023) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Old Guy: My hatred of George Bush's actions, his hypocrisy and his gross indifference to the values of the Constitution and, IMHO, the values of the American people, is entirely my own, whether others share it or do not. I have made it clear to you over and over again what my reasons are, but these seem to escape your notice. In any case I need no support for my opinions or for my feelings about that simian criminal. I am quite capable of disliking his blundering incompetence and contemptible neglect of human values all on my own. I am sorry you voted for him; I am sorry anyone did. And I think if you gave more of a shit about ground truth, you would be sorry you did as well, and would try to get over it and put it behind you. A |
|
17 Oct 06 - 12:22 PM (#1861331) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Bill D Here's a concise view of the situation |
|
17 Oct 06 - 12:33 PM (#1861340) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth I don't need to demean you, Old Guy. You're doing a fine job of that all by yourself. Don Firth |
|
17 Oct 06 - 02:22 PM (#1861406) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos LOL, Bill! That sums the situation up tragically well!! A |
|
17 Oct 06 - 06:54 PM (#1861676) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,TIA from above "Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:35 PM ...Remember, the Bill Of Right applies to US citizens only. Always has. Let us hope things stay that way." Well, they did not stay that way. As of today, anyone, citizen or not, can be "legally" held indefinitely without being charged, and without being told why. One can also be convicted, even to death, based on hearsay testimony. And testimony obtained through torture is admissible (so the guy getting tortured can finger you, and it's treated as evidence -- got that?). ALL of this applies to anyone that the POTUS determines has "purposely and materially supported" enemies of the USA. Did all of you who supported this government get your dearest wishes? I'll bet anything that ten years ago you would have fought this kind of anti-American (anti-human) crap with your last breath. But now, you've gotten married to certifiable nut-ball despot (and his lockstep Congress), and you would rather pretend that this is all okay, even necessary, rather than admit that you have been heinously fooled and used. God (doesn't) Bless the USA. and who WOULD Jesus waterboard? |
|
17 Oct 06 - 09:37 PM (#1861795) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,Diogenes Back in the '30s there were a lot of people who thought that Hitler was a "certifiable nut-ball," but didn't do much about it. Not saying that Bush is anything like Hitler. Not saying he isn't, either. |
|
17 Oct 06 - 09:59 PM (#1861810) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy As usual, Don Firth pumps his ego up another notch. Red herrings aside, was Foley blowing a meat whistle or not? Did he do anything as bad as Gerry Studds did which the the Democrat House Ethics Committee covered up for 10 years? |
|
17 Oct 06 - 10:25 PM (#1861823) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Define "ground truth" please |
|
17 Oct 06 - 10:30 PM (#1861827) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Amos: Please define Objectivity vs Subjectivity. |
|
17 Oct 06 - 10:34 PM (#1861829) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth I seem to be getting up your nose a bit, Old Guy. Sorry about that. (But not really.) Don Firth |
|
17 Oct 06 - 10:56 PM (#1861845) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy I would like to know if Amos believes in this thing he cut and pasted. If not he is being facetious. I someone said GWB was an atheist but he was hiding it from the American people, he would cut and paste it even though he new it was not true in an effort to whip more anger against George Bush, much the same way that the Muslim extremists try to direct anger about what the Pope said or the Danish cartoons toward the US. Amos is driven to extremes by his anger and hatred. Why? it seems he is very intelligent and a good guy but I think it must be his background of falling for totally illogical extremist causes. His penchant for following weird causes, far out philosophies and abandoning reason. In other words, it the turd floats, Amos gloats. Amos: Please Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos - PM Date: 04 Jan 06 - 01:48 PM The Onion December 28, 2005 | Issue 41•52 Elected President Of Iraq BAGHDAD—In a vast outpouring of gratitude to the man they call "Our Great Savior From The West," the people of Iraq flooded the polls during yesterday's first free elections, voting overwhelmingly for President George W. Bush as their first democratically elected leader. Bush, who spent nearly half a trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money on his campaign, received a concession call from Abu Musaiya at 11:30 EST last night. After the Bush landslide was announced on Al-Jazeera, ecstatic crowds chanted in the streets throughout the recently liberated nation: "Hail George Bush, the president of Iraq!" "May Allah bless him and his children to the seventh generation!" shouted free Iraqi citizen Abdullah al-Hallasid, firing his gun into the air repeatedly and injuring seven U.S. soldiers. "At last, we are free!" Bush, who surged in the polls after all of the other candidates were killed by either coalition forces or insurgents in the final week leading up to the election, characterized his victory as the dawn of democracy in the Middle East, and proof that the system works. See image of Georgie in his new uniform on this page: Bush Elected President Of Iraq. The above information has not been evaluated for any correspondence with the real world. A |
|
17 Oct 06 - 11:16 PM (#1861853) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,TIA Old Guy: Lay off the stupid, miniscule sex shit for a moment. You okay with POTUS being able to revoke your habeus corpus rights and have a "military tribunal" sentence you to death based on some allegation made by an old buddy of yours as he was being tortured in Bulgaria? Now there's a meat stick to suck on. Enjoying? Say "Clinton" if you want more. |
|
17 Oct 06 - 11:46 PM (#1861861) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Alice: "Wow, you are an incredible sicko, too, old guy, to keep rationalizing what Foley did just because you love republicans." A I do not love Republicans. B I have never said what foley did was OK, I abhorr it. C I am merely pointing out that Democrats have done much worse and Democrats covered it up much longer which points out their double standard. "excusing the way Foley acted toward MINORS" A Again I abhor wht Foley did. B The boy that Foley did not have sex with was of legal age, 16 in DC. C The page that Studds actually had sex with was 16. D I am not excusing anything I am merely comparing what Foley did with what Studds did and how the Democrats treated the two situations differently. |
|
18 Oct 06 - 12:09 AM (#1861872) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- So sorry your humor impairment is so serious--sounds life-threatening. Let me break it to you gently--the article about Bush being elected president of Iraq was not meant to be taken seriously. Hope that doesn't shatter your illusions of the Onion as a news source. And somehow, I think Amos knows it--even if you don't. You are nothing if not entertaining. But it's a bit puzzling. We've learned you can't be expected to read what we post. However, it does seem reasonable that you would read what you yourself post. Otherwise why would you post it? Case in point: the Washington Post article on "The Redder They Are": Specifically one sentence in that article---the crux of the whole thing: "It's tough to blame the media when it's the electorate that determines who stays and who goes". Please write on the blackboard 500 times: It's the electorate that determines who stays and who goes. And the leadership of each party tries to guess what the electorate might do--and acts accordingly. Foley's leadership decided he would lose. We'll never know if the leadership was right--but it's the Republican leadership--and Foley himself--who made the decision. NOT THE DEMOCRATS. Is that simple enough for your giant brain to grasp? Studds' leadership decided he might well not lose. And the electorate proved this right. How is your brain with that concept? So sorry Studds had sex and was not punished for it, while Foley did not have sex--and still was punished. But it goes back to what I discussed earlier. This crop of Republicans has a horror of homosexuality. The Democrats in general do not and have not for quite a while. Both Studds' and Foley's trangressions had to do with homosexuality. So Foley, member of the rabidly anti-homosexual party, gets punished. And Studds, member of the party which has a lot more tolerance for homosexuality, does not. It breaks my heart to have to tell you that if you don't like it, your beef, as noted in the article you yourself posted, is with Studds' electorate and Foley's electorate. And nobody else. And somehow it seems a bit unlikely that either will pay any attention to you. |
|
18 Oct 06 - 12:09 AM (#1861873) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Jaysus, Old Guy, I think your sense of humor has really started leaking badly. In future, Sir, please consider any posts I offer from The Onion as proffered in a spirit of irony, humor, or overt sarcasm. "Ground Truth", as you probably know, is a term for what actually happens on the ground -- guts spilling out, legs being blown off, and really perverted messages being sent to pages. As for your request for a definition of subjectivity and objectivity, I refer you to the ordinary Webster's definitions. There's a lot of metaphysics behind those defintiions which I won't bore you with here. A |
|
18 Oct 06 - 12:24 AM (#1861883) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth Always glad to help someone improve their education. objectiveYou're welcome. A reporter was interviewing one of Bush's advisors some time back and was having a hard time getting any answers out of him that made sense. Finally, the advisor, irritated at the reporter's persistence, said, "The problem with you is that you're too fact-oriented. We don't put much store by facts. We create reality." Now that is pretty scary! Don Firth |
|
18 Oct 06 - 12:30 AM (#1861886) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy "It's the electorate that determines who stays and who goes." How does this account for the different reaction of Democrats to the two different situations? And who attempts to persuade the electorate to vote a certain way? "Gerry studs is OK because his sex whith 16 year old male pages is not a big dea. It was not really perverted. We let it go on for 10 years and a lot of us don't even want to centure him, much less demand his resignation so we are saying it is OK to vote for him but don't vote for any Republicans because one of them sent "really perverted" messages being sent to 16 year old male pages. Now that's bad" Does ground truth apply to anal penetration of a sixteen year old boy by the penis of a Democrat? Or only to "really perverted messages being sent to pages" "And Studds, member of the party which has a lot more tolerance for homosexuality" Studds was a mamber of a party that has no tolerance for homosexuality by a Republican. Do you believe that what Foley did was worse that what Studds did. |
|
18 Oct 06 - 12:52 AM (#1861896) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Again Amos, do you believe all the stuff you are cutting and pasting or are you being facetious? If you do not believe it to be true should post a discalimer like: "I Know this is happy horse shit but I am pasting it anyway because it is funny and it makes GWB look bad which is my main goal, because I have no objectivity. Ha Ha." |
|
18 Oct 06 - 12:45 PM (#1862315) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Old Guy: I have no time for perversion regardless of what label it wears. Not for penises penetrating anal passages, and not for shrapnel penetrating the brains and chests of small children. Nor for politically-motivated attacks penetrating the inner structures of the Republic with destructive intent. In other news, Counterpunch offers a telling assessment of the impact of Foley's Folly on things. There are two important differences between the Studds affair and the Foley affair, Old Guy. One is that Studds' folly occurred TWENTY THREE YEARS AGO, for cry-i. Oh, and the other one is that Studds is dead. This won't stop you from beating him with your wet noodles, but I thought I would mention it. Foley, on the other hand, was intimidating pages only last month or so. I would also mention, since you seemed awfully anxious to trot out the "legal age of consent" defense for your man, that Studds' defense was based on the same scurrilous, weaselly justification. I spit. Furthermore, if you want to get weaselly, Studds actions were not illegal under the law, while Foley, representing the state of Florida, could be considered criminal for his lascivious misconduct. A |
|
18 Oct 06 - 01:40 PM (#1862359) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Liberal crybabies have to fall back on the "ancient history" defense as a last resort to weasle out of answering a question. Why do you keep making excuses for what Studds did? Does Ground Truth fade a way after a certain number of years? When the perp dies, does that excuse his actions? What Hitler did was 60 or 70 years ago and he is dead so we can't use that to compare anything with? Amos: Do you believe that what Foley did was worse that what Studds did 23 years ago?. YES ___ NO ___ |
|
18 Oct 06 - 01:53 PM (#1862369) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth "Liberal crybabies have to fall back on the "ancient history" defense as a last resort to weasle out of answering a question." Very good coming from you, Old Guy. Weren't you the one who was excusing Foley's peccadillos by pointing at Thomas Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings? Don Firth |
|
18 Oct 06 - 01:59 PM (#1862375) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Barry Finn Damn if 2 wrongs don't make it right. Barry |
|
18 Oct 06 - 03:14 PM (#1862441) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy "It has been 50 years and there is much to remember. But what still stands out from his time in the camps is a tall white man in shorts with a swagger stick. "When we first arrived we didn't know who he was, but we quickly knew he was in charge," says Espon Makanga. "All the other whites and the black guards waited for him to speak, and when he gave the order that is when it began. After that it never really stopped. I came to hate that man. I can never forgive him." Is this guy full of shit or what? "who was excusing" I abhor what Foley did but it was not as bad as what Studds did 23 years ago which was excused by the Democrats. Crybaby liberals try to brush Studs away by saying it is ancient history and dispaly their double standard mentality. Can they dismiss Alodph Hitler on the same grounds? If something that happened 70 years ago matters then certainly something that happened 23 years ago matters. And of course if a crybaby Lib wants to quote Jefferson in support of their wacko ideas, that is OK but the fact that he was screwing his slaves is to old to be of importance. If one thing someone did matters then everything he did matters. |
|
18 Oct 06 - 03:40 PM (#1862457) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: katlaughing If someone else committed a crime upteen years ago and it was done and over with, dealt with at the time in whatever way deemed correct at the time, would you compare that to a new and different crime of the present day in determining what should be done now? No, a court of law would not accept any such reference. Each crime, of whatever sort, would be judged only by the merits of ITS case, not any others. OG, your arguments are specious - red-herrings. What matters is NOW. The PAST is OVER & DONE WITH. Let it go. Answer Sinsull's question. |
|
18 Oct 06 - 03:50 PM (#1862465) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel WOOO HOOOO Foley's approval rating is 27% , just a hair below the President. I bet his seat will be retained by the Republicans. Here is video of exactly how it will be done in under a minute. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEBMp6uwdc&eurl= |
|
18 Oct 06 - 06:46 PM (#1862695) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth "Crybaby Liberals." Old Guy has found him a slogan. A convenient pigeon-hole for non-thinkers. Don Firth |
|
18 Oct 06 - 09:08 PM (#1862797) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,TIA Do you believe that what Foley did was worse that what Studds did 23 years ago?. YES _X__ NO ___ And you will never (perhaps willfully?) understand why. You keep crowing about hypocrisy. Foley et. al. have sold themselves loudly and repeatedly as the defenders of "family values" and "morals". It now appears that he and they are not. You are apparently incapable of comprehending this dichotomy. Luckily us proud "crybaby liberals" are capable of grasping this point. Now please, in your next post, use "crybaby liberals" at least once -- maybe twice. It's really working. P.S. is it not a "personal attack" of the type you "cry" (oops, that's us) I mean "grouse" about? |
|
19 Oct 06 - 12:25 AM (#1862874) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Put all those crybaby liberals in the pigeon-hole for non-thinkers. Do you believe anal pentration of a 16 year old boy by the penis of a male Democrat is worse than "really perverted messages being sent to a 16 year old boy by a Republican? If so it it because Democrats lack morals that they are allowed this hypocrysy? Do you believe it is OK for Democrats to cover up the anal pentration of a 16 year old boy by the penis of a male Democrat for ten years? |
|
19 Oct 06 - 12:58 AM (#1862882) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos The issue, Old Guy, is not history but what is happening now to our nation, who has been making it happen, and whether or not they should be trusted with the job, here and now. But you keep changing the subject because it makes you uncomfortable,. So you trot out your little slogans and your hypocrisy card, despite the fact that what happened with Stuuds has nothing to do witht he subject, which is the current direction and management of the nation. THAT's the subject. The rest of this is all codwallop and crap in an effort to avoid the subject. Foley proved himself the biggest hypocrite of all, and he has been party to national decision-making. THAT is the point. Wake up. A |
|
19 Oct 06 - 02:57 AM (#1862913) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,redhorse at work Over here in England we generally grow out of calling each other crybabies somewhere around age ten or eleven. Is this different in US? nick |
|
19 Oct 06 - 10:43 AM (#1863219) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel Old Guy's "anal pentration of a 16 year old boy by the penis of a male Democrat for ten years?" reminds me of the gleeful satisfaction the Republicans got from repeating the juicy segments of the Starr Report. Limbaugh even read it aloud with sound effects... all the while saying how awful it is for the kids to hear. Fox "news" even got the personal physician of the President to describe Bill's penis. The description was the lead story that day. Their vicarious thrill was impossible to conceal just like the graphic quote from old guy. Some Repugnantcans are even saying that due to the Foley "incident" Democrats are lopping the heads off of Republicans. hmmm, sounds like a comparison to torturing terrorists to me. The same old "if you disagree with me you are the enemy". You are with me or against me. etc. Own up to your humanity and American citizenship for once, and drop the phoney partisan histrionics. |
|
19 Oct 06 - 11:10 AM (#1863242) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel Diogenenes, Were you looking for me? |
|
19 Oct 06 - 01:05 PM (#1863380) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,Diogenes Well, Donuel, my lantern is working well, but things have been pretty sparse lately. So far, you look okay to me, but I'll be watching. In the meantime, could you learn to spell my name correctly please? See you later. Got to get back to my tub. |
|
19 Oct 06 - 08:05 PM (#1863732) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: DougR "Stay away from Fox News and read the newspapers?" Gee that's great advice Don. Considering that the majority of newspapers promote the philosophy you support, why would someone who does not agree with that philosophy take your advice? Perhaps YOU should broaden YOUR horisons and start watching Fox News for a change. DougR |
|
19 Oct 06 - 10:45 PM (#1863810) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,TIA I watch FOX all the time. Bet I watch FOX more than you listen to Air America. |
|
19 Oct 06 - 10:51 PM (#1863813) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos ETHICS Character Counts President Bush declared this week "National Character Counts Week." Americans are supposed to remember our commitments to "values such as integrity, courage, honesty, and patriotism" that "sustain our democracy, make self-government possible, and help build a more hopeful future." But the nation's lawmakers are the ones most in need of the reminder. Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi writes, "These past six years were more than just the most shameful, corrupt and incompetent period in the history of the American legislative branch. These were the years when the U.S. parliament became a historical punch line...a stable of thieves and perverts who committed crimes rolling out of bed in the morning and did their very best to turn the mighty American empire into a debt-laden, despotic backwater, a Burkina Faso with cable." The current congressional leadership has put its self-interest above the common good and has refused to clean house or pass meaningful ethics reform legislation. "The 109th Congress is so bad that it makes you wonder if democracy is a failed experiment," notes constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley. The American people are getting fed up. The right-wing Congress is now at its lowest approval rating in 14 years. According to recent polls, 97 percent of Americans say that corruption in government will be an important consideration when they vote in November's elections and 85 percent want the government to commit "to the common good and put the public's interest above the privileges of the few." STAIN ON THE WHITE HOUSE: Many members of the Bush administration are far from role models during this Character Counts Week. On Oct. 6, key White House aide Susan Ralston resigned "in the wake of congressional report that listed hundreds of contacts between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the White House." Ralston received her job with Karl Rove on a recommendation from Abramoff. She was lobbied 69 times -- more than any other White House official -- and received tickets from Abramoff to sporting events and concerts. But former White House political director Ken Mehlman may have been the real "go-to" guy for Abramoff. "Everyone would appreciate it if you would contact Ken only and not others here at the WH," read one message to Abramoff from Ralston, "because they just forward it to him anyway." In 2002, Abramoff asked the White House to remove Allen Stayman, a State Department official who had opposed the interests of an Abramoff client in the Northern Mariana Islands. The e-mails reveal that Mehlman agreed to "get him fired." UP TO THE EARS IN EARMARKS: Lawmakers have masterfully figured out how to insert spending proposals known as "earmarks" into federal legislation without public scrutiny. These earmarks often benefit few people except the lawmaker and his or her wealthy donors. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) has earmarked more than $8 million for a project supposed to make Montana a center for space-related research and industry. But in reality, it has "produced few tangible results while spawning several state and federal investigations. It has also earned lobbyists and companies connected to Burns hundreds of thousands of dollars in contracts and lobbying fees as well as more than $80,000 in campaign contributions for Burns and Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT)." Perhaps no lawmaker has come to represent earmark corruption more than former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA), who pled guilty in Nov. 2005, to accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes from government contractors. On Wednesday, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, released a report on Cunningham's corruption, concluding that unfortunately, Cunningham wasn't the only crooked government official; there "was a lot of people to persuade, cajole, deceive, pressure, intimidate, bribe, or otherwise influence to do what they wanted." Another new report this week by the Wall Street Journal found that Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC) has earmarked more than $30 million for nonprofits which he either created or are run by his supporters. A $4.8 million earmark in last year's transportation bill went to "widen parts of U.S. Highway 64, a winding mountain road that runs near tracts of timberland" that one of Taylor's companies owns. To date, there have been 15,832 earmarks in 2006, at a cost to taxpayers of $71.77 billion. ALL IN THE FAMILY: Lawmakers aren't the only ones to benefit from earmarks -- their families do, as well. Lobbying firms have picked up on this nepotism, and according to a new USA Today investigation, these firms "employed 30 family members last year to influence spending bills that their relatives with ties to the House and Senate appropriations committees oversaw or helped write." In 2005 alone, "appropriations bills contained about $750 million for projects championed by lobbyists whose relatives were involved in writing the spending bills." The latest FBI investigation into family corruption revolves around Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), who may have traded his political influence to win lucrative -- nearly $1 million per year -- lobbying contracts for his daughter's firm. Weldon repeatedly lobbied federal officials -- including Karl Rove -- on behalf of Itera, a controversial Russian natural gas company. Itera paid $500,000 to Karen Weldon's firm on Sept. 30, 2002, six days after her father arranged a dinner at the Library of Congress to honor Itera. "It's getting to the point where no one bothers to hide what appear to be raging conflicts of interest," noted Ronald Utt of the conservative Heritage Foundation. THE BLAME GAME: An Oct. 11 Associated Press report found that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) collected $700,000 on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years. Reid had failed to disclose to Congress an earlier transaction "in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company." Reid countered that, although the title to the land had passed to a joint venture, he maintained continual ownership over the property. Nevertheless, Reid immediately apologized for the oversight lapse and amended his 2001 disclosure forms and asked the Senate Ethics Committee to clarify the matter. Other lawmakers took a different approach. Weldon, for example, has blamed Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington Executive Director Melanie Sloan, former National Security Advisor Samuel Berger, and former CIA officer Mary McCarthy for his current ethical troubles. He believes the FBI's investigation is "revenge for his criticisms." Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), who last week pled guilty in the Abramoff investigation, has blamed his legal troubles on the Justice Department, the media, and liberal groups. MEDIA NEGLIGENCE: Because of a single earmark in a 2005 federal highway bill, House Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) net worth went from approximately $300,000 to at least $6.2 million. After acquiring land in 2002, Hastert inserted $207 million into the 2005 highway bill for construction of the Prairie Parkway Corridor, a highway that "had neither the support of the public nor the Illinois Department of Transportation," but was just over a mile from the property owned by Hastert's trust. Once the bill passed, Hastert sold his property at "a profit equal to 500 percent of his original investment," notes Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Scott Lilly and American Enterprise Institute Resident Scholar Norman Ornstein. The Speaker used his official position to profit at the expense of American taxpayers. Media Matters reports that CNN has devoted 50 times as much coverage to Reid's case as to Hastert's. Time magazine has yet to mention the Hastert land scandal, but devoted three paragraphs in an Oct. 13 article to the assertion that Reid has "found himself embroiled in a real estate scandal." TIME TO TAKE OUT THE TRASH: The right-wing Congress refuses to clean house. Despite pleading guilty, Ney is not resigning from Congress immediately, but rather "in the next few weeks." Instead of cooperating with Harman to release the report on Cunningham, House Intelligence Committee chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) condemned the release of the report before the November elections, stating that Harman's actions were "disturbing and beyond the pale." Conservative lawmakers continue to donate heavily to Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA), who is now facing a lawsuit by a woman with whom he had a five-year affair. She alleges that he repeatedly beat her and "seriously injured her physically and emotionally." Weak lobbying bills passed by the House and the Senate earlier in the year have stalled and lawmakers have yet to set up a committee to reconcile differences between the two bills. Excerpted from the ThinkProgress.org. newsletter... A |
|
20 Oct 06 - 01:06 AM (#1863891) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy New Sexually Transmitted Disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of Sexually Transmitted Disease. The disease is contracted through dangerous and high-risk behavior. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim and pronounced "gonna re-elect him." Many victims contracted it in 2004, after having been screwed for the past four years. Cognitive characteristics of individuals infected include: anti-social personality disorders, delusions of grandeur with messianic overtones, extreme cognitive dissonance, inability to incorporate new information, pronounced xenophobia and paranoia, inability to accept responsibility for own actions, cowardice masked by misplaced bravado, uncontrolled facial smirking, ignorance of geography and history, tendencies towards evangelical theocracy, categorical all-or-nothing behavior. Naturalists and epidemiologists are amazed at how this destructive disease originated only a few years ago from a bush found in Texas. |
|
20 Oct 06 - 06:16 AM (#1864003) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Tell me that's an original by you, Old. Excellent work, whoever did it. It actually bears strong Onion-like characteristics. But beware, Old, it may not in fact be the most objective reporting ever to grace Mudcat. Certainly hope it meets with your approval--and you take it in the spirit it was meant--and don't need instruction as to the intent of the author. |
|
20 Oct 06 - 10:34 AM (#1864249) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. "Considering that the majority of newspapers promote the philosophy you support..." Even were we to assume that Douggie has a working knowledge about the content and editorial position of "the majority of newspapers" ( in the U.S...? in the world...?) we would be forced to conclude that his reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking. fatuous adj: complacently or inanely foolish: SILLY syn see SIMPLE fatuity n 1.a: something foolish or stupid. b. STUPIDITY, FOOLISHNESS 2. archaic : IMBECILITY, DEMENTIA Source: Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary |
|
20 Oct 06 - 10:58 AM (#1864277) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel I have mentioned my neighbor who is an Evangelical "jew" and who espouses a war against tolerence and homosexuals. He is now like the cat who ate the canary and is delighted to be "proved correct" in his gospel of hate because of the Foley scandel. |
|
20 Oct 06 - 11:15 AM (#1864302) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel Amos, Ronald Reagan vetoed a transportation bill that had had 150 ear marks for pork barrel spending. This year's transportation bill has over 6,000 ear marks and is expected to be signed by Bush. |
|
20 Oct 06 - 11:59 AM (#1864328) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Iraq's Prime Minister had ordered the country's health ministry to "stop providing mortality figures to the United Nations, jeopardizing a key source of information on the number of civilian war dead in Iraq." President Bush recess-appointed former coal industry executive Richard Stickler to head the Mine Safety and Health Administration. The Senate had twice refused to confirm him "because of his troubling mine safety record -- the mines he managed from 1989 to 1996 incurred injury rates double the national average." "Moving quickly to implement" the new Military Commissions Act, the Bush administration "has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba." In 1995, just three days into her tenure as Secretary of the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department, Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) removed a routine working file alleging that her husband had engaged in inappropriate contact with a minor. The file, uncovered only recently, reports that Wilson's husband touched a then-16 year old boy "in a manner that was not welcome." Wilson sat on the Congressional Page Board and currently serves on the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's caucus. The Government Accountability Office yesterday released a report stating that government-funded abstinence education materials must also contain "medically accurate information on condom effectiveness." In the past, the Bush administration has insisted that its materials did not need to discuss condoms. The Bush administration took "another step yesterday toward building a new stockpile of up to 2,200 deployed nuclear weapons that would last well into the 21st century." The administration announced it will begin the process of repairing and replacing nuclear production facilities as part of an attempt to replace the aging Cold War stockpile of nuclear warheads with a smaller, more reliable arsenal. In the middle of "National Character Counts Week," President Bush yesterday went to Pennsylvania to campaign for Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA), who is being sued for repeatedly beating a woman with whom he had an affair. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank notes that "Bush was careful to avoid the usual lines about family and conservative values." |
|
20 Oct 06 - 03:03 PM (#1864472) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy From: Amos - PM Date: 15 Oct 06 - 01:53 PM OG: You posted about Kennedy,m whose peccadilloes were buried forty years ago. Then you posted about Jefferson, who peccadillos took place two hundred years ago and more. Then you accused "cry-baby" liberals of bringing up ancient history. Doesn't this strike you as a bit desperate, or perhaps hypocritical, or inconsistent? Ancient history From: Amos - PM Date: 21 Jun 06 - 12:18 AM Nor did Lincoln act under the amorphous cover of a "war on terror" - a war against a tactic, not a specific nation or political entity, which could last as long as any president deems the tactic a threat to national security. Lincoln's exceptional measures were intended to survive only as long as the Confederacy was in rebellion. Bush's could be extended indefinitely, as the president sees fit, permanently endangering rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizenry. From: Amos - PM Date: 19 Oct 06 - 12:58 AM The issue, Old Guy, is not history but what is happening now to our nation, who has been making it happen, and whether or not they should be trusted with the job, here and now. |
|
20 Oct 06 - 03:26 PM (#1864487) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Odd Guy: Sometimes I think I am teaching you to chew soft bread. Look: pointing out a DIFFERENCE between ONE tactic and another is very different than using Person B's long-past sins to lessen or divert attention away from Person A's current sins. These are two entirely different uses of lanaguage. You keep mashing things that are different together and calling them the same, but only when it suits your biases. It would help, also, if you state explicitly what you mean when you post mish-mash such as the above clump of posts. It takes a little more courage to say "I see xxxx". But you're big enough to do it and it would make the conversation clearer than putting these things together as though it had some meaning and leaving it all hanging with implications unspoken. A |
|
20 Oct 06 - 05:29 PM (#1864611) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. And if wishes were horses..... |
|
20 Oct 06 - 11:21 PM (#1864827) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Amos: Your examples of ancient history are just that ancient history. What you are attempting to do is cherrypick historical facts to prove your point and trying to ingnore facts that disprove your point. Your double standard. Greg Jong-il can't do either. He just sits on the sidelines, picks his nose and flings it at people. |
|
20 Oct 06 - 11:26 PM (#1864831) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy And another thing Amos: if is wrong "use Person B's long-past sins to lessen or divert attention away from Person A's" Why did you post that big long list of republican peckerdildos to divert attention away from Gerry Studs? It is you that is desperate, or perhaps hypocritical, or inconsistent. |
|
20 Oct 06 - 11:28 PM (#1864833) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- You're getting boring--and still not answering the question as to how you think the Republican leadership should have handled the Foley affair--which, you might possibly notice, if you're finished name-calling, -is the topic of this thread. |
|
20 Oct 06 - 11:47 PM (#1864840) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Amos: Is this irrevelant ancient history or is it what is happening to our nation now? "Ronald Reagan vetoed a transportation bill that had had 150 ear marks for pork barrel spending." |
|
21 Oct 06 - 12:12 AM (#1864851) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: TIA Read carefully OG. The point is EXACTLY that it is what is happening to our nation now. You are way smarter than you post. I have become convinced it is willful ignorance that you use to support a cause that you can't truly believe, but now that you are wedded to it, it is easier on your ego to use twisty logic to defend than to simply admit that you were wrong. LH has commented numerous times in many threads on thsi phenomenon as it relates to many people and topics, but you are providing a wonderful current example. |
|
21 Oct 06 - 12:18 AM (#1864855) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy I don't know Republican leadership should have handled the Foley affair |
|
21 Oct 06 - 04:28 AM (#1864900) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Well, they shoulda. A |
|
21 Oct 06 - 09:32 AM (#1865019) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. Greg Jong-il can't do either. He just sits on the sidelines, picks his nose and flings it at people. Yet another witty riposte from the colossal intellect that mewls on about "ad hominem attacks". |
|
21 Oct 06 - 02:29 PM (#1865183) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy I do know how the Republican leadership should have handled it. If they knew about the "really perverted" messages, they should have confronted Foley with it and he probably would have resigned. |
|
21 Oct 06 - 02:34 PM (#1865188) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy In the case of Greg Jong-il it is an ad homo erectus atack |
|
21 Oct 06 - 02:38 PM (#1865193) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Here ya go, Old Guy A |
|
21 Oct 06 - 02:39 PM (#1865195) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth And this is why I'm no longer posting on this thread. I find it a waste of time trying to talk to dead peaple. Don Firth |
|
21 Oct 06 - 02:51 PM (#1865205) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. Didn't realize Fat Old Woody was one of an extinct species of the genus Homo that last walked the earth about half a million years ago. I'm willing to take his word for it. Or perhaps he's just an atavism. |
|
21 Oct 06 - 09:29 PM (#1865378) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy What? |
|
21 Oct 06 - 10:23 PM (#1865395) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: pdq Yep, lowest common denominator. Works every time. |
|
21 Oct 06 - 10:23 PM (#1865396) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel This scandal is in a day by day free fall and no longer subject to traditional political crises spin mode and denial. Day 1 ABC reporter reveals that friendly emails to Congressional pages were made by Congressman Foley. Day 2 Hastert is questioned and says that he could not recall the incident but his staff was made aware of the situation and told Mark Foley to stop emailing the young man. Day 3 Hastert is questioned and says that he could not recall the incident but his staff was made aware of the situation and told Mark Foley to stop emailing Overly Friendly emails to the young man. Day 4 Text messages are released of a more graphic nature. Hastert is questioned and says that he is shocked and outraged and can recall even less of events over a year ago. Foley resigns. Day 5 Foley checks into rehab for alcoholism. Day 6 Foley says he was raped by Catholic Priests Day7 Foley says he was anally probed by aliens Day 8 RNC spokesman says the alien drunk priests were Democrats. Day 9 The Democratic Congressman Stubbs affair from 11 years ago is revisited and revised so that the consenting adult that he had sex with was in fact a minor at 19 years of age. Day 10 Foley is visited by Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and is gloriously born again in the sauna facility at an undisclosed rehab. Day 11 Republican house reveals that all the pages involved with the Foley affair were coerced by Democrats who encouraged them to email Foley. Day 12 John Walsh is arrested for attempted assassination of Mark Foley with a 12 inch dildo. Day 13 Secret diplomatic channels tells North Korea that now would be a good time to test a nuke. Diversion fails. Day 14 Foley's lawyer has a press conference to announce that he announce at a later date the name of the overly friendly priest. Day 15 Foley says he is feeling much better now and has photo op with President of MBLA. (man boy love association) Day 16 Overly friendly priest says Foley initiated a naked massage in the church rectory sauna. - Election Day. . Diebold allows one Senate seat and 4 Congressional seats to be won by the Democrats. |
|
21 Oct 06 - 10:51 PM (#1865404) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy So Amos is now condoning Ancient History? Hooray! |
|
21 Oct 06 - 11:59 PM (#1865423) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Don't be such an ass, OG. What are you talking about? A |
|
22 Oct 06 - 12:58 AM (#1865440) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy I assume ancient history is admissable now because Amos directs me to this site: We have been here when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as "Hyphenated Americans," most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war. American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said about America. And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9066 was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that order to imprison and pauperize 110,000 Americans while his man in charge, General DeWitt, told Congress: "It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen—he is still a Japanese." |
|
22 Oct 06 - 12:25 PM (#1865709) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- So the question seems to boil down to what is "really perverted". Is anything that could be interpreted as homosexual interest in a page "really perverted"? For instance, when Foley asked what the page was wearing, is that enough to qualify? I certainly haven't made a comprehensive list of what was said--that's the only one I can recall. |
|
22 Oct 06 - 01:59 PM (#1865764) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Alice The transcript of Foley's email message to one minor came with this warning to news readers WARNING DISCRETION ADVISED. In it he asks, "how's my favorite young stud doing" among other things. His blatant hypocrisy is shown in an NPR interview still in the online NPR archives. The date was April 17, 2002. Rep. FOLEY: Well, I think what we've done here is allowed people to get away, if you will, whether it's virtual reality or live children, exploiting them for sexual gratification. Transcript |
|
22 Oct 06 - 02:11 PM (#1865770) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy My point is that actual sex acts between an adult male and 16 year old boy are more significant than an adult male sending sexually emails to a 16 year boy. |
|
22 Oct 06 - 02:25 PM (#1865778) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Big Mick Old Guy, why is it that conservatives always want to mitigate guilt when it is one of theirs? Are you suggesting that somehow it is OK for a Congressman to send suggestive emails to pages? If it was your Grandson, would that be OK? |
|
22 Oct 06 - 06:38 PM (#1865968) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. So the question seems to boil down to what is "really perverted". And the answer seems to boil down to Fat Old Woody's "logic". |
|
22 Oct 06 - 06:48 PM (#1865978) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos And OG's concept of reason. Antecedents that demonstrate a recurring principle or pattern are DIFFERENT, Old Guy, than the statement that crime A should be forgive because someone else thirty years earlier did something worse. Yet that is the implication of your posts. No-one has said to you that the past should be iognored. In fact if Bush knew half the history he ought to he would have recognized the risks of invading a highly polarized and tribalized society. But he never thought the thought through, and neithrer did his headsman Rumsfeld, and probably neither did you. Invading Iraq was not justified by WMD, nor by any real and present danger EXCEPT TO OPEC. Anyway, your irrational use of rhetoric is really, really, tiresome. A |
|
22 Oct 06 - 07:23 PM (#1866007) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies My understanding is that Studds' relationship was consensual--and that at the time 17 was the age of consent in Massachusetts. Foley's relationships were not consensual. Consent counts for a lot. |
|
23 Oct 06 - 12:43 AM (#1866205) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy "at the time 17 was the age of consent in Massachusetts" The page was 16 so was it legal or was it a crime? That is if you can answer that question without too much trouble. Thank you. So please explain what Crime A was Amos. Again there is a double standard when Democrats who have covered up a real sex scandal by one of theirs for 10 years start pointing the finger and making demands when a Republican sends "really perverted" emails. What is hypocrisy? are you saying hypocrisy does not matter? Are you reasoning away hypocrisy and double standards? "Old Guy, why is it that conservatives always want to mitigate guilt when it is one of theirs?" Democrats simply deny the guilt so there is nothing to mitigate. |
|
23 Oct 06 - 10:12 AM (#1866465) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos An excerpt from the hUFFINGTON pOST WEBSITE: Gingrich gloried in his rhetoric about "the revolution." He had little use for the experience of the older and wiser song-and-dance man. Instead Gingrich, a failed professor, described himself as a world-historical figure, leader of a universal transformation. It was befitting that one of his closest advisers, the lobbyist Grover Norquist, co-author of Gingrich's political program, the Contract with America, hung a picture of Lenin on his wall. Gingrich was a self-styled Republican Lenin "determined to annihilate his enemies and extirpate the 'counterculture,' as I write in my column in Salon and The Guardian. This Republican Lenin was followed by the Republican Stalin, "the ruthless consolidator and centralizer," Tom DeLay, the Sugar Land, Texas exterminator. After Gingrich's demise, DeLay put into place his puppet as Speaker, Dennis Hastert, the former small-town Illinois wrestling coach. When DeLay was indicted for corrupt campaign practices and resigned, the "revolution" was left in Hastert's ham-fisted hands. Just as he had tried to cover-up DeLay's ethical transgressions, he and his aides were implicated in the cover-up of Rep. Mark Foley's sexual preying on teenaged pages. Hastert, the bewildered party boss, "transmuted from omnipotent Leonid Brezhnev into ghostly Konstantin Chernenko, presiding over the final decrepit stage." If only the Republicans had taken Sonny Bono's advice, gleaned from Hollywood, they might not resemble the Soviet Union today. So, OG, let me seeif I understand your underhanded rhetoric. In your opinion, using interstate communication lines to solicit sexual favors from a 17-year-old boy WHite House page, is not an abuse of power, a violation of trust, not a moral crime, and should be defended? Although he may be technically under the radar because the boy was over 16, I don't think in this case that justice is served by ignoring these things. Do you? Tell me, Old Guy, "why do you hate America?", to borrow a rhetorical device from your party. Is FOley, in your opinion, upholding his trust as a representative of the people who voted for him? Ya think? Or is betrayal of a trust, in your book, a defensible and reasonable act? A |
|
23 Oct 06 - 10:55 PM (#1866913) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Amos: I am just asking you to clarify your statement: "that crime A should be forgive because someone else thirty years earlier did something worse" By explaining what crime A was. Do you know he meaning of case law? Does ground truth and your theory about how only what is happening right now (ala Flip Wilson) superceed case law? |
|
23 Oct 06 - 11:48 PM (#1866936) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Old-- It turns out, the governing factor is the age of consent in DC--which is indeed 16. 17 in Massachusetts. The relationship continued after the other party was no longer a page. And as I said, Studds' relationship was consensual--Foley's were not. |
|
24 Oct 06 - 12:19 AM (#1866945) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Describe these Foley "relationships" in greater detail. Please. If it does not cause undue stress on your part. |
|
24 Oct 06 - 08:32 AM (#1867117) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. Guess Fat Old Woody's seeking some titilation here, eh? |
|
24 Oct 06 - 09:07 AM (#1867145) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,Old Fat Woody Dear Leader Greg Jong-il, Modern day Homo Erectus? |
|
24 Oct 06 - 09:25 AM (#1867178) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel If its actual Foley/page sex that Old Guy wants, he's got it. One page has admitted to actual sex witht he geezer. |
|
24 Oct 06 - 09:29 AM (#1867186) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Consensual or not? |
|
24 Oct 06 - 09:35 AM (#1867195) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Tweed Yaz, Foley has brought great shame to all Floridians. Even the homely manatee has opted to sacrifice itself on the barbecues of Memphis rather than to live in this disgraceful state! CNN.com |
|
24 Oct 06 - 09:40 AM (#1867202) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos OG: I can't decide if you keep twisting my words out of meanness or out of sheer stupidity. Whichever it is I wish you would show enough respect to argue with what I actually say, not some badly altered version. What I said, over and over, is that crimes of the past by others do not lessen the importance, and have little or now bearin fact upon the crime Mister Foley committed. That crime is soliciting sex from a minor. ANd using interstate communication lines to do so. There are reasons to know and remember the past, to be sure. One is to avoid the errors of the past, and to learn the lessons of history. You and George have pretty well struck out on that one. But justifying present crimes is the opposite -- it is one thing you should NOT use the past for, because it doesn't work. You have tried to lessen Mister Foley's offeses by citing other people who did similar things in the past, and that makes no sense, and does not address the merits. A |
|
24 Oct 06 - 05:55 PM (#1867622) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,TIA "...argue with what I actually say, not some badly altered version..." Fat chance of that. Those who listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. have learned to kick the shit out of straw men. |
|
25 Oct 06 - 01:55 AM (#1867901) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Amos: Your "reasons to know and remember the past" are when it suits to prove your point. Anything that disproves your point is ancient history. You haven't explained what case law is. Do you know? You keep yammering about how what GWB is doing illegal so let's treat it like a legal matter being tried in court. What do the prosecutor and the defense do to reinforce their arguments about the guilt or innocence of the defendant? |
|
25 Oct 06 - 08:48 AM (#1868109) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. I can't decide if you keep twisting my words out of meanness or out of sheer stupidity. False dichotomy. Why can't it be both? |
|
25 Oct 06 - 09:26 AM (#1868158) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Old Guy: If you can't be truthful in a simple declarative sentence, I don't see much merit in getting into case law with you. A |
|
25 Oct 06 - 09:43 AM (#1868193) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Amos: It is clear that explaining case law disproves your "Ancient History" argument so you have to avoid answering it. A typical tactic of Crybaby Liberals when they are cornered. |
|
25 Oct 06 - 09:49 AM (#1868205) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos OG: If you examined my ancient history argument as I wrote it, you peckerheaded simplewit, you would see it has nothing to do with case law. What I said was someone else's past offenses do not lessen or justify a present offense by Mark Foley. That's an ethical judgement on my part. The law, sir, is a ass, and first cousin to folks like you who tie knots in the language to dodge straight examination of the issues. A |
|
25 Oct 06 - 10:34 AM (#1868258) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy So you refuse to explain what case law is? If it has no bearing on your argument, surely it will not hurt to explain it. Furthermore, you have skipped over explaining what crime A was. |
|
25 Oct 06 - 10:41 AM (#1868271) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy TIA: "Those who listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc." Would I be correct in assuming that based on your idealogy, you listen to Jerry Springer, Maury Povich and Oprah Winfrey? |
|
25 Oct 06 - 11:11 AM (#1868303) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos "The Washington Post said it had identified four more former pages who said they were sexually solicited by Foley, who has resigned since the scandal broke last month. One former page, who was not identified, told Reuters that Foley sent him e-mails when he was 16 asking about "my roommates, if I ever saw them naked." Later, the former page said Foley hinted about a job opportunity "because I was a hot boy," the newspaper quoted him as saying. Two years later, the page, now 22, said, he wrote Foley to ask about hotels in Washington. "You could always stay at my place. I'm always here, I'm always lonely, and I'm always up for oral sex," he quoted the disgraced former member of Congress as saying, reports Reuters." Here's some case law for you: "In 1964, Congress passed Title VII, which banned workplace gender discrimination for employers with 15 or more employees. Twenty years ago, in its landmark case, Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment, which includes unwelcome sexual advances and sexualized banter of the type featured in Foley's e-mails, constitutes unlawful sex discrimination. Congress chose not to hold itself accountable under this law until 1995, when it passed the Congressional Accountability Act. You would not know it by their responses to reports made to them about Foley's blatantly improper conduct vis-a-vis the Congressional pages -- which included a late night drunken attempt to enter their dorm -- but this law imposes the same legal obligations on members of Congress and their staff as it does on other employers. In two 1998 landmark cases, Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, the Supreme Court held that an employer must exercise "reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior" in order to avoid liability for a sexually hostile work environment. A chat with the accused, accepting his patently implausible explanation and telling him not to do it again, does not meet that standard. Nor does failing to act out of deference to an employee's parents' wishes absolve Republican leaders from legal responsibility here." (From this article) |
|
25 Oct 06 - 11:23 AM (#1868315) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos BEsides -- this whole question of case law is one of those hollow strawman. You brought it up, and demanded that I explain it, which has nothing to do with me, and now you are wreaking yourself into a froth over whether I am doing so or not, and raising charges of refusal, when the whole concept was interjected by you in the first place to slide the subject somewhere where you could be more comfortable. Here's the deal, Old Guy: I will always defend your right to drag out red herrings, even though yours always seem to stink and glimmer like dead mackerels in moonlight. But that by no means obliges me to play catch with you using them. They are entirely your self-involved weavings of irrelevancy, and the burden is on you entirely to say what, if anything, you mean, or don't, when you haul them out of your black trash bag of a mind for public discourse. A |
|
25 Oct 06 - 09:03 PM (#1868737) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,TIA You don't know my ideology. But yes, I do listen to all of the above, plus a lot, lot more. And I read too. Bet I've read more Coulter than you've read Franken. Oh wait, you *do* know my ideology. I'm a crybaby liberal. Yes, and it's all Clinton's fault. |
|
25 Oct 06 - 11:09 PM (#1868811) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Donuel The 'cry baby' label seemed to emerge from jublilant conservatives in response to the Democratic outrage over the corrupt Florida presidential elections of 2000. What I heard was a cry for justice that went unheeded by the Supreme Court. I usually think of the person who uses the term cry baby as someone who is gloating over a success by demeaning the unsuccesful. Dismiss it as psycho babble but in a literal sense, when a baby cries it usually means it needs something. However, in a strictly rhetorical way, using the term cry baby in a derisive manner is a perpetuation of a culture of child abuse and neglect. Even Rush Limbaugh is now calling a victim of Parkinsons disease a cry baby and faking it for the cameras. Rush even went further by mimicing the spasams of Micheal Fox. So go ahead Old Guy, invoke the words cry baby. Whether one is calling Cindy Shehan a cry baby, or innocent people who were disenfranchised by criminals, the recipient of the name calling "Cry Baby" will always have a visceral, almost primal reaction that motivates more than it hurts. A Jungarian would understand the response to "cry baby" is akin to 'kill the bully'. The bully is an archtype we all unite against with a vengence and perseverence that clogs every leading news story around the world. And when it leads, it bleeds. Psycho neuro linguistics aside, I'm sure Old Guy's mother used to say "son, you will catch more flies with honey than vinegar". Or maybe she called him a cry baby ;) |
|
25 Oct 06 - 11:35 PM (#1868821) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy If you say you are a Crybaby Liberal, I believe you. I havn't read one word from Al Franken or Ann Coulter or watched more than a minute of Oprah, Springer or Povitch. The first minute made me want to puke. I am pretty much fed up with Hannity and Rush. If I hear that asshole say drive by media one more time I will puke. The sumbitch is like a broken record. I like to watch factual stuff like the History Channel Science Channel, Discovery, CSpan etc. And Cindy Sheehan is not a crybaby, she is a communist whore that feeds the crybabys what they want to hear. Even her husband dumped her. "A Jungarian would understand the response to "cry baby" is akin to 'kill the bully'." Crybabys cannot accept the world the way it is and live accordingly. The have to blame everything they don't like on some big mean Bully. When that bully is killed, they focus on anither bully and cry about that one. The victim mentality. The gless half empty type. My glass is half empty. I want a full one. That big meany is keeping me from having a full glass. The government should fill up my glasss. Boo Hoo. As opposed to: My glass is half full. There are a lot of people without even a glass. Boy am I lucky. I bet if I worked hard enough I could have more than half a glass. |
|
26 Oct 06 - 12:00 AM (#1868835) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Amos: Are you saying then that courts look at the outcome of similar situations and occurences in the past to judge present situations and circumstances? If so you are contradicting your argument that: "The issue, Old Guy, is not history but what is happening now to our nation, who has been making it happen, and whether or not they should be trusted with the job, here and now." And you still have not described what crime A was. If you don't believe in the law ("The law, sir, is a ass")then why are you talking about the Constitution, Bill of Rights and using the word Illegal? Here is an example of something posted by you that contradicts what you have stated in this thread. Why are you refering to something in the past if "history is not the issue"? : "Bush's alarmingly aberrant take on the Constitution is ironic. One need go back in the record less than a decade to find prominent Republicans railing against far more minor presidential legal infractions as precursors to all-out totalitarianism. "I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the president," Sen. Bill Frist declared of Bill Clinton's efforts to conceal an illicit sexual liaison. "No man is above the law, and no man is below the law - that's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country," Rep. Tom DeLay asserted. "The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door," warned Rep. Henry Hyde, one of Clinton's chief accusers. In the face of Bush's more definitive dismissal of federal law, the silence from these quarters is deafening." |
|
26 Oct 06 - 12:32 AM (#1868850) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Well, I think the contradiction in positions I described is interesting. And you think we should not rail about pedophiles in the Senate because we weren't hard enough on one thrity years ago. OK, fine. I concede that thirty years ago, I was not hard enough on Stubbs. I am gonna make up for that by being really hard on Frist, Foley, and all the two-timing snakes in the grass I can find now. I am flattered you work so hard to find me off base, OG. So far, though, I seem pretty consistent to me. I did not say I don't believe in the law. But I do not believe that the law always embodies the truth about the ethics of a situation, because I have seen too many sleazy lawyers twist the law to their advantage, on both ends of the spectrum. Your arguing that Foley was under the letter of the law because a boy was sixteen is a dodge, in my opinion, that does nothing at all to lessen the immorality of his actions and the hypocrisy of his stance. A |
|
26 Oct 06 - 10:59 AM (#1869130) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy I said and still say that what Foley did was disgusting. We should take action against Pedophiles in the sente and anywhere. The GP in prisons do a fine job. What I am saying is the Democrats are acting in a pious manner, considering their history of actions on similar situations, and demanding things of Republicans that they would not demand of themselves. And I am not saying Foley was under the letter of the law. It seems more of an issue of morality. Even if he did have sex with a 16 year old boy, it is no different from Stubbs having sex with a 16 year old boy unless it was nor consentual. The only consistancy I see is that you go back into history to find something that proves your point but if someone tries to do the same to disprove your point, you cry foul, that is history it does not matter. That is you own double standard. |
|
26 Oct 06 - 02:50 PM (#1869308) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. Rush even went further by mimicing the spasams of Micheal Fox. Whatta Guy! Cripple Jokes, too! Gotta love them Kompassionate Konservitives of Amerika. |
|
26 Oct 06 - 03:26 PM (#1869335) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ebbie "And Cindy Sheehan is not a crybaby, she is a communist whore that feeds the crybabys what they want to hear. Even her husband dumped her." Old Guy For shame. |
|
26 Oct 06 - 03:32 PM (#1869341) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth After reading Old Guy's post at 25 Oct 06 - 11:35 PM, I have one question to ask: Why are obviously intelligent people wasting their time arguing with this bozo? Don Firth |
|
26 Oct 06 - 03:49 PM (#1869352) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos OG, You are mistaken. I have mad epoints related tot he past that are VERY different from those of yours I rebutted because they were not relevant to the present issue. The difference is between lessons and justifications. Your arguments using Stubbs as a case in point are simply without bearing on the present scene. I have already conceded your point that Stubbs was not treated as harshly as he should have been. Your remarks on Cindy Sheehan, who is in fact no whore but a brave and patriotic woman, and the mother of a soldier fallen for the Fatherland, are close to unforgivable. A |
|
26 Oct 06 - 05:47 PM (#1869433) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,TIA Don, You are right of course. This dickhead has said the same ridiculous offensive things over and over again. Nothing to be learned or gained from interacting with him. |
|
26 Oct 06 - 05:48 PM (#1869436) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: frogprince O.G., are you trying for the Martin Gibson award for outstanding contribution to the morale of the community? |
|
27 Oct 06 - 01:06 AM (#1869694) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST Why would a brave and patriotic woman support Hugo Chavez and Harry Bellafonte? Why would her husband, father of a fallen hero, divorce her? |
|
27 Oct 06 - 02:15 AM (#1869703) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST http://tarpley.net/bush21.htm |
|
27 Oct 06 - 03:45 PM (#1870224) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. Why are obviously intelligent people wasting their time arguing with this bozo? That was my question months ago, but people just keep enabling this asshole. |
|
27 Oct 06 - 03:49 PM (#1870226) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Maybe her husband is an asshole? I think there is a precedent for this.... A |
|
27 Oct 06 - 06:04 PM (#1870320) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST From above: Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds had sex with a subordinate, won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate as a Youth counselor. He received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud, lies to the Federal Election Commission and convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. He also was convicted of having sex with an underage campaign volunteer. Jesse Jackson put him on the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition payroll as a youth counseler and Bill Clinton pardoned him at the urging of Jesse Jackson. Is this true? |
|
27 Oct 06 - 06:38 PM (#1870343) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Don Firth Where did you hear this? Source, please. Don Firth |
|
27 Oct 06 - 08:13 PM (#1870400) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Snopes says it is essentially true here. A |
|
27 Oct 06 - 09:53 PM (#1870452) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST Source? It came from the discussion above. You folks don't even know what you're arguing about? Then the media has done its job in distracting you. |
|
27 Oct 06 - 10:17 PM (#1870462) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies Look, Ghost. Get a name or a handle--otherwise your contributions are worse than useless. And I hope we all will treat them as such. I certainly will. |
|
29 Oct 06 - 01:48 AM (#1871134) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy "Maybe her husband is an asshole? I think there is a precedent for this...." Maybe Cindy Sheehan is an asshole. Her husband went through the same thing she did but I don't see him kissing Chavez's ass. |
|
29 Oct 06 - 02:10 PM (#1871518) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,ron edwards in todays NY papers there was a quote from rep Boehner and he said the following " If I had known abouy Foleys sexual e mails to a page, I would have canned him "! sounds like that would be right up his alley! |
|
29 Oct 06 - 02:58 PM (#1871557) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos "Maybe her husband is an asshole? I think there is a precedent for this...." Maybe Cindy Sheehan is an asshole. Her husband went through the same thing she did but I don't see him kissing Chavez's ass. I didn't see either of them kissing anyone's ass. What Cindy Sheehan did took more moral courage than what her husband did. But ya know, each person has to step up to the plate and chopose their course of action according to their best ability to see what right action would be. In my opinion trying to end a war that accomplishes no goals except mayhem is not a bad thing to do. A |
|
29 Oct 06 - 09:29 PM (#1871793) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Amos: Not a kiss? Chavez wants to start a war with the US under the guise of self defence. So supporting him is courageous? Why don't you be courageous and support him to? Sheehan: "if I truly was a media whore, don't you think I'd get myself fixed up a little before I went on?" Here she is getting fixed up FAMILY OF FALLEN SOLDIER PLEADS: PLEASE STOP, CINDY! Thu Aug 11 2005 12:56:21 ET The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president's Crawford, Texas ranch. The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey's aunt and godmother: Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish. Thanks, Cherie In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement: The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect. Sincerely, Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins. |
|
29 Oct 06 - 09:40 PM (#1871802) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Amos Well, OG, you spin your way, and I'll spin mine. That Chavez kissed HER cheek, when they met, is a LONG way from her kissing his ass, as any first year anatomy student, or student of manners in different cultures, knows. But you had to go turn it into a slant, huh? Twist, twist, twist. That strikes me as hateful. So, lemme see if I read correctly the attitude behind your twists. 1. You feel the Sheehan son died in a just cause, a war that we began with just provocation and just cause? And that cause was.... 2. You feel that even though the given cause, WMD, was hollow and false, that the continuation of the war in Iraq was justified because the locals fired back, clearly an act of hostility? 3. You trust President Appointee Bush's judgement in matters of international diplomacy and decisions about waging war, because he has proven himself at it by doing such a competent job? (I would have thought he had demonstrated his skill at staying out of war, but maybe that was just him personally). Pfui. A |
|
29 Oct 06 - 10:24 PM (#1871836) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Is that a gun in your pocket or... |
|
29 Oct 06 - 10:55 PM (#1871858) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Old Guy Are saying that Cindy Sheehan's relatives are wrong? I am saying they are right. And kissing ass is a figure of speech as you well know but when you find the need, you will take things literally. Before we go over for the umteenth time, the WMDs that the Democrats claimed were there and the fact that the locals cheered us as liberators, please elaborate on "What Cindy Sheehan did took more moral courage than what her husband did." And why you are not supporting Chavez. Do you lack the moral courage? Is that a gun in your pocket or... |
|
29 Oct 06 - 11:09 PM (#1871864) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Greg F. Yup- the BuShite Mentality ( or lack thereof ) at its finest: Sheehan's relatives have a right to their opinion (and they're "right"), but Cindy does not (and she's "wrong"). Jesus wept. Beam me up, Scotty... |
|
29 Oct 06 - 11:13 PM (#1871868) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: George Papavgeris Well, predictably and even after 399 posts Old Guy has not been persuaded about the untenable nature of his position, so... 400. |
|
30 Oct 06 - 07:21 PM (#1872570) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: Ron Davies "not been persuaded about the untenable nature of his position"--well, consider how flexible and open to new information his hero, W, is. "All we, like sheep..."--at least the followers of the clueless shepherd, Mr Bush. Fortunately there are not as many in his flock anymore. |
|
31 Oct 06 - 10:32 PM (#1873549) Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal From: GUEST,Old Fat Woody Greg Jong-il's mentality ( or lack thereof ) at its finest: Greg Jong-il has a right to his opinion and he is right but Old Guy does not and he is wrong. RD's hero is Hugo Chavez. His Philosophy is Boycott Walmart not Citgo. |
