PDA

View Full Version : If Foley Were A Democrat....



Dixie - In Memoriam
10-03-2006, 11:54 AM
If Congressman Mark Foley had been a Democrat, he would not have resigned, he would have left Washington D.C. without comment on the matter, and the liberal spin machine would have immediately gone into 'damage control' mode. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would have given press conferences, stating that it's important we reserve our judgement until all the facts are in. Conspiracy theorists in the left-wing blogosphere, would have begun circulating the rumor that Karl Rove had planted the story, which was completely bogus... the kid with the alleged email, has an uncle who used to work for Pappy Bush, and was a huge Republican contributor.

Foley would gain enormous publicity as the subject of a vast right-wing conspiracy, and the "scandal" would be, who made up this lie about such a fine upstanding Democrat, like Foley. Of course, they would point to his record on child predator legislation, and insist that this proves the allegations must be false. They would point out, that instant messages are not illegal, Foley never has been accused of having sex, just sending messages. It would be pointed out, the page was 16, the legal age of consent in D.C., so it was not a child Foley exploited, but a "consenting" adult. Then we would hear about how this was all a Republican dirty trick to overturn the will of the people in Foley's district. That card would be played liberally.

Republicans would attempt to have it fully investigated, and the Democrats would accuse us of witch-hunting, and drag their feet until the middle of Foley's next term. When an investigation is finally ordered, the Democrats would immediately attack it as a moral right-wing crusade, modern day McCarthyism, gay bashing neocons out to delve into Foley's personal sex life. When the evidence finally resulted in a conviction, or a plea bargain, the Democrats would give Foley a standing ovation, and a pardon. After all, he endured so much from the mean old Republicans.

In another couple of election cycles, Foley's name would be widely circulated as a possible nominee for President. Any mention of the 2006 sex scandal, would be met with indignant outrage and contempt. How dare we use this mans personal tragedy against him! This is what Democrats would say, and how they would defend Foley, if he were one of them.

I don't make this claim out of speculation, I make it out of the Democrats past history, with just this sort of thing. Studds, Reynolds, Frank, Hart, Clinton... The Democrats have a long and storied history of sex scandals, and their position was made abundantly clear a long time ago, they don't believe sex scandals have anything to do with how a representative performs their job, and as long as there isn't a charge and conviction, which can't be pardoned, they will support the "will of the people" who elected the representative.

Besides, it's a Democrat seat, they can't just give that up!

uscitizen
10-03-2006, 11:56 AM
Dixie would be singing a song 180 out of phase with his current song :)

Jarod
10-03-2006, 12:00 PM
If Congressman Mark Foley had been a Democrat, he would not have resigned, he would have left Washington D.C. without comment on the matter, and the liberal spin machine would have immediately gone into 'damage control' mode. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would have given press conferences, stating that it's important we reserve our judgement until all the facts are in. Conspiracy theorists in the left-wing blogosphere, would have begun circulating the rumor that Karl Rove had planted the story, which was completely bogus... the kid with the alleged email, has an uncle who used to work for Pappy Bush, and was a huge Republican contributor.

Foley would gain enormous publicity as the subject of a vast right-wing conspiracy, and the "scandal" would be, who made up this lie about such a fine upstanding Democrat, like Foley. Of course, they would point to his record on child predator legislation, and insist that this proves the allegations must be false. They would point out, that instant messages are not illegal, Foley never has been accused of having sex, just sending messages. It would be pointed out, the page was 16, the legal age of consent in D.C., so it was not a child Foley exploited, but a "consenting" adult. Then we would hear about how this was all a Republican dirty trick to overturn the will of the people in Foley's district. That card would be played liberally.

Republicans would attempt to have it fully investigated, and the Democrats would accuse us of witch-hunting, and drag their feet until the middle of Foley's next term. When an investigation is finally ordered, the Democrats would immediately attack it as a moral right-wing crusade, modern day McCarthyism, gay bashing neocons out to delve into Foley's personal sex life. When the evidence finally resulted in a conviction, or a plea bargain, the Democrats would give Foley a standing ovation, and a pardon. After all, he endured so much from the mean old Republicans.

In another couple of election cycles, Foley's name would be widely circulated as a possible nominee for President. Any mention of the 2006 sex scandal, would be met with indignant outrage and contempt. How dare we use this mans personal tragedy against him! This is what Democrats would say, and how they would defend Foley, if he were one of them.

I don't make this claim out of speculation, I make it out of the Democrats past history, with just this sort of thing. Studds, Reynolds, Frank, Hart, Clinton... The Democrats have a long and storied history of sex scandals, and their position was made abundantly clear a long time ago, they don't believe sex scandals have anything to do with how a representative performs their job, and as long as there isn't a charge and conviction, which can't be pardoned, they will support the "will of the people" who elected the representative.

Besides, it's a Democrat seat, they can't just give that up!


Like when they impeached President Clinton for a blow-job with a consenting adult?

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-03-2006, 12:09 PM
Dixie would be singing a song 180 out of phase with his current song :)


Yeah? What's my current song? Republicans will lose a seat to the Democrats in a highly-conservative republican district? Republicans probably just lost a few moderate religious democrats back to the kook fringe? I think the Republicans will pay a political price for this, and that's life. What disturbs me, is the double standard and hypocrisy of the Democrat Party. To come off acting like you guys are shocked and appauled at the behavior, concerned with the welfare of the poor little children entrusted to our care in D.C. ...It's all a bunch of phoney-baloney, disingenous, and reprehensible blather. You care about one thing... Winning an election!

Out of one side of your mouths, we hear... Disgusting child-molesting, pedophile, preying on innocent children, perverted sickness.... and out of the other side, we hear.... Well, the legal age of consent in D.C. is 16!

Cypress
10-03-2006, 12:13 PM
Dixie, pointing to the history books, and yelling at voters to look at something that happened a quarter of a century ago, isn't going to cut it.

In short, you're wasting time and blowing hot air.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-03-2006, 12:32 PM
Dixie, pointing to the history books, and yelling at voters to look at something that happened a quarter of a century ago, isn't going to cut it.

In short, you're wasting time and blowing hot air.

LMAO... Clinton/Lewinski didn't happen that long ago.... neither did Reynolds "hitting the jackpot" with his Catholic school girls, who Clinton pardoned in 1995. Nor did Barney Frank and his boy lover, running a brothel out of his home! This is all recent history, dear.

Cypress
10-03-2006, 12:43 PM
LMAO... Clinton/Lewinski didn't happen that long ago.... neither did Reynolds "hitting the jackpot" with his Catholic school girls, who Clinton pardoned in 1995. Nor did Barney Frank and his boy lover, running a brothel out of his home! This is all recent history, dear.

Carry on then.

Only children point to the bad behaviour of others, when they get in trouble.

Most americans understand this. You won't sway one vote with that argument. Its only serves to make devoted Bush fans feel better.

maineman
10-03-2006, 12:44 PM
you'd think that a party that had been in charge of all the branches of government for the past six years would run on their record.....


oops.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-03-2006, 12:48 PM
Carry on then.

Only children point to the bad behaviour of others, when they get in trouble.

Most americans understand this. You won't sway one vote with that argument. Its only serves to make devoted Bush fans feel better.

HAHA... Prissy, I am not pointing to the bad behavior of others because Foley got in trouble. I don't condone what Foley did, and he resigned. Nothing in my posts supports your view that I am making excuses for Foley, and I agree, if that were what I was doing, you would be 100% correct, but I think I have made it clear that I don't support Foley, I am glad he resigned, and I find his behavior repugnant. My point, is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the left, who doesn't think this sort of behavior is repugnant, they give standing ovations to people who have been censured for it.

BRUTALITOPS
10-03-2006, 12:57 PM
dixie is right this time, that sounds like a very plausible scenerio... especially about how age 16 is legal age...

Jarod
10-03-2006, 01:10 PM
Listen if Dixie wants to support Foley and stand up with him, more power to him. The Republicans can support Hastert for covering it up for all I care...

Do that Dixie... Support the pedophile all you and your party want.

We will let the voters decide in November!

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-03-2006, 02:37 PM
Listen if Dixie wants to support Foley and stand up with him, more power to him. The Republicans can support Hastert for covering it up for all I care...

Do that Dixie... Support the pedophile all you and your party want.

We will let the voters decide in November!


LMAO... I've not seen one word of support for Foley from anyone. He resigned. You don't see me, or anyone, trying to have him retract his resignation, or anything like that, so how can you say I am supporting him? I'm not condoning what he did in any way, it was inappropriate and wrong. This is the big difference between republicans and democrats, we stand for principle, the guy was scum and he's gone, no one is standing up for him or supporting anything he did. If he were a Democrat, however... it would be a horse of a totally different color, we all know that, because democrats really don't care, as long as they win the election and take the seat.... as long as a democrat ass is sitting in the congressional seat, they are content to excuse this sort of behavior and much worse, as they have demonstrated in the past.


Yeah... the people WILL decide in November.

maineman
10-03-2006, 06:16 PM
and if they decide to send more democrats to the house and senate than are there now, will you be paying me that $100 you will then owe me?

LadyT
10-03-2006, 06:32 PM
and if they decide to send more democrats to the house and senate than are there now, will you be paying me that $100 you will then owe me?

:cof1: Yeah, I'm sure you'll get that, right before Watermark gets his $10,000.

Care4all
10-03-2006, 06:35 PM
The second that Tip O'Neal was notified about Rep. Studs he asked Studs for his resignation Dixie.... That is what the Democratic leadership did when they thought his behavior was inappropriate....What did Hastert or some other republicans may have held it back from Hastert, do? Hide it...

And it WAS WRONG...back then with studs to use his power and wrong for foley to use his power...and Wrong for the republican back then, Representative or Senator Crane?, who was married and also was sleeping with a 17 year old page girl....he did not resign from what I remember but he lost his seat, was not reelected.

Studs refuse to resign as Tip had requested and came from a very liberal district on the cape, Provincetown and was reelected until 1996....

There are laws now that are making it illegal for people in positions of power and holding them to a higher standard than other citizens when it comes to this...whereas it may not be against the Law as Studs proclaimed it was not, but it would be in some places today... because of these "position of power" laws coming out...that would include teachers, clergymen, firemen, policemen, and I would guess, congressmen?

This was a scandal back then Dixie, why rehash what happen back in 1983 and how the Dems handled it? (Note I am combining your comments on other threads in this reply...

Cypress
10-03-2006, 06:54 PM
and if they decide to send more democrats to the house and senate than are there now, will you be paying me that $100 you will then owe me?

surely you jest.

Dixie welched on his bet for the golden rule thread, and went into hiding for a few days, until that thread got buried.

maineman
10-03-2006, 06:58 PM
why does dixie try to dredge up old shit? because he is panicking and feels it all starting to slip away..... Speaker Pelosi ...the thought drives him wild!

heheheh

uscitizen
10-03-2006, 07:52 PM
but, but, Dixie cannot be wrong, he just can't, don't you guys understand it is not possible ;)

Jarod
10-04-2006, 07:08 AM
I hope Hastert does not resign, just like I wish Delay had not resigned.

I hope the Republicans will stand up for what they belive in... Coverup and corruption!

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 07:13 AM
but, but, Dixie cannot be wrong, he just can't, don't you guys understand it is not possible ;)

Oh, I can be wrong, it's just rare, and almost never with a pinhead. I'm certainly not wrong because 3 pinheads concur, or someone twists my arguments into wrongness. When proven wrong, I have no problem admitting I was wrong, unlike some pinheads I know, who will literally alter reality to keep from admiting they are wrong.

When it comes to how Democrats would react if Mark Foley were one of their own, I am not wrong because history proves me right. You have a long and storied history of standing up for guys like Foley, while castigating those of us who dare to criticize them. The only reason for any outrage from Democrats, is because Foley is a Republican.

It's like all the bluster and outrage expressed over the election system, the mere thought of some Americans vote not counting, is the supposed basis for all the fuss, however, it's not about standing up for people's votes at all, it's about casting a perception of doubt and using that to bash Republicans. If Democrats were really concerned about the will of the people, there would be some level of concern for the highly-republican Foley district, who will likely end up with Democrat representation. How many pinheads have even mentioned the poor disenfranchised voters in Foley's district? None, you're all too busy drooling over the freebie seat you were gifted, and you don't have a second thought about it. So, you really don't give a shit about the will of the people, or if they are represented fairly, just that they are represented by a Democrat.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 07:18 AM
Dixie welched on his bet for the golden rule thread, and went into hiding for a few days, until that thread got buried.

You just can't seem to type a post without lying, can you? I've not gone anywhere, I have been here every day, and I didn't make a bet, I offered a prize for certain information that didn't exist, and was not presented. A few smart-ass pinheads twisted what I said, and pretended that I had "lost a bet" or something, but that isn't my concern, I can't help what retarded people do.

Jarod
10-04-2006, 07:31 AM
HE also LIED about ignoring me and Maineman!

Damocles
10-04-2006, 07:33 AM
Or he simply took you off ignore. It isn't permanent and one can put you on and take you off their ignore list at will.

Care4all
10-04-2006, 07:51 AM
Oh, I can be wrong, it's just rare, and almost never with a pinhead. I'm certainly not wrong because 3 pinheads concur, or someone twists my arguments into wrongness. When proven wrong, I have no problem admitting I was wrong, unlike some pinheads I know, who will literally alter reality to keep from admiting they are wrong.

When it comes to how Democrats would react if Mark Foley were one of their own, I am not wrong because history proves me right. You have a long and storied history of standing up for guys like Foley, while castigating those of us who dare to criticize them. The only reason for any outrage from Democrats, is because Foley is a Republican.

It's like all the bluster and outrage expressed over the election system, the mere thought of some Americans vote not counting, is the supposed basis for all the fuss, however, it's not about standing up for people's votes at all, it's about casting a perception of doubt and using that to bash Republicans. If Democrats were really concerned about the will of the people, there would be some level of concern for the highly-republican Foley district, who will likely end up with Democrat representation. How many pinheads have even mentioned the poor disenfranchised voters in Foley's district? None, you're all too busy drooling over the freebie seat you were gifted, and you don't have a second thought about it. So, you really don't give a shit about the will of the people, or if they are represented fairly, just that they are represented by a Democrat.

There is a Republican replacement in the race?

They just could not get his name on the ballot so the floridians in this district have to cast a vote for Foley if they want the new republican in office.

And THAT is a republican problem because THEY held back on foley, hoping to make it through the election with the republican vote for him.

As far as Studs, as I said the leadership, tip oneal was outraged and asked for his resignation....And YES, the Democrats did handle it DIFFERENTLY than the republicans did with Foley, where that speaker of the house ignored the dangerous signs of a predator of minors....congrats to the ethics of speaker Tip Oneal....

booooooooo to hastert. (if what is being reported is true)

maineman
10-04-2006, 08:02 AM
Or he simply took you off ignore. It isn't permanent and one can put you on and take you off their ignore list at will.

I would suggest that he never HAD us on ignore, but only chose to act like it because he KNEW I'd hand him his ass like I used to do routinely on FP.com.

He will renege on our bet regarding the election, no doubt....

and he will continue to say what a great endeavor this war in Iraq is when all the signs point otherwise.....

we have already lost 120 MORE soldiers than Dixie predicted we would lose throughout the rest of the conflict...and October is shaping up to be one of the bloodiest months on record, with no end in sight.

When WILL the neocons EVER put country ahead of party and admit that they fucked up and accept the political consequences?

Jarod
10-04-2006, 08:28 AM
Well I just hope they keep Hastert, then the democrats can keep the theem "culture of corruption" without even promoting it themselves!

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 09:15 AM
And THAT is a republican problem because THEY held back on foley, hoping to make it through the election with the republican vote for him.

No, I am sorry, this is incorrect. You want to pretend that the Republicans knew all about Foley, and intentionally ignored it, hoping to make it through the elections, but you haven't proven this, and on its face, it's an absurd argument. How did the Republicans plan to defend this, when it came out?

No one in Republican leadership knew the extent of what Foley was doing, until the instant messages were made public by ABC News last Friday. As soon as it was revealed, they booted him and called for a complete investigation, no one ever tried to defend him or ignore the allegations, or cover anything up. The emails had been made public to the news media some time ago, and weren't damning enough for them to even do a story... now that's pretty bad, when a liberal rag can't manufacture something to lie about... but, nevertheless, they couldn't find a story, the republican leadership couldn't act on inactionable information, and someone, somewhere, knew of the instant message exchanges, and sat on the information until a month before the elections, where Republicans would not be able to take Foley's name off the ballot, and the voters would be forced to pull the lever for Foley, if they wanted to vote Republican.

Your Democrat Party: Working For YOU!

Care4all
10-04-2006, 09:24 AM
Who is the Liberal Rag? FOX NEWS? The Miami Herald? The St pete times? Both newspapers supported President Bush... and FOX news...what can I say, the same...

These news sources FAILED also in their duty to report and investigate the news... All they would have had to do if they did not have enought info to print this from the beginning, then THEY SHOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED the story to find out if there was FIRE, where the smoke was...

it took about a day to get the elicit emails on google....

Hastert, and these papers should have taken ANOTHER step and researched the situation.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 09:35 AM
These news sources FAILED also in their duty to report and investigate the news... All they would have had to do if they did not have enought info to print this from the beginning, then THEY SHOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED the story to find out if there was FIRE, where the smoke was...

They DID investigate, in fact, they had more info than Hastert did! Still, even with that, all they had were emails that could have been seen as, perhaps a little curious, but not much more. There is no crime in asking a former page for a photograph! What the fuck was the paper supposed to report, on what grounds was the republican leadership supposed to take action? Now, you can look back in retrospect and make all kinds of wild-ass claims of what should have been known, but humans aren't blessed with psychic abilities, and without actionable evidence, there wasn't much that could have been done at that time. Trump it up all you like, you know this is right, and you look like an idiot trying to make the argument that Republicans should have kicked Foley out for sending innocuous emails to former pages.

By the way, while we're talking about what should have been known... will you have the same view when we find out the truth about Jefferson's $90,000 in his freezer? Can we argue that democrats should have known he was guilty of something and booted him?

Jarod
10-04-2006, 09:43 AM
It is clear Hastert knew Foley was into the boys and having inapproperate conversations with them on the email. Foley was told by them to guit communicating with any pages...

When Congressman Boner said he told Hastert, Hastert responded... that he did not remember being told about Foley...

When you say you dont remember if you were told a member of congress has inapproperate conversations with a 16 year old intern you are either LYING or it was not important to you or Amung Republicans this is an everyday event..

Well which is it.

Like I say, Keep Hastert, let the American people see what kinda corruption you support!

Care4all
10-04-2006, 09:44 AM
And THAT is a republican problem because THEY held back on foley, hoping to make it through the election with the republican vote for him.

No, I am sorry, this is incorrect. You want to pretend that the Republicans knew all about Foley, and intentionally ignored it, hoping to make it through the elections, but you haven't proven this, and on its face, it's an absurd argument. How did the Republicans plan to defend this, when it came out?

No one in Republican leadership knew the extent of what Foley was doing, until the instant messages were made public by ABC News last Friday. As soon as it was revealed, they booted him and called for a complete investigation, no one ever tried to defend him or ignore the allegations, or cover anything up. The emails had been made public to the news media some time ago, and weren't damning enough for them to even do a story... now that's pretty bad, when a liberal rag can't manufacture something to lie about... but, nevertheless, they couldn't find a story, the republican leadership couldn't act on inactionable information, and someone, somewhere, knew of the instant message exchanges, and sat on the information until a month before the elections, where Republicans would not be able to take Foley's name off the ballot, and the voters would be forced to pull the lever for Foley, if they wanted to vote Republican.

Your Democrat Party: Working For YOU!

Dixie, what is it about the original emails THAT DID NOT SET OFF RED FLAGS to you and your Leaders....

They were MOST CERTAINLY inappropriate and MOST CERTAINLY showed those predatory HABITS of this Congressman Foley?

They SHOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED IT FURTHER.....Don't you think? I read those emails, not the explicit ones, but the ones that you say show just nastiness I guess? And they were not and are not innocent emails...he had an agenda....

This is a 52 year old single man talking with 16 year olds the way he did....He is a predatory of Minor Boys....I would have placed MONEY on it and not reneged, from reading the first few emails that he was a predator....a sexual predator of young boys.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 09:57 AM
It is clear Hastert knew Foley was into the boys and having inapproperate conversations with them on the email. Foley was told by them to guit communicating with any pages...

No, it's not clear that any of the emails known about were inappropriate, nor is it clear that Hastert knew Foley was "into the boys" as you say. The parents of one page, made a request that someone tell Foley to stop emailing their son, he was creeped out. The emails were not sexually explicit, and contained only minor questionable things that didn't warrant alarm... Foley asked how the boy had weathered the hurricane... what he planned to do on his birthday... could he send him a photo... nothing that was inappropriate or sexual in nature whatsoever. Still, the Republican leadership informed Foley to stop emailing pages, that the wrong idea could be taken by it, and that was the end of it, as far as they knew. The parents of the boy were satisfied with that, and didn't want to make it a public issue, the St. Pete Times couldn't even do a story on it, because the boy didn't want to have his identity revealed, and there wasn't anything inappropriate in the content of the emails, anyway!

What makes this incident custom made for pinhead exploitation, is the ignorance of the masses on the difference between emails and instant messages. You can fool enough ignorant people into believing they are one in the same, and that isn't the case here. You can pretend that the emails were just as bad as the instant messages, and that is simply a fabrication. And you can insist that the emails Hastert knew about, were sexually explicit like the instant messages which came out last Friday, and ignorant people aren't going to realize the difference.

Oh, it's a brilliantly crafted political strategy! It all but guarantees a democrat seat in a largely republican district! Which is why it's more than just coincidence that it all played out like it did. Yes, we will let the people decide who is corrupt and cheating their asses off to regain power.

Jarod
10-04-2006, 10:02 AM
Sure Dixie the Democrats planted those emails in Floey's computer...!

I know you are supporting Foley but come on!

Jarod
10-04-2006, 10:03 AM
Dixie said...

"Oh, it's a brilliantly crafted political strategy! It all but guarantees a democrat seat in a largely republican district! Which is why it's more than just coincidence that it all played out like it did. Yes, we will let the people decide who is corrupt and cheating their asses off to regain power."


I guess Dixie thinks the Democrats picked Foley to plant these emails in his computer because it would all but give the Democrats a seat in a conservative district!

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 10:12 AM
Dixie, what is it about the original emails THAT DID NOT SET OFF RED FLAGS to you and your Leaders....

They were MOST CERTAINLY inappropriate and MOST CERTAINLY showed those predatory HABITS of this Congressman Foley?

Maybe you've seen something I haven't. The emails I read, didn't warrant the Republican leadership kicking a six-term duly-elected representative to the curb in the middle of his re-election campaign. I serously doubt that you or any democrat would have taken such action against one of you own, in fact, you would have defended the damn instant messages too! Foley would still be sitting in his Congressional seat, while we listened to you idiots preach to us about not casting judgement, and waiting for all the facts to come in. We know this because it's what you have done in the past.

Again, you can't accuse and condemn a sitting representative for asking a former page to send him a picture! There was no actionable inappropriateness in the emails Hastert knew about, and as soon as something tangible emerged, the appropriate actions were taken, as it should have been.

To pretend that Democrats are somehow blessed with a crystal ball in their pinheads, and could have forseen the inappropriate behavior, is laughable... if that were the case, William Jefferson would have been asked to resign, Studds would have been forced out, Barney Frank would be history, Ted Kennedy and Patrick Kennedy would be gone... Bill Clinton would have been removed by impeachment.... the list goes on and on!

Cypress
10-04-2006, 10:15 AM
Again, you can't accuse and condemn a sitting representative for asking a former page to send him a picture!

Dixie, you have teenage daughters, don't you?

If a 52-year old Teacher was sending them private email to them, and asking for their pictures, would any red flags go off in your head? Or, would you simply dismiss it and not worry about it?

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 10:21 AM
Sure Dixie the Democrats planted those emails in Floey's computer...!

I know you are supporting Foley but come on!

Hey pinhead, you mind telling me how you derived this from what I posted? I don't recall ever making such a claim! The emails have been public knowledge for years now, the Republicans knew about them, the Democrats knew about them, and the news media knew about them. No one has ever claimed they weren't Foley's emails, and where you come up with me saying that, is beyond me, I have never even remotely indicated such stupidity.

The tangible proof of inappropriate behavior, surfaced in the instant messages, which were made public for the first time, last Friday. That was the first time Hastert or the Republicans knew of Foley's inappropriate behavior. However, someone knew about these 2 year old instant messages, and didn't bother reporting them to Hastert, or the media... they held them for 2 years, until a month before an election, and THEN made them public. I think if we are going to feign moral outrage, we should feign moral outrage over whoever the scumbag was that had this information for 2 years, and waited to release it for political advantage, instead of doing what was in the best interests of the children.

Jarod
10-04-2006, 10:25 AM
Hey pinhead, you mind telling me how you derived this from what I posted? I don't recall ever making such a claim! The emails have been public knowledge for years now, the Republicans knew about them, the Democrats knew about them, and the news media knew about them. No one has ever claimed they weren't Foley's emails, and where you come up with me saying that, is beyond me, I have never even remotely indicated such stupidity.

The tangible proof of inappropriate behavior, surfaced in the instant messages, which were made public for the first time, last Friday. That was the first time Hastert or the Republicans knew of Foley's inappropriate behavior. However, someone knew about these 2 year old instant messages, and didn't bother reporting them to Hastert, or the media... they held them for 2 years, until a month before an election, and THEN made them public. I think if we are going to feign moral outrage, we should feign moral outrage over whoever the scumbag was that had this information for 2 years, and waited to release it for political advantage, instead of doing what was in the best interests of the children.


If that is true, why was Foley told, in private away from Democrats, not to communicate with Pages any more?

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 10:27 AM
Again, you can't accuse and condemn a sitting representative for asking a former page to send him a picture!

Dixie, you have teenage daughters, don't you?

If a 52-year old Teacher was sending them private email to them, and asking for their pictures, would any red flags go off in your head? Or, would you simply dismiss it and not worry about it?

Read what I posted. The parents of the page who received the emails, were indeed concerned, they requested that Foley stop emailing their son, and they were satisfied with that. They didn't dismiss anything, nor did I say they should have.

"Red flags" are one thing, actionable and tangible evidence of wrongdoing, is something completely different. You simply can't kick a man out of Congress because you think he might be doing something wrong, if that were the case, half the Democrats would be gone before they ever made it to Washington. I think you might want to reconsider establishing the standard of "suspicion" over "proof" that you seem to want to apply here.

Jarod
10-04-2006, 10:30 AM
Who said they should have kicked him out of congress... They should have however shared this info with the Democrats on the Ethics and Page committees!

Jarod
10-04-2006, 10:32 AM
Oct. 1, 2006 — A Republican staff member warned Congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.

Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor.

Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."

Staff members at the House clerk's office did not return phone calls seeking comment.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2514259&page=1

Cypress
10-04-2006, 10:33 AM
Read what I posted. The parents of the page who received the emails, were indeed concerned, they requested that Foley stop emailing their son, and they were satisfied with that. They didn't dismiss anything, nor did I say they should have.

"Red flags" are one thing, actionable and tangible evidence of wrongdoing, is something completely different. You simply can't kick a man out of Congress because you think he might be doing something wrong, if that were the case, half the Democrats would be gone before they ever made it to Washington. I think you might want to reconsider establishing the standard of "suspicion" over "proof" that you seem to want to apply here.

If you agree, that a 52-year old man sending private emails to a teenager, and asking them for pictures should send off red flags, the republican leadership should have been far more aggressive in monitoring Foley, and sharing that information with the entire congressional Page Board.

Care4all
10-04-2006, 10:35 AM
It is clear Hastert knew Foley was into the boys and having inapproperate conversations with them on the email. Foley was told by them to guit communicating with any pages...

No, it's not clear that any of the emails known about were inappropriate, nor is it clear that Hastert knew Foley was "into the boys" as you say. The parents of one page, made a request that someone tell Foley to stop emailing their son, he was creeped out. The emails were not sexually explicit, and contained only minor questionable things that didn't warrant alarm... Foley asked how the boy had weathered the hurricane... what he planned to do on his birthday... could he send him a photo... nothing that was inappropriate or sexual in nature whatsoever. Still, the Republican leadership informed Foley to stop emailing pages, that the wrong idea could be taken by it, and that was the end of it, as far as they knew. The parents of the boy were satisfied with that, and didn't want to make it a public issue, the St. Pete Times couldn't even do a story on it, because the boy didn't want to have his identity revealed, and there wasn't anything inappropriate in the content of the emails, anyway!

What makes this incident custom made for pinhead exploitation, is the ignorance of the masses on the difference between emails and instant messages. You can fool enough ignorant people into believing they are one in the same, and that isn't the case here. You can pretend that the emails were just as bad as the instant messages, and that is simply a fabrication. And you can insist that the emails Hastert knew about, were sexually explicit like the instant messages which came out last Friday, and ignorant people aren't going to realize the difference.

Oh, it's a brilliantly crafted political strategy! It all but guarantees a democrat seat in a largely republican district! Which is why it's more than just coincidence that it all played out like it did. Yes, we will let the people decide who is corrupt and cheating their asses off to regain power.

You don't think a 52 year old man, telling a 16 year old boy that another 16 year old boy has a really HOT body and seems mature for his age is inappropriate, or the part where Foley asks this kid when his birthday was and what he wants for his birthday three months down the road was not strange and a sign of what SEXUAL PREDATORS DO.... to be on the same childish level of talk or to get those minors to entrust him, or that asking for this boy to send him a picture is not inappropriate or not RED FLAG material?

Cut me a fricking Break, Dixie....

You are losing it, what morals you may have had, for the sake of your "party", shame on you!

care

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 10:38 AM
If that is true, why was Foley told, in private away from Democrats, not to communicate with Pages any more?

Because the parents of the page complained about it. I suppose it was done in private because it was a private matter, and the boy's parents didn't want it made public. The context of the emails were not unreasonably inappropriate, and could have been seen as totally harmless. Had someone tried to make a case against Foley on the emails alone, it would have been laughed at! There isn't a crime in being "nice" to someone.

If I sent Care emails, telling her how pretty she is, commenting on how good she looked in that dress she wore, or how beautiful her smile was, or asking her to send me a photo... that isn't "sexual harassment" in the least, it's someone being nice. However, if I follow those emails up with instant messages, asking her for sex, or telling her what I would like to do with her... that IS sexual harassment, and IS inappropriate. Surely you idiots can tell the difference, but maybe not.

Care4all
10-04-2006, 11:27 AM
We are not talking about two people nearly the same age as you and me Dixie...

You are talking about a 52 year old single gay man, a Congressman for the United States of America, that told this kid that another 16 year old boy has a great body and is really mature for his age, and a 52 year old man that he hardly knows asking him when his birthday is and what he would like for his birthday was not enough of a RED FLAG to question Mark Foley's other contacts with pages...then I just don't know what to say...other than I totally disagree with you? They should have investigated further, just one more step and it would have revealed the problem imo... and if there was not a "problem" then hastert and others on the republican side would have done their duty.

I heard yesterday that the watchdog group that got the emails on this, not the instant messages, i think????... turned them over to the FBI the second they got them LAST JULY and the FBI did nothing either or maybe they did but did not make it public...and now we have the fbi doing the investigation of this...what a joke...the whole thing is a joke...lack of responsibility of the republican party and the FBI is a joke...

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 12:04 PM
We are not talking about two people nearly the same age as you and me Dixie...

You are talking about a 52 year old single gay man, a Congressman for the United States of America, that told this kid that another 16 year old boy has a great body and is really mature for his age, and a 52 year old man that he hardly knows asking him when his birthday is and what he would like for his birthday was not enough of a RED FLAG to question Mark Foley's other contacts with pages...then I just don't know what to say...other than I totally disagree with you? They should have investigated further, just one more step and it would have revealed the problem imo... and if there was not a "problem" then hastert and others on the republican side would have done their duty.

I heard yesterday that the watchdog group that got the emails on this, not the instant messages, i think????... turned them over to the FBI the second they got them LAST JULY and the FBI did nothing either or maybe they did but did not make it public...and now we have the fbi doing the investigation of this...what a joke...the whole thing is a joke...lack of responsibility of the republican party and the FBI is a joke...

You are correct, we are talking about a person in a position of authority and a subordinate, like Clinton/Lewinski. Nevertheless, there is a distinct difference, regardless of the circumstances, between actionable inappropriate behavior, and innocent comment, and you do understand this. What's a joke, is to continue pretending you don't know the difference, and think that we should automatically presume the worst in all situations, regardless of the facts.

I would like to point out once again, the emails have been known about for years, and there was nothing actionable within them, to my knowledge. The scurrilous instant messages were the real evidence against Foley, and those were not turned over to anyone, or made public until last Friday. If you want to continue to try and blur the lines between the emails and the instant messages, I suppose you can do that, some idiots might not realize the distinct difference here, and if it wins you a few votes, what the hell... right?

Jarod
10-04-2006, 12:19 PM
Foley was told not to communicate with ANY pages.

Jarod
10-04-2006, 12:21 PM
I wonder why GOP Congressional aid had to resign today....

I guess he is taking the fall for Hastert...

Msnbc.com

Care4all
10-04-2006, 12:34 PM
I wonder why GOP Congressional aid had to resign today....

I guess he is taking the fall for Hastert...

Msnbc.com

a congressional aid... is who sent the emails to the Watchdog Group back in July, who immediately turned them over to the FBI....

guess he got canned for leaking them...?

Care4all
10-04-2006, 12:46 PM
You are correct, we are talking about a person in a position of authority and a subordinate, like Clinton/Lewinski. Nevertheless, there is a distinct difference, regardless of the circumstances, between actionable inappropriate behavior, and innocent comment, and you do understand this. What's a joke, is to continue pretending you don't know the difference, and think that we should automatically presume the worst in all situations, regardless of the facts.

I would like to point out once again, the emails have been known about for years, and there was nothing actionable within them, to my knowledge. The scurrilous instant messages were the real evidence against Foley, and those were not turned over to anyone, or made public until last Friday. If you want to continue to try and blur the lines between the emails and the instant messages, I suppose you can do that, some idiots might not realize the distinct difference here, and if it wins you a few votes, what the hell... right?


i never said the emails were actionable enough to dismiss him dixie....?

i said they should have sent out a RED FLAG to those in charge to AT LEAST pursue investigating it further...if, in their serious investigation of it they found that his emails were truely innocent, then that would have been sufficient, but if they found out through talking with the previous or present male pages that something was amiss....then they could have prevented the corruption of minors, that took place....by censuring him...

the email reported by the louisianna kid was this past august, NOT THREE YEARS AGO.

care

Jarod
10-04-2006, 12:54 PM
Because the parents of the page complained about it. I suppose it was done in private because it was a private matter, and the boy's parents didn't want it made public. The context of the emails were not unreasonably inappropriate, and could have been seen as totally harmless. Had someone tried to make a case against Foley on the emails alone, it would have been laughed at! There isn't a crime in being "nice" to someone.

If I sent Care emails, telling her how pretty she is, commenting on how good she looked in that dress she wore, or how beautiful her smile was, or asking her to send me a photo... that isn't "sexual harassment" in the least, it's someone being nice. However, if I follow those emails up with instant messages, asking her for sex, or telling her what I would like to do with her... that IS sexual harassment, and IS inappropriate. Surely you idiots can tell the difference, but maybe not.

If Ccare were a 16 year old girl even the first set of emails would have triggered discust and an investigation were I in charge of such things!

Jarod
10-04-2006, 12:55 PM
Can you say "Speaker Pelosi"!

OrnotBitwise
10-04-2006, 01:01 PM
Can you say "Speaker Pelosi"!Can you say "Speaker Pelosi" four times really fast?

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 01:46 PM
i never said the emails were actionable enough to dismiss him dixie....?

i said they should have sent out a RED FLAG to those in charge to AT LEAST pursue investigating it further...if, in their serious investigation of it they found that his emails were truely innocent, then that would have been sufficient, but if they found out through talking with the previous or present male pages that something was amiss....then they could have prevented the corruption of minors, that took place....by censuring him...

the email reported by the louisianna kid was this past august, NOT THREE YEARS AGO.

care

How, exactly, would you investigate your suspicions? Should Hastert have ordered wiretaps on his phones, intercepted his emails and IM's? Was there enough evidence to warrant such incroachment on his privacy? Would he not need a FISA warrant for this?

I think it's cute that you can retrospectively make the call, that someone should have seen the red flags, but like I said... Democrats didn't see the 'red flags' with Studds, Reynolds, Frank, Clinton, etc. In fact, when the red flags became actual indictable offenses, the Democrats still found ways to excuse the behavior, rather than forfeit the Democratic seat.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 01:53 PM
If Ccare were a 16 year old girl even the first set of emails would have triggered discust and an investigation were I in charge of such things!

Too bad you weren't in charge of the intern pool during the Clinton years, eh?

Care4all
10-04-2006, 02:19 PM
How, exactly, would you investigate your suspicions? Should Hastert have ordered wiretaps on his phones, intercepted his emails and IM's? Was there enough evidence to warrant such incroachment on his privacy? Would he not need a FISA warrant for this?

I think it's cute that you can retrospectively make the call, that someone should have seen the red flags, but like I said... Democrats didn't see the 'red flags' with Studds, Reynolds, Frank, Clinton, etc. In fact, when the red flags became actual indictable offenses, the Democrats still found ways to excuse the behavior, rather than forfeit the Democratic seat.

i already said HOW....by having discussions with previous and present pages....

where the heck do you think the instant messages came from? the pages he preyed on.... you think they weren't dying to tell someone about his advances? those instant messages were saved by these different boys....more than likely they were affected by him...negatively, otherwise, why save them?

Jarod
10-04-2006, 03:26 PM
If Ccare were a 16 year old girl even the first set of emails would have triggered discust and an investigation were I in charge of such things!

Too bad you weren't in charge of the intern pool during the Clinton years, eh?


Why?

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 05:38 PM
i already said HOW....by having discussions with previous and present pages....

where the heck do you think the instant messages came from? the pages he preyed on.... you think they weren't dying to tell someone about his advances? those instant messages were saved by these different boys....more than likely they were affected by him...negatively, otherwise, why save them?


Based on WHAT? That Foley sent an email to a boy, asking him how his Summer went? I think it's probably customary for Congressmen to write letters to people who have served as pages, just like they write to people and groups who visit Washington D.C. Cordial contact with people who you have worked with, is not inappropriate behavior, and never has been, in my opinion. It is somewhat courteous and distinguished to recognize someone with a personal letter, in a friendly manner. I have several personal letters from Democrats and Republicans in Washington, that are very sentimental to me, and I suppose I am not alone in that. Trent Lott sent me a letter and a signed glossy of Ronald Reagan, and I have it framed in my den, so I know that Congressmen send letters to people on a personal basis.

The emails that Hastert knew of, or any Republican I know of, were friendly emails, and did not contain anything "sexual" in nature. They came into question as a result of a parental complaint, about the letters being a little too friendly, Hastert told Foley not to email pages, people might take it the wrong way, and that was that. The parents didn't want to make it an issue, and didn't want to go public, they were satisfied for the correspondence to stop.

Now, it is at this point, that you seem to think, Hastert should have launched an all-out investigation and assault on Foley, who now admits he is gay, and according to the rumors, it was widely known. Can you imagine the outrage from Pinheads over this? What? Hastert is crucifying one of his own because he's gay? All he did was send a nice email to a page? And I suppose, whatever Ethics Board this should be brought before, is going to accept that these fairly innocuous emails from Foley, constitute some serious violation of some kind? Without some tangible proof that Foley was engaging in inappropriate behavior with these boys, there is not a whole lot the Speaker could do about it, to be honest. I hate to be that way about it Care, but you just don't think you can take down a six-term popular conservative representative, based on a friendly email and rumored homosexuality, it doesn't work that way.

The key to this whole thing, is the Instant Messages. I will make a bipartisan appeal to you, whoever sat on these messages and didn't report them to the media, or Hastert, deserves to lose their jobs.... politicians, media people, journalists, whoever! If you can prove that Hastert knew the extent of the IM's, then I support his removal as well, but so far, I haven't seen that proof. There does seem to be some question as to the timeline, regarding this CREW group and the breaking news, and I am interested to know a little more about what went down, and who made the decision to hold the information until this late date. There is a serious election ethics issue here, and in light of 2000 and 2004, we simply can't overlook possible collusion to subvert the will of Foley's district.

Care4all
10-04-2006, 06:50 PM
dixie, you are being intellectually naive or dishonest, i don't know which one.

there are 4 different republicans saying hastert was told over the last 3 YEARS.... there were a few other complaints from other pages regarding foley, so much so they warned some paiges to stay away from him.

hastert says he didn't even read the email at all....?

it is not just ONE EMAIL dixie, that was inapproproate....you may keep in touch with a page cordially but you don't tell him that some other 16 year old boy page is in ''great shape'' or has a great body and you don't ask a 16 year old when his birthday is and you don't ask them what they want for their birthday implying you would like to know so perhaps you can send them something...when you are a 52 year old man....

this is what sexual predators of minors do dixie, befriend minors with the chit chat of minors, and make them feel cool or special, before they lure them in...

YOU KNOW THIS BUT STILL DEFEND THE ORIGINAL EMAILS?

this is dispicable...and certainly dispicable of ALL of the REPUBLICANS involved in the coverup.....YES COVERUP, for years now... :(

this is the beginning of ''the revealing''...wonder what else will be revealed to us about your party?

Care4all
10-04-2006, 06:54 PM
oh, and they NEVER brought it before the ethics committee who is suppose to be notified of complaints of this manner....secretly.

Care4all
10-04-2006, 07:00 PM
Based on WHAT? That Foley sent an email to a boy, asking him how his Summer went? I think it's probably customary for Congressmen to write letters to people who have served as pages, just like they write to people and groups who visit Washington D.C. Cordial contact with people who you have worked with, is not inappropriate behavior, and never has been, in my opinion. It is somewhat courteous and distinguished to recognize someone with a personal letter, in a friendly manner. I have several personal letters from Democrats and Republicans in Washington, that are very sentimental to me, and I suppose I am not alone in that. Trent Lott sent me a letter and a signed glossy of Ronald Reagan, and I have it framed in my den, so I know that Congressmen send letters to people on a personal basis.

The emails that Hastert knew of, or any Republican I know of, were friendly emails, and did not contain anything "sexual" in nature. They came into question as a result of a parental complaint, about the letters being a little too friendly, Hastert told Foley not to email pages, people might take it the wrong way, and that was that. The parents didn't want to make it an issue, and didn't want to go public, they were satisfied for the correspondence to stop.

Now, it is at this point, that you seem to think, Hastert should have launched an all-out investigation and assault on Foley, who now admits he is gay, and according to the rumors, it was widely known. Can you imagine the outrage from Pinheads over this? What? Hastert is crucifying one of his own because he's gay? All he did was send a nice email to a page? And I suppose, whatever Ethics Board this should be brought before, is going to accept that these fairly innocuous emails from Foley, constitute some serious violation of some kind? Without some tangible proof that Foley was engaging in inappropriate behavior with these boys, there is not a whole lot the Speaker could do about it, to be honest. I hate to be that way about it Care, but you just don't think you can take down a six-term popular conservative representative, based on a friendly email and rumored homosexuality, it doesn't work that way.

The key to this whole thing, is the Instant Messages. I will make a bipartisan appeal to you, whoever sat on these messages and didn't report them to the media, or Hastert, deserves to lose their jobs.... politicians, media people, journalists, whoever! If you can prove that Hastert knew the extent of the IM's, then I support his removal as well, but so far, I haven't seen that proof. There does seem to be some question as to the timeline, regarding this CREW group and the breaking news, and I am interested to know a little more about what went down, and who made the decision to hold the information until this late date. There is a serious election ethics issue here, and in light of 2000 and 2004, we simply can't overlook possible collusion to subvert the will of Foley's district.

the watchdog group that turned it over said it came from a whitehouse aid and that they immediately turned the emails over to the FBI....IN JULY 06....

what were the fbi doing? setting up a sting of sitting on their hands for three months?

why didn't the 3 news medias do any further investigation on this? just a few questions about foley would have gone a long way....

Care4all
10-04-2006, 07:01 PM
ok, now we find out he went to page dorms at night drunk a few years back, stopped by capital police

Cypress
10-04-2006, 07:03 PM
ok, now we find out he went to page dorms at night drunk a few years back, stopped by capital police


Yeah, but what about the Gary Studds incident, a quarter of a century ago? Or the Teapot Dome scandal in 1923?

Why are you ignoring those?

Care4all
10-04-2006, 07:03 PM
foley's chief of staff went to the speaker of the house too a few years back...dixie? any comment? are you defeated yet?

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-04-2006, 08:25 PM
foley's chief of staff went to the speaker of the house too a few years back...dixie? any comment? are you defeated yet?


Hastert says he doesn't know of ever seeing anything of this, so that's part of what will be investigated, I am sure. I am not trying to defend Foley, please make no mistake, I am sure he was into all sorts of sick perverted things, and the fact that he worked on child predator legislation is even more bizarre, it just goes to show you, people are not always how they present themselves. I can't imagine, if Foley was this sex-starved gay nympho pervert you make him out to be, why the hell did Democrats not use that against him, as he ran for six terms to the US House?

You want to act like we live in some kind of a bubble, where the Democrats would have never thought to actually look into Foley's past, or sift through his garbage, at some point in time, as he won election after election over your guys. It seems to me, in today's era of gotchya politics, someone on the Democratic side, would have exploited this conservative republican Bush loyalist gay pedophile, dontchya think? I just don't buy that Foley was doing all this stuff and people were screaming at Hastert to make him stop sexually abusing their children, that's the way you want it to appear, and I just ain't buying it.

maineman
10-04-2006, 08:33 PM
care.... honestly....we have been at this for quite a few years...has Dixie EVER admitted he was wrong about anything? Hell he predicted back in December of last year that we wouldn't lose 500 more troops....we're past 620 since that time and he STILL won't admit he was wrong about that!!!! Do you honestly expect him to admit that this Foley thing is a real problem for Hastert? Come ON! Dixie is a koolaid besotted gadfly...nothing more.

Care4all
10-04-2006, 09:03 PM
Hastert says he doesn't know of ever seeing anything of this, so that's part of what will be investigated, I am sure. I am not trying to defend Foley, please make no mistake, I am sure he was into all sorts of sick perverted things, and the fact that he worked on child predator legislation is even more bizarre, it just goes to show you, people are not always how they present themselves. I can't imagine, if Foley was this sex-starved gay nympho pervert you make him out to be, why the hell did Democrats not use that against him, as he ran for six terms to the US House?

You want to act like we live in some kind of a bubble, where the Democrats would have never thought to actually look into Foley's past, or sift through his garbage, at some point in time, as he won election after election over your guys. It seems to me, in today's era of gotchya politics, someone on the Democratic side, would have exploited this conservative republican Bush loyalist gay pedophile, dontchya think? I just don't buy that Foley was doing all this stuff and people were screaming at Hastert to make him stop sexually abusing their children, that's the way you want it to appear, and I just ain't buying it.

well, it could be these other Republicans are using hastert as a scapegoat for their own inactions?

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-05-2006, 06:48 AM
well, it could be these other Republicans are using hastert as a scapegoat for their own inactions?


And it could be, that certain Democrats are using Hastert as a pinata, when it was the Democrats who withheld information putting children at risk of a pedophile?

Why did Pelosi and Emmanuel refuse to submit to a polygraph about prior knowledge of this? Seems odd for people with nothing to hide, doesn't it?

Care4all
10-05-2006, 07:05 AM
It is clear Hastert knew Foley was into the boys and having inapproperate conversations with them on the email. Foley was told by them to guit communicating with any pages...

No, it's not clear that any of the emails known about were inappropriate, nor is it clear that Hastert knew Foley was "into the boys" as you say. The parents of one page, made a request that someone tell Foley to stop emailing their son, he was creeped out. The emails were not sexually explicit, and contained only minor questionable things that didn't warrant alarm... Foley asked how the boy had weathered the hurricane... what he planned to do on his birthday... could he send him a photo... nothing that was inappropriate or sexual in nature whatsoever. Still, the Republican leadership informed Foley to stop emailing pages, that the wrong idea could be taken by it, and that was the end of it, as far as they knew. The parents of the boy were satisfied with that, and didn't want to make it a public issue, the St. Pete Times couldn't even do a story on it, because the boy didn't want to have his identity revealed, and there wasn't anything inappropriate in the content of the emails, anyway!

What makes this incident custom made for pinhead exploitation, is the ignorance of the masses on the difference between emails and instant messages. You can fool enough ignorant people into believing they are one in the same, and that isn't the case here. You can pretend that the emails were just as bad as the instant messages, and that is simply a fabrication. And you can insist that the emails Hastert knew about, were sexually explicit like the instant messages which came out last Friday, and ignorant people aren't going to realize the difference.

Oh, it's a brilliantly crafted political strategy! It all but guarantees a democrat seat in a largely republican district! Which is why it's more than just coincidence that it all played out like it did. Yes, we will let the people decide who is corrupt and cheating their asses off to regain power.

YOU ARE A LIAR....about several things in your comment above...

1. The EMAILS were inappropriate...
2. Foley asked him what he wanted for his birthday (implying from foley himself) not what he planned to do on his birthday....
3. Foley told the 16 year old in this same email that he thought another 16 year old page had a GREAT BODY and was mature for his age...
4. He asked for this 16 year old's picture...

If all of that is not WORTH A LOOK FURTHER in to Foley's attraction to young men, then I don't what planet you live on.

This inappropriate email was NOT THE ONLY ISSUE WITH FOLEY'S BEHAVIOR TOWARDS CHILDREN the previous 5-10 years....it should have set off THE RED FLAG to any DECENT, CARING human being to immediately look in to this further.

Give it up, you lost in your quest to cover this up....or to minimize the abhorent behavior of the Republican Leadership.

care

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-05-2006, 07:26 AM
YOU ARE A LIAR....about several things in your comment above...

1. The EMAILS were inappropriate...
2. Foley asked him what he wanted for his birthday (implying from foley himself) not what he planned to do on his birthday....
3. Foley told the 16 year old in this same email that he thought another 16 year old page had a GREAT BODY and was mature for his age...
4. He asked for this 16 year old's picture...

If all of that is not WORTH A LOOK FURTHER in to Foley's attraction to young men, then I don't what planet you live on.

This inappropriate email was NOT THE ONLY ISSUE WITH FOLEY'S BEHAVIOR TOWARDS CHILDREN the previous 5-10 years....it should have set off THE RED FLAG to any DECENT, CARING human being to immediately look in to this further.

Give it up, you lost in your quest to cover this up....or to minimize the abhorent behavior of the Republican Leadership.

care


Hey, take a look around... it's real damn easy to call me a liar! Proving it, that's a different story. None of the things you point out, are illegal or damning on their face. You simply can't drag a man into court and condemn him for pedophilia, based on what you've presented. IF this were the case, Maine would be doing "hard time" right now!

Again, I am not defending Foley, he was certainly engaged in inappropriate behavior, but what you are showing me, is not something actionable! It's not worthy of conviction, further investigation, or even a freaking newspaper article! You can hoop and holler about RED FLAGS all you like, YOUR party ignored RED FLAGS with Studds, Reynolds, Frank, Kennedy, Kennedy, Clinton... the list is endless! When we start responding to RED FLAGS on a Kennedy, then I'll be convinced you are serious about this, until then, it's more of the same disingenuous gotchya politics.

There has been nothing covered up, the culprit resigned, no one has defended him. I know you are not accustomed to that, I know it's unusual to see people actually face responsibility and admit mistakes, but that is what has happened here. You now want to gin up this huge controversy and conspiracy theory about Hastert knowing about this and not acting, and I am telling you, it's about to blow up in your pretty little face. Democrats knew, and withheld information to use for political gain.

But then, you can come here and call me a liar, and everything is fine in the world, right?

Blackflag
10-05-2006, 07:41 AM
If Congressman Mark Foley had been a Democrat,

Well then lucky for the Democrats that he was a Republican huh?

GOP = Grand Organization of Pedophiles

TheDanold
10-05-2006, 07:46 AM
Well then lucky for the Democrats that he was a Republican huh?

GOP = Grand Organization of Pedophiles
Well you tell me which party is worse?

Here are Democrat sex scandals for not just congressmen but higher up senators too:
Take note that 2 of these involve sex with 16 year olds, that's right sex, not just perverted emails but actual physical contact:

Also notice how Foley resigns but most of these Dems just stay on and the media does near jack shit to blow it up.


10. Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.

9. Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.

8. Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.

7. Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.

6. Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

5. Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.

4. Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.

3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

2. Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

1. Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.

http://www.humanevents.com/lists.php?id=17357


If only the Republican party had the same connections to the Liberal media, maybe they would have had power to get them to sit on the story until it can be unleashed as an October surprise.

TheDanold
10-05-2006, 07:48 AM
Look flag, I think Foley is a piece of shit and I never want to see his face again and definetely not in the party and he did resign.
Contrast that to Former Democrat Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms!

Blackflag
10-05-2006, 07:55 AM
I'm not part of that Democrat party. I stick to what I have always said. Both parties suck. Both are hypocrites. Both are anti freedom pro censorship.

But this is a Republican scandal. I'll make up names for the DNC when they try to coverup their next pedophile scandal. I'm sure it won't be too many years I'll have to wait.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-05-2006, 08:05 AM
Hey Dano, your list seems to be missing a certain cigar-smoking sax player, who had inappropriate relations with an intern half his age, lied under oath about it, shook his finger and lied to the American people about it, and Democrats still revere as their beloved leader. I know there is a logical reason he didn't make your list, but I think he deserves an honorable mention.

Care4all
10-05-2006, 08:11 AM
Look flag, I think Foley is a piece of shit and I never want to see his face again and definetely not in the party and he did resign.
Contrast that to Former Democrat Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms!

Yes they did vote for him after this incident in his liberal district of Provincetown on the cape, (Our key west of sorts)... even though to me it was reprehensible....that he used his power to take advantage of this 17 year old...he flaunted their relationship, and even did a press conference with his lover by his side after he was censured....

His small district kept him in office becasue he did not break the law, I guess??? but the DEMOCRATS Nationwide DID NOT KEEP him in office.

The Republican Representative Crane, that was ALSO HAVING AN AFFAIR with a 17 year old page girl, DID NOT RESIGN.

However the republican Representative Crane was a MARRIED MAN and was breaking the Law of the Land by committing ADULTERY, with the 17 year old page girl... and his district did NOT reelect him.

JUst wanted to make sure the TRUTH to this whole Studs story gets out.

Studs did not break the Law having a relationship with this 17 year old page....he broke our trust as a country in our Congressmen to be Moral and Ethical and not to use their power over the children we send to Washington to learn about how our Country is run...

Unlike what it appears Foley has done...broken the Law....with his instant messages involving cyber sex and other sexual content with a 16 year old?

And most importantly, the SECOND that Tip O neal, the speaker of the House found out about Studs, He ASKED STUDS TO RESIGN....Studs refused to do such....

Hastert, had many warnings about Foley, if what the other Republicans are saying is true....He did not ask the right questions or pursue the probability of inappropriate or even unlawful behavior for the SAKE of saving a REPUBLICAN seat... that is definately how it is appearing.

care

maineman
10-05-2006, 08:14 AM
Clinton did not pardon Reynolds for his sexual misadventures.... you always leave that deceptive little snippet in there dano....it really makes you look like a hack.

Damocles
10-05-2006, 08:18 AM
Clinton did not pardon Reynolds for his sexual misadventures.... you always leave that deceptive little snippet in there dano....it really makes you look like a hack.
Why would he pardon a sexual predator at all? What made Clinton want to pardon somebody that had previously been convicted of such a crime? What made it important that he was back on the street regardless of what he was serving time for at that moment?

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-05-2006, 08:35 AM
His small district kept him in office becasue he did not break the law, I guess??? but the DEMOCRATS Nationwide DID NOT KEEP him in office.

So, it's okay to fuck subordinate kids if they are over a certain age? There is nothing unethical about it? And YES, the Nationwide Democrats stood and applauded him when he was censured, they didn't ask for his resignation.

You guys are so full of double-standards, I don't know how you keep them all straight from one day to the next. Foley may have broken a law, ironically, one he put on the books, but this was not known about by Republicans or the general public, only a select few Democrats knew about the pedophile preying on our children, and they chose to keep it to themselves until election time, rather than turning the information over to the authorities.

Do you hypocrites know how ridiculous it makes you look, to sit here criticizing Republicans for failing to protect the poor little kids, while it was your own people who failed to report the evidence to the authorities or someone in charge? Do you realize how hypocritical it is, to blast Foley for being a perverted sicko, while excusing Studs because what he did wasn't technically illegal? Do you understand how disingenuous it appears, for you to condemn Foley's behavior, while excusing the behavior of Mel Reynolds?

I really don't think you have a clue!

Care4all
10-05-2006, 08:42 AM
Dano, Please stop being a partisan whore....please!

Here is the full list from the original washington post article of 1998 that your partisan site with the LIST OF 10 Dems came from....

I mean, there has been clinton and gingrich and bob barr and joe scarlborough and many others since this 1998 list...?

For you to post the short cut version of this list including only Democrats and not even giving the full clip of what was said about them is intellectually dishonest, don't ya think?

care

-----------------------------------------
Congressional Sex Scandals in History

By Ken Rudin
Special to washingtonpost.com


As the House prepares for a possible investigation of sex-related allegations concerning President Clinton, it's worth taking a look back at how Congress has dealt with the frequent charges of sexual misconduct by its own members.

Here are 21 case studies. In most, Congress took little or no official action, leaving the fate of the accused to the voters.

This history begins in 1974, but not because episodes of sexual impropriety only go back a quarter-century. In the old days, they simply weren't reported. In 1903, for example, the Speaker of the House, David Henderson (R-Iowa), was forced to resign over his sexual relationship with the daughter of a senator. Henderson never said why he was quitting, and neither did the press. But that was then, and this is now.

1974

Rep. Wilbur Mills (D-Ark.)
On Oct. 9, 1974, Mills, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and perhaps the most powerful member of the House, was stopped for speeding near the Jefferson Memorial at 2 a.m. Shortly after, Annabella Battistella – a stripper who went by the stage-name of Fanne Foxe, the "Argentine Firecracker" – jumped out of his car and into the Potomac River tidal basin. The incident did not immediately threaten Mills, whose district was solidly Democratic. But Mills won reelection with only 59 percent of the vote, his lowest total ever. Within weeks, Mills appeared on a Boston stage carousing with Foxe, apparently intoxicated. Faced with an uprising among House Democrats, Mills was forced to resign as Ways and Means chairman, and in 1976 he announced he would not seek another term, ending his 38-year House career. He was succeeded by Jim Guy Tucker, whose own ethics got the attention of Kenneth Starr some two decades later.

1976


Rep. Wayne Hays (D-Ohio)
In its May 23, 1976, editions, The Washington Post quoted Elizabeth Ray as saying that she was a secretary for the House Administration Committee, headed by Hays, despite the fact that "I can't type, I can't file, I can't even answer the phone." She said the main responsibility of her $14,000-a-year job was to have sex with Hays. The fall of Hays, an arrogant bully who was one of the most powerful – and disliked – members of Congress, was rapid. The House ethics committee opened its investigation on June 2. He resigned as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on June 3. In the Democratic primary five days later, a car-wash manager/bartender who had run against Hays four previous times and never received more than 20 percent of the vote got 39 percent. Hays later resigned his committee chairmanship, dropped his reelection bid, and finally resigned on September 1.
Rep. John Young (D-Tex.)
On June 11, 1976, Colleen Gardner, a former staff secretary to Young, told the New York Times that Young increased her salary after she gave in to his sexual advances. In November, Young, who had run unopposed in the safe Democratic district five consecutive times, was reelected with just 61 percent of the vote. The scandal wouldn't go away, and in 1978 Young was defeated in a Democratic primary runoff.

Rep. Allan Howe (D-Utah)
On June 13, 1976, Howe was arrested in Salt Lake City on charges of soliciting two policewomen posing as prostitutes. Howe insisted he was set up and refused to resign. But the Democratic Party distanced itself from his candidacy and he was trounced by his Republican opponent in the November election.

Rep. Fred Richmond (D-N.Y.)
In April 1978, Richmond was arrested in Washington for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy. Richmond apologized for his actions, conceding he "made bad judgments involving my private life." In spite of a Democratic primary opponent's attempts to cash in on the headlines, Richmond easily won renomination and reelection. But his career came to an end four years later when, after pleading guilty to possession of marijuana and tax evasion – and amid allegations that he had his staff procure cocaine for him – he resigned his seat.


1980

Rep. Jon Hinson (R-Miss.)
On Aug. 8, 1980, during his first reelection bid, Hinson stunned everyone by announcing that in 1976 he had been accused of committing an obscene act at a gay haunt in Virginia. Hinson, married and a strong conservative, added that in 1977 he had survived a fire in a gay D.C. movie theater. He was making the disclosure, he said, because he needed to clear his conscience. But he denied he was a homosexual and refused GOP demands that he resign. Hinson won reelection in a three-way race, with 39 percent of the vote. But three months later, he was arrested on charges of attempted oral sodomy in the restroom of a House office building. He resigned his seat on April 13, 1981.

Rep. Robert Bauman (R-Md.)
On Oct. 3, 1980, Bauman, a leading "pro-family" conservative, pleaded innocent to a charge that he committed oral sodomy on a teenage boy in Washington. Married and the father of four, Bauman conceded that he had been an alcoholic but had been seeking treatment. The news came as a shock to voters of the rural, conservative district, and he lost to a Democrat in November.

1981


Rep. Thomas Evans (R-Del.)
The Wilmington News-Journal reported on March 6, 1981, that three House members – Evans, Tom Railsback (R-Ill.) and Dan Quayle (R-Ind.) – shared a cottage during a 1980 vacation in Florida with Paula Parkinson, a lobbyist who later posed for Playboy magazine. All three proceeded to vote against federal crop-insurance legislation that Parkinson had been lobbying against, and questions were raised whether votes were exchanged for sex. Railsback and Quayle denied having sex with her. Evans said he regretted his "association" with Parkinson and asked his family and God to forgive him. But he forgot to include the voters, who in 1982 threw him out of office.


1983

Reps. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.)
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages – Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane's conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds's more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.


1987

Rep. Ernie Konnyu (R-Calif.)
In August 1987, two former Konnyu aides complained to the San Jose Mercury News that the freshman Republican had sexually harassed them. GOP leaders were unhappy with Konnyu's temperament to begin with, so it took little effort to find candidates who would take him on in the primary. Stanford professor Tom Campbell ousted Konnyu the following June.


1988

Sen. Brock Adams (D-Wash.)
On Sept. 27, 1988, Seattle newspapers reported that Kari Tupper, the daughter of Adams's longtime friends, filed a complaint against the Washington Democrat in July of 1987, charging sexual assault. She claimed she went to Adams's house in March 1987 to get him to end a pattern of harassment, but that he drugged her and assaulted her. Adams denied any sexual assault, saying they only talked about her employment opportunities. Adams continued raising campaign funds and declared for a second term in February of 1992. But two weeks later the Seattle Times reported that eight other women were accusing Adams of sexual molestation over the past 20 years, describing a history of drugging and subsequent rape. Later that day, while still proclaiming his innocence, Adams ended his campaign.

Rep. Jim Bates (D-Calif.)
Roll Call quoted former Bates aides in October 1988 saying that the San Diego Democrat made sexual advances toward female staffers. Bates called it a GOP-inspired smear campaign, but also apologized for anything he did that might have seemed inappropriate. The story came too close to Election Day to damage Bates, who won easily. However, the following October the ethics committee sent Bates a "letter of reproval" directing him to make a formal apology to the women who filed the complaint. Although the district was not thought to be hospitable to the GOP, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a former Navy pilot who was once shot down over North Vietnam, ousted Bates in 1990 by fewer than 2,000 votes.


1989

Rep. Donald "Buz" Lukens (R-Ohio)
On Feb. 1, 1989, an Ohio TV station aired a videotape of a confrontation between Lukens, a conservative activist, and the mother of a Columbus teenager. The mother charged that Lukens had been paying to have sex with her daughter since she was 13. On May 26, Lukens was found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and sentenced to one month in jail. Infuriating his fellow Republicans, Lukens refused to resign. But he finished a distant third in the May 1990 primary. Instead of spending the remaining months of his term in obscurity, Lukens was accused of fondling a Capitol elevator operator and he resigned on October 24, 1990.

Rep. Gus Savage (D-Ill.)
The Washington Post reported on July 19, 1989, that Savage had fondled a Peace Corps volunteer while on an official visit to Zaire. Savage called the story a lie and blamed it on his political enemies and a racist media. (Savage is black.) In January 1990, the House ethics committee decided that the events did occur, but decided against any disciplinary action because Savage wrote a letter to the woman saying he "never intended to offend" her. Savage was reelected in 1990, but finally ousted in the 1992 primary by Mel Reynolds.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
In response to a story in the Aug. 25, 1989, Washington Times, Frank confirmed that he hired Steve Gobie, a male prostitute, in 1985 to live with and work for him in his D.C. apartment. But Frank, who is gay, said he fired Gobie in 1987 when he learned he was using the apartment to run a prostitution service. The Boston Globe, among others, called on Frank to resign, but he refused. On July 19, 1990, the ethics committee recommended Frank be reprimanded because he "reflected discredit upon the House" by using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. Attempts to expel or censure Frank failed; instead the House voted 408-18 to reprimand him. The fury in Washington was not shared in Frank's district, where he won reelection in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since.


1990

Rep. Arlan Stangeland (R-Minn.)
It was reported in January 1990 that Stangeland, married with seven children, had made several hundred long-distance phone calls in 1986 and 1987 on his House credit card to or from the residences of a female lobbyist. Stangeland acknowledged the calls and conceded some of them may have been personal. But he insisted the relationship was not romantic. Voters of his rural district were not buying, choosing a Democrat in November.


1991

Sen. Charles Robb (D-Va.)
On April 25, 1991, with NBC News about to go on the air with allegations he had an extramarital affair with Tai Collins, a former Miss Virginia, Robb made a preemptive strike. The Virginia Democrat, married to Lyndon Johnson's daughter, said he was with Collins in a hotel room, but all that took place was a massage over a bottle of wine. Collins, in a subsequent interview with Playboy, said they had been having an affair since 1983. It was thought that these charges, along with long-circulated but unproven allegations that Robb had attended Virginia Beach parties where cocaine was present, would jeopardize Robb's 1994 bid for re-election. But the GOP nominated Oliver North, the Iran-Contra figure who had his own credibility problems. Robb squeaked by with 46 percent in a three-way race.


1992

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
In October 1992, Republican Senate nominee Rick Reed began running a campaign commercial that included a surreptitiously taped interview with Lenore Kwock, Inouye's hairdresser. Kwock said Inouye had sexually forced himself on her in 1975 and continued a pattern of sexual harassment, even as Kwock continued to cut his hair over the years. Inouye, seeking a sixth term, denied the charges. And Kwock said that by running the commercial, Reed had caused her more pain than Inouye had. Reed was forced to pull the ad, and while many voters took out their anger on the Republican, Inouye was held to 57 percent of the vote – the lowest total of his career. A week later, a female Democratic state legislator announced that she had heard from nine other women who claimed Inouye had sexually harassed them over the past decade. But the women didn't go public with their claims, the local press didn't pursue the story, and the Senate Ethics Committee decided to drop the investigation because the accusers wouldn't participate in an inquiry.

Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.)
Less than three weeks after Packwood narrowly won a fifth term, the Washington Post on Nov. 22, 1992, reported allegations from 10 female ex-staffers that Packwood had sexually harassed them. The Post had the story before the election, but didn't run it as Packwood had denied the charges. With the story now out in the open, Packwood said that if any of his actions were "unwelcome," he was "sincerely sorry." He then sought alcohol counseling. But his longtime feminist allies were outraged, and with more women coming forward with horror stories, there were calls for his resignation. It wasn't until September of 1995 when, faced with the prospect of public Senate hearings and a vote to expel, Packwood announced his resignation.


1994

Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.)
Freshman Reynolds was indicted on Aug. 19, 1994, on charges of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker and then pressuring her to lie about it. Reynolds, who is black, denied the charges and said the investigation was racially motivated. The GOP belatedly put up a write-in candidate for November, but Reynolds dispatched him in the overwhelmingly Democratic district with little effort. Reynolds was convicted on Aug. 22, 1995 of 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography, was sentenced to five years in prison, and resigned his seat on October 1.

maineman
10-05-2006, 08:42 AM
Why would he pardon a sexual predator at all? What made Clinton want to pardon somebody that had previously been convicted of such a crime? What made it important that he was back on the street regardless of what he was serving time for at that moment?

he pardoned him for an unrelated crime. He had paid his debt to society for the sex crime.... or don't you believe in the concept of "paying one's debt to society"?

Damocles
10-05-2006, 08:47 AM
he pardoned him for an unrelated crime. He had paid his debt to society for the sex crime.... or don't you believe in the concept of "paying one's debt to society"?
I believe that I would not release a sexual predator even for an unrelated crime. I believe that a past record is important in sentencing and treatment when considering whether to pardon somebody.

I would also ask whether the pardon did clear him of previous crimes (as they can do) so he wouldn't have to register as a predator...

maineman
10-05-2006, 08:50 AM
why don't you just cut to the chase and advocate life in prison for all sexual predators?

maineman
10-05-2006, 08:51 AM
or better yet, just kill 'em....
fuck it...torture 'em first

that seems to be the American way these days

Damocles
10-05-2006, 08:53 AM
why don't you just cut to the chase and advocate life in prison for all sexual predators?
I'd just prefer for them to serve their entire sentences, even for later crimes. Once again, previous record is important when working on Pardons, or sentencing.

Damocles
10-05-2006, 08:54 AM
or better yet, just kill 'em....
fuck it...torture 'em first

that seems to be the American way these days
Strawman, I didn't say either of those. This is total rubbish and you know it. It's embarrassing to attempt to defend that Pardon. You don't have to.

Blackflag
10-05-2006, 09:10 AM
why don't you just cut to the chase and advocate life in prison for all sexual predators?

I would definitely support that.

Care4all
10-05-2006, 12:13 PM
damo...

These charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal prison. Reynolds served all of his first sentence and served forty-two months in prison for the later charges.

At that point, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud. As a result, Reynolds was released from prison and served the remaining time in a half way house.

He did not get pardoned for the sex with a teenager, nor for the bank fraud...he served out his sentence in a halfway house.... that means that his crime was not "forgiven", just eased by sending him to a halfway house for the remainder of his sentence, doesn't it?

Otherwise, why would he have to stay the rest of his sentence for the crimes in a halfway house?

Damocles
10-05-2006, 12:17 PM
damo...

These charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal prison. Reynolds served all of his first sentence and served forty-two months in prison for the later charges.

At that point, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud. As a result, Reynolds was released from prison and served the remaining time in a half way house.

He did not get pardoned for the sex with a teenager, nor for the bank fraud...he served out his sentence in a halfway house.... that means that his crime was not "forgiven", just eased by sending him to a halfway house for the remainder of his sentence, doesn't it?

Otherwise, why would he have to stay the rest of his sentence for the crimes in a halfway house?
Right, I noticed it in the other two threads you posted it in and would have commented but expected to find it again in another thread. It does change what I think of it...

At least he didn't let him out any earlier. Personally, I wouldn't have given him any special consideration at all. But that is just what I would do, not what I expect others to do...

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-05-2006, 12:22 PM
damo...

These charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal prison. Reynolds served all of his first sentence and served forty-two months in prison for the later charges.

At that point, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud. As a result, Reynolds was released from prison and served the remaining time in a half way house.

He did not get pardoned for the sex with a teenager, nor for the bank fraud...he served out his sentence in a halfway house.... that means that his crime was not "forgiven", just eased by sending him to a halfway house for the remainder of his sentence, doesn't it?

Otherwise, why would he have to stay the rest of his sentence for the crimes in a halfway house?


Tell me something, Carebritches...

Has it just not dawned on you, that you are spending an awful lot of time and energy defending your own scumbag pedophile, instead of shaming republicans over Foley?

Somehow, I don't think this Foley thing is playing out like the Democrats had hoped.

Care4all
10-05-2006, 12:50 PM
I agree with Damo, I still would have never even commuted or eased the sentence for bank fraud, because of his previous conviction of sex with a minor...NEVER.

I was not defending him Dixie, I just wanted to get to the bottom of the truth so I went to the links that were provided and "read" about it...that's all.

What was I suppose to do, sit back and let the LIE being passed around by you and dano and others go forward?

Same with the Studds situation...I am NOT standing up for him in the least....He abused his power with a minor, even if it was not illegal his ass would have been grass if my vote counted...

It's just that a bunch of people on this site are cutting and pasting a bunch of crap about these dems like Studds without even speaking about the republican Senator Crane who came out with his confession about sleeping with a 17 year opld page the same day as studds and was censured at the same time as studds and DID NOT RESIGN EITHER dixie? So why use Studds as an example of how Congress or we are being hypocritical now because of studds when you don't mention that Crane, who cheated on his wife and six children with his indiscretion did NOT RESIGN either, and btw they were both Censured by Congress?

:(

Care

Damocles
10-05-2006, 12:56 PM
He didn't resign, but he certainly wasn't re-elected. I'll admit I paid less attention to such things than I should have.

Just as with this one. The guy isn't in Congress anymore. Good enough for me... This fascination with the actual e-mails? Not for me...

Is somebody looking into Hastert? I think that many are.

maineman
10-05-2006, 01:20 PM
as they should be.... his careless handling of this issue is THE story now.

uscitizen
10-05-2006, 01:48 PM
what investigation? everyone knows it is just a trumped up demoncrat conspiracy run by Soros.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-05-2006, 01:49 PM
I agree with Damo, I still would have never even commuted or eased the sentence for bank fraud, because of his previous conviction of sex with a minor...NEVER.

I was not defending him Dixie, I just wanted to get to the bottom of the truth so I went to the links that were provided and "read" about it...that's all.

What was I suppose to do, sit back and let the LIE being passed around by you and dano and others go forward?

Same with the Studds situation...I am NOT standing up for him in the least....He abused his power with a minor, even if it was not illegal his ass would have been grass if my vote counted...

It's just that a bunch of people on this site are cutting and pasting a bunch of crap about these dems like Studds without even speaking about the republican Senator Crane who came out with his confession about sleeping with a 17 year opld page the same day as studds and was censured at the same time as studds and DID NOT RESIGN EITHER dixie? So why use Studds as an example of how Congress or we are being hypocritical now because of studds when you don't mention that Crane, who cheated on his wife and six children with his indecretion did NOT RESIGN either, and btw they were both Censured by Congress?

:(

Care


No one has lied about a thing. I think it's morally reprehensible to be 'making the case' for letting these pedophiles go, or ignoring this sort of behavior in our elected leaders. I thought it was wrong when Bill Clinton did it, and I said so. Democrats don't seem to think it matters, if they can find the loophole, the chink in the legal armor, the "out" to excuse the behavior and move on. Or, if they can cut a bi-partisan deal to let the republican off too. You don't hold your perverts accountable, and never have. To be lecturing Republicans about the moral ethics of sex scandals, is a bit hypocritical, in my view. Studs returned to Democrat politics, Crane and Foley will never be elected Dog Catcher again by Republicans. There is a HUGE difference of standards here, and I merely wanted to point that out.

I'm further outraged by this faux indignance over "the welfare of the poor children, entrusted to our care in D.C!" When I start looking at this whole affair objectively, I see where someone on the Democrat side, knew damn well what Foley was doing, had the goods on him, and intentionally withheld the information for maximum political advantage. To me, this makes them an accessory to the crime, and guilty of conspiracy to conceal a felony. Not to mention, the Election Ethics of such a thing. It's sad when a representative of the house resigns, not just for the individual or the party, but mostly, for the disenfranchised people they represented. Think about it Care, you and I can pick up the phone right now, and call our elected representative... who do the people in Foley's district have to call today?

Care4all
10-05-2006, 02:19 PM
No one has lied about a thing. I think it's morally reprehensible to be 'making the case' for letting these pedophiles go, or ignoring this sort of behavior in our elected leaders. I thought it was wrong when Bill Clinton did it, and I said so. Democrats don't seem to think it matters, if they can find the loophole, the chink in the legal armor, the "out" to excuse the behavior and move on. Or, if they can cut a bi-partisan deal to let the republican off too. You don't hold your perverts accountable, and never have. To be lecturing Republicans about the moral ethics of sex scandals, is a bit hypocritical, in my view. Studs returned to Democrat politics, Crane and Foley will never be elected Dog Catcher again by Republicans. There is a HUGE difference of standards here, and I merely wanted to point that out.

I'm further outraged by this faux indignance over "the welfare of the poor children, entrusted to our care in D.C!" When I start looking at this whole affair objectively, I see where someone on the Democrat side, knew damn well what Foley was doing, had the goods on him, and intentionally withheld the information for maximum political advantage. To me, this makes them an accessory to the crime, and guilty of conspiracy to conceal a felony. Not to mention, the Election Ethics of such a thing. It's sad when a representative of the house resigns, not just for the individual or the party, but mostly, for the disenfranchised people they represented. Think about it Care, you and I can pick up the phone right now, and call our elected representative... who do the people in Foley's district have to call today?

His staff and his staff's office is who they can call today and 99% of their problems or issues are handled by "the staff"...I have experience with this with Senator Kerry from requests I have made or requests Matt and I have made, and his staff is who got us results, immediately on several occaisions.

Go for it Dixie... If there is someone in the Democratic Leadership that held this back for 3 to 5 years then they most certainly should be censured also...and are at fault also, in putting the children in page program at risk of coming in contact with a Congressional Sexual Predator...

I just don't see the benefit of a Democrat holding this information about this back for the past 2-5 years and how that would help a Democrat in any way other than having the Seat go to a Republican, Foley, in Florida?

As far as activist groups revealing the Democratic or rebulican hypocritical gays in Congress, one by one....I have heard that...

Not all gays in congress will be outed by this blogger, but gays that lead a different life than what they show in their own lives... is what this blogger just said on tucker carlson...

A gop aid is who supplied the emails from what it just said on tucker's show?

don't know about the instant messages?

Cypress
10-05-2006, 02:33 PM
Tell me something, Carebritches...

Has it just not dawned on you, that you are spending an awful lot of time and energy defending your own scumbag pedophile, instead of shaming republicans over Foley?

Somehow, I don't think this Foley thing is playing out like the Democrats had hoped.


DIXIE: "Somehow, I don't think this Foley thing is playing out like the Democrats had hoped!"


"Internal Poll Suggests Hastert Could Devastate GOP"

Fox News
Oct. 5

FOX NEWS: "House Republican candidates will suffer massive losses if House Speaker Dennis Hastert remains speaker until Election Day, according to internal polling data from a prominent GOP pollster, FOX News has learned."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218043,00.html

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-05-2006, 02:40 PM
Why do you put the caviat at 2-3 years? If a Democrat OR Republican, knew that Foley had engaged in this behavior, it is their responsibility to inform the authorities immediately, there is not a 2-3 year window on this, or a 2-3 month window. If someone knew what was going on, and deliberately held the information so as to effect a national election, that is a serious matter as well. You wouldn't accept me telling you, I would support Hastert's removal, only if he knew about it for more than 6 months, but not less. We have quite a bit to investigate here, and I fully support prosecution for those involved in this, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, and whether they withheld information about a crime for 2 months or 2 years.

Pelosi and Emmanuel have declined a polygraph, so that tells me, they knew about this. The whole thing is beginning to stink like 3 day old tuna, and what's ironic, is if it comes out that democrats played dirty tricks here, they stand to lose more votes than the scandal gained them.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-05-2006, 02:44 PM
Prissy, I think you need to quit trying to govern by polls. Any poll results posted today, were taken before the details of this affair were widely known, and are subject to change dramatically over the course of the next few weeks.

Cypress
10-05-2006, 02:45 PM
Why do you put the caviat at 2-3 years? If a Democrat OR Republican, knew that Foley had engaged in this behavior, it is their responsibility to inform the authorities immediately, there is not a 2-3 year window on this, or a 2-3 month window. If someone knew what was going on, and deliberately held the information so as to effect a national election, that is a serious matter as well.

If this was a "clever" Democratic plot, do you realize how STUPID they were for holding it for "two to three years" (your words).

The time to spring this clever "trap" would have been November 2004, which was less than two years ago.


Fox News, Oct. 5:

WASHINGTON — House Republican candidates will suffer massive losses if House Speaker Dennis Hastert remains speaker until Election Day, according to internal polling data from a prominent GOP pollster, FOX News has learned.....While internal GOP polls show trouble for Republicans, the newest AP/Ipsos poll also showed that half of likely voters say the Foley scandal will be "very or extremely important" when it comes time to vote on Nov. 7. By nearly a 2-1 ratio, voters say Democrats are better at combating corruption......

"The data suggests Americans have bailed on the speaker," a Republican source briefed on the polling data told FOX News. "And the difference could be between a 20-seat loss and 50-seat loss."

Care4all
10-05-2006, 03:15 PM
Why do you put the caviat at 2-3 years? If a Democrat OR Republican, knew that Foley had engaged in this behavior, it is their responsibility to inform the authorities immediately, there is not a 2-3 year window on this, or a 2-3 month window. If someone knew what was going on, and deliberately held the information so as to effect a national election, that is a serious matter as well. You wouldn't accept me telling you, I would support Hastert's removal, only if he knew about it for more than 6 months, but not less. We have quite a bit to investigate here, and I fully support prosecution for those involved in this, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, and whether they withheld information about a crime for 2 months or 2 years.

Pelosi and Emmanuel have declined a polygraph, so that tells me, they knew about this. The whole thing is beginning to stink like 3 day old tuna, and what's ironic, is if it comes out that democrats played dirty tricks here, they stand to lose more votes than the scandal gained them.


REPUBLICANS in leadership positions have known about Foley's inappropriate behavior for 2-5 years, is what is being said....nothing at all about any democratic leadership knowing this....nothing.

so far, it looks like self destruction by the republicans pointing fingers at eachother....

care

Jarod
10-05-2006, 03:23 PM
Prissy, I think you need to quit trying to govern by polls. Any poll results posted today, were taken before the details of this affair were widely known, and are subject to change dramatically over the course of the next few weeks.



Cypress governs? What are you not telling us Cypress, are you an elected official?

Jarod
10-05-2006, 03:25 PM
If the Republicans loose 20 - 50 seats it will be HUGE!

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-05-2006, 03:54 PM
REPUBLICANS in leadership positions have known about Foley's inappropriate behavior for 2-5 years, is what is being said....nothing at all about any democratic leadership knowing this....nothing.

so far, it looks like self destruction by the republicans pointing fingers at eachother....

care

The Republicans knew he had sent emails to pages, asking for pictures, and how their summer was going, nothing they could have unseated an elected representative on. What's being said, is political spin by the masters of smear, and you are gulping it down as fast as it comes out. The IM revelations just came out recently, and as soon as they did, he resigned and an investigation was called for. How long did Democrat operatives know of these salacious IM's, and not tell anyone? That's the question I want an answer to.

As Prissy points out, the prime time to have released this, would have been before the 2004 Elections, so apparently, no Democrat knew of this 2-3 years ago, which is why you are willing to hang anyone who did... you understand it would be ignorant for them to have known this during the 2004 Elections and not revealed it. I don't care if they knew about it for 2 weeks! If someone had this information, and intentionally withheld it for political gain, that is unethical as it gets, and that action allowed the predator to remain at large, threatening the children you so dramatically defend.

To me, the biggest issue is the election ethics. Because some Democrat strategist wanted to score a cheap political victory here, the people of Mark Foley's district will not have a fair opportunity to elect a legitimate representative. You've essentially disenfranchised these people through no fault of their own, by intentionally waiting until after their primary, and the deadline to put another name on the ballot.

So, Democrats have not only put our children at risk of a predator, and not only withheld information regarding a felony, but they also managed to disenfranchise an entire house district in Congress. And you have the nerve to dare mention "ethics" here?

Care4all
10-05-2006, 04:20 PM
The Republicans knew he had sent emails to pages, asking for pictures, and how their summer was going, nothing they could have unseated an elected representative on. What's being said, is political spin by the masters of smear, and you are gulping it down as fast as it comes out. The IM revelations just came out recently, and as soon as they did, he resigned and an investigation was called for. How long did Democrat operatives know of these salacious IM's, and not tell anyone? That's the question I want an answer to.

As Prissy points out, the prime time to have released this, would have been before the 2004 Elections, so apparently, no Democrat knew of this 2-3 years ago, which is why you are willing to hang anyone who did... you understand it would be ignorant for them to have known this during the 2004 Elections and not revealed it. I don't care if they knew about it for 2 weeks! If someone had this information, and intentionally withheld it for political gain, that is unethical as it gets, and that action allowed the predator to remain at large, threatening the children you so dramatically defend.

To me, the biggest issue is the election ethics. Because some Democrat strategist wanted to score a cheap political victory here, the people of Mark Foley's district will not have a fair opportunity to elect a legitimate representative. You've essentially disenfranchised these people through no fault of their own, by intentionally waiting until after their primary, and the deadline to put another name on the ballot.

So, Democrats have not only put our children at risk of a predator, and not only withheld information regarding a felony, but they also managed to disenfranchise an entire house district in Congress. And you have the nerve to dare mention "ethics" here?

here is what you are missing...the non political CITIZENS watch group that got copies of the emails of TWO SEPARATE 16 year old pages that Foley was communicating with was in LAST JULY...They immediately turned them over to the FBI...this was in July, which is hardly an october surprise planned by democrats using this group. They got these emails from a republican white house aid, that was tired of it being covered up...imo....on the tired part...but the republican aid is fact and who they are saying is the original source of the emails, not just one email and not just one kid involved...is what is being said, and I even heard this from Kate O;brian, hardly a liberal...

we need to sit back to see what falls...

as someone on tv said earlier, who needs reality tv, when you've got this? ;)

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-05-2006, 04:52 PM
here is what you are missing...the non political CITIZENS watch group that got copies of the emails of TWO SEPARATE 16 year old pages that Foley was communicating with was in LAST JULY...They immediately turned them over to the FBI...

Here is what YOU are missing... the so-called "non political" group you are talking about, is funded by George Soros. They are essentially a liberal witch hunt group, designed to dig up dirt on Republicans. The emails they claimed they turned over, (if there were any), did not contain sexually explicit language, like the IM's, which were revealed last Friday for the first time.

I will also point out, for the second time in two posts, you have indicated things like "someone said..." and "what is being said..." as your basis for belief. You are simply going on hearsay, rumor, speculation, and not the tangible facts in the matter. Democrats are always lecturing Republicans about the "rush to judgement" in these matters, and I think it's important to remember that, so that you don't appear to be hypocritical here.

I've already forgone my usual rants about "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" arguments, which could be applied to Foley, since he hasn't been formally charged with anything, that I am aware of. I've already presumed the man guilty through his resignation and confession/appology. I certainly don't want to go beyond that, to condemn Republican leadership for something I can't prove they knew about, and honestly, I can't see them knowing about and not dealing with.

I think what Foley was doing, is unacceptable behavior, and I am consistent on this, whether it's a Republican or Democrat. I want him to pay a heavy price, and again, I am consistent. And I want those who withheld this information from authorities to be held responsible as well. If Hastert knew that Foley was doing this sort of thing, and did nothing, I want him gone. If Nancy Pelosi knew he was doing this stuff, and agreed to keep her mouth shut for the fireworks show, I want her gone too! Anyone who knew Mark Foley was a pedophile, and was engaging in illegal acts with minors, I want them to pay a price for not bringing the information forward in time to insure fairness to the people of Foley's district.

Beyond that, I would a support the full email and IM investigation of every member of Congress. Let's just shut the place down for a little while, and have look at what everyone is doing! This way, we can reveal any potential Mark Foley's out there, who haven't been outed. The way I see it, where there is one, there are more. Let's you and I demand that they reveal this data immediately, so that we can be assured we have proper representation, and this sort of thing can't happen again in the future.

Deal?

Care4all
10-05-2006, 05:38 PM
Do you think the FBI is only going to be investigating the Republican's coverup?

I don't think so and that is not what they are commissioned to do... they are commissioned to find out who knew what, and when and to see if there were any other instances where pages are being used... if the democrats are involved they will be exposed....so, yes...I agree that everyone should be included in on this investigation and have every confidence that all will be exposed...that is...unless the republicans have an "in" with the fbi and justice dept and gonzalez ;) ;), which prevents the truth coming out and a coverup occurs on the original coverup..?

I find it hard to believe that Dennis Hastert did not know anything about this and the EMAILS ALONE should have set off red flags with him and with his staffers handling this, ESPECIALLY since complaints about Foley had come in on him a few times over the past few years regarding his inappropriate behavior with pages...

Maybe it is possible that his staff kept it from him.... I will give him the benefit of the doubt until it is a fact, one way or the other...

I don't know why all those other republicans are turning on Hastert and outing him the way they did....that is pretty rotten, if it was not true...
----------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever seen the movie Liar, Liar with Jim Carry?

When he kept splurting out the truth and he could not understand what was happening to himself?

So he asks himself, why is this happening to me?

And he blurts out the truth as an answer... with no control over his response to himself and said with shock the truth...which was this:

"I'm reaping what I sow.........

I'm getting what I deserve..."

a real funny movie... I brought it up because I was thinking about why this was happening all of a sudden to all of these unorganized, off message, Republicans and I thought about reaping what you sow, which made me think of this movie... :D

care

uscitizen
10-05-2006, 08:07 PM
I agree Care if demoncrats are doing anything illegal or unethical they should hang as well. I am non partisan when it comes to getting slime out of our government.
And as far as Hastert goes, he could be innocent, but I sure am enjoying the show ;)

TRGLDTE
10-06-2006, 08:19 AM
Can you say "Speaker Pelosi" four times really fast?No, but I can say it three times really fast - Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!

TRGLDTE
10-06-2006, 08:33 AM
His small district kept him in office becasue he did not break the law, I guess??? but the DEMOCRATS Nationwide DID NOT KEEP him in office. That's wrong, Dix. Studds retained his committee chairmanship even afterward. In fact, he was there for ten more years and Pelosi voted fives in the affirmative to re-elect Studds to his committee chair.

TRGLDTE
10-06-2006, 08:47 AM
or better yet, just kill 'em....
fuck it...torture 'em first

that seems to be the American way these days I agree - I hate pedophiles with a deep, dark level of hatred and desire to commit true violence that I feel for no other creatures on earth. Pedophiles should have their skin sanded with a belt sander and 80 grit paper until they are good and raw. Then a dunking in kerosene. Light them on fire for about ten seconds and put them out. Let the bastard suffer with 50% 3rd degree burns, not too much or they'll die, and we don't want that yet - I understand it is excruciatingly painful to suffer major burns.

That's just Step One - I haven't even delved into what I could do with a Valentine's irrigator.

TRGLDTE
10-06-2006, 08:59 AM
Why do you put the caveat at 2-3 years? The FIRST allegations against Studds were made in 1973.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-06-2006, 09:39 AM
His small district kept him in office becasue he did not break the law, I guess??? but the DEMOCRATS Nationwide DID NOT KEEP him in office.

That's wrong, Dix. Studds retained his committee chairmanship even afterward. In fact, he was there for ten more years and Pelosi voted fives in the affirmative to re-elect Studds to his committee chair.


This statement was posted by Care, I was quoting her. I am well-aware Studs remained in the party and was re-elected for years after this incident. That was kinda my whole point.

Care4all
10-06-2006, 10:17 AM
The FIRST allegations against Studds were made in 1973.

When you were a child and got caught by your parents doing something wrong, did you always shout, that your sibbling had done it tooooooo?

The Republicans are acting as though they are first graders....amazing how low you will go to try to EXCUSE this predatory behavior of Foley's ...

by trying to equate it with Representative's Studd's indescretion and inappropriate and shameful actions with a 17 year old boy that turned out to be his lover, and who was standing by Rep. Studds side in 1983 at the podeum of his press conference after the Censure, 10 years later, at 28 years old....(He has said he never felt what he did with the congressman as wrong, but consentual adults in a relationship)

Studs was stripped of his committee leadership by Tip O'neal, and Censured.

He never had another incident...he did not repeatedly prey upon young minor boys.... And became one of the nost effective congressman that Massachusetts had ever had....loved by his district and reelected over and over again, from what the articles say...and that he retired in 1996.

He got married to his long time Lover in 2005 in Massachusetts.

The reason that the affair Studds had with this 17 year old page in 1983, 10 years after his actual inappropriate behavior, is because A Republican Congressman had been caught with his "one eyed trouser worm" in a 17 year old page girls panties" and republicans needed to make it look better for the Republican just caught, so they brought up the studds issue from 10 years previous.

Republican Representative Crane who had the Affair with the 17 year old Page girl, (who...btw, later said that she was the seducer of him in her opinion), was supposedly happily married with 6 children....he refused to resign from his position also, and he also ran for reelection after the affair, but was not reelected because unlike Studds who was single, Crane committed Adultery and broke the law by doing such and trust of his constituants by Cheating on his wife.

here's the kicker...from one article that i had read...

The prospects are less clear for Crane, the brother of Illinois Representative Philip Crane, who sought the 1980 G.O.P. presidential nomination. "This does not fit the image Dan Crane has tried to portray," says Danville Lawyer Tom Lindley. "This makes it less likely he'll run for re-election." On Saturday, Crane said he would not resign. His press secretary, William Mencarow, suggested the entire matter was no big deal. "If we required the resignation of all Congressmen who slept with young ladies," he said, "we wouldn't have a Congress." He later apologized for the observation.


Go ahead and bring up things from the past like Rep. Studds, but don't leave out the Republican Censured right by his side or the facts that followed for the years afterwards that lead people to support Studds for chairmanship again of a Marine life committee etc....

care

Damocles
10-06-2006, 10:25 AM
Pointing out hypocrisy while supporting the punishment of another is not saying, "But so-and-so did it tooooooo!"

This is a common strawman presented by those whose hypocrisy is being exposed. "The you do it too defense!"

Well, it isn't being used... Everybody agrees, Foley did a bad thing and he has resigned and will be punished for any further wrongdoing. Now let's see what the other side does... attempts to pretend that it never happened on thier side? Yes. Get upset when those that it did happen to are shown to have been applauded, re-elected, and given LEADERSHIP positions among them? Yes.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-06-2006, 10:25 AM
When you were a child and got caught by your parents doing something wrong, did you always shout, that your sibbling had done it tooooooo?

The Republicans are acting as though they are first graders....amazing how low you will go to try to EXCUSE this predatory behavior of Foley's ..

Excuse me, but isn't that precisely what you were doing when you posted the extensive list of republicans to counter Danos list? I believe it is!

No one has tried to point to Democrats to excuse Foley, I know that's what you want to think, because that is how Democrats will react, but honestly, that's not why we have pointed out Studs and Reynolds at all. It has more to do with the handling of these individuals after the fact, by the party leaders. Democrats can have pedophiles actually engaging in sex with kids, and they get standing ovations and re-elected numerous times... Republicans have a pedophile sending emails, and not only is he forced to resign, but you try to take out the Speaker as well! It's a double standard, that was the purpose in pointing it out, not to excuse anyone!

Care4all
10-06-2006, 10:31 AM
When you were a child and got caught by your parents doing something wrong, did you always shout, that your sibbling had done it tooooooo?

The Republicans are acting as though they are first graders....amazing how low you will go to try to EXCUSE this predatory behavior of Foley's ..

Excuse me, but isn't that precisely what you were doing when you posted the extensive list of republicans to counter Danos list? I believe it is!

No one has tried to point to Democrats to excuse Foley, I know that's what you want to think, because that is how Democrats will react, but honestly, that's not why we have pointed out Studs and Reynolds at all. It has more to do with the handling of these individuals after the fact, by the party leaders. Democrats can have pedophiles actually engaging in sex with kids, and they get standing ovations and re-elected numerous times... Republicans have a pedophile sending emails, and not only is he forced to resign, but you try to take out the Speaker as well! It's a double standard, that was the purpose in pointing it out, not to excuse anyone!

I posted the REST of the List that Dano's site's cut and pasted from...

I posted the full article's list....

Not a manipulated short cut list leaving out the facts ON BOTH SIDES of the aisle.... so that people on this board don't get this INTENTIONALLY DECEIVING list of 10 that was cut out of the ORIGINAL ARTICLE that covered ALL indescretions on Congress....

Just to CLARIFY it for YOU... ;)

care

Care4all
10-06-2006, 10:38 AM
Democrats can have pedophiles actually engaging in sex with kids, and they get standing ovations and re-elected numerous times

Really? Who? Name him.... If you say Studds, you are being a hypocrite....Studds did not have sex with someone under the age of 12, he was 17, of legal age but most certainly a Minor!

The same with Foley...he is not a pedofile....he preys on young men, minors and has used his power over and over and over again to befriend these boys for sexual "talk" or sexual satisfaction in the physical so we are finding out, with his offer of his apartment for a blow job....so the latest page to come out says...

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-06-2006, 10:59 AM
Democrats can have pedophiles actually engaging in sex with kids, and they get standing ovations and re-elected numerous times

Really? Who? Name him.... If you say Studds, you are being a hypocrite....Studds did not have sex with someone under the age of 12, he was 17, of legal age but most certainly a Minor!

The same with Foley...he is not a pedofile....he preys on young men, minors and has used his power over and over and over again to befriend these boys for sexual "talk" or sexual satisfaction in the physical so we are finding out, with his offer of his apartment for a blow job....so the latest page to come out says...


Mel Reynolds. He was caught on tape, soliciting a threesome with 14-year-old Catholic school girls. But it's interesting to note, you now feel that a Congressman having sex with young men who served as pages, is not all that wrong, if they happen to be a certain age, especially if they also happen to be a Democrat. I'm glad you clarified this, because I was starting to think you actually thought Foley's actions were unacceptable, now I know it's just because he is a Republican.

IHateGovernment
10-06-2006, 11:05 AM
All I know is that transposing the letter after the guys name from R to D would result in the same effect just different people saying it.

TRGLDTE
10-06-2006, 11:20 AM
Democrats can have pedophiles actually engaging in sex with kids, and they get standing ovations and re-elected numerous times

Really? Who? Name him.... If you say Studds, you are being a hypocrite....Studds did not have sex with someone under the age of 12, he was 17, of legal age but most certainly a Minor!

The same with Foley...he is not a pedofile....he preys on young men, minors and has used his power over and over and over again to befriend these boys for sexual "talk" or sexual satisfaction in the physical so we are finding out, with his offer of his apartment for a blow job....so the latest page to come out says...
Technically, you are correct: Foley is not a pedophile, he is a hebephile.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-06-2006, 11:52 AM
I was listening to someone yesterday, and they made a fairly relevant point, I think. They pointed out, Hastert and Republicans were aware that Foley had a fondness for the appearance, maturity, and physical characteristics of young men. This was what was derived from the emails, and all that could be considered a "red flag" to anyone reading them. Foley had an attraction and fondness for the physical attributes of young men.

This being said, isn't that exactly the position of the Boy Scouts of America, in requiring their leaders not be physically attracted to young men? Doesn't the Care4All argument apply across the board, to the Boy Scouts, who feel compelled to discriminate based on an adult male's fondness for young men?

I would be interested to know if Robdawg is offended by the inference, that the Republicans should have known about Foley's unacceptable behavior, based on the mere fondness he had for young male physical attributes? Is that fair, Rob?

Care4all
10-06-2006, 12:27 PM
Mel Reynolds. He was caught on tape, soliciting a threesome with 14-year-old Catholic school girls. But it's interesting to note, you now feel that a Congressman having sex with young men who served as pages, is not all that wrong, if they happen to be a certain age, especially if they also happen to be a Democrat. I'm glad you clarified this, because I was starting to think you actually thought Foley's actions were unacceptable, now I know it's just because he is a Republican.

No, I do think it was wrong of Studds to start this relationship with this minor, and he said that what he did was wrong also, because it was a subordinate...but the point is that Studds, did not continue pursuing teenage boys as Foley has done for over a decade in Congress, it appears now.

If studds had not changed his life for the better and had not truely repented I would be screaming from the rooftop that he was the SAME as foley, as you guys seem to want to bring out.

Regardless, I would not have reelected him after the incident because I would have thought that he would not have been able to control himself and would have gone after other pages....

But HE DID NOT.... and you gotta give him credit for that, imo.

care

Reynolds, is scum...and as close to a pedophile as they come, though I am not sure that 14 is considered pedophilia, though it should be imo.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-06-2006, 01:10 PM
No, I do think it was wrong of Studds to start this relationship with this minor, and he said that what he did was wrong also, because it was a subordinate...but the point is that Studds, did not continue pursuing teenage boys as Foley has done for over a decade in Congress, it appears now.

If studds had not changed his life for the better and had not truely repented I would be screaming from the rooftop that he was the SAME as foley, as you guys seem to want to bring out.

Studds wasn't ever caught going after boys again, but his gay subordinate page was by his side when he gave his press conference, and neither of them renounced their "love" for one another. So, where you get this "repentance" from, I have no clue. Are you sure we're talking about the same guy?

I somehow doubt Foley will continue pursuing young boys anymore, now that he has been caught. Of course, that wasn't the issue, was it. People who have an attraction to children, are sick and twisted inside, Care, they don't simply "repent" and get over that. It is why the recidivism rate for pedophiles is so high, and why we should have tougher sentences for them.

maineman
10-06-2006, 01:43 PM
I somehow doubt Foley will continue pursuing young boys anymore, now that he has been caught. Of course, that wasn't the issue, was it. People who have an attraction to children, are sick and twisted inside, Care, they don't simply "repent" and get over that. It is why the recidivism rate for pedophiles is so high, and why we should have tougher sentences for them.

is the inherent contradiction in that statement as obvious to anyone else?

Cypress
10-06-2006, 02:00 PM
Why do you put the caviat at 2-3 years? If a Democrat OR Republican, knew that Foley had engaged in this behavior, it is their responsibility to inform the authorities immediately, there is not a 2-3 year window on this, or a 2-3 month window. If someone knew what was going on, and deliberately held the information so as to effect a national election, that is a serious matter as well. You wouldn't accept me telling you, I would support Hastert's removal, only if he knew about it for more than 6 months, but not less. We have quite a bit to investigate here, and I fully support prosecution for those involved in this, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, and whether they withheld information about a crime for 2 months or 2 years.

Pelosi and Emmanuel have declined a polygraph, so that tells me, they knew about this. The whole thing is beginning to stink like 3 day old tuna, and what's ironic, is if it comes out that democrats played dirty tricks here, they stand to lose more votes than the scandal gained them.

Dixie, I have some advice to give you. Take it or leave it. But, keep in mind, I've been right about virtually everything from Iraq to foreign policy, to tax cuts. And you've been wrong about virtually everything.

With regard to Foley, one thing that will NEVER sell to american Mothers is:

"Hey who leaked this thing??!!"

and....

"Hey, look over there at what some democrats did years ago!!"


I don't know how well you know american mothers, but they ain't buying that. Those are the type of diversions and excuses American mothers deal with on a daily basis, when thier naughty teenagers and children get into trouble. American mothers don't fall for diversions and excuses.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-06-2006, 02:12 PM
Prissy, why are you so concerned about Mothers? Do you wish you had your Mommy, or something? I don't know, it seems sort of odd to me, you are the only one who is mentioning Mothers, like they are the only people who vote, and they only have one opinion.

Most Mothers I know, are just as concerned about a political party who would keep kids at risk of a pedophile, so that they don't spoil the October Surprise before Florida has a chance to change their ballots. Most Mothers weren't real hot on Hillary being cheated on by her husband, with a child young enough to be their daughter. And most Mothers live in a completely different realm of the universe as you do, since you evolved from a simple-cell organism, and don't apparently have a Mother!

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-06-2006, 02:17 PM
I somehow doubt Foley will continue pursuing young boys anymore, now that he has been caught. Of course, that wasn't the issue, was it. People who have an attraction to children, are sick and twisted inside, Care, they don't simply "repent" and get over that. It is why the recidivism rate for pedophiles is so high, and why we should have tougher sentences for them.

is the inherent contradiction in that statement as obvious to anyone else?


Only to those who see no difference between "being attracted to" and "pursuing actively" when it comes to pedophilia. I suppose you know more about this than I do, and I should defer to your expertise on the subject. Perhaps Foley will indeed continue to pursue young boys, it is a sickness, and he can't help himself, and I know how intimately well you understand this. Thanks for clearing that up for us. My point, however, was that Foley would not be pursuing boys from the well of Congress anymore, as he is no longer there.

Cypress
10-06-2006, 02:19 PM
Okay, I didn't expect you to think I was right.

Keep telling your republican leaders to blame "leaking Democrats", Bill Clinton, ABC News, and some whacko Democrat from 1983.



Good strategy. American parents know diversion and excuse-making when they see it. That's why every new poll from Rasmussen to Time show 2/3s of americans think Republican leadership is hiding something, and lying.

IHateGovernment
10-06-2006, 03:52 PM
since you evolved from a simple-cell organism, and don't apparently have a Mother!

LOL

You slime eating dog

You scum sucking pig

You son of a motherless goat!

maineman
10-06-2006, 03:55 PM
Only to those who see no difference between "being attracted to" and "pursuing actively" when it comes to pedophilia. I suppose you know more about this than I do, and I should defer to your expertise on the subject. Perhaps Foley will indeed continue to pursue young boys, it is a sickness, and he can't help himself, and I know how intimately well you understand this. Thanks for clearing that up for us. My point, however, was that Foley would not be pursuing boys from the well of Congress anymore, as he is no longer there.

so.... does this mean that you will answer all of my replies to you, or just those that you can make slanderous and slimey innuendo-laden jabs at me about? Foley is a gay man who has the hots for young guys. Now you can say that is a sickness or you can chalk it up to sexual preference...I really don't care which. I have never said that Foley was a pedophile...just a gay republican congressman who abused the trust of his office by hitting on the teenage pages who were serving under the protection and supervision of the House.... And the real crime is that Hastert and his staff were warned and did nothing. That will keep the religious right home on election day....

For you to suggest that Foley will all of a sudden stop being gay or stop liking young teens is ridiculous. Despite your sick little comments, I have a healthy sex life with a wife and three kids.... how's your's there, Dixie? Still got that smarmy glamour shots up on your dating website where you talk about long walks on the beach and quiet times with the girl of your dreams? My guess is your "sex life" involves a lot of girlie magazines and late night "carrot cuffing".

Now that you have obviously taken me off your ignore list (as if I ever was there), I hope this means that are getting ready to get your checkbook out and write me that $100 check you KNOW you'll owe me next month.

If I were a real generous guy, I'd change the bet to be that we'd take control of the house instead of just pick up seats in both chambers.....

but shucks... for assholes like you who repeatedly infer that I rape my own son, I am nowhere near that generous.

Get ready to pay up.... dickhead.

maineman
10-08-2006, 04:24 PM
Dixie.... am I on IGNORE again? hahahahahahahahahaha

maineman
10-09-2006, 01:16 PM
Dixie?