Mark Foley

[sfc 1]

Quote

One of the great things conservatives always had going for themselves was there insistence that responsibility should be taken, not shifted. Making the staff into the scapegoat here can only hurt the Republican position.

I think they are more into "do as I say" rather than "do as I do". The only way they resign is if they are being being prosecuted or in some cases going to jail is seems.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

One of the great things conservatives always had going for themselves was there insistence that responsibility should be taken, not shifted. Making the staff into the scapegoat here can only hurt the Republican position.

I think they are more into "do as I say" rather than "do as I do". The only way they resign is if they are being being prosecuted or in some cases going to jail is seems.

You mean like Foley?

In contrast, let's look at William Jefferson.

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

One of the great things conservatives always had going for themselves was there insistence that responsibility should be taken, not shifted. Making the staff into the scapegoat here can only hurt the Republican position.

I think they are more into "do as I say" rather than "do as I do". The only way they resign is if they are being being prosecuted or in some cases going to jail is seems.

You mean like Foley?

In contrast, let's look at William Jefferson.

No I mean more like this (ney)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/13/ney.ap/index.html

P.S. We're talking about the conservatives. They set themselves up on "holier than thou" pedastals and have further to fall. But nice try to divert the attention. Ever heard of glass houses?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You know I keep hearing that rumor but as far as I've seen, there hasn't been a single allegation that a specific Democrat had foreknowledge of what Foley was doing. That in contrast to quite a number of specific allegations on the Republican side.

You mean like where Hastert's STAFF was notified that Foley was sending innapropriate emails?

Uh-oh, we've reached the "grasping at straws" stage now.

So... WHO was the Democratic op that was peddling the emails to papers a YEAR AGO and what did Pelosi and Emanuel know?

A fuckin' YEAR AGO... yeah, the Dems are really concerned with protecting children... unless, of course, it's:

a. One of their own actually HAVING SEX with one, or:

b. They can hold the info and use it to smear Republicans right before an election

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You know I keep hearing that rumor but as far as I've seen, there hasn't been a single allegation that a specific Democrat had foreknowledge of what Foley was doing. That in contrast to quite a number of specific allegations on the Republican side.

You mean like where Hastert's STAFF was notified that Foley was sending innapropriate emails?

Uh-oh, we've reached the "grasping at straws" stage now.

So... WHO was the Democratic op that was peddling the emails to papers a YEAR AGO and what did Pelosi and Emanuel know?

A fuckin' YEAR AGO... yeah, the Dems are really concerned with protecting children... unless, of course, it's:

a. One of their own actually HAVING SEX with one, or:

b. They can hold the info and use it to smear Republicans right before an election

Last time I checked, Foley was still a Republican, and had been in a GOP leadership position.

However, compared with this it's all a storm in a teacup.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

However, compared with this it's all a storm in a teacup

I never expect to see another gripe from you about an off-topic post, John...

Back to the main subject....the Republicans have already "ex-Foley-ated" ( ) - maybe it's time the Dems did too.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If that's true, then everyone who claims "the left defended Clinton" is just as wrong.

As a whole, the left defended Clinton and is attacking Foley.

They say such things as, "No one died when Clinton lied." and "It was just a BJ."

No one on the right is defending Foleys actions.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

If that's true, then everyone who claims "the left defended Clinton" is just as wrong.

As a whole, the left defended Clinton and is attacking Foley.

They say such things as, "No one died when Clinton lied." and "It was just a BJ."

No one on the right is defending Foleys actions.

Right, they're just defending Hastert. Don't forget, "It's not the crime, it's the coverup."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Right, they're just defending Hastert. Don't forget, "It's not the crime, it's the coverup."

Maybe it "depends on what the definition of 'is', is..."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

the Republicans have already "ex-Foley-ated" - maybe it's time the Dems did too.

Not a chance. Why? Simple. The Repubs have been giving the Dems hard lessons in the effectiveness of well-timed, hardball politics for the past 20 years. This year, the Dems are simply showing their willingness (ability?) to play the same hardball that the Repubs have taught them so well. Sure as hell Karl Rove would never show any quarter if positions were reversed. And that's what makes it fair.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

This year, the Dems are simply showing their willingness (ability?) to play the same hardball that the Repubs have taught them so well. ....... And that's what makes it fair.

"This year"??

That's a joke, right? The poor little Dems are only just now learning?

Don't fool yourself - both parties are experts and have been drawing from the same bag of tricks for as long as you and I have been alive.

That's what makes it 'fair', the equal playing field. It's also equally disgusting.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

I could have said what I meant a bit more precisely. I meant that this year, when the Foley and Weldon scandals' shit is hitting the fan just before the election, the Repubs' 1st rection was to attack the "timing" as "politically motivated". Well, duh. Yeah, both sides do it, but in previous years the Repubs have been more skilled at it. This year the Dems have gotten up to speed.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

the Republicans have already "ex-Foley-ated" - maybe it's time the Dems did too.

Not a chance. Why? Simple. The Repubs have been giving the Dems hard lessons in the effectiveness of well-timed, hardball politics for the past 20 years. This year, the Dems are simply showing their willingness (ability?) to play the same hardball that the Repubs have taught them so well. Sure as hell Karl Rove would never show any quarter if positions were reversed. And that's what makes it fair.

Awwwwww.....Poor Babies!!!!!!!!!!!!

<<<<<**eyes glaze over**>>>>

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Yeah, both sides do it, but in previous years the Repubs have been more skilled at it. This year the Dems have gotten up to speed.

Well, you were just more precise and said the exact same thing.

I just have to call bull, again. For the same reason.

Both parties are very skilled at this and no one has been lagging any significant amount. Go look at the last ten presidential elections and see all the "timely" surprises popping up on both sides of the aisle.

Total housecleaning - right now. Complete, non-partisan, etc

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

Whats wrong Karl... distracted by other things???

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Whats wrong Karl... distracted by other things???

I'm working on my October surprise.

[billvon 3,111]

>As a whole, the left defended Clinton and is attacking Foley.

>They say such things as, "No one died when Clinton lied." and "It
> was just a BJ."

>No one on the right is defending Foleys actions.

Right here on this forum, Michele claimed that what Foley did was no worse than what she herself had done (if the reports were to be believed) and she wonders if there was any crime at all. Dorbie claimed that people were criticizing Foley "for sending a explicit messages to a consenting adult in response to explicit messages sent to him."

So that's two people right here.

In the larger world, people have claimed that it was the victim's fault, that the pages are to blame and are probably democratic operatives. They've said that Stubbs was much, much worse than Foley, and that "they were just IM's!"

If you see one as a defense of Clinton, but see the others as simple statements of fact - well, that's a pretty standard partisan view of the world. Republicans are right, democrats are wrong, period. Suffice to say that a democrat will think that your statements concerning Clinton are pure, provable fact, and that the statements about Foley are people defending a pedophile - and they are every bit as correct as you are.

[Gravitymaster 0]

That's quite a mischaracterization of what Michele said.

Quote

And if we are to be convicted simply on sending salacious IMs, email, and text messages to others of age, then I've committed that crime quite a few times. I wasn't aware that you couldn't send dirtytalk email to people who are of majority age.

She's very clearly talking about sending them to someone 18 or older.

[billvon 3,111]

>She's very clearly talking about sending them to someone 18 or older.

Right. And those people supposedly "defending Clinton" were merely pointing out that a) it's not a crime to get a blowjob in one's office and b) no one died when Clinton lied about it. Both facts, as factual as Michele's statements.

If you see one as "defending a pedophile/perjurer" and one as honest, straightforward statements of fact - chances are you have some partisan blinders on.

[NCclimber 0]

I just read an interesting story on the Foley Scandal.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20061011.asp
No doubt, a conservative source. But the facts speak for themselves.

It points out that in the first 12 days of this scandal, the big three networks aired over 150 stories on it. The total only counted stories on the evening news or the morning shows.

In contrast, the Mel Reynolds "scandal" got 19 stories, from the story breaking to Reynolds conviction.

Who says the media ain't driving this train???

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Yeah, both sides do it, but in previous years the Repubs have been more skilled at it. This year the Dems have gotten up to speed.

Well, you were just more precise and said the exact same thing.

I just have to call bull, again. For the same reason.

Both parties are very skilled at this and no one has been lagging any significant amount. Go look at the last ten presidential elections and see all the "timely" surprises popping up on both sides of the aisle.

Total housecleaning - right now. Complete, non-partisan, etc

I can't say it's equal due to the historical campaign $$ war chest advantage that the R's typically enjoyed. But that aside, I agree whole heartedly. We need a complete DO-OVER. Just think how much cheaper things would be if those corporations didn't have to send so many lobbyists to DC.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I just read an interesting story on the Foley Scandal.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20061011.asp
No doubt, a conservative source. But the facts speak for themselves.

It points out that in the first 12 days of this scandal, the big three networks aired over 150 stories on it. The total only counted stories on the evening news or the morning shows.

In contrast, the Mel Reynolds "scandal" got 19 stories, from the story breaking to Reynolds conviction.

Who says the media ain't driving this train???

IIRC, Mel Reynolds wasn't in charge of a child protection activity for Congress, nor a member of the "Family Values Party".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

No. But he was found guilty of 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography.

Have any charges been filed against Foley? Have any legal experts offered opinions on which laws he may have broken?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>She's very clearly talking about sending them to someone 18 or older.

Right. And those people supposedly "defending Clinton" were merely pointing out that a) it's not a crime to get a blowjob in one's office and b) no one died when Clinton lied about it. Both facts, as factual as Michele's statements.

I don't see what Michele said as a defense of Foley, but I'm let her defend herself on that point. BTW, who died because of Foley???

OTOH, that's quite a misdirection and mischaracterization of Clinton's problems. Everytime someone says "He lied under oath" the response from the left has been "He only got a blowjob".

I know that over time when the same lie gets repeated over and over, that some people start to believe it. But lying under oath when you are being sued for sexual harrassment isn't OK no matter how much spin is put on it. I have never heard of someone losing their license to practice law for getting a blowjob, have you?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I just read an interesting story on the Foley Scandal.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20061011.asp
No doubt, a conservative source. But the facts speak for themselves.

It points out that in the first 12 days of this scandal, the big three networks aired over 150 stories on it. The total only counted stories on the evening news or the morning shows.

In contrast, the Mel Reynolds "scandal" got 19 stories, from the story breaking to Reynolds conviction.

Who says the media ain't driving this train???

IIRC, Mel Reynolds wasn't in charge of a child protection activity for Congress, nor a member of the "Family Values Party".

Right, he just actually had sex with someone underaged. No biggie, huh?

-