kallend 2,118 #26 October 1, 2006 Quote Here's an irony: Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House, was informed of Foley's inappropriate emails/electronic messages about a year ago and took no definitive action. The top news item on Hastert's website: Hastert Drives Effort to 'Keep Kids Safe in Cyberspace' (8/29/2006) Not just Hastert. www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aKR6jolqg2I8&refer=us... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base283 0 #27 October 1, 2006 The scary thing is that it was AOL instant messaging. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #28 October 1, 2006 Quote The scary thing is that it was AOL instant messaging. IM sent. (Just kidding.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #29 October 1, 2006 Quote over the past few years republicans have become experts in shooting themselves in the foot. And thier hunting buddies in the neck Quote Instead we have a choice between the party of war, torture and corruption, Would you say that for all Republicans or just the present administration. I have seen Republican government before yet this particular administration seems somewhat more zealeous than prior ones. I am not sure you could attribute the present state of leadership to Republicans on average. In fairness I could be wrong but I do see a bit of difference. Richards My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #30 October 1, 2006 Quote This resounding claim of the party of lower expectations for democrats....... 1) Lower deficits 2) Lower debt 3) Lower unemployment 4) Lower despise for government 5) lower number of war casualties 6) Lower hate from the world 7) Lower government corruption 8) Lower disparity in classes Yea, the Dems are the party of lower expectations You forgot one. Lower taxes for the man trying to make it from day to day, and put a little away for the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,440 #31 October 2, 2006 Quote but I guess that is all the Democrats fault too huh.. It's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about Power.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #32 October 2, 2006 Quote From reuters http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-09-29T195629Z_01_N29387735_RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-FOLEY-UPDATE-1.XML Quote Six-term Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida resigned from the U.S. Congress on Friday following reports he sent sexually inappropriate e-mails to underage congressional interns... ...Foley was the author of the key sexual predator provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which Bush signed in July... Is it a witch hunt or just another scumbag politician? It certainly looks bad. The fact that he resigned makes it look worse for him for sure. I think the response from the congressional leadership has been appropriate, I'm sure more will come out about it. Speaker Hastert supposedly knew something about it, but I don't know if he knew the whole story. Cover-up? No. Negligence? We'll see.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #33 October 2, 2006 Looks like he is an alcoholic, gay, pedophile (depending on your definition of pedophile), hopefully there will be a full investigation into the emails and his conduct. He is certainly an incredible hypocrite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 October 2, 2006 Quote Here's an irony: Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House, was informed of Foley's inappropriate emails/electronic messages about a year ago and took no definitive action. The top news item on Hastert's website: Hastert Drives Effort to 'Keep Kids Safe in Cyberspace' (8/29/2006) And isn't it AMAZING how the Dems (out of the goodness of their hearts, of course) waited until a month before the mid-term elections to break the story... if they were SERIOUS about wanting this guy gone (and he damn well SHOULD be gone), why didn't they break it a year ago?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,118 #35 October 2, 2006 Quote Quote Here's an irony: Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House, was informed of Foley's inappropriate emails/electronic messages about a year ago and took no definitive action. The top news item on Hastert's website: Hastert Drives Effort to 'Keep Kids Safe in Cyberspace' (8/29/2006) And isn't it AMAZING how the Dems (out of the goodness of their hearts, of course) waited until a month before the mid-term elections to break the story... if they were SERIOUS about wanting this guy gone (and he damn well SHOULD be gone), why didn't they break it a year ago? Well, the Republicans knew too, and kept it quiet. Why not blame Clinton, it's your SOP when any Republican gets egg on his face?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #36 October 2, 2006 Quote So, there you have it, the party of lower expectations. Barney Frank admitted a lengthy relationship with a male hooker who ran a bisexual prostitution service out of Frank's apartment. He claimed ignorance of some of the prostitute's activites. No need to consider resigning from congress, he's a democrat. Just to point out that the right side of the aisle apparently has a problem with adult consensual sexual relations. So much so that they can use them to justify the overlooking of one of their own's liberties with a minor that was intrusted into their care. I can't decide which I think is worse, Foley's actions or those of his apologists. I think I'm leaning toward the latter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #37 October 2, 2006 >if they were SERIOUS about wanting this guy gone (and he damn well >SHOULD be gone), why didn't they break it a year ago? a) They didn't break it b) It was effectively hushed up by republicans over a year ago. Political parties use whatever they can whenever they can; if they could have bounced this guy a year ago they would have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #38 October 2, 2006 >I think the response from the congressional leadership has been >appropriate, I'm sure more will come out about it. Speaker Hastert >supposedly knew something about it, but I don't know if he knew the >whole story. He knew about it and has already lied about it in an attempt to cover up his involvement in it. The investigation will (hopefully) reveal if he's covering up anything else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 October 2, 2006 Quote >if they were SERIOUS about wanting this guy gone (and he damn well >SHOULD be gone), why didn't they break it a year ago? a) They didn't break it b) It was effectively hushed up by republicans over a year ago. Political parties use whatever they can whenever they can; if they could have bounced this guy a year ago they would have. Hushed up? Bullshit - all it would have taken was ONE Congresscritter to "sack up" and call a press conference... regardless of the circumstance. Oh, and John? I *won't* mention Clinton... but will call attention to Frank, McGreevey, Studds and Condit...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #40 October 2, 2006 Disgusting. If the guy is indeed guilty, I hope he gets a most severe punishment. I have no use for dirtbags like that. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #41 October 2, 2006 >Hushed up? Bullshit - all it would have taken was ONE Congresscritter >to "sack up" and call a press conference... Correct. They did not; they managed to keep it quiet. From preliminary reports the group of senators that knew about it was pretty small. Hastert certainly knew, even though he denied it initially. Shimkus knew, and also knew about him spending a lot of private time with said pages after he knew that he was sending inappropriate messages. Jeff Trandahl (republican staffer and Clerk of the House) was also told. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #42 October 2, 2006 What is important to realize is that 'what was previously known' was not the latest messages that have been described as "indefensible". The prior incident that others knew about was described as 'overly familiar' messages. That is how I've heard it described. We will probably find out for ourselves what the actual content was, but for now, I think it is wrong to say others "knew", because what they knew was info about different messages. The first messages may well have been bad enough to warrant condemnation, but we should realize there are two separate incidents being discussed.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #43 October 2, 2006 So, the important thing here is that the person involved was underage, correct? The dems should not care too much about the kid being an intern/page, right? Don't get me wrong, being underage is plenty bad enough, but why do any of the dems care about it being an intern/page? So, if he was over 18, there should have been no complaint.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #44 October 2, 2006 >I think it is wrong to say others "knew", because what they knew was > info about different messages. The first messages may well have > been bad enough to warrant condemnation, but we should realize > there a two separate incidents being discussed. Agreed. Earlier messages (from what's been reported so far) were inappropriate, but were not as blatantly obscene as the IM string released recently. The question will devolve to whether or not GOP leadership (specifically the republicans on the House Page committee) made an error in: a) not reporting even the inappropriate emails to anyone (outside GOP representatives and staffers.) Specifically not reporting it to democrats on the page committee. b) allowing Foley to continue to work closely with pages (including scheduling time alone between Foley and said pages) c) not informing parents of Foley's behavior when their children were taken out by him (they were required to be informed about other activities by the page committee.) Foley's attempts to attract younger pages seemed to be pretty well known outside the house; more experienced pages warned newer pages to steer clear of Foley. Newer pages were even warned by someone in the house clerk's office, so they clearly understood it was a problem. All that being said, I don't think a criminal investigation is warranted into the cover-up. Launch a formal investigation, let the public see the results - and then let them decide if they want to keep such people in office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #45 October 2, 2006 Foley's attempts to attract younger pages seemed to be pretty well known outside the house; more experienced pages warned newer pages to steer clear of Foley. Newer pages were even warned by someone in the house clerk's office, so they clearly understood it was a problem. _________________________ The dems would have us believe that only repubs were in a position to know of this reputation and do something about it. I don't believe that.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #46 October 2, 2006 >The dems would have us believe that only repubs were in a >position to know of this reputation and do something about it. >I don't believe that. I don't think democrats and republicans are all that different. If a republican found out something of a sexual nature about a democrat, I have no doubt they'd be on the phone to the Washington Post/the NYT/their favorite blogger within minutes. (Indeed, that's happened!) Democrats are not much different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #47 October 2, 2006 IM's here: http://www.citizensforethics.org/filelibrary/FoleyIMsWithPage.doc Hope he has fun in jail.illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #48 October 2, 2006 Quote Foley's attempts to attract younger pages seemed to be pretty well known outside the house; more experienced pages warned newer pages to steer clear of Foley. Newer pages were even warned by someone in the house clerk's office, so they clearly understood it was a problem. _________________________ The dems would have us believe that only repubs were in a position to know of this reputation and do something about it. I don't believe that. Apparently the less titillating emails were known about for a while and the parents didn't want them revealed. The IM's containing the more graphic language are a different story. The question is, who was able to record the IM's, who leked them, and was the leaking done against the parents wishes for political advantage? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #49 October 2, 2006 Quote Looks like he is an alcoholic, gay, pedophile (depending on your definition of pedophile) The definition of pedophile isn't subjective. It's an attraction to pre-pubescent youths. What you or anyone else choose to think it means isn't relevant, the actual definition is. Ephebophile would probably be more accurate. Both conditions are independent of sexual orientation. I'm not defending the asshat (Foley), just objecting to the subjective wording of the post.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #50 October 2, 2006 Quote Apparently the less titillating emails were known about for a while and the parents didn't want them revealed. The IM's containing the more graphic language are a different story. The question is, who was able to record the IM's, who leked them, and was the leaking done against the parents wishes for political advantage? No. That isn't the question at all. Nice attempt to blame the messenger though.illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
