Representative Foley turns out to be a secret card-carrying member of NAMBLA.

[Surfrider]

When did I ever say this?? It is undeniable that much of the media is jewish (not in the religious sense, but in the ancestrial sense).?

? While most media outlets are Jewish owned, these are American-liberal-Jews.? From the start these people have condemned Israel's actions.?

I forgot about that discussion.? Everything I wrote in that thread or this thread is 100% correct.? Just because many in the media are Jewish, does not mean that they are actively promoting a pro-Israeli agenda in the media.? I am not sure how this relates to the ACLU.

This is a loaded question.? It depends on what is your interpretation of the Bill of Rights.? Over the years the ACLU has attempted to redefine many of the liberties in the Bill of Rights.

If they are not a liberal outfit, how come they have not come to the defense of property owners and property rights?? How come they don't litigate for gun rights or seek to enforce the contracts clause.? Instead, they choose to litigate areas of the Constitution that suit their agenda - "separation of church and state."? They are most certainly wrong in their arguments, but have been somewhat successful in redefining the meaning of the religion clauses in the first amendment.?

The ACLU is pretty clear on what they stand for. If more people actually went to their website intstead of listening to Fox clones then they would have a better understanding and knowledge of who they are and what they do.

I am probably far more familiar with them then you are.? My wife's mother used to head the Minneaopolis branch of the ACLU.? You have to actually understand the legal principles they are expousing before you can actually understand their agenda.? But like I said, there are less influential conservative organizations that do the same.

They put it all out right there for you to read. They have taken cases for all kinds of people.

It's not who they defend, but what they defend.

The right hates the ACLU because it fights for citizen's rights. These rights are slowly beging eroded by the neocons in office today (just this week for example as stated in another post.)

Spare me the BS.? I pretty much set forth the reasons that many on the right hate the ACLU, yet instead of responding to my points you simply make conclusory allegations that have no factual merit.

Their method is simple: make false claims against the ACLU (Nambla for example), and turn them into the boogie man instead. The neocons have to constantly have an enemy in order to push their agenda.

So the ACLU pushes the agenda of freedom, and the Neocons push the agenda of taking away rights.? Do you even realize that the term "Neocon" has little meaning in domestic politics?? Certainly conservatives don't disagree with all suits the ACLU brings.? However, there are instances, such as defending an elementary teacher that was a member of NAMBLA, that conservatives do disagree with.? Not everyone believes the first amendment is absolute.?

The Bill of Rights is pretty easy to understand, unless of course you are a republican.

Yet, you seem to have no understanding of it.? Let me ask you again, if the ACLU is not a liberal organization and simply defends the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, then how come they don't actively pursue property rights cases, second amendment cases, or contractual clause cases?? I'll know the answer if you decide to dodge this one again.

In that case it is best to ignore the rights our founding fathers set for all of us, including a right to a fair trial (no matter how much of a motherfucker somebody may be.)

The founding fathers carefully drafted these rights; the ACLU seeks to expand them far beyond their original intention and meaning - and in the case of the religion clauses, to completely redefine them.? How is that defending the Bill of Rights?

[Guns N RockMusic]

and SLC disappears once the hard question is asked, so typical.  Don't worry folks, an irrelevant picture is soon to follow.

[Bud Fox]

GOP Staff Warned Pages About Foley in 2001


By MADDY SAUER and ANNA SCHECTER


www.abcnews.com

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.

Some of the sexually explicit instant messages that led to Foley's abrupt resignation Friday were sent to pages in Loraditch's class.


Pages report to either Republican or Democratic supervisors, depending on the political party of the member of Congress who nominated them for the page program.


Several pages for members of Congress tell ABC News they received no such warnings about Foley, R-Fla.


Loraditch says the some of pages who "interacted" with Foley were hesitant to report his behavior because "members of Congress, they've got the power." Many of the pages were hoping for careers in politics and feared Foley might seek retribution.


Loraditch runs the alumni association for the US House Page Program and he is deeply concerned about the future effects this scandal could have on a program that he sees as a valuable educational experience for teens.

[Bud Fox]

What this guy was doing was attempted sexual assault of a child. I'm sure we will be hearing shortly from the one's he got away with it on. But it brings up a serious legal issue. The Congressional leadership is demanding that Foley be charged with crimes. But at the same time, news reports are out that these same leaders were aware that Foley was trying to slip the old salami to tenth graders since 2001. If that is so, they themselves are guilty of crime, which is not reporting sex crimes against children, those crimes being lewd behavior with a minor and attempted sexual assault of a child.

After Bud Fox watched "Meet the Press", he is starting to think that Hastert and Boehner are going to be forced to resign before the week is out. This is going to be huge.

Bud Fox is laughing his ass off at Sandman right now. What a fucking stooge you are. Still believe that your GOP run Congress didn't know about this and ignore it? These lousy motherfuckers that call themselves conservative sat idle while one of their own tried to ass fuck these boys for years. I can't believe you are advocating this shit on a public forum. Man, you belong in the joint with a tattoo on your fucking forehead.

  Some people can't seem to understand that conservatives aren't loyal to death regardless of the acts of a politician. 

See above.

Yet, you seem to have no understanding of it.

Bud Fox wonders who sits behind a computer screen with such smugness and self righteousness? Reading your post history you have been shamefully wrong on most issues. With you 1984 composition of the Bill of Rights, flagrant
stubbornness, and willful ignorance to reality you should make a great slip and fall lawyer one day. Cold calling old ladies is right up your alley after the ambulance gets away.

America breeds over-taught, under-educated, narrow-minded, self-absorbed children of limited horizons who are unable to conceive of value apart from themselves.

But if you just manage to breath for the next 20 years you'll run the shop.

and SLC disappears once the hard question is asked, so typical.  Don't worry folks, an irrelevant picture is soon to follow.

Talk about cheap shots. Bud Fox does not always stand at Punks side and often disagree with her. It's also not like she isn't going to come back. Looking at her post count, it is pretty obvious "Punk" will return. But give old Bud Fox a break here. You are nothing short of a dolt on a good day to begin with. Little more than a GOP sideline cheerleader who can barely manage to throw out a 9th grade zinger. If you are going to take a cheap shot, do it right:

"Did you hear about the new Page Boy Burger they are serving down at the Congressional Lunch Room? It's sixty year old meat between sixteen year old buns! Comes with "Gunslinger sauce"."

Now that?s a cheap shot you ignorant panty waste!

[sandman]

BF quote: "What a fucking stooge you are."

at least this time you didn't just PM me with the insults and actually put it in the forum. i appreciate it.

another BF quote: "Bud Fox wonders who sits behind a computer screen with such smugness and self righteousness?"

i wonder the same thing about you, bro. 

it's so easy to sit at home and throw insults at people. but it's difficult to actually have an intelligent argument with people. it's clear which path you choose.

for the record, i do not blindly support the GOP. in fact, i hate most politicians. and if it's proven that someone knowingly protected child molestors, i'll be first in line calling for their head.

[Guns N RockMusic]

What this guy was doing was attempted sexual assault of a child. I'm sure we will be hearing shortly from the one's he got away with it on. But it brings up a serious legal issue. The Congressional leadership is demanding that Foley be charged with crimes. But at the same time, news reports are out that these same leaders were aware that Foley was trying to slip the old salami to tenth graders since 2001. If that is so, they themselves are guilty of crime, which is not reporting sex crimes against children, those crimes being lewd behavior with a minor and attempted sexual assault of a child.

After Bud Fox watched "Meet the Press", he is starting to think that Hastert and Boehner are going to be forced to resign before the week is out. This is going to be huge.

Bud Fox is laughing his ass off at Sandman right now. What a fucking stooge you are. Still believe that your GOP run Congress didn't know about this and ignore it? These lousy motherfuckers that call themselves conservative sat idle while one of their own tried to ass fuck these boys for years. I can't believe you are advocating this shit on a public forum. Man, you belong in the joint with a tattoo on your fucking forehead.

? Some people can't seem to understand that conservatives aren't loyal to death regardless of the acts of a politician.?

See above.

Yet, you seem to have no understanding of it.

Bud Fox wonders who sits behind a computer screen with such smugness and self righteousness? Reading your post history you have been shamefully wrong on most issues. With you 1984 composition of the Bill of Rights, flagrant
stubbornness, and willful ignorance to reality you should make a great slip and fall lawyer one day. Cold calling old ladies is right up your alley after the ambulance gets away.

America breeds over-taught, under-educated, narrow-minded, self-absorbed children of limited horizons who are unable to conceive of value apart from themselves.

But if you just manage to breath for the next 20 years you'll run the shop.

and SLC disappears once the hard question is asked, so typical.? Don't worry folks, an irrelevant picture is soon to follow.

Talk about cheap shots. Bud Fox does not always stand at Punks side and often disagree with her. It's also not like she isn't going to come back. Looking at her post count, it is pretty obvious "Punk" will return. But give old Bud Fox a break here. You are nothing short of a dolt on a good day to begin with. Little more than a GOP sideline cheerleader who can barely manage to throw out a 9th grade zinger. If you are going to take a cheap shot, do it right:

"Did you hear about the new Page Boy Burger they are serving down at the Congressional Lunch Room? It's sixty year old meat between sixteen year old buns! Comes with "Gunslinger sauce"."

Now that?s a cheap shot you ignorant panty waste!

Including the multiple insults that violate board policy, your posts contain nothing of any substance.  They're simply re-hased newsarticles that give you your opinion.  You can't even come up with a decent insult.  The whole "gunslinger" sauce didn't even warrant a chuckle.  I've stated it before and I'll do so again.  Bud Fox is SLC's alias.  Notice how he called SLC "her" repeatedly as if to throw us off.  'Bud' knows enough about SLC's posting history to understand his views, but not enough to know he lives in Florida with his wife and son?  Not bloody likely.  Good try SLC, keep up the good work.  And Bud/SLC, don't try to post under the ruse that you are a conservative alienated by the party.  Because I am a conservative alienated by the GOP and would never post the garbage you give us.  You're attacking us on a bunch of strawmen's (as usual) because not one "conservative" poster on this board has defended Foley; in fact we have been the ones asking for his head.

[SLCPUNK]

If they are not a liberal outfit, how come they have not come to the defense of property owners and property rights?  How come they don't litigate for gun rights or seek to enforce the contracts clause.  Instead, they choose to litigate areas of the Constitution that suit their agenda - "separation of church and state."  They are most certainly wrong in their arguments, but have been somewhat successful in redefining the meaning of the religion clauses in the first amendment. 

 They traditionally work with groups that have been denied their rights. Pretty simple.

Taken from their web page:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

So the ACLU pushes the agenda of freedom, and the Neocons push the agenda of taking away rights.  Do you even realize that the term "Neocon" has little meaning in domestic politics?  Certainly conservatives don't disagree with all suits the ACLU brings.  However, there are instances, such as defending an elementary teacher that was a member of NAMBLA, that conservatives do disagree with.  Not everyone believes the first amendment is absolute. 

That?s a big a falsehood as claiming Congress isn?t covering up Foley?s behavior. Ever watched Hannity, or O?rielly, listen to Rush? For that sake anybody on the right? They hate the ACLU and preach about it non stop.

The founding fathers carefully drafted these rights; the ACLU seeks to expand them far beyond their original intention and meaning - and in the case of the religion clauses, to completely redefine them.  How is that defending the Bill of Rights?

?Redefine?.

If you want to see somebody redefine something you have to look no further than Bush and his wash boarding , spying , torture, denial of trial. How can you be upset that a group defends the free speech of it?s citizens (no matter how vile) yet stand by your man who tortures people and tramples our Constitution?

Either way, you finger pointing back out at the ACLU is no surprise. Foley got caught trying to get busy with some teenage pages, the neo cons knew it for some time (looks like since 01 now) and nobody did anything. Shame on him/them.

[SLCPUNK]

Including the multiple insults that violate board policy, your posts contain nothing of any substance.  They're simply re-hased newsarticles that give you your opinion.  You can't even come up with a decent insult.  The whole "gunslinger" sauce didn't even warrant a chuckle.  I've stated it before and I'll do so again.  Bud Fox is SLC's alias.  Notice how he called SLC "her" repeatedly as if to throw us off.  'Bud' knows enough about SLC's posting history to understand his views, but not enough to know he lives in Florida with his wife and son?  Not bloody likely.  Good try SLC, keep up the good work.  And Bud/SLC, don't try to post under the ruse that you are a conservative alienated by the party.  Because I am a conservative alienated by the GOP and would never post the garbage you give us.  You're attacking us on a bunch of strawmen's (as usual) because not one "conservative" poster on this board has defended Foley; in fact we have been the ones asking for his head.

I am not Fox nor am I Walk.

Fox has been calling me a lesbian for sometime now. Before that he accussed me of being a computer program.

Your assessment above is only half true. Fox has given you plenty of fact, but also insulted you. It appears that Congress knew about Foley since 01, and did nothing (which he posted.)

[SLCPUNK]

punk - please read the full post carefully. i'll repost another excerpt...

They said they were only told the messages were "over-friendly."

so nothing illegal was going on. seems like they handled it well, and by turning it over to the AUTHORITIES, were not trying to protect their own as they are being accused.

I disagree. Besides now it appears since 01, they were warning pages about this guy. So the point is moot.

ALSO, i have no idea how you can interpret my posts as "defending" him. i said the following....

"i say throw this guy in prison for along time. unfortunately, LIBERAL groups will be fighting to defend this guy, and give him "help" instead of hard time."

i also referred to this guy as a "scumbag".

i know you love researching people's posts, so please let me know where i defended this guy.

By defending Congress  (who ignored what he was doing, which could have possibly resulted in child molestation) you are giving the man a pass I feel. It certainly appears that way.

[sandman]

punk - please read the full post carefully. i'll repost another excerpt...

They said they were only told the messages were "over-friendly."

so nothing illegal was going on. seems like they handled it well, and by turning it over to the AUTHORITIES, were not trying to protect their own as they are being accused.

I disagree. Besides now it appears since 01, they were warning pages about this guy. So the point is moot.

ALSO, i have no idea how you can interpret my posts as "defending" him. i said the following....

"i say throw this guy in prison for along time. unfortunately, LIBERAL groups will be fighting to defend this guy, and give him "help" instead of hard time."

i also referred to this guy as a "scumbag".

i know you love researching people's posts, so please let me know where i defended this guy.

By defending Congress? (who ignored what he was doing, which could have possibly resulted in child molestation) you are giving the man a pass I feel. It certainly appears that way.

not sure why it appears that way when i said the following...

"for the record, i do not blindly support the GOP. in fact, i hate most politicians. and if it's proven that someone knowingly protected child molestors, i'll be first in line calling for their head."

and you keep claiming the GOP did nothing. the only FACTS we know are they they reported the incident to the authorities in 2005. so stating they did nothing is absolutely FALSE.

as for knowing and hiding since 2001, i say let's not ASSUME anything until the facts come out. and again, anyone that knew or hid information on crimes this loser committed should pay a major penalty.

and let me also point out that it will be interesting to hear bill o's take on this since he has been pushing for tougher penalites for crimes against children, and claims to be looking out for them.

[SLCPUNK]

and let me also point out that it will be interesting to hear bill o's take on this since he has been pushing for tougher penalites for crimes against children, and claims to be looking out for them.

LOL, wasn't that Foley's stance too?

And what's all this talk about innocent until proven guilty? Bush and his buddies don't like fair representation..........or any at all really.

[sandman]

and let me also point out that it will be interesting to hear bill o's take on this since he has been pushing for tougher penalites for crimes against children, and claims to be looking out for them.

LOL, wasn't that Foley's stance too?

And what's all this talk about innocent until proven guilty? Bush and his buddies don't like fair representation..........or any at all really.

i'm not bush and his buddies. i have my own beliefs.

my point is we'll see if Bill O truly is just a mouthpiece for the GOP.

and regarding the ACLU, you basically made an argument AGAINST them when you posted from their webpage....

"Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake."

so the question remains....why don't they support property owners???

[SLCPUNK]

and regarding the ACLU, you basically made an argument AGAINST them when you posted from their webpage....

"Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake."

so the question remains....why don't they support property owners???

I love your logic.

Just as an article about Congress ignoring Foley's advances towards young men shows they weren't giving him a pass. Just as an article about lack of WMD proves Saddam had stockpiles of weapons........typical.

They certainly do support property owners. Just because the rabid right wing does not focus on those cases, does not mean the ACLU does not defend them. I just read a case about them defending a property owner and his right to hunt on his own land.

[sandman]

and regarding the ACLU, you basically made an argument AGAINST them when you posted from their webpage....

"Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake."

so the question remains....why don't they support property owners???

I love your logic.

Just as an article about Congress ignoring Foley's advances towards young men shows they weren't giving him a pass. Just as an article about lack of WMD proves Saddam had stockpiles of weapons........typical.

They certainly do support property owners. Just because the rabid right wing does not focus on those cases, does not mean the ACLU does not defend them. I just read a case about them defending a property owner and his right to hunt on his own land.

do you have a source?

(i mistakenly thought that based on your reply to Berkeley that you were admitting they do not support non-liberal rights).

and no need to change the subject and post the dems talking points.

[Surfrider]

If they are not a liberal outfit, how come they have not come to the defense of property owners and property rights?? How come they don't litigate for gun rights or seek to enforce the contracts clause.? Instead, they choose to litigate areas of the Constitution that suit their agenda - "separation of church and state."? They are most certainly wrong in their arguments, but have been somewhat successful in redefining the meaning of the religion clauses in the first amendment.?

 They traditionally work with groups that have been denied their rights. Pretty simple.

Taken from their web page:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

They should call it "freedom from religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.  Gun rights, property rights, and the freedom to contract certainly fall under these categories.  Yet, their silence on these issues is deafening. 

All I say, is call the ACLU what they are.  Don't sit and say that they are a non-partisan organization defending the bill of rights.

So the ACLU pushes the agenda of freedom, and the Neocons push the agenda of taking away rights.? Do you even realize that the term "Neocon" has little meaning in domestic politics?? Certainly conservatives don't disagree with all suits the ACLU brings.? However, there are instances, such as defending an elementary teacher that was a member of NAMBLA, that conservatives do disagree with.? Not everyone believes the first amendment is absolute.?

That?s a big a falsehood as claiming Congress isn?t covering up Foley?s behavior. Ever watched Hannity, or O?rielly, listen to Rush? For that sake anybody on the right? They hate the ACLU and preach about it non stop.

I am speaking in general terms.  I sometimes disagree with some of the cases that these people criticize from the ACLU.  Just as the ACLU is a left-leaning organization, these people are all far right journalists.  I, however, think that both sides are correct, legally speaking, part of the time.

The founding fathers carefully drafted these rights; the ACLU seeks to expand them far beyond their original intention and meaning - and in the case of the religion clauses, to completely redefine them.? How is that defending the Bill of Rights?

?Redefine?.

Absolutely redefine.  The religion clauses were meant to mean nothing close to the rhetoric they argue in court.

If you want to see somebody redefine something you have to look no further than Bush and his wash boarding , spying , torture, denial of trial. How can you be upset that a group defends the free speech of it?s citizens (no matter how vile) yet stand by your man who tortures people and tramples our Constitution?

Everything comes down to Bush with you.  First, Bush is not my man.  Second, I think the torture/denial of a trial to overseas combatants is not governed by our Constitution.  I don't see how you can say these people should have the benefit of our bill of rights?  It really has nothing to do about redefining anything.  Now, if you want to talk Geneva conventions, then I will agree with that there have been some violations.

Either way, you finger pointing back out at the ACLU is no surprise. Foley got caught trying to get busy with some teenage pages, the neo cons knew it for some time (looks like since 01 now) and nobody did anything. Shame on him/them.

Agreed.  I hope each and everyone of them is prosecuted.  I am sick of politicians letting ideology and attempts to get or retain power get in the way of doing what is right for the people.  Both sides do it, and I am disgusted with it.  This is about as perfect of an example as it comes.   

[HamsterDemocracy]

I predict this thread will be closed soon.

[The Dog]

what makes this truly disgusting is the fact that members of the GOP knew about this and didn't do anything.  This was purely for political reasons.  I don't care what party you affiliate yourself with or if you consider yourself a liberal or a neo-con....children's well being was put at risk for a political agenda.  Thats just sick.

[sandman]

what makes this truly disgusting is the fact that members of the GOP knew about this and didn't do anything.? This was purely for political reasons.? I don't care what party you affiliate yourself with or if you consider yourself a liberal or a neo-con....children's well being was put at risk for a political agenda.? Thats just sick.

it appears the few members of the GOP that knew did do something. but obviously not enough. lets keep the facts clear.

politics are ugly. and both sides are scum. don't for a second think one side is cleaner than the other. here's a quick history lesson....


In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.

Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.

In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank, also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie.

What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him -- a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."

In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.)

You get the idea. Democrats not only seem OK with the kind of behavior for which Foley is charged, but also they protect and excuse it. Only when it's a Republican do they proclaim themselves shocked -- shocked! -- when it comes to light.


 

[Guns N RockMusic]

Nicely put sandman.  In other words, Republicans generally don't tolerate the behavior while Democrats turn a blind eye or even go as far as to celebrate it.

[The Dog]

you two are really really funny.  I don't need to know about the dems scandals, unlike most americans i read the paper.  but thanks for the little recap.  The point of this thread is to discuss Foley, not democrats who committed sick crimes years ago..... 

the point of my post was that its pretty vile to protect a suspected pedophile for political reasons.  To say "they did something but not enough" is just    c'mon.  Really.   I'm sure you're smarter then that.  They could have done A LOT more.  Had the page not come forwad Foley would still be in office and still IMing teenagers and the GOP members who knew about it wouldn't have a problem, well, maybe till AFTER the election.

turning this into a reps vs. dems discussion about who is the bigger scum bag is just so childish.  Stay on topic, we're talking about Foley here.

make another thread if you want to discuss ALL sick, perv politicians.