Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Exclusive: The Sexually Explicit Internet Messages That Led to Fla. Rep. Foley's Resignation
September 29, 2006 5:59 PM

Brian Ross, Rhonda Schwartz & Maddy Sauer Report:
ABC news

Florida Rep. Mark Foley's resignation came just hours after ABC News questioned the congressman about a series of sexually explicit instant messages involving congressional pages, high school students who are under 18 years of age.

In Congress, Rep. Foley (R-FL) was part of the Republican leadership and the chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children.

He crusaded for tough laws against those who used the Internet for sexual exploitation of children.

"They're sick people; they need mental health counseling," Foley said.

But, according to several former congressional pages, the congressman used the Internet to engage in sexually explicit exchanges.

They say he used the screen name Maf54 on these messages provided to ABC News.

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

Another message:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

And this one:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex.

Federal authorities say such messages could result in Foley's prosecution, under some of the same laws he helped to enact.

"Adds up to soliciting underage children for sex," said Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent and now an ABC News consultant. "And what it amounts to is serious both state and federal violations that could potentially get you a number of years."

Foley's resignation letter was submitted late this afternoon, and he left Capitol Hill without speaking to reporters.

In a statement, he said he was "deeply sorry" and apologized for letting down his family and the people of Florida.

But he made no mention of the Internet messages or the pages.

One former page tells ABC News that his class was warned about Foley by people involved in the program.

Other pages told ABC News they were hesitant to report Foley because of his power in Congress.

This all came to a head in the last 24 hours. Yesterday, we asked the congressman about some much tamer e-mails from one page, and he said he was just being overly friendly. After we posted that story online, we began to hear from a number of other pages who sent these much more explicit, instant messages. When the congressman realized we had them, he resigned.

Click here to read an exclusive 2003 Internet exchange between Congressman Foley and a former congressional page, according to the young man. Warning: sexually explicit language, reader discretion advised.

Click here to read more Internet exchanges between Foley and former congressional pages.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/exclusive_the_s.html

This is very disturbing.

Parents really shouldn't allow children to access the Internet unsupervised.

Another hypocritical politician? ?I'm shocked...

Well, the good news here is that now that someone in the GOP finally got his wanker sucked, we might have an investigation of Iraq.




Bud Fox likes this picture.

Republican hypocrisy, owned:


(http://i9.tinypic.com/4ddhqoj.jpg)




Irony:

"Federal authorities say such messages could result in Foley's prosecution, under some of the same laws he helped to enact."

How sad to constantly have to warn kids..

This world makes them paranoid instead of keeping their age illusions, " just in case" someone should approach them..

But in most cases, teens chatting together rarely meet, out of shyness, they keep it virtual.

Most " teens" wanting to meet are adults, hid under false ages, genders and locations.

Also, sex offenders working FOR the kids are a constant. You have to be surrounded by kids, it's like going to a sweet shop.

So they choose a career where they can eat as much as they like.

This politician is another proof there should be compulsery investigations on people who work with/for kids.

SHit like this is well, what can I say, pisses me off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


All my life I have been as truthfull as I can , and law abidng to a fault(granted as a teen growing up I was a wild child), as a person, my screenname hs not changed since I first came online 7 yrs ago, and Im gay, yet these arrogant, republican mofos, act like all holier than thouh, and want to push me down, and not let me marry, and condemn my sexualiy, and here is this fuck praying on kids, thats fucked uped!

If these accusations are true, they should lock the son of a bitch up and give him the same treatment Al Qaeda gives US combatants.  I have no problem executing sick fucks who prey on little kids.

Execution is not the right penalty imo.
Having his dick cut off is.

I guess this makes all the Democrats who push for the rights of such organizations as NAMBLA are OWNED too!

Leaves hands, feet, objects, and it leaves imagination and the possibioity to ask someone else to do it as one watches.

But he doesn't get any satisfaction out of all these. Does he...?  :confused:
A guy should answer this.  :P

Hey, we're not living in Saudi Arabia. Locking him up permanently is good enough for me.



Not unless there's a concept of a 'Phantom Dick'...  :hihi:

They are not normal guys, so you are asking fairly normal music fans when pedophiles don't function normally.
Just sit in a court of justice for children during a week.
It'll tell you more than anything else ever would.

unlike all the DEMS who are sooo honest.

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

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.

Quit making this a Republican/Democrat issue.  The alleged impropriety has nothing to do with being a Republican or Republican ideology.  I doubt there is any Republican that will defend this guy if the allegations are true. 

False...........ACLU is non-partisan. Ask Rush Limbaugh.


Every person should be afforded a defense. That was what made America part of being America. Although not anymore.........

Bud Fox thinks you are missing the point. See quote below.

Besides, the new conservatives-who hijacked Bud Fox's party- defend everything else, why not this?


The downside of being the party of ?family values? is that when someone trips the party falls hard.

First NAMBLA and now the ACLU. These two organizations are in the same shithole.

The ACLU loves NAMBLA and fights for the rights of pedophilers . And that's just fucking sick! Like I said two shit organizations. Good work ACLU...good work! you FUCKIN' SICKOS!!!! :rant: :rant:

 :rofl:

That's the best one!

every person IS afforded a defense. not sure what your point is.

mine is that the liberals will prevent this guy from doing serious time. they'd rather he be rehabilitated.  ::)

when that is virtually impossible for pedophiles. so this guy will be back destroying the lives of our children in a short time. and we can thank liberals, the ACLU, and anyone else that does not believe in giving hard time to these scumbags.

I am sorry, but anyone that doesn't think the ACLU is a liberal organizsation is naive.  The fact that they supported Limbaugh does not refute this fact, and neither does the fact that they supported the neo-nazis in Skoki Illinois.  It is their philosophy that makes them a liberal organization, just as the federalist society or heritage foundation can be seen as conservative outfits.

This is a tad inaccurate to say the least...........and has been addressed in great detail before. Usually you guys slink away once the facts are put on the table though.

Not anymore.

I would ask you if you have been reading the news lately, but wouldn't want to offend you, as another poster seemed to upset you before.

Right, and you also believe that "liberal Jews" run our media that just happen to report bad things about Israel too.

Since when did supporting the Bill of Rights become a "liberal" idea anyway?

Either way, you guys seem to be all running for cover instead of demanding this guy be punished.

The definition of irony:

Mr. Foley says of Bill Clinton in 1998:

Quote:

Republicans were aghast at Clinton's behavior, with many saying it showed he had lied and abused his power.

"It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

and

Quote:

Some of the strongest reaction Friday was in response to Starr's account of Lewinsky performing oral sex on Clinton as he chatted with members of Congress on the telephone.

That was "just sad," Foley said. "It's unbelievable that he could behave so carelessly in that setting."


hahahahahaha!!!!!

This is turning political, guys.

Let's come full circle now, shall we? Or else a mod's going to close this.  : ok:

There's no inaccuracy with what I said. It's the truth. It was discussed in great detail. Detailed in the article I posted with the link to back the fact up in a previous thread. The ACLU and NAMBLA stand side by side, and they can't wiggle out of that sick position.

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).  However, most of these people are secular - not orthodox jews.



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. 

It is also important to realize that every right comes with choices and costs.  Every criminal procedure or criminal right in the bill of rights comes with costs.  We, as a people, have decided that it is more important to have a few criminals let free than to use evidence that was improperly seized without a warrant.  Everytime these rights get invoked we risk having dangerous people let back on the street.  These choices have been carefully drawn, yet many, such as the ACLU, seek to expand these rights through the courts.  They claim that it is in defense of the bill of rights.  Rather, in many cases, they are seeking to give these rights meanings that were never intended are attempting to override the narrowly drawn decisions and choices that the people have made.  This is completely undemocratic and is unquestionably politically motivated.  Ask yourself why the ACLU picks and chooses which parts of the Constitution to enforce?  Ask yourself why in many cases the ACLU takes a position in regards to certain rights that is completely inapposite to the original intention or meaning of that right.  Every time the ACLU attacks religion in public circles as a so-called attempt to protect the bill of rights, they are unquestionably harming other people's ability and free speech to express their religion.  The same is true with the defense of NAMBLA or terrorists.  Everytime you grant these people certain rights, you are also taking away people's rights to be free from having NAMBLA walk through the streets or have their streets free from child predators.  No right is completely without costs or is absolute.

I have heard several call for his head.  Assuming he is guilty, I feel the same; prosecute him to the furthest extent of the law.

It does make him look ridiculous.  Just as all of the women's organizations looked ridiculous as they blindly supported Clinton despite his improprieties.

Let it go, already. Political debates/threads aren't allowed here anymore.

If you keep it up you'll get negative karma. Trust me.  :hihi:

RR, sometimes you make me think that you might be a moderator in disguise.  :hihi:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061001/ap_on_go_co/foley_reynolds



The story that is now coming out is that the pages were warned about Foley in their orientation, that apparently it was well known in their community that Foley was trying to get his hands on one of these kids. So the question arises, if your common page staffer knew this, and knew it for some time, would it not be reasonable to conclude that the GOP leadership knew it as well? They covered it up because he was a shoo-in for re-election. Political power is so important to these guys as they covered up his constant overtures to underage boys. The GOP looked the other way when Foley was trying to fuck these boys in the ass, in order to retain power. Bud Fox wants to know if this bothers you or not?

The "proven guilty in a court of law" thing was just thrown out by the GOP this week. So Bud Fox is going to give Mr. Foley/GOP the same rights granted "enemy combatants": Guilty with no trial. How does that sound to everybody?

I'm about as much a moderator as I am a sexually confused Brad Pitt fanboy.

Oh, wait.  :no: Bad comparison.

So then your saying that you ARE infact a moderator :hihi:

again with the cheap shots at those who have different opinions than yours.? i try to point these things out because i would love to have political discussions in these threads again. but i guess you would not since you constantly say things to get threads locked.

and believe me, nothing anyone says in these threads upsets me. although it's a tad annoying when i get sent PM's after threads are locked that say stuff like this.....

"I'd give you a real insult if you wanted one: Why not go and pound some sand in your vagina? You douchebag."

you're making assumptions that i believe to be unfair and misleading. you should read the articles you post. this is what it says....

"The office of House Speaker Dennis Hastert....acknowledged that aides referred the matter to the authorities last fall. They said they were only told the messages were "over-friendly."

so how can you say they were covering it up? in fact, they addressed the issue early on before it could esculate into something worse.

thanks for posting that article.

Excellent post Berkley.  Some people can't seem to understand that conservatives aren't loyal to death regardless of the acts of a politician.  A Democrat physically assualts someone, kills a girl and swims away, uses racial slurs and committs adultry and the party is unphased.  On the other hand, a conservative might let's say lie aboutthe actions of others and have the honor and self-respect to resign immediately.  I'm blindly loyal to no party or person.  If you fuck up or committ some attrocious act (read pedophilia) then you better run, cause I'll put your head on a stake.

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

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

What cheap shots are you talking about?

You guys always are up in arms and pointing fingers at people screaming "PC", but then seem to get offended at absolutely nothing. I am not sure what is wrong here?



If they referred it to a member last fall then what is that mother fucker still doing in office up until this week? Seems as if they are sure dragging their feet to me. Why are you defending the child molestor?

I agree, but the scary thing is the internet has allowed for a lot of anonymity, so background investigations don't always pick up the important stuff like this.  My understanding is online predators are captured when they land in someone's trap, as opposed to an investigation into a specific individual that uncovers this kind of thing.  I'm not saying background checks shouldn't be done, but I've heard of many instances where they did checks at state level, not national level, which leaves a lot of ground uncovered.

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.

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.

or let me know if you are just falsely accusing me of something. you know, putting words in my mouth, building up a fake argument, and then criticizing me for it.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.


See above.


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.


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!

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.  :hihi:

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.

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.

 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.



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.


?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.

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.)

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




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.

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???

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.

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.

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.

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


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.

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.   

I predict this thread will be closed soon.

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.


 

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.

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.

I agree.  Nothing makes me more sick than watching Republicans try and defend the higher-ups in the Republican party that may have known about this.  Don't turn this into a Democrat/Republican thing.  This issue is just a clear example of the state of American politics - placing the party and power in front of what is right.

so they didn't do enough. not sure why you have a problem with that statement. we're saying the same thing. just becuase i didn't put it caps??? earlier i also said this...

"if it's proven that someone knowingly protected child molestors, i'll be first in line calling for their head."

it was reported to the authorities by members of the GOP. i'm not gonna accuse them of a major crime until i know all the facts.

just like i'm not gonna accuse the DEMS of knowing about this but not leaking it until election time (after the ballots had been printed). OR abc news and other news outlets who may have known about this months ago. lets wait til we have the facts.

The Washington Times just called for the resignation of hastert.  If he had any idea this was going on, he needs to resign.  Foley needs to be put on public display and stoned.  This isn't a Democrat, Republican thing, but it seems taht when the person in error leans to the left, their actions fall upon deaf ears.  I'm glad to see people center of right calling for the head of Foley.  Kind of dispells the accusations of double standards.

sigh, you just can't help yourself can you???  So its not a Democrat/Republican thing, but a "left" / "right" thing?   ::)

You're pretty transparent dude.  Way to stay on topic too.  : ok:

Bud Fox thinks you are either perjuring yourself here, or grotesquely obtuse.

The GOP Leadership sat on this stuff for years until ABC News outed this perv. They were forced to do it. All the news stories are saying this stuff was common knowledge in Congress, all the pages knew he wanted to get into their pants. Explain to Bud Fox how this is "not tolerating" inappropriate behavior. Explain to Bud Fox how Democrats celebrate the sexual abuse of boys?

The fact he was sending emails asking for pictures of teenage boys who weren't even on his staff, and the fact it was well known among the page staff that the guy was pitching it to these boys should have triggered an investigation over a year ago. Why didn't it happen? From what I've read, two reasons: Foley is a tight buddy with Jeb Bush. Foley is also a tight pal of Rush Limbaugh's. Foley's district was a safe win if the NeoCons just kept it quiet. At the very least, heads should roll over this cover up. And yet you post away with this belligerent swagger and tell everybody that the GOP "doesn't tolerate this behavior." You are just as bad as the molester, lying for those who covered up this act. Bud Fox thinks it is you who celebrate the sexual abuse and mishandling of our children.

So far all news reports are reporting that the Republicans were finally shot in the foot by their own xenophobic partisanship, and kept this a secret amongst themselves. What a bunch of sick fucks.

blind partisanship is leading people to making assumptions about what people did or did not know.

sounds like a rush to judgement by many.

lets wait til the facts are known.

what happened to innocent until proven guilty???

I don't know, ask the people at Guantanamo Bay  :hihi:

All jokes aside -  the facts ARE ALREADY out.   members of the GOP knew about Foley and rather then report him or investigate him told the pages to ignore him or watch out for him.  I think if/when a full investigation takes place we will only find out about more people connected to hiding facts.  That last bit is an assumption, yes.  But the facts are Foley is guilty of the IMs/emails and there are people who knew about them and didn' report them.

no, the facts are not out.

what EXACTLY do you mean when you say "members of the GOP knew about Foley"? what did they know?

that's key information that no one knows yet. there's lots of confusion as to what e-mails were known about and IF they were sexually explicit. many questions still to be answered. hopefully the FBI will uncover all the facts and the guilty partys can be held accountable.

This is from House Majority Leader, J. Boner....

"One thing is certain: no one in the leadership, including Speaker Hastert, had any knowledge of the warped and sexually explicit instant messages that were revealed by ABC News last Friday. Had Speaker Hastert or anyone else in our leadership known about Mr. Foley's despicable conduct, I'm confident the speaker would have moved to expel Mr. Foley immediately and turn him over to the appropriate authorities," Boehner wrote.

"We also need to know why these messages surfaced only last week, on the final day of legislative business before the November elections. If this evidence was withheld for political purposes, one can only speculate as to how many additional children may have been endangered before this information was finally revealed," he wrote.

Lets assume for a moment that that is 100% true, that nobody had any clue as to what the exact words/intentions of the email/IMs were....these ARE the facts:

in 2005 the page told his dad about the emails requesting his pic and asking him what he wanted for his birthday.  The dad went to Rep. Rodney Alexander, who contacted Hastert.  Hastert, rather then dealing with the matter himself, has his office pass the matter on to a House clerk.  The clerk after learning the messages weren't sexual but overly friendly in context pass it on yet again to the chairman of the Page Board, Rep. John Shimkus....

From CNN.com
Shimkus tells Foley to "immediately cease any communication with the young man." He recalls later that Foley assured him and the clerk of the House that the e-mails would stop.

ok...so at this point they KNOW something is amiss.  Whether or not they know what the emails said or not...Foley got a slap on the wrist.  In any other profession where adults interact with kids this would have been investigated big time.  Can you imagine a teacher acting like that and then just getting a warning??  Hastert and Shimkus stuck their heads in the sand, brushed Foley under a rug and hoped it would pass on.  If you truly believe that at this point in the story Hastert and Shimkus did all they could regarding this matter then you need to step back from the rep/dem aspect of all of this and just use some common sense.  Why is an adult being overly friendly to a teenage boy who he wasn't even working with, commenting about other kids bodies and how mature they are??? 

Whats a matter, you got something against child molesters being brought to justice? Are they some group you like to protect for some reason? Your support of this pervert has outed you to this forum, dirt bag.

A failed president, a failed war, now a failed Congress. What is left to them but this kind of slimeball horseshit? They will smear people as terrorists and defend child molesters - this is how low they will go. GOP-NAMBLA, take a bow.

I would LIKE to think if they saw the really bad IMs/Emails they would have done more...but thats just the point, they had to have at least THOUGHT something could be up and rather then investigate, they turned their backs on it, shook their finger at Foley and told him he was being a bad little boy and to not do it again.  Thats crap.

EDIT - Whoops...looks like I spoke too soon...

Hastert told reporters on Monday that he was not aware of the complaint against Foley until last Friday. He acknowledged his staff was made aware of it last fall, but he said there was "no reason to bump it up to me at that time."

However, both Majority Leader John Boehner and New York Rep. Tom Reynolds, who heads the House Republicans' re-election campaign, said they had spoken with Hastert about a complaint concerning a former page from Louisiana last spring after being hold about it by Rep. Rodney Alexander (news, bio, voting record), R-La., who had sponsored the teen.

"I believe I talked to the speaker and he told me it had been taken care of," Boehner said in an interview Tuesday on radio station WLW in Cincinnati. "My position is it's in his corner, it's his responsibility."

Reynolds insisted several times in a Monday night news conference in his Buffalo-area district that "I took it to the speaker" this spring when Alexander also mentioned the inappropriate e-mail to him.

Foley had been originally confronted in the fall of 2005 about his communications with the one page. According to a weekend statement issued by Hastert's office, Page Board Chairman John Shimkus, R-Ill., and the House clerk met with the Florida lawmaker and told him to "immediately cease any communication" with the page.

Unlike GOP leaders Reynolds and Boehner, Shimkus read the 2005 e-mail.

So at least one GOP leader, Shimkus, knew of the emails and just gave Foley a slap on the wrist.

Is that enough facts?? Or do you still need more.  Don't worry, I'm sure more are to come.  Like I said before, use some common sense here, its obvious heads were turned away in hopes that a scandal would just go away on its own.

more insults. but i appreciate you keeping them in the thread though instead of randomly PMing me.  : ok:
but i guess those will come once this thread gets closed.  ::)

secondly, i've made it perfectly clear that i despise this man. in no way have i offered any support his way.

but that doesn't fit your agenda, so you continue to build up a false argument for me, and then criticize said false argument.

hanna - you continue to make assumptions. i will not do that. and i'm probably not being clear....i believe your assumptions very well could be true (that some hid info or didn't do enough). but i want proof. in part because i want to know EXACTLY who did what so they can be held accountable (instead of throwing accusations around at an entire party).

this is what i read, which conflicts with your post. which is true...who knows? which is why i will wait.

In his statement, Shimkus said that in late 2005, he was notified by the clerk of the House at the time - Jeff Trandahl, Tomaszewski said - that the clerk had been told by U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., about an e-mail exchange between Foley and a former House page from Alexander's home state.

"I took immediate action to investigate the matter," Shimkus said in the statement.

"In that email exchange, Congressman Foley asked about the former page's well-being after Hurricane Katrina and requested a photograph. When asked about the email exchange, Congressman Foley said he expressed concern about the page's well-being and wanted a photo to see that the former page was (all) right."

"Congressman Foley told the Clerk and me that he was simply acting as a mentor to this former House page and that nothing inappropriate had occurred. Nevertheless, we ordered Congressman Foley to cease all contact with this former House page to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. We also advised him to be especially mindful of his conduct with respect to current and former House pages, and he assured us he would do so. I received no subsequent complaints about his behavior nor was I ever made aware of any additional e-mails."

IF TRUE, i don't really have a problem with shimkus. big IF.

i want the correct people to be held accountable. the facts are NOT clear.
 

What you posted is spot on with what i have read.  Shimkus and the clerk were both made aware of that email.  neither (to our knowledge thus far) knew about the really bad IMs/emails.  But you're missing my point:

If you were Shimkus and the clerk, wouldn't you do more then just say "stop talking to the kids". Wouldn't alarm bells be going off like crazy!!!  Wouldn't you investigate it a little further?  Wouldn't you at least monitor him or not allow him to have anymore pages?  yeah, its great they confronted him, but I'm sorry, I think its safe to assume, and yes it is an assumption b/c only Hastert and Shimkus will ever know their own thoughts behind not doing more, but I have to think that their lack on investigating was politically motivated.

If a principal learned of one of his teachers talking to a student in such a way, told him not to do it again, and then the guy went out and committed a crime or got really lewd in his corresspondence with a kid the principal would be responsible.

My post also points to Hastert lying about knowing about the email...TWO reps said they spoke to him about it.  Again, its their word vs. Hasterts, but I think its safe to assume who is lying here.  These aren't Dems making the claims they told Hastert, its his own party.

All indications are that Coach Hastert knew about Foley's messages, at least the "overly friendly" ones.  Even staunch conservative editorials and activists are calling for his head.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/10/03/ap3064217.html

With that said, I doubt Hastert will be forced to resign and I'm sure the GOP will have no trouble emerging from this scandal unscathed.  They've survived the WMD farce, CIA leaks, Abu Ghraib - this is nothing, they're bulletproof.  I will now light myself on fire. 

 

I had said I was going to refrain from posting anywhere at HTGTH for various reasons, but due to the fact I have not yet been banned (or even given any karma, how about that?), I'll weigh in on this.

This is nothing new, but the media tries to usually keep it covered up when it happens to a Republican.  Why did we hear all about Gary Condit while knowing little to nothing about Joe Scarborough?  Condit is banished from politics, while Scarborough is given his own MSNBC show.  Everyone knows about Clinton and Monica, while few people know of the liasons of Bob Barr and Henry Hyde with their respective mistresses.  Clinton gets impeached, with Barr and Hyde leading the proceedings.

"Democrats never capitalized on these affairs, says author Jackson Thoreau. "The 1988 presidential campaign of Democrat Michael Dukakis actually fired Donna Brazile for merely trying to get reporters to look into the reports that Bush Sr. had an affair. Meanwhile, Republican operatives were rewarded financially for spreading such rumors about prominent Democrats. And Democrats kept scratching their heads, wondering why they lost elections when they were afraid to really fight back."

And before anyone says the search for GHWB's affairs would have proven fruitless anyway, I recommend you look into a certain Ms. Jennifer Fitzgerald.

And it doesn't just happen between adults.  Congressmen have been caught doing sexual things with aides and pages as far back as at least 1973.  I'm not excusing it, I'm pointing out that it's been going on and being covered up for a LONG time.

1973-- Gerry Studds, D
1980-- Dan Crane, R
1989-- Congressional Call Boy Scandal, which the majority of you have probably never heard about

I coud list off a ton more from both major parties that have been involved in sexual acts with minors.  The point is it happens and no one should be too surprised about it.  Shocked, certainly.  But not surprised.  Priests are doing it, shit, why not Congressmen too?  Half of them have no ethics whatsoever, rather following the dollar and their libidos.  Religion, morals, and ethics to them are just words for the cameras.

Now it all comes down to what this does to politics in America.  For all those who love painting the right-wing as a bastion of morality and the left-wing's support of gay rights, abortion, and anything else your God disapproves of, this is reality slapping you in the face.  Hastert, and anyone who aided in a cover-up of any actions of anything sexual with children should be ousted in some way or another.  But in a country that can't even convict a President of lying under oath, no matter how much evidence they have in front of them proving that he did, I doubt we'll see it happen.

And I could say a ton about the ACLU defending NAMBLA, but I'll avoid it and just post this quote--

"I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  ~Voltaire

If we don't fight for the freedom of speech or the press for even for things we don't want to hear or think shouldn't be said, then we are still permitting the limitation of freedom.

Too funny - Fox News is calling Foley a Democrat.

(http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6724/foxoreillymarkfoleydem100306xf3.jpg)

You gotta be fucking kidding me................

That sure seems like a safe answer to me..........



You supported Bush since day one dude. Then changed your user name when the shit started to hit the fan. They should be afforded the rights of the GC and Bush doesn't want that. But Bushco also passed a recent bill that simply removes a suspect?s right to challenge his detention in court. Expanding the definition of an "enemy combatant" to very vague terms. It has been widely reported that the language in the bill makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/

Legal scholars are debating whether the Military Commission Act [MCA], passed by Congress on September 29 and soon to be signed by President Bush, applies to U.S. citizens. The answer is more complicated than one would think.

First: Under Sec. 948a(1) an unlawful enemy combatant is ?(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents ?; or (ii) a person who?has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal?.? Use of the word ?person? suggests that citizens may be detained as unlawful combatants.

But second: Sec. 7(a) denies habeas rights only to aliens. Thus, a citizen who is detained as an unlawful combatant would appear to have habeas rights to challenge his detention.

Moreover, third: Sec. 948b states that ?[t]his chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants.? In other words, only non-citizens may be tried by a military commission.

My conclusion:  A citizen may be detained (subject to habeas challenge), but not tried, under the MCA.

Um, what do the last two posts have to do with Foley?   ???

Stay on topic please.

Yes, the appeals "process" is called combatant status review trials, but what remains to be seen is whether by de facto, they'll be given access to adequate counsel and representation when they're rotting away in their undisclosed dungeon cells. But if if there is no habeus corpus, you essentially disappear into the prison system, so pray tell, how does one "appeal" under that circumstance?

This bill is a gross miscarriage of democracy, an evil, vile thing worse than any terrorist act, an act of fascism meant to undermine the very foundations of democracy. Bud Fox hopes all the fear mongering war loving assholes are proud of it.

Could you email Dennis Hastert and get him to stay on topic too? Thanks.

"But, you know, this is a political issue in itself, too, and what we've tried to do as the Republican Party is make a better economy, protect this country against terrorism -- and we've worked at it ever since 9/11, worked with the president on it -- and there are some people that try to tear us down. We are the insulation to protect this country, and if they get to me it looks like they could affect our election as well." - Hastert on Limbaugh, relating the fallout of the Foley resignation to the war on terror.

I really don't know anything about it, was just reporting what I'd just read on a somewhat independent (libertarian) site.

It's not a safe answer.  I have been trying to explain this to you for a while, but you still have not figured it out - there is a difference between political ideology and legal interpretation.  Just because someone is an originalist does not mean that they always end up on the side that supports the conservative cause.  I, however, look at the law from an originalist perspective.  However, right-wing groups and left-wing groups look at it from a political perspective.  People like O'Reilly and many other just don't get that distinction.  Here is an example: I was listening to Michael Savage yesterday on my ride back home from work.  He was talking about how Bush apoointed liberals to the Court because the Supreme Court refused to intervene in a religion case involving the the teaching of Islam at school.  To me, that was the originalist/conservative position to take.  You can't cry out when the Supreme Court misinterprets the religion clauses re christianity and then argue for them to misintepret the clauses re Islam.

Who was I?  Popmetal?  I support Bush on certain things, but I am not a blind follower.  More often than not, I am defending him against the left-wing position.  However, I have many criticisms of him and think that he has been a terrible President.  The fact that you think that I was such a supporter, but now criticize him should demonstrate to you that I don't follow lock-step.  I, however, have never heard you criticize anyone on the left. 

Drudge Blames Kids for Foley?s Actions

Drudge transcript from FireDogLake:

Clip #1:  And if anything, these kids are less innocent ? these 16 and 17 year-old beasts?and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet ? oh yeah ? you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture.  You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies.  Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth?  The kids are egging the Congressman on!  The kids are trying to get this out of him.  We haven't got the whole story on this.


Clip #2: You could say ?well Drudge, it?s abuse of power, a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17 year-old beasts, talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the internet.? Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages. This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah. Oh, I haven?t...they were talking about how many times they?d masturbated, how many times they?d done it with their girlfriends this weekend...all these things and these ?innocent children.? And this ?poor? congressman sitting there typing, ?oh am I going to get any,? you know?

Fox's dirty tricks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7qCzV5sNM

Matt Drudge said on his fascist radio show that it was the page's fault, something one routinely hears from child molesters. Hannity, points the finger at some ancient incident as if it is somehow supposed to excuse Mr. Foley's activities. Making excuses for Republican pedophiles that include blaming the kids for "enticing" this pervert, man, most people are reaching for a vomit bag.

Fox news names Foley a Dem.

What a bunch of nazi cunts.

haha yeah, i read that yesterday too.  amazing.  I love how he throws in 9-11 and the war on terror HAHAHA.  That has A LOT to do with a naughty IM convo right? 

and I'd email Hastert, but he'd probably deny receiving it  :rofl:

HAHAHAHAHA holy shit, fucking Fox news and douchebag Bill O'Reilly are trying to pass Foley off as a Democrat now? ?:rofl: Those douchebags will do anything to smear something.  And it wasn't just a one time error.......this was like 3 or 4 times during the program.
(http://www.bradblog.com/Images/FoxOReilly_MarkFoleyDEM_100306.jpg)

Bill O'Reilly of course is okay since he only sexually harrassed older women via the telephone.

Pass the loofah.............

I want to see the right wing members of this board stand up and say this is wrong:

1) Wrong to cover up for a pedophile (congress)

2) Wrong for the right to attack the victims of child abuse (attack the messenger)

3) Wrong for their mouthpiece, AKA Fox news, to try and label  Foley a Democrat once he is caught trying to fuck little boys.


What a national disgrace this party is.  Neoncons working a smear job against the children who were targets of their in-house child molester. Absolutely despicable!

I'm kind of a left leaning libertarian Brit who lives in NYC, so probably not really who you're looking for.


If congressmen can't have cybersex with minors, then the terrorists win - it's as simple as that.

AP did it too, though they corrected themselves.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010172.php

A blame the liberal media and Clinton for this whole mess................

Looks the GOP will dodge yet another bullet...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15129898/

Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., the congressman who sponsored the page at the heart of the recent Capitol Hill sex scandal furor and initially said Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., "knew about the e-mails that we knew about," including one in which Foley asked the page to send his picture, has now backed off that comment, saying he discussed the e-mails with Hastert's aides, not the speaker himself.

"I guess that's a poor choice of words that I made there," Alexander told AP.

Guess he got the call to change his story quick.

What a bunch of losers.............

Quote of the fucking year...

So we are in agreement then now? Cause that makes two of them.

Are you going to stand up and admit this was all wrong?

Are you going to hold the NeoCon run Congress accountable for covering this up?

Hold the right wing media spin machine accountable for it's smear job against the victims of an internet pedophile stalker?

Are you going to speak out against this or not?

Your silence only indicates that you condone this behavior.

It is all wrong. But you didn't ask for my opinion. You asked for the right wing crown.

Now do you agree with me? Or is your silence self telling?

This has really become big news.

I think the guy should be locked away, the fact that he's now blaming his actions on childhood abuse is shameful on his behalf, almost as shameful as what he wrote to that boy.

Makes two of what?

What is your statement/question?

This has blown up and is huge.

I saw (R) Scarborough on TV tonight talking about how the right are in a huge mess and said something along the lines of "hitting an iceberg" and "No recovery" at this point. He went on to say it will probably cause a landslide victory that we haven't seen for years this coming November.

Yeah, this guy won't be winning any Republican friends for a while.

Did you see Fox News labeled Foley as a DEMOCRAT?!  :hihi: It's on YouTube.

Yup I sure did. Speak volumes about the misinformation machine named Fox "News" doesn't it? And the fair and balanced nimrod Bill O'reilly too. What a true bunch of creeps.

Now an aide has come forward to claim that he told officials in Congress about Foley 3 years back (this just broke about 2-3 hours ago.) Some heads are getting ready to roll.

Would you vote for Clinton if she runs?

Frankly I'd vote for Bill but I never really liked Hilary, she seems to be a crowd-pleaser. I saw her give a speech to a group of Republicans saying how we need to go back to old-fashioned values, then she spoke to a crowd of Democrats and said the exact opposite more or less. She's a total politician which I don't like.

This should be an interesting election in the next couple years.

Is anyone any good at making computer graphics?  I want to get a Michael Jackson outline of like him moonwalking and grabbing his crotch and put the stars and stripes in it and make that the republican logo instead of the elephant.  That shit would rock all.

hahaha, crack me up.

I bet somebody here could do that for you..............

It is disgraceful for congress to cover up the acts of a pedophile.

It is dispicable to attack the victim of child abuse.

It's shameful and poor journalism for FOX to label Foley a Democrat.


However, it appears that none of those Foley was involved with were under eighteen years of age. ?I hope this doesn't turn out to be an attack on him because he's gay. ?Regardless, his actions were unprofessional and un-becoming of a member of congress. ?This is alone puts a stain on the GOP. ?However, I think it unfair for Democrats to label him as a pedophile for political reasons when it doesn't appear (at this time) that he engaged in homosexual activity with minors.

So much for the idea this was an "October Surprise". Republicans now calling each other liars. Turns out it wasn't a surprise at all. All of them were warned years ago by Foley's own Chief of Staff about this child molester.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/ap_on_go_co/congress_pages




This guy sent emails asking 15 and 16 year old boys to engage in sex with him, because Bud Fox read the emails where he was doing exactly that and ABC News has proof they were written by him. It's called "attempted sexual assault of a minor" dumb ass.

OK, thankyou.

First off, no need to insult me.  Secondly, if your claim is prooven true, and Foley tried to meet this kids to engage in sexual activity, then I agree, lock the bastard away.  However, Democrats blocked a bill that would make it illegal to create anime child porn.  So if Foley simply was engaging in cyber sex with people who played the roll of being 16, then there is a clear distinction there.  I can't in good faith judge a man for his sexual preference in his private life so long as he ins't hurting anyone.  However as I said earlier, if Foley (and it looks this way) was trying to make physical contact with minors, he should be quartered and hanged.

Your welcome.  As I've stated many times, I have no blind allegiance to any party or person.  I'm a libertarian whose been estranged from the Republican party since Bush and his Patrio act.

IM finding this thread halarious, and maybe cause its just me, as I am not putting down arguments, either way, cause evryine has so far in my eyes, been pretty cool.

I will however tell a lil story of me, as a 16 yr old.


 As a kid I felt wierd, went into a porn shop with my best friend, at the time, (we felt like we snuck in), and tried to hide in the rows of porn tapes, happened I was in the gay porn sec, and it turned me on. I didnt know what it was really about.
it WAS WIERD, cause I as with a gf at the time, and had many in HS, anyway to the point, at one point I heard about a rest stop area, whre people could get a blow job, I was intrigued, and went, (rest stop), found out it was a crusing place, and well thats what i did, got a bj from some I would say 50 yur old, and was like ok. I liked it.

From then on though I voved I would never do that again with anyone, unless they were around my age . As I gotten older, I stil feel the same, but I also as a gay guy feel that I can be with someone younger than myself to a reasonable maturity and age .

So, its called boundries!.

What this guy is doin in criminal in so many ways. And the arguments back and forth hav been good. Phediphila, is not fuckng cool!

I did what I did on my own accord.

So it kinda pisses me off about this shit.

Meet them or not - its HIGHLY inappropriate behavior for an adult, a member of congress no less, to be talking to a page, a kid, working for his colleagues.  If have kids, would you want their school teachers telling them to send them pics and talking about other kids bodies?  Would you want your kids football coach to be having cyber sex with him??!?!  Stop trying to gloss this over.....its reprehensible action for an adult in that position.

Secondly, meet them or not, clearly members of the GOP knew about some communications YEARS ago and did nothing to stop it.

I agree Hanna, regardless of intent, his actions were extremely inappropriate and probably illegal.  He has no business being a congressman and I'm glad he's out.

I don't think the issue is agreeing if his actions were bad....I don't think many will support his actions.

How do you feel about the actions of Hastert and Shimkus though?  To me what they did (burying their heads in the sand) is worse.  Foley was a victim and everyone knows in cases of sexual/physical abuse the abuse can go on and on (not that it justifies it in ANY way).  Foleys "friends" did nothing to help him or the pages or any future pages Foley might have talked to or possibly met up with.

Do you think they should be out too?

This is the final blow to the right wing???..a month away from the November elections.

They are saying Hastert will be out by this time next week............

Who is they?  "they" said Rummy should have been out years ago  :hihi:

I think this is going to go pretty deep.  A full investigation is going to reveal A LOT.

Joe Scarborough for one.

Yea, it's a full blown storm now. I also think boys will come forward and admit to having sex with Foley too (just my guess.)

Guess or hope?

So in essence SLC, you want to hold the whole GOP accountable for the actions of a few men?  You quickly discount all the Dems who endorsed/authorized the Iraq War.  Is it fair to hold someone accountable for the actions of another simply because they share the same political ideology?  I'll admit that I fall victim to this as well, but I try to prevent myself from doing so.  You'll never hear me saying that all Dems drive a girl over a bridge in their car and leave her to die, just because one Democrat did so.  With all respect, your politcial prediction are what 0-2 at this point?  Regardless of the view of congress or parties nationwide, it's a fact that people "remove" their own congressman from this view.  The Republicans/Democrats are morons, but MY congressman isn't bad.

That both parties are a national disgrace. Both smear and lie and are full of of corruption.

one of the few intelligent, true statements in this thread.

the republican party better get off their ass and figure out who knew what. take Hastert into a room and say "listen you fat bastard, what did you know and when did you know it?" they cannot just sit and say "well we got rid of foley." they need to know exactly who else knew and get them out as well.

pilosi says it well....

"The children, their parents, the public, and our colleagues deserve answers and those who covered up Mark Foley's behavior must be held accountable," Pelosi said.

actually, before you go calling people "DUMB ASS" you should make sure you have your facts right.

you're incorrect. that alone is not a crime. although it should be. but the dems vote against it all the time. so we have a huge ray area (see article below), which is unfortunate. 

ever see Dateline when they trap sexual predators - those shows are the best!!


Views diverge on whether Foley will face charges

By Susan Spencer-Wendel
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 05, 2006

Is former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley's explicit e-mail talk with teenage boys a crime?

It's a question many are asking, with many possible answers.
 
Tawdry text alone may be offensive but not illegal, attorneys and federal investigators have said. But what it led to or might lead to ? including search warrants and further probing ? is a tale still untold.

Foley's attorney, David Roth, said Tuesday that Foley accepts responsibility for the "totally inappropriate" e-mails and instant messages, but denies any actual contact with the teens.

"He reiterates unequivocally that he has never had sexual contact with a minor," Roth said.

If Foley never had sex with the boys, his case is in uncertain legal territory, said Ken Lanning, a retired FBI agent who served as one of the agency's leading experts on child exploitation.

"There are going to be some issues here in the gray area," Lanning said. "You may find this behavior repulsive, offensive or immoral. Whether it's a violation of law will be based on a precise reading of the law."

One accomplished Miami defense attorney, though, pointed to a federal law commonly known as the "enticement statute." The law punishes a person who knowingly "persuades, induces, entices or coerces" anyone under 18 to engage in criminal sexual activity or even attempts to do so.

Foley voted in 2003 to enhance the penalties for the crime. The sentence now is a minimum of five years and a maximum of 30 years in prison.

Attorney Douglas Williams read the law and read Foley's messages, which referred to masturbation among other things.

"I would say that a reasonable, conservative government lawyer would not be out of bounds or risk-taking if he or she indicted based upon what I read," Williams said.

It would be a battle of titans, though.

"We are at a place where politics and law enforcement are about to have a collision as violent as a bull rhino and rogue elephant," Williams said.

Attorney Mark Johnson of Stuart, a former 15-year federal prosecutor, also thought of that federal enticement law as he read the Foley messages revealed to date. "In those e-mails, he certainly tiptoes dangerously close to the line," Johnson said.

Both the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the FBI have acknowledged conducting "preliminary investigations" of Foley's conduct, although FDLE Commissioner Gerald Bailey said the FBI has begun the process of seizing computers from Foley's homes and offices, the St. Petersburg Times reported Wednesday. Several news outlets also reported that the Justice Department ordered House officials to preserve records of Foley's electronic correspondence with teenagers.

FDLE spokesman Tom Berlinger would not confirm or comment on warrants or seizures of Foley's computers. Berlinger said it was a "truly preliminary inquiry" to see if any Florida laws had been broken.

Berlinger cited a chapter of child-abuse law that deals with sexual performance of children, some crimes of which are punishable by up to 30 years in prison.

"The question is, what is a prosecutor willing to prosecute?" Berlinger said. "You know that one man's lurid is another man's church-going stuff."

The Internet transcripts released by ABC News look like the conversations police often use in Internet sex stings. In those cases, however, the sex talk leads to an arrest when adults arrive for real sexual encounters.

Locally, a priest, a rabbi, a prosecutor and a number of married men have been arrested after showing up to meet people they thought were teens.

Graphic talk alone is rarely enough, said Joseph Dooley, a former agent who helped set up New England's first FBI unit targeting Internet predators. Many adults engage in explicit chats with undercover agents but never show up for the scheduled meetings, he said.

"We never charged anyone unless they actually traveled to have sex," Dooley said.

Locally, defense attorney Jack Fleischman has defended a number of people caught in Internet sex stings. In all of his cases, there was an active solicitation of a sexual act. "Just straight language would be a tough road to charge it," he said.

ABC News, which first reported the messages, detailed an intriguing new Internet exchange that could lead investigators elsewhere. In April 2003, ABC reported, Foley allegedly wrote to an underage page:

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.

I think if he talked about meeting up/scheduling a time/place to meet then he could be convicted.  But so far all it seems it was is talk. 

Like I've said before, Foley's mess up is bad, but Hastert and Shimkus are the real scum bags here.  I think Foley was just a tormented person - if the alcoholism and sexual molestation is true (and theres no reason to think its not) then he was a victim himself and the cycle was just continuing (doesn't excuse his behavior, but explains it??)  But Hastert and Shimkus were only worried about the GOP and the # of Rep. congressman.  Ironically, had they told Foley to resign 3 years ago when they were alledgeldy told about all of this, even if they told him to resign in 2005, they could have found someone else to replace him, have the new guys name on the ballot and EASILY hold the seat.  Foleys district is very republican.  instead, they turned their backs on their colleauge (and the kids you could say) and only cared about politics, not their "friend" or the well being of some young kids.  Pretty disgraceful.

I have never seen Dems smear and lie like these bunch of fuckers do. So the answer is no. Smear jobs on the kids by the right wing media is about as low as you can get (after trying to smear a grieving war mother of course.)

Are there bad guys on both sides of the aisle? You bet. But this administration has been one of the worst I have ever seen in my life. The common defense "They are all corrupt" is totally lame. It lacks accountability on so many levels; a quick way to get rid of the mess in front of you.

It has nothing to do with their "political ideology." You are still making excuses for these scumbags aren't you?

I am holding the GOP run Congress accountable (and rightfully so) because they knew about it and turned their backs on what was going on. It was in their own self interest that they ignored Foley's "naughty emails" for their political gain. Therefore the right wing should be slammed for this, as it was their dirty little secret.

Wanna make some more excuses for those who protect child molesters? This is right along the line of "blindly hating Bush" argument you guys use. Of course, nobody could disapprove of Bush because of his actions, they must just "blindly" hate him. This is the same "logic" you are using here.


Both. Get these lying sack of shit murderers and child molesters out of our Congress and White house.

It gets better, now Drudge says the entire scandal was a prank...  :rofl:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 5 2006 2:53:48 ET XXXXX

CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY
**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats. This source, an ally of Edmund, also adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund.

The news come on the heels that former FBI Chief Louis Freeh has been named to investigate the mess.

Ploys like this MIGHT have worked a few years ago....but the American public has FINALLY wised up to Karl Rove-esque rebuttals and attacks from those on the right.  I honestly love stuff like this b/c it shows they are desperate.  I also like how the Dems are FINALLY on the attack when stuff like this comes up.  Is it political...yeah, it is.  Should it be?  um, YEAH.   This is just more evidence of an administration/party that has no clue how to handle things internally or externally.  its a f'ing mess right now.

FLAGG, are you going to reply to my question??? 

I refuse to excuse Foley or look at him as a victim.  Foley was perfectly aware that his actions were wrong and possibly illegal.  To what extent Hastert knew is anyone's guess.  The media has a rabid taste for anything anti-republican and will stretch the truth to make headlines.  We all remember the incident with Rather and Bush a couple years ago.  Foley is gone and he should be.  No real effort was made by aides to correct the problem, if they were concerned they would have gone to the media (as they did now).  Anyone who knows anythning about Washington knows that some little page doesn't just walk up to the speaker of the house and file a complaint.  Is Hastert guilty?  I don't know.  If all they knew was that Foley was gay, how do you address or correct that?  Alot of gaps in the information exists, and unfortunately it's being filled with assumptions and hopes.

I wrote a song about Mark Foley, I may post it in my poetry thread later.

Howard Dean is a prime example of smearing and lying.

All politicians hide and lack accountability. There are alof of people who need to be gone for good. Both Republicans and Democracts. Democrats need to look in the mirror before they yell pedophile too loudly. There are alot of organizations such as previosuly mentioned by me, the ACLU & NAMBLA that run close ties and links with the Democractic party.

oh please.  This is almost as lame of an answer as the crap Hastert and Drudge and the other douches are spewing these days.  "yeah we are bad...but...but SO ARE YOU!!!!"  Its so childish.  I agree with SLC here.

Please PM me and let me know what the "close ties" are with NAMBLA and the Democratic party.  I am DYING to know. I mean, give me a break dude, thats gotta be one of the DUMBEST things I've ever read on this site. hahahah.   And like I've said in previous posts, we're not talking about the Dems in this thread.  They're not the ones in the midst of an investigation right now...the Reps are.  Stay on topic.  When the Dems have a scandal that threatens their majority in congress then we can talk about them.

And the blind eye is turned once again.

The ties are that Democracts are in bed with the ACLUwhich is in bed with NAMBLA. How could a party associate themselves with an organization who supports NAMBA and fights for their rights to exist and exploit and put children in real danger?

So many people believe that it's only the Republicans who are evil and turn a deaf ear and blind eye to what Democrats are doing. Look at history, the Democrats always get a pass for their misbehavior.

Here's the newest fuckup from imdb.com


ABC Ignites Another Foley Controversy


ABC failed to block the screen name of one of the Congressional pages who had a sexually explicit online conversation with former Florida Congressman Mark Foley, and, as a result, a blog was able to track down his name and photograph. William Kerr of The Passionate America site, which originally posted the information, said that Foley's correspondent, who was just shy of his 18th birthday at the time of his initial instant messaging with Foley, is now 21 years old and is currently working as deputy campaign manager for Republican Congressman Ernest Istook of Oklahoma. On Wednesday, ABC issued a statement saying, "We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately. It is possible that during that very brief interval a screen name could have been captured. Reviews of the site since then show no unredacted screen names." Meanwhile House Speaker Dennis Hastert vowed to remain in his position despite calls for his resignation over his handling of the Foley case. He accused Democrats and ABC News of trying to "blow up" the controversy.

Oops!  Just shy???   Anyhow Hastert is fighting his ass off to keep his job.  Good luck douchebag.

Please provide me with an example of a Dean smear and lie

Also provide me with an example of how Nambla is related to the Dem party.



Interesting. I have never heard that the Dem party are tied in with ACLU before this.............

What a cop out.

I doubt you're the only one who has never heard that....its beyond a cop out, its just downright pathetic.  its also the last time anyone shoudl bother addressing it.  Drew's lame attempts to change the subject and go off topic are just as pathetic as Drudge, Hastert and the other dogs with their tails between their legs who know that their party is in big big trouble.

Whats really funny about everyone defending hastert and the other reps who knew about this and then getting mad for anyone making a big deal about it and saying its wrong and what not is that the majority of people speaking out against foley, hastert, shimkus and the like are CONSERVATIVES THEMSELVES!!!  Read the papers dudes, the reps are brawling it out amongst themselves now.  it goes beyond this scandal too, i mean, how many reps are trying to now distance themselves from bush and the war?? a lot of them.  the party is in dissarray, its rotting from the inside out and yet somehow some of you still say things like "well the dems are just as bad" or "clinton was worse" or the other nonsense we've had to read here.  The Dems are related to NAMBLA?!?!??!  HAHAHAHAH  Are you that desperate to smear the party that has NOTHING to do with this case!??!?!

It is walking lockstep with those (above) who wish to makes excuses, change the subject, use the Clinton defense, lie, or smear the victims of Foley's crimes. It is pathetic, but it is no different then anything this administration has done since day one. Fox news showing Foley as a Dem was probably the lowest of them all however.



The party has been in a downward spiral for a while now. Iraq was the beginning of the schism, and now this. You are correct, the party is imploding. Some of the biggest critics of the Neo-Cons in power today come from the conservatives.There is going to be bodies in the aisles come November. 

Why should I waste my time providing proof or links for you people? Everytime I do, all I get is some smart ass remark and you blow it off. Everytime! So no, I'm not wastng my time. You'll just simply ignore any proof I provide anyways.

And for some reason, I keep being labeled as a supporter for this corruption that is going on. I am not for the final time. Read it. Let it soak in. It's wrong and it's sick.

I'm not going off topic either. But post after post many contiune to say that it's only one party in disgrace. Both parties are in disgrace people. No one has a plan to ge this counrty back to where it needs to be. These politicians are all corrupt and in it for their own self interest and their power hungry egos. These parties are sinking deeper and deeper in to their shit. No one is clean. NO ONE!

drew - the people on these boards are too angry and to blinded by their partisanship to realize your point. i gave up trying long ago.

there is one game going on in washington. and they are all part of the same game. and that game is corrupt, and most of the players are dirty, nasty, phony scumbags. the only thing most of them truly stand for is what can get them votes.

there are some quality individuals. i believe ed rendell is a prime example of a good guy playing in a dirty game. so he plays it, but he's not cut throat and he maintains a level of respect. he's class. but i cannot name many others.

but people get caught up in their party and they honestly believe that the people on one side are worse than the other. and you know who wins? the politicians. they laugh at their supporters all the way to the bank. cause they have accomplished their goal.....brainwash their supporters and guarantee their vote for their party in every election.

i say fuck them. none of these scumbags will ever be guaranteed my vote.

but people get caught up in their party and they honestly believe that the people on one side are worse than the other. and you know who wins? the politicians. they laugh at their supporters all the way to the bank. cause they have accomplished their goal.....brainwash their supporters and guarantee their vote for their party in every election.

i say fuck them. none of these scumbags will ever be guaranteed my vote.

 now that is something i can relate too, awesome post!

oh please, Rendell is a scum bag too.  Just ask Mario Lemieux.  Tell me which you think is better for the people...an arena almost completely funded by Isle of Capri (if they are awarded the slot liscence) OR one that asks tax payers to pay for their own civic arena?!??!?! Its a no brainer right?!?!?  NOPE.  Rumor has it Rendel wants to award the slots to someone else (someone else who is putting money in his electoral pocket I'm sure) and have tax payers pay to replace the oldest hockey arena in the NHL.   It the pens don't support Rendells PLAN B, then the team might move to Canada.  yeah, he really cares about the people.  What a joke.

And you keep saying "both parties, both parties".  The laundry list of republican offenses/lies/corruption under the current administration is staggering.  I don't think you can say the same for Clinton's.  Suddenly a blow job doesn't seem so bad now does it?

More pages come forward......is it just a matter of time before someone admits they had sex with him?  If so, will that really blow the doors of this thing?  Like I've been saying, I think we have only just begun to dig into this story, I have an unsettling suspiscion its going to go a lot deeper:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html

"RUMOR HAS IT"  :rofl:

"I don't think you can say the same for Clinton's"  :rofl:

you're kidding, right?

but it wouldn't surprise me if your "rumor" is true. and i could very well be wrong, maybe rendell is a scumbag. i certainly do not have all the facts. and if that is the case, it's a shame cause that's one less "good guy" than i thought. 

but i will say in rendell's defense, if you're in the game, you have to play it. he openly admits he struggles getting things done because of all the red tape.

my personal belief is that he hasn't moved up the ranks as a true presidential candidate cause he's not cut-throat enough.

Who Knew Mark Foley was a Closeted Democrat?
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 5, 2006


At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.
The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.

Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)

In 1983, Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."

When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds ? not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men ? defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")

Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life."

Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.

No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.

But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaeda phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager ? oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy ? and a credit check, too!

When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.

But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.

The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaeda ? solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.

On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"

Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."

We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:


Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.

Priests: No gays!

Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.

Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.

White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.

Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.

Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?
This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.

Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

As soon as I saw this:

By Ann Coulter


I stopped reading. 

Maybe I'll go find Michael Moore's take on all of this and post it.  Give me a break Flagg.  Like I said, you guys are just desperate to find away to make the dems look bad in this...they have NOTHING to do with it.  Point all the fingers you want at Clinton or any other dem who IN THE PAST made mistakes or did assinine things...this is today, not yesterday.    I wanted to respect your opinion and/or take on somethings, but bringing in a Coulter editorial??   :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

HH - you've basically proven my point. it's a shame you don't even realize it.   :rofl:

again, i'm not blinded by partisanship, and it's a shame so many are.

and it's a shame you don't read Coulter's piece. sure, she's looking to spin things the conservative way, but i suspect you don't want to read it because you know there's some nasty facts in there about the Dems. and you would rather not pay attention.

sigh, it has nothing to do with being blind....I would consider myself more of a dem then a rep, but i'm not a "lefty" or a "liberal" by any means.  I don't see how anyone can still support the current admin though...i mean, talk about being blind.  The long long long list of offenses, lies, corruption, scandals is just too much. 

I did read coulter's crap, my post was just saying how posting something from her is evidence of the blind partisanship you are talking about.  "spin things the conservative way"....dude, there is nothing objective about her piece - its "well you guys are bad too" instead of "yeah foley and the other who knew about this are scum".  Like i've said a few times now, the majority of people stirring up all the noise about this and getting the most upset are PEOPLE FROM THE RIGHT THEMSELVES!!!!  Doesn't that tell you something?  What is partisan about that!?!?  Its not just the Dems who are outraged.

I posted it because it does well putting things into perspective.  SLC and some others have been screaming that this is a Republican thing and no one else in Congress has stooped this low.  Again, i think Foley is guilty, but whether his did was illegal, I don't know yet.  I just have a problem with teh flip-flopping liberals have on this board.  You should at least read the article (and I think you probably did) before you discredit it.  I'm not discrediting the attacks on Foley simply because they're coming from Democrats, just trying to put it into prespective.  There are always two sides to every argument, don't you agree?

Most people in the know know that most of the Republican top leadership are a bunch of closeted gays who have to be the world's biggest hypocrites. Today Fordham, Campaign Chairman Reynold's former chief of staff, the guy who quit and put the rat on Hastert, announced he is gay. Everyone knows that Republican chairman Mehlman has a "roommate" to help pay the rent on his paltry salary, and that half the GOP House staff is a bunch of fawning queens. Just wait til this hits the Religious Right.

yes i did read it when you first posted it.  again, using coulter as a source is just lame.  it'd be like me grabbing a howard dean or mike moore editorial.

but don't tell me that was a GOOD and FAIR and balanced article.  Show me one dem who said we should have "spied" on Foleys IMs/Emails or "wire tap" his phone.  Its just so  ::) blowing it out of proportion.  Bringing in the WoT to this scandal is just so sickening and really devalues the lives of those who have died serving our country over in Afghanistan/Iraq, well Iraq has little to do with the WoT so nevermind.

As for Studds...yeah, hes an asshole. whats her point?  That was also what, 20 years ago???

And where has Foleys sexuality come into play here at all?  I haven't heard that THAT is the big deal here?  If anything it shows more republican hyprocrisy that hes gay, but he def wasn't OUT.  how many conservatives would have supported him then?  I don't exactly hear the dems being upset that he was gay.  His sexuality has ZERO to do with this - its the fact the kids were under age.

Coulter's piece is JUST what you guys are doing, rather then say 1) foley is an ass, 2) hastert and shimkus were wrong for not saying anything and they should be forced out and 3) we want a full investigation, all she says is "well, you guys did it too!!!!!"  "i know you are but what am I!!"  Does she at anytime in her drivel point the finger at her own party? 

Are the dems spotless? Of course not.  But right now the spotlight is on the reps as it should be.  The dems are virtually powerless right now, they have no control in any branch.  Everything wrong with this country right now is the current admins fault....but i'm sure you guys want to blame clinton still right?   ::)

The LA Times has outed Kirk Fordham today. He will not be the last closeted gay Republican outed by this scandal.

Today's NY Times has a chart that outlines the "key communications" in the House of Representatives about Mark Foley's inappropriate contact with pages. More than one of the names in the chart, which includes Kirk Fordham, are rumored to be closeted gay Republicans who have been working at the highest levels of the Republican leadership.
They have been looking at their names in print for the last couple of days and no doubt fearing for their futures in a Party that is in political free-fall.

Are ambitious closeted gay Republican officials, the most reliable people Speaker Hastert could have delegated the Foley problem to last year? Obviously not. Heat on a closeted gay Republican in the House is heat on all closeted gay Republicans in the House. The most innocent Foley emails were enough to worry the parents of the recipient. They were enough to worry the closeted gay Republicans too. But the closeted gay Republicans were perfectly positioned in the House to make the problem disappear.

Now two Republican staffers are locked in a credibility contest: it's Kirk Fordham v. Scott Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff. Palmer flatly denies that Fordham warned him about Foley. Hastert's political life depends entirely on Scott Palmer's credibility. I can't find anyone in Washington who knows Palmer who thinks his credibility can survive this test.

It's no accident that the first call for Hastert's resignation came from Tony Blankley, Newt Gingrich's former press secretary. Tony knows that the scandal cannot die as long as Hastert and his staff are still in the building.

The Republican base--the Evangelical get-out-the-vote troops--are going to be devastated when they discover how many closeted gay Republicans were involved in policing Mark Foley in the House of Representatives. Republican House members know this. That's why momentum is building for a very quick House cleaning and a new Speaker by next week.

Bud Fox would categorize the Coulter article as such:

"He's innocent til proven guilty. He admitted it? Oh. Bill Clinton. Gary Studds. Monica Lewinsky.?

Really though, this guy has Anne Coulter figured out:

http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/

HannaHat said this:

"Ok, at least Rendell isn't IM'ing little boys, but if thats your best example, the reps are in big trouble."

you then called Fast Eddie "slimy".

BUT you made a error in calling him a republican. he's a democrat. one of the top in the party. despite having been railroaded by the extreme, elitist, secularist left wing. he was a top candidate to run for prez, but he's not extreme enough.

my mistake.  he is slimy, thats prob why i thought he was a rep ;) hehe just kidding

hes still an asshole in my book.  I hope Lynn Swann beats him ;)  GO STEELERS!  : ok:

Another reason why the Coulter's of the world sound like idiots:


While condemning the emails, Democratic leaders have largely kept quiet about the scandal, prefering to let the spotlight remain on the Republican's troubles.

"There's an old axiom in politics: never interfere with your opponents when they're in the process of committing suicide," said Larry Sabato, a political expert at the University of Virginia.


As i've said numerous times now, the dems are BARELY talking about this.  All the uproar is coming from conservatives on the right and from Reps themselves.  So all of this "oh the dems are hyrocrites, they are just as bad" is unjustified.  Its passing the buck. Its "we are bad, but so are they".  But its not going to work.  in a recent poll of 1,000+ people, 80% said they think there was some kind of cover up.   Go ahead and talk about Studds or Bill Clinton....but guess what, you can't vote against them...THEY AREN'T RUNNING!!! 

Hey everyone...
My brother delt with Foley when he was in politics and stuff, and he just published this article, I'm sure you guys will enjoy the read...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-fishbein/mark-foley-bad-guy-dece_b_31201.html

This entire topic is off topic and should be locked.

I read all 9 pages and didnt see the

North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes       mentioned anywhere.

Well if there was Sandman and Gunslinger would have defended it either way.............

I gotta say something that's been bothering me for a while now. Your new username. "Your" in the possessive - was that intentional? I thought you meant "Mr Foley if you ARE nasty."  ???

Ha, I thought I was the only one that noticed that. ;D

It's a two for one............

Also trying to lure MCT............ ;D

That's not fair and you know it.  I have not once in this thread defended Foley.  The man is a disgrace and a sexual deviant and should not be anywhere around young people.  His cried of alcholism and sexual abuse tarnish and discredit those who have truly suffered or been affected by such things.  I simply question whether or not tha man is a pedophile, and what are the motives behind those that attack him and ask for Haster's resignation?  Democrats hold no moral high-ground here, so I won't sit idly by and let those who in the same instance would see no issue with the congressman if he were a member of the DNC.

The usual right wing slick media operation failed this time because they treated it like a political problem and did what they always do with political problems: attack, blame the other side for everything, set up strawmen, and try to publicize outlandish theories. That stuff works in elections, as John Kerry will attest, but using those to confront a moral evil blew up in their faces. A lot of people have come away with an impression that Hannity, Limbaugh, Drudge tried to excuse child molesting, and that the Repub leadership tried to cover up things.

The reason is that child molesting is not a political issue, it is a punch-you-in-the-gut moral issue, and the only way to handle something like that is to admit you are wrong when you are wrong. By politicizing it they handed the Dems a huge amount of political ammunition. Which is what they deserve for trying to smear those kids.

can you provide examples of people trying to smear the kids. not that i don't believe you, i just can't find links to it.

i heard people tried to blame clinton, the kids, and the dems in general. and i'd like read about it.

Flagg, for the millionth time.....those "attacking" him and calling for Hasterts resignation are conservatives!!  Yes, some Dems have done the same, but the loudest outcry over this has come from the right and from the republican party itself.  stop acting like the dems are the one on the offense here.  they aren't and they don't have to be, the reps have handled this so poorly it will be taught in PR classes about what NOT to do when a scandal arises.  So the "motives" you are so curious about? - its the right trying to cover their own ass and to reclaim the party that has been hijacked by the current admin.  Don't blame the dems or the left for something that, for the most part, they aren't doing.

http://momsquawk.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/another-media-dingbat-matt-drudge-blames-the-teens-in-the-foley-scandal/

Bud Fox has come away absolutely amazed at the number of closeted gays in top positions in the House and the Republican Party, and the massive extent of the cover up of Foley's behavior for years. Most amazingly, the House Clerk who resigned in 2005, was a homosexual - in other words the day to day business of the House of Representatives was being conducted by a person many Republicans would see as a tool of Satan, an abomination before God worthy of death. If homosexuality is so bad, an abomination before God and a reason to amend the US Constitution, then why are all these Republican staffers, guys in hired positions put in place by the Reps who chant anti-gay rhetoric for the Christian right, running the place?

Most amazing is Fordham, who was Foley's chief of staff, who is openly gay. When he resigned from Foley' staff, he was immediately hired by Rep. Reynolds as chief of staff. Reynolds runs the Republican Campaign Committee. In other words, the guys trying to get Republicans elected and re-elected on platforms of anti-gay-o-phobia are being led by a well known queen, who in turn reports to another closeted gay, Ken Mehlman, the Chairman of the Republican Party, a grotesque hypocrite who goes on Sunday talk shows to posit the GOP as The Party of God, and then goes home to fuck his boyfriend. This is all gut-wrenchingly sickening. Republicans on this board, how can you excuse this kind of utter hypocrisy? And that is just the beginning. Hastert is an obvious liar, a zero and a half who really has no interest in life other than holding power for power's sake.

Just listen in to Hannity and Limbaugh the days afterward.  They were trying to find some way to pin it on the kid.  Of course as soon as Drudge said that two friends of the kid claim it was a plank gone awry, Limbaugh and Hannity were all over it with a "See, there you go, case closed, let's move on" sort of thing.  I love how they seem to think every story in the media is subject to scrutiny unless it comes from Fox News or Matt Drudge.