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

[sandman]

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

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

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.

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

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.

[Surfrider]

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

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

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!!!!

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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!!!!

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

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!!!!!

[HamsterDemocracy]

This is turning political, guys.

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

[Drew]

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!!!!

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.

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.

[Surfrider]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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."  The fact that he has his own problems doesn't make these comments incorrect.

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!!!!!

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

[HamsterDemocracy]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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."  The fact that he has his own problems doesn't make these comments incorrect.

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!!!!!

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. 

[Lara]

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

[Bud Fox]

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?

[HamsterDemocracy]

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

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

Oh, wait.  Bad comparison.

[EFISH]

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

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

So then your saying that you ARE infact a moderator

[sandman]

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!!!!

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.

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."

[sandman]

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?

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.

[Guns N RockMusic]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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

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

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

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

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

[SLCPUNK]

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!!!!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

[Natasha23]

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

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.

[sandman]

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

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

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

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.