I Can't Keep Up!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
100meters wrote:
As I remember democrats represent more people than republicans, and have vastly more support at least in polls than republicans.

the polls say otherwise but they lose elections?

don’t tell me: the polls are not biased or rigged…the ELECTIONS are! i get it now![/quote]

Hilarious.

Please remember that lumpy bases just about everything on polls.

Sounds like someone else we know. Someone polling to see where he should vacation sound familiar?

For the ignorant, that would be billy boy.

JeffR

22

[quote]100meters wrote:

He’s not a pedophile,
…[/quote]

100meters is right.

Aside from the fact that there may have been a statutory violation, I don’t see how you can categorize interest in post-pubescents as pedophilia. Which is not to say that I condone dirty old men hitting on high-schoolers, but it’s not pedophilia.

On a second note, what is the statutory age of consent where the recipient of the emails/IMs is from? It’s not always 18.

Third note – at the time of the explicit IMs, the former page may have been 18 anyway
( http://www.newsok.com/article/2951137/ ; http://www.drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm ).
We’ll see.

23

Foley is not the problem.

The GOP’s inaction with regards to Foley is the problem.

This is not done playing itself out yet.

24

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Foley is not the problem.

The GOP’s inaction with regards to Foley is the problem.

This is not done playing itself out yet.[/quote]

I’m curious. Could BB or someone else with integrity (not reckless, tme, jtf, etc…) please send some credible links indicating what and when Hastert was made aware? Did he know about the sexual content?

I keep hearing 3 years. But, what did he know?

As with all the non-scandals that dems try to whip up, (plame, national guard, etc…) it usually turns out their talking points are factually incorrect.

As usual, it takes effort to ferret out the truth. I’d appreciate anyone who would keep me up to date.

Thanks in advance.

JeffR

25

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Foley is not the problem.

The GOP’s inaction with regards to Foley is the problem.

This is not done playing itself out yet.

I’m curious. Could BB or someone else with integrity (not reckless, tme, jtf, etc…) please send some credible links indicating what and when Hastert was made aware? Did he know about the sexual content?

I keep hearing 3 years. But, what did he know?

As with all the non-scandals that dems try to whip up, (plame, national guard, etc…) it usually turns out their talking points are factually incorrect.

As usual, it takes effort to ferret out the truth. I’d appreciate anyone who would keep me up to date.

Thanks in advance.

JeffR[/quote]

Numerous members of the house knew about Foley at the beginning of this year and did nothing.

Are you insinuating that Hastert is the only GOP member of congress that could have done something proactive about Foley?

That is pathetic.

Once an ass clown always an ass clown.

26

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Foley is not the problem.

The GOP’s inaction with regards to Foley is the problem.

This is not done playing itself out yet.

I’m curious. Could BB or someone else with integrity (not reckless, tme, jtf, etc…) please send some credible links indicating what and when Hastert was made aware? Did he know about the sexual content?

I keep hearing 3 years. But, what did he know?

As with all the non-scandals that dems try to whip up, (plame, national guard, etc…) it usually turns out their talking points are factually incorrect.

As usual, it takes effort to ferret out the truth. I’d appreciate anyone who would keep me up to date.

Thanks in advance.

JeffR

Numerous members of the house knew about Foley at the beginning of this year and did nothing.

Are you insinuating that Hastert is the only GOP member of congress that could have done something proactive about Foley?

That is pathetic.

Once an ass clown always an ass clown.[/quote]

Did you even read his post?

27

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Foley is not the problem.

The GOP’s inaction with regards to Foley is the problem.

This is not done playing itself out yet.

I’m curious. Could BB or someone else with integrity (not reckless, tme, jtf, etc…) please send some credible links indicating what and when Hastert was made aware? Did he know about the sexual content?

I keep hearing 3 years. But, what did he know?

As with all the non-scandals that dems try to whip up, (plame, national guard, etc…) it usually turns out their talking points are factually incorrect.

As usual, it takes effort to ferret out the truth. I’d appreciate anyone who would keep me up to date.

Thanks in advance.

JeffR

Numerous members of the house knew about Foley at the beginning of this year and did nothing.

Are you insinuating that Hastert is the only GOP member of congress that could have done something proactive about Foley?

That is pathetic.

Once an ass clown always an ass clown.[/quote]

marmaprick:

I’m saying that Hastert is the one currently taking the heat.

I’m trying to determine to what extent is the leadership responsible.

There’s a guy at the Washington Post who said Hastert should resign. He’s subsequently retracted that statement.

I’m trying to figure out the facts.

As usual, I’m not relying on the usual suspects for their spin.

I want facts.

Do I wish that ANYONE who knew about this would have done something? Sure.

However, if you gave your mind a chance, you would realize that there is one hell of a lot of difference between Elijah E. Cummings (rank and file Representative) confronting foley, and the House Speaker doing so.

Therefore, who really had the power to turn up the heat? Would it be Cummings or Hastert?

JeffR

28

wait. current liberal logic dictates we should have found out about the affair by bugging his phone and pc (cool as long as he’s NOT a terrorist), finding out about the man-boy love thing. then throw them a nice party celebrating their natural and very NORMAL alternative lifetstyle…and allowing them to get married. maybe give them a nice knife set. or some track lighting. that about right?

29

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
wait. current liberal logic dictates we should have found out about the affair by bugging his phone and pc (cool as long as he’s NOT a terrorist), finding out about the man-boy love thing. then throw them a nice party celebrating their natural and very NORMAL alternative lifetstyle…and allowing them to get married. maybe give them a nice knife set. or some track lighting. that about right?[/quote]

No it isn’t you fucktard. Just because I don’t all hope gays get hanged like a conservative might, doesn’t mean that pedophile is in any way good.

What a stupid fucking post.

30

guys, its all Stephen Colbert’s fault. He even admits it…

its a good laugh.

31

This is perhaps funnier, if you’re a fan of black humor:

http://drudgereport.com/page.htm

32

[quote]100meters wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I would hope that they are imploding because of things like the never ending war, not the Foley shit. Although it is ironic, considering how they swept to victory back in '94 on the charges of how corrupt the Democrats were.

Until the Democrats win back Congress or Bush is impeached, I’m not going to be content.

The pedophile case is not indicitve of the party so much as one very, very fucked up individual.

He’s not a pedophile,
But hey anyone noticing how trendy it is for republicans to be alchoholics these days.

Cunningham.
Ney.
Foley.

Hastert for sure is my next guess.

First it was trendy for Repubs to be subjects of an investigation, then it was the whole “target” of an investigation, then “indicted”, then pleaing, then going to jai…
now they all want to be “alchoholics”.
I hope predator isn’t the latest fad for republicans, that’s so '73…

Whatever happened to the good ol days of taking an advance on your paycheck…[/quote]

Don’t forget the presidents coke habit.

33

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Foley is not the problem.

The GOP’s inaction with regards to Foley is the problem.

This is not done playing itself out yet.

I’m curious. Could BB or someone else with integrity (not reckless, tme, jtf, etc…) please send some credible links indicating what and when Hastert was made aware? Did he know about the sexual content?

I keep hearing 3 years. But, what did he know?

As with all the non-scandals that dems try to whip up, (plame, national guard, etc…) it usually turns out their talking points are factually incorrect.

As usual, it takes effort to ferret out the truth. I’d appreciate anyone who would keep me up to date.

Thanks in advance.

JeffR

Numerous members of the house knew about Foley at the beginning of this year and did nothing.

Are you insinuating that Hastert is the only GOP member of congress that could have done something proactive about Foley?

That is pathetic.

Once an ass clown always an ass clown.

Did you even read his post?[/quote]

Can you read?

34

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This is perhaps funnier, if you’re a fan of black humor:

http://drudgereport.com/page.htm[/quote]

Black humor?

Foley is an idiot and that single IM session is a small part of his documented perverted electronic communication otherwise he would not have resigned.

35

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Aside from the fact that there may have been a statutory violation, I don’t see how you can categorize interest in post-pubescents as pedophilia. Which is not to say that I condone dirty old men hitting on high-schoolers, but it’s not pedophilia.[/quote]

Okay. What is it then, doctor? You’re saying it’s not pedophilia unless there was direct sexual activity? Because under the child porn laws, you can be prosecuted for merely posessing nude photos of minors… no actual contact with a minor. That is considered pedophilia.

If Foley even attempted to hit on a minor, he broke the law… a law he helped write.

It’s 18 in Florida, where Foley lives. The only page we know about for sure is from Louisiana. Since he supposedly chased after pages since he was first elected in 1994, it’s hard to comment on the others until more information is available.

36

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Foley is not the problem.

The GOP’s inaction with regards to Foley is the problem.

This is not done playing itself out yet.

I’m curious. Could BB or someone else with integrity (not reckless, tme, jtf, etc…) please send some credible links indicating what and when Hastert was made aware? Did he know about the sexual content?

I keep hearing 3 years. But, what did he know?

As with all the non-scandals that dems try to whip up, (plame, national guard, etc…) it usually turns out their talking points are factually incorrect.

As usual, it takes effort to ferret out the truth. I’d appreciate anyone who would keep me up to date.

Thanks in advance.

JeffR

Numerous members of the house knew about Foley at the beginning of this year and did nothing.

Are you insinuating that Hastert is the only GOP member of congress that could have done something proactive about Foley?

That is pathetic.

Once an ass clown always an ass clown.

Did you even read his post?

Can you read?[/quote]

Obviously better than you!

37

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Foley is not the problem.

The GOP’s inaction with regards to Foley is the problem.

This is not done playing itself out yet.

I’m curious. Could BB or someone else with integrity (not reckless, tme, jtf, etc…) please send some credible links indicating what and when Hastert was made aware? Did he know about the sexual content?

I keep hearing 3 years. But, what did he know?

As with all the non-scandals that dems try to whip up, (plame, national guard, etc…) it usually turns out their talking points are factually incorrect.

As usual, it takes effort to ferret out the truth. I’d appreciate anyone who would keep me up to date.

Thanks in advance.

JeffR

Numerous members of the house knew about Foley at the beginning of this year and did nothing.

Are you insinuating that Hastert is the only GOP member of congress that could have done something proactive about Foley?

That is pathetic.

Once an ass clown always an ass clown.

Did you even read his post?

Can you read?

Obviously better than you![/quote]

You are the OAC.

38

Hack,

I saw your post saying that these things are the responsibility of individuals, but, strangely, nobody on the right wing repeats that type of mantra when a democrat is caught with his pants down.

Nice try.

–

Also, to some others, parading out 15 and 20 year old issues, to say this problem is widespread, shows that indeed, it hasn’t been widespread of late.

Nice try.

–

Finally, how the hell can people think you can blame democrats for this. The blame belongs to Foley and to anyone who had any part in being willing to cover this up.

Nice try.

–

If and when this issue is finally “put to bed” then we can get back to the fairly well documented accusations of Woodward.

If we get beyond that, we can get back to the leaked assessment of the effect of the Iraq war on terorrism.

If we get beyond that… well heck, I’m not sure what is sitting on the queue that hasn’t been really looked at as of yet.

–

I just can’t keep up!

39

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Aside from the fact that there may have been a statutory violation, I don’t see how you can categorize interest in post-pubescents as pedophilia. Which is not to say that I condone dirty old men hitting on high-schoolers, but it’s not pedophilia.

Brad61 wrote:
Okay. What is it then, doctor? You’re saying it’s not pedophilia unless there was direct sexual activity? Because under the child porn laws, you can be prosecuted for merely posessing nude photos of minors… no actual contact with a minor. That is considered pedophilia.

If Foley even attempted to hit on a minor, he broke the law… a law he helped write.[/quote]

According to the DSM-IV definition, pedophilia involves sexual activity by an adult with a prepubescent child.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
On a second note, what is the statutory age of consent where the recipient of the emails/IMs is from? It’s not always 18.

Brad61 wrote:
It’s 18 in Florida, where Foley lives. The only page we know about for sure is from Louisiana. Since he supposedly chased after pages since he was first elected in 1994, it’s hard to comment on the others until more information is available.[/quote]

Apparently the page from the most explicit IMs was from Oklahoma. I don’t know what the age of consent is there.

BTW, as to the legal analysis of Foley’s situation, based solely on what we know he did (rather than any speculations on what he may have done), see this post chain:

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1159905974.shtml

40

Scuse me for my ignorance on this matter, but other than stupid, what did Foley do? He sent gay e-mails to an 18 year old, wasn’t it? Is that illegal?

If the kid was under 18, why didn’t his dad just come and put a pipe wrench across fuckface Foley’s face? Or better yet, in the balls.

This all seems to be a lot of screaming about some asshole hitting on boys. If the boys are 18, its just dumb. If under 18, bury Foley alive and forget about it.