[quote]Headhunter wrote:
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?
[/quote]
Well, I think one instance involved someone who was 18 at some point, but that’s not all that is involved… you aren’t listening to a “spun” source of information are you?
I think the fact that Foley was gay and hitting on young interns has a lot to do with the issue.
Perhaps the fact he was doing so from within his office, while he was on the job, has a little to do with the issue?
Perhaps the fact that there may have been a cover up of the issue has something to do with things as well?
Maybe the right wingers can tell us why the republicans and conservative voting base themselves are up in arms about all this?
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![/quote]
No actually it was a factual response to an undocumented or verifiable opinion that refuted your assessment that it was a GOP problem rather soundly. It clearly demonstrates that Congress has dealt with this issue many times. To think it wasn’t politically motivated is naive. It’s still wrong but the motivations behind breaking the story are pure politics.
I left Billy off on purpose but that could be a more recent example.
Curiously the GOP didn’t give Foley 3 standing ovations when he resigned nor will they liekly give him a politcal patronage position. The Dems have done both in the past.
They dropped this too soon. Left too much time to bring out the true facts. It isn’t going to help them in the end, and probably will end up hurting them once it is shown to have been a set-up (Foley is a sick fuck who needs a bullet if he was hitting on underage kids.)
[quote]hedo wrote:
To think it wasn’t politically motivated is naive. It’s still wrong but the motivations behind breaking the story are pure politics.[/quote]
[quote]vroom wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Well there are new allegations that Condi Rice lied to the 911 commission under oath.
I don’t know why the media is fixated on sex scandals, this is on the level of the Paris Hilton sex tapes, except substitute a gay Republican pedophile congressman for the vapid high society skank.
They dropped this too soon. Left too much time to bring out the true facts. It isn’t going to help them in the end, and probably will end up hurting them once it is shown to have been a set-up (Foley is a sick fuck who needs a bullet if he was hitting on underage kids.) [/quote]
Wow, talk about Cleopatra Queen of Denial. You don’t think this will matter at the polls? I think it definitely will.
I just hope if the Republicans lose their majority, that people will realize it was Congress’ terrible on-the-job performance that sunk them. This is the most do-nothing Congress, with public poll numbers in the 20s BEFORE the scandal. What little legislation was passed, was mostly handouts to big oil, big pharmaceutical companies, the Terry Schiavo debacle, the Bridge to Nowhere, runaway spending, raising the debt ceiling five times in five years, etc.
If you disagree, here’s your chance to brag about all the good things Congress accomplished under GOP control. Try to keep it brief because I’m sure it’s a long long list.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
doogie wrote:
Dems are morons.
They dropped this too soon. Left too much time to bring out the true facts. It isn’t going to help them in the end, and probably will end up hurting them once it is shown to have been a set-up (Foley is a sick fuck who needs a bullet if he was hitting on underage kids.)
Wow, talk about Cleopatra Queen of Denial. You don’t think this will matter at the polls? I think it definitely will.
I just hope if the Republicans lose their majority, that people will realize it was Congress’ terrible on-the-job performance that sunk them. This is the most do-nothing Congress, with public poll numbers in the 20s BEFORE the scandal. What little legislation was passed, was mostly handouts to big oil, big pharmaceutical companies, the Terry Schiavo debacle, the Bridge to Nowhere, runaway spending, raising the debt ceiling five times in five years, etc.
If you disagree, here’s your chance to brag about all the good things Congress accomplished under GOP control. Try to keep it brief because I’m sure it’s a long long list.
[/quote]
bradley,
Your “outrage” shows your hypocrisy. I’ll bet you were stone cold silent when billy boy was doing his thing.
Accomplishments: Fence.
Please remember that people are going to go to the polls and think: Which party will keep me safe?
Further, my stocks are great, my gas prices are falling, and the unemployment is very low.
democrats offer nothing.
Oh, if you are certain of democratic victory, you might want to sack up and accept the CHALLENGE II. If not, save your worthless bluster.
They dropped this too soon. Left too much time to bring out the true facts. It isn’t going to help them in the end, and probably will end up hurting them once it is shown to have been a set-up (Foley is a sick fuck who needs a bullet if he was hitting on underage kids.) [/quote]
doogie, you are correct.
If the dems think they can win on character comparisons, get ready for a Republican landslide.
Remember the “values” voters in 2004?
The response to this was immediate and irrevocable. foley is gone. Hastert is taking heat for even the hint of impropriety.
The contrast between bill clinton getting a standing ovation for lying under oath couldn’t be more clear.
Guys, nice to see you parroting the latest talking point… it’s all the democrats fault, boohoo!
Please.
You can’t pretend that the democrats didn’t pay for Clinton’s transgression.
And Hedo, you can’t pretend that whatever party had the person in office committing a scandal hasn’t paid the price over the years.
I can’t believe the nonsense I’m hearing about why this is non-issue when democrats are of course evil and it should be smeared across all of them whenever possible.
No, the question I am asking, is why are CONSERVATIVES all up in arms about this? I’m not trying to assign the blame, I’m not trying to shield democrats, but I am wondering if you’ve got an explanation why there is so much consternation among the right wing?
See, that’s kind of important, because it shows some of you are hysterical kool-aid drinkers… when your own supposed ilk are all up in arms while you are trying to somehow spin this into the fault of democrats.
Sniff, sniff, those big bad democrats who somehow forced Foley to be gay, to lust after young boys, to do so while performing his job, and then they had the nads to force Hastert or others to ignore the issue when it was raised.
Yep, those damned democrats, sounds like they are running the republican party or something.
Who is spinning Foley’s actions as the fault of democrats? Is there a Repub on this board who thinks Foley should be reinstated if he committed no crimes? I’m not getting that impression. If he isn’t found guilty of a crime, his ethical choices as an elected representative, involving subordinates, are enough for me to want to see his ass gone.
I don’t care if he never actually got around to touching one of these pages. Good riddance!
How about you Vroom? Do you hold elected represenatives to that kind of standard? Should an elected politican step down, or be removed, for banging the impressionable and younger subordinate staff?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about you Vroom? Do you hold elected represenatives to that kind of standard? Should an elected politican step down, or be removed, for banging the impressionable and younger subordinate staff?[/quote]
Hey, I’m asking the questions!
Your point is why I’m asking them. If people are of age, consenting, and there is no improper use of authority, then the issue drops down to one of simple ethics.
However, as I said before, I think it’s because he’s gay… either that or people believe there is more that we haven’t heard yet.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
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. [/quote]
If that was all that happened, I agree…
Even if that boy was around 16 this guy is hardly a pedophile and calling him that, even, gasp, in a LAW, does not make it so…
He is just a Christian Republican wo never had the balls to admitt he likes big, juicy man-meat…
isn’t foley just another poor, victimized gay american? i mean, sure he didn’t sodomize a member of his staff in his office…then promote that guy to lofty position…something like…i don’t know…head of homeland security in the state of new jersey. at least that’s not alleged yet. but maybe he can go on oprah and cry about it and we can all applaud his courage. but…that’s a few years off.
different rules for libs, i think. a democrat fucks some guy and he’s a victimized gay american. a conservative does it…well…
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
hedo wrote:
To think it wasn’t politically motivated is naive. It’s still wrong but the motivations behind breaking the story are pure politics.
isn’t foley just another poor, victimized gay american? i mean, sure he didn’t sodomize a member of his staff in his office…then promote that guy to lofty position…something like…i don’t know…head of homeland security in the state of new jersey. at least that’s not alleged yet. but maybe he can go on oprah and cry about it and we can all applaud his courage. but…that’s a few years off.
different rules for libs, i think. a democrat fucks some guy and he’s a victimized gay american. a conservative does it…well…[/quote]
In a way he is a poor victimized gay American…
I doubt that he grew up at an age or environment were it was ok to be gay…
Probably one of this poor fuckers who tried to do “the right thing” for all his live until he could not take it any more…
Doesn`t change that he is an idiot though…
Just not a pedophile idiot, only a power-abusing gay one…
[quote]hedo wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
hedo wrote:
To think it wasn’t politically motivated is naive. It’s still wrong but the motivations behind breaking the story are pure politics.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
vroom wrote:
The republicans are imploding faster than I can absorb the news…
I thought that the Woodward book was going to be a big issue, but it can hardly get any airtime anymore because the republicans are too busy getting Foley’d right now.
Never mind the various issues that have not really been discussed at any depth yet as they are squelched behind these bigger issues.
So, what’s next?
“…issues discussed at any depth…”
What planet do you live on?
…“what’s next”
another election. Let’s reelect 95% of the idiots doing a crappy job and show them we really are happy with the status quo.
[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
fucktard here.
isn’t foley just another poor, victimized gay american? i mean, sure he didn’t sodomize a member of his staff in his office…then promote that guy to lofty position…something like…i don’t know…head of homeland security in the state of new jersey. at least that’s not alleged yet. but maybe he can go on oprah and cry about it and we can all applaud his courage. but…that’s a few years off.
different rules for libs, i think. a democrat fucks some guy and he’s a victimized gay american. a conservative does it…well…
In a way he is a poor victimized gay American…
I doubt that he grew up at an age or environment were it was ok to be gay…
Probably one of this poor fuckers who tried to do “the right thing” for all his live until he could not take it any more…
Doesn`t change that he is an idiot though…
Just not a pedophile idiot, only a power-abusing gay one…[/quote]
I would imagine that being Gay in the GOP is not looked upon favorably. So probably most of the pedophilias in the GOP are actually just repressed Gays.
Vroom, you sound like a douchebag. You are trying to apply shades of grey to a black and white system.
Short lesson for ya:
We have a two party system. One is roughly conservative, one is roughly liberal. We support the party that most closely mirrors our values. We want that party to remain in power (even if they do make stupid mistakes). Continuing to support that party does not make any of us kool-aid drinkers. It makes us pragmatists. Better to support the party that generally agrees with our values than allow the other to take control.
I would imagine that being Gay in the GOP is not looked upon favorably. So probably most of the pedophilias in the GOP are actually just repressed Gays.
[/quote]
I generally agree, but he is NOT a pedophile…
He would have to want to have sex with children in order to be a pedophile…
He only wants to fuck teenagers…
Who doesn`t?
I doubt that the “Barely Legal” series is child porn…
