I Can't Keep Up!

[rainjack]

[quote]FightinIrish26 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…

He’s a fucking pedophile you dumb fucking ass. I don’t give a shit that he’s gay- I think gay republicans are very ironic, and I like irony.

But not kid-touchers.

Fuck, don’t you have to go clean your mansion or something? [/quote]

If Foley was a hot looking woman, would we even be having this conversation?

I am not condoning what Foley did - but I am seeing a huge double standard here on T-Nation.

Or is it hypocrisy?

[sasquatch]

[quote]100meters wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
vroom wrote:
doogie wrote:
They aren’t. The base is rallying behind the cries of “dirty tricks by the dems” and “failed October surprise.” This will ultimately increase Republican turnout.

Wow, the conservative base on FOX must be different than the conservative base on CNN. What a surprise!

You truly believe misconduct by a republican is the fault of democrats? Damn, after Clinton the democrats should have won by a landslide, using your logic.

Check your logic bucky, it’s wheels are falling off.

It is misconduct by an elected representitive–who happens to be Rep. And that is a big difference as to the way you want to portray this. This is not a party problem. It really is that simple. Who in their right mind is saying this is a rep problem.

You guys are arguing like the party is the fault. I think most reasonable people see the issue here and it won’t have one effect on the election.

Actually, were just doing what your party told us to do…you see your guys made a contract, a contract for america so to speak in which your guys said:

“[I]n this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal…To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.”

followed with

“If we break this Contract [with America], throw us out.”

So since they’ve clearly broken said contract(Foley’s just piling on here)
shouldn’t we throw them out? I mean I KNOW you’re gonna honor the contract, but why hate us for honoring it too?

[/quote]

First, just because someone has anopinion doesn’t automatically mean it is my party. I don’t consider myself either party. I voted for bush–twice and Clinton–twice.

You’re nothing but a mouthpiece with no individual thought. You immediately attack anyone who suggests they think a Republican or a stance there of is correct.

WEhat my point was, and you have proved so beautifully, is that the discussion immediately went partisan when the problem isn’t even so.

Contract aside, Foley is out fool. I don’t hate anyone for agreeing or disagreeing. My issue is that it is not party based. It just happen to be a Republican this time. The guy is scum, he should be huniliated and out on his ass. I don’t agree with those that try and correlate it to past acts. You’ve not seen me do it so why respond so typical for you.

My contention is also that this will have no bearing on the election. I think most people realize the problem was individual and not party based. Now, if it can be proven that there was a major party cover-up—then you have a story and a gripe. Until then try and say something meaningful about the issue and the by product there of instead of beating your same dead horse. Blah blah blah blah blah!

[sasquatch]

[quote]vroom wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
You guys are arguing like the party is the fault. I think most reasonable people see the issue here and it won’t have one effect on the election.

Sasquatch,

I’m reflecting on the polls showing that republicans are stating that they will not vote republican.

Funny how this is being attacked like it is my opinion or that I don’t understand the situation.

Again, I’m asking, why is this affecting so many republicans, or conservatives, in this way, as suggested by recent polls?

I’ve conjectured it is because Foley is gay and subject is male sex.

Anyone?[/quote]

I don’t believe I attacked, but let me respond to your question.

For the far right, you may be correct. For the mainstream guyd own the street I really don’t see this.

This also isn’t simply gay sex. This is a person of power possibly influencing a subordinate. It is possibly engaging with underage people. That is my concern much more than the fact he may or may not be gay.

I honestly don’t think that you’ll see any resulting reaction at the polls.

[vroom]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
If Foley was a hot looking woman, would we even be having this conversation?

I am not condoning what Foley did - but I am seeing a huge double standard here on T-Nation.[/quote]

Bingo, and I’m asking the same about the bigger world, instead of just the level of interest around here.

[100meters]

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
100meters wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
vroom wrote:
doogie wrote:
They aren’t. The base is rallying behind the cries of “dirty tricks by the dems” and “failed October surprise.” This will ultimately increase Republican turnout.

Wow, the conservative base on FOX must be different than the conservative base on CNN. What a surprise!

You truly believe misconduct by a republican is the fault of democrats? Damn, after Clinton the democrats should have won by a landslide, using your logic.

Check your logic bucky, it’s wheels are falling off.

It is misconduct by an elected representitive–who happens to be Rep. And that is a big difference as to the way you want to portray this. This is not a party problem. It really is that simple. Who in their right mind is saying this is a rep problem.

You guys are arguing like the party is the fault. I think most reasonable people see the issue here and it won’t have one effect on the election.

Actually, were just doing what your party told us to do…you see your guys made a contract, a contract for america so to speak in which your guys said:

“[I]n this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal…To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.”

followed with

“If we break this Contract [with America], throw us out.”

So since they’ve clearly broken said contract(Foley’s just piling on here)
shouldn’t we throw them out? I mean I KNOW you’re gonna honor the contract, but why hate us for honoring it too?

First, just because someone has anopinion doesn’t automatically mean it is my party. I don’t consider myself either party. I voted for bush–twice and Clinton–twice.

You’re nothing but a mouthpiece with no individual thought. You immediately attack anyone who suggests they think a Republican or a stance there of is correct.

WEhat my point was, and you have proved so beautifully, is that the discussion immediately went partisan when the problem isn’t even so.

Contract aside, Foley is out fool. I don’t hate anyone for agreeing or disagreeing. My issue is that it is not party based. It just happen to be a Republican this time. The guy is scum, he should be huniliated and out on his ass. I don’t agree with those that try and correlate it to past acts. You’ve not seen me do it so why respond so typical for you.

My contention is also that this will have no bearing on the election. I think most people realize the problem was individual and not party based. Now, if it can be proven that there was a major party cover-up—then you have a story and a gripe. Until then try and say something meaningful about the issue and the by product there of instead of beating your same dead horse. Blah blah blah blah blah![/quote]

The republican head of the page system thingy didn’t tell his democratic counter-part. Why?

Republican leadership encouraged Foley to run again eventhough he wasn’t sure he wanted to…knowing that Foley had problems with pages. Why?

Hastert pointed fingers at democrats yesterday. Why?

OF COURSE ITS F–KING PARTISAN!

[sasquatch]

[quote]100meters wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
100meters wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
vroom wrote:
doogie wrote:
They aren’t. The base is rallying behind the cries of “dirty tricks by the dems” and “failed October surprise.” This will ultimately increase Republican turnout.

Wow, the conservative base on FOX must be different than the conservative base on CNN. What a surprise!

You truly believe misconduct by a republican is the fault of democrats? Damn, after Clinton the democrats should have won by a landslide, using your logic.

Check your logic bucky, it’s wheels are falling off.

It is misconduct by an elected representitive–who happens to be Rep. And that is a big difference as to the way you want to portray this. This is not a party problem. It really is that simple. Who in their right mind is saying this is a rep problem.

You guys are arguing like the party is the fault. I think most reasonable people see the issue here and it won’t have one effect on the election.

Actually, were just doing what your party told us to do…you see your guys made a contract, a contract for america so to speak in which your guys said:

“[I]n this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal…To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.”

followed with

“If we break this Contract [with America], throw us out.”

So since they’ve clearly broken said contract(Foley’s just piling on here)
shouldn’t we throw them out? I mean I KNOW you’re gonna honor the contract, but why hate us for honoring it too?

First, just because someone has anopinion doesn’t automatically mean it is my party. I don’t consider myself either party. I voted for bush–twice and Clinton–twice.

You’re nothing but a mouthpiece with no individual thought. You immediately attack anyone who suggests they think a Republican or a stance there of is correct.

WEhat my point was, and you have proved so beautifully, is that the discussion immediately went partisan when the problem isn’t even so.

Contract aside, Foley is out fool. I don’t hate anyone for agreeing or disagreeing. My issue is that it is not party based. It just happen to be a Republican this time. The guy is scum, he should be huniliated and out on his ass. I don’t agree with those that try and correlate it to past acts. You’ve not seen me do it so why respond so typical for you.

My contention is also that this will have no bearing on the election. I think most people realize the problem was individual and not party based. Now, if it can be proven that there was a major party cover-up—then you have a story and a gripe. Until then try and say something meaningful about the issue and the by product there of instead of beating your same dead horse. Blah blah blah blah blah!

The republican head of the page system thingy didn’t tell his democratic counter-part. Why?

Republican leadership encouraged Foley to run again eventhough he wasn’t sure he wanted to…knowing that Foley had problems with pages. Why?

Hastert pointed fingers at democrats yesterday. Why?

OF COURSE ITS F–KING PARTISAN!

[/quote]

The act for which Foley is accused and he has resigned for is not partisan.

The fact it will have no negative effect on the Rep. party come election is my opinion.

All thge finger pointing is always partisan. I don’t give two shits about the spin BOTH paries are putting on the aftermath.

[100meters]

[quote]sasquatch wrote:

The act for which Foley is accused and he has resigned for is not partisan.

The fact it will have no negative effect on the Rep. party come election is my opinion.

All thge finger pointing is always partisan. I don’t give two shits about the spin BOTH paries are putting on the aftermath.

[/quote]
No, the alleged act of the GOP leadership covering for Foley is totally partisan and those actions will(obviously) effect the election.

[sasquatch]

[quote]100meters wrote:
sasquatch wrote:

The act for which Foley is accused and he has resigned for is not partisan.

The fact it will have no negative effect on the Rep. party come election is my opinion.

All thge finger pointing is always partisan. I don’t give two shits about the spin BOTH paries are putting on the aftermath.

No, the alleged act of the GOP leadership covering for Foley is totally partisan and those actions will(obviously) effect the election.

[/quote]

Wanna bet?

[hedo]

[quote]vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
Funny man. Your so brainwashed you don’t even realize it anymore.

Clearly the enlightened Dems only had the best interests of the pages at heart. The political fallout was simply unfortunate.

Your just pretending to be naive right?

So, I’m brainwashed because you are upset at the motivations of the democrats when they released this information?

Ahahahaha.

Of course the democrats are happy to inform the public when the republicans are jerking off to young boys over the Internet.

Republicans weren’t happy to inform the public when Clinton was misusing his dick?

I’m sure you just skimmed over the part where I stated what he did was wrong…you know while you were smelling the dasies perhaps.

If you know what he did was wrong, and that it needed to get out to the public, then how are the democrats to be faulted out of this?

Point out a fault other than election timing… because not releasing the information is worse than releasing it.[/quote]

I’m not upset. You on the otherhand started a thread about it. You really can’t keep up.

The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.

[vroom]

[quote]hedo wrote:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.
[/quote]

Is there any information, not opinion or infotainment, that supports this?

[100meters]

[quote]hedo wrote:

The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.
[/quote]

What Democrats knew???
The republican on the page program didn’t tell his democratic counterpart.

In other words, there is no evidence for this/ or evidence to the contrary.

[100meters]

[quote]vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.

Is there any information, not opinion or infotainment, that supports this?[/quote]

OF COURSE!
not.

[doogie]

[quote]100meters wrote:
vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.

Is there any information, not opinion or infotainment, that supports this?

OF COURSE!
not.[/quote]

Doesn’t matter as long as the Republicans can convince their base it was Democrat dirty tricks. That’s how the game is played.

[rainjack]

[quote]doogie wrote:
100meters wrote:
vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.

Is there any information, not opinion or infotainment, that supports this?

OF COURSE!
not.

Doesn’t matter as long as the Republicans can convince their base it was Democrat dirty tricks. That’s how the game is played.[/quote]

I think if there’s a time to invoke the “vast left-wing conspiracy” this would be one of them.

[hedo]

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.

What Democrats knew???
The republican on the page program didn’t tell his democratic counterpart.

In other words, there is no evidence for this/ or evidence to the contrary.

[/quote]

Read more.

Drudge is breaking a story that this info was presented to the FBI in June. US News also has a story about the alleged predator website that was set up to “break the story”. Wanna bet is wasn’t set up by somone who had the best interest of the pages in mind?

Since no level of proof will convince a zealot with Bush derangment syndrome what’s the point in reading right?

[vroom]

Is that the same drudge which has tried to declare the issue a hoax?

And what’s all this “game” talk?

You guys have no concern for right and wrong, just winning? Seriously, just because the issue is politics doesn’t mean that principles shouldn’t be applied.

Perhaps that’s what is wrong with most modern politicians, they don’t actually have principles… or at least there isn’t much evidence of it lately.

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
You guys have no concern for right and wrong, just winning? Seriously, just because the issue is politics doesn’t mean that principles shouldn’t be applied.

Perhaps that’s what is wrong with most modern politicians, they don’t actually have principles… or at least there isn’t much evidence of it lately.[/quote]

When the story magically breaks a month before the elections, I think one would have to be either the definition of stupid not to see the intended political fallout of the story.

No one is giving a shit about any sexual abuse here - right or left. And why should they? The intent is to take an election, not out a sexual predator.

Even you should be able to see this.

[100meters]

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

The Democrats knew about it for quite some time. Why did they wait to release the information? Not cause they really care about the pages.

What Democrats knew???
The republican on the page program didn’t tell his democratic counterpart.

In other words, there is no evidence for this/ or evidence to the contrary.

Read more.

Drudge is breaking a story that this info was presented to the FBI in June. US News also has a story about the alleged predator website that was set up to “break the story”. Wanna bet is wasn’t set up by somone who had the best interest of the pages in mind?

Since no level of proof will convince a zealot with Bush derangment syndrome what’s the point in reading right?

[/quote]

Like I said, no evidence.
Republicans knew.
Republicans leaked.

[Headhunter]

[quote]orion wrote:
He only wants to fuck teenagers…

Who doesn`t?

[/quote]

Boys or girls? Just kidding…

I’m around teenagers all day and, sure some of the girls are very attractive but they are KIDS. Even if you’re single, leave them alone. Most teens have enough trouble functioning without an adult trying to hit on 'em.

[Sloth]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Is that the same drudge which has tried to declare the issue a hoax?

And what’s all this “game” talk?

You guys have no concern for right and wrong, just winning? Seriously, just because the issue is politics doesn’t mean that principles shouldn’t be applied.

Perhaps that’s what is wrong with most modern politicians, they don’t actually have principles… or at least there isn’t much evidence of it lately.[/quote]

Drudge did not claim the issue was a hoax! Please read the entire column. What Foley did was very real. The hoax comes in on the Pages’ part. They knew he was a Perv and goaded him along so they sit there and laugh at him. Not all the pages, but the group surrounding Edmund. Again, Foley was serious in what HE was saying.