Another Republican Pervert

[Tiger Al 0]

I think the point here is that the Repubs are NOT defending this guy - he is already gone - kicked out, forced out, resigned, chose your words. We are repulsed and disgusted - not because he is gay, but because his actions involved not a consenting adult, but a minor.

The hypocricy of the Dems is twofold:

First, when faced with even more egregious conduct in the past by members of their own party, Dems chose not to do the right thing and force the offender out of office - Stubbs was censured and kept his job, whereas Foley is already gone. Yet in this case, because the offender is a Repub, they are screaming, taking the moral high ground and making the biggest pile of political hay they can.

Second, the Dems and Repubs both had to have known since 2000 that this guy was "overly friendly" in emails to pages. The pages themselves knew about it, so the Dems had to have known as well. WHY was it only the responsibility of the Republicans to stop him? When a child is being endangered, partisanship should not be a factor. Yes, we absolutely hold the Repoublican leadership responsible for not taking matters into their own hands, but the Dems have the same degree of culpability when they had the exact same knowlege and they never made it public either. Most states have laws that require public officials to report a child being abused and penalties if they do not. I don't know if DC has that law, but it would seem to me that ANYONE who knew about this, regardless of party, should be held accountable for not stopping him. This is not a matter of party discipline. This is a criminal matter, and that part of the law is bipartisan.

I also wonder if no Dems said anything because Foley was gay - and they don't want to piss off a constituency by going after a gay guy? That is just as plausible as saying the Repubs didn't do anything so they could hold on to power.

Speaking of that conspiracy theory, the R's have been in control of the House for a while. If they truly knew the depth of his depravity (which it seems went beyond emails to IM's, which were not made public until this week) then if keeping power was an issue, they would have gotten rid of this guy when they had the majority locked up with no concern for losing their majority. So that is also a theory as to how much someone knew and when they knew it.

The Dems didn't have the exact knowledge, according to John Shimkus (R-Ill) who is the head of the page board. When this problem was brought to him, he didn't inform Dale Kildee (D-Mich) who also serves on the board. In fact, Kildee is the only Dem on the board and the only one not informed about Foley.

Foley's being gay has nothing with his innapproriate behavior towards minors. That's a red herring.

For this scandal to cause lasting damage to GOP leaders, Democrats may have to use homophobia in a way usually associated with the Republican Party. Who would have ever thought it, Tex, Al and the Rev. Fred W. Phelps in the same boat.

Nice try.

[Tiger Al 0]

He only served 14 more years and he had SEX with the intern. Far worse than anything Foley ever did. So Al, So Tex, want to inform us on why the Dems are so superior to the Republicans on this one?

Nobody is superior to the repubs, David. You tell us so all the time. You've owned the moral high road since you annointed yourselves "God's Party." Instead of walking the walk of "the party of personal responsibility", you point your fingers at Democrats, the media, movie stars, "timing", Bill Clinton and anything else that you can to maintain your perpetual state of victimhood. Somebody's always picking on the poor republicans. You've had control of all three branches of government for the last six years and still it's the so-called "liberal media bias'" fault. You blame the minority party when America thinks your ideas are bad such as the Social Security debacle, etc. I hear republicans blaming Democrats for welfare all the time, but, what have republicans done to change the system in the six years they've had total control? And, yet, they blame Democrats.

Wow Al, that was a really good topic hijack right there.

The question was....

So Al, So Tex, want to inform us on why the Dems are so superior to the Republicans on this one?

Wow, Dave, that was a really good job of post-padding right there. As I said, nobody's superior to the republicans. You tell us so everyday.

Still not going to answer the question Al?

Asked and answered...twice.

[CCTAU 3,351]

Here is a website giving age of consent info from around the world and the country.LINK

If the page was above the age of consent, then no laws were broken if anything was happened that was consentual. If Foley stalked or did anything else, it falls under another category. The repubs and the demons both knew what was happening, but legally, what could they do? But now we all want to keep referring to the page as a minor, when in fact, if the age of consent is truly 16, then in this case, the page is not considered a minor.

Unless foley propositioned a page under the age of 16, he did nothing wrong...legally speaking. Morally speaking, we all know he is a piece of trash. But that does not make the repubs responsible for his action when, however disgusting they are, they are not illegal. They could have censured him or made public this info, but then there's the issue of slander. Until the page, or other pages, put forth this info, the legal ramifications of slander was still possible. D.C. is full of lawyers. They do nothing without covering their respective a$$es. I'm just glad the page was willing to bring this to light and let the cat out of the bag publicly. Now the right thing can be done.

[Tiger Al 0]

But now we all want to keep referring to the page as a minor, when in fact, if the age of consent is truly 16, then in this case, the page is not considered a minor.

This sounds dangerously close to "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

The law also takes into account the age gap between the two parties. Foley's 52. How old's the page?

[CCTAU 3,351]

But now we all want to keep referring to the page as a minor, when in fact, if the age of consent is truly 16, then in this case, the page is not considered a minor.

This sounds dangerously close to "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

The law also takes into account the age gap between the two parties. Foley's 52. How old's the page?

Not true. Only in certain states do they have any of these stipulations. D.C. does not. And I know GA does not. Age of consent is age of consent.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

I think the point here is that the Repubs are NOT defending this guy - he is already gone - kicked out, forced out, resigned, chose your words. We are repulsed and disgusted - not because he is gay, but because his actions involved not a consenting adult, but a minor.

The hypocricy of the Dems is twofold:

First, when faced with even more egregious conduct in the past by members of their own party, Dems chose not to do the right thing and force the offender out of office - Stubbs was censured and kept his job, whereas Foley is already gone. Yet in this case, because the offender is a Repub, they are screaming, taking the moral high ground and making the biggest pile of political hay they can.

Second, the Dems and Repubs both had to have known since 2000 that this guy was "overly friendly" in emails to pages. The pages themselves knew about it, so the Dems had to have known as well. WHY was it only the responsibility of the Republicans to stop him? When a child is being endangered, partisanship should not be a factor. Yes, we absolutely hold the Repoublican leadership responsible for not taking matters into their own hands, but the Dems have the same degree of culpability when they had the exact same knowlege and they never made it public either. Most states have laws that require public officials to report a child being abused and penalties if they do not. I don't know if DC has that law, but it would seem to me that ANYONE who knew about this, regardless of party, should be held accountable for not stopping him. This is not a matter of party discipline. This is a criminal matter, and that part of the law is bipartisan.

I also wonder if no Dems said anything because Foley was gay - and they don't want to piss off a constituency by going after a gay guy? That is just as plausible as saying the Repubs didn't do anything so they could hold on to power.

Speaking of that conspiracy theory, the R's have been in control of the House for a while. If they truly knew the depth of his depravity (which it seems went beyond emails to IM's, which were not made public until this week) then if keeping power was an issue, they would have gotten rid of this guy when they had the majority locked up with no concern for losing their majority. So that is also a theory as to how much someone knew and when they knew it.

The Dems didn't have the exact knowledge, according to John Shimkus (R-Ill) who is the head of the page board. When this problem was brought to him, he didn't inform Dale Kildee (D-Mich) who also serves on the board. In fact, Kildee is the only Dem on the board and the only one not informed about Foley.

Foley's being gay has nothing with his innapproriate behavior towards minors. That's a red herring.

Nice try.

The Republican pointman on protecting kids from cyber stalkers is...A Cyberstalker! And then, Jenny sees this as an opportunity to lecture us on Dem hypocrisy! Priceless irony.

[Captain Liger 0]

While I find this mess to be disgusting I do, at the same time, find the whole situation quite humorous, actually. It's like watching a tragic Shakespearean comedy play out. On the right you've got some dirtbag Republican busted for being a nasty pervert with potentially other dirtbag Republicans going down in flames. On the left you've got dirtbag Democrats acting all "concerned" and "furious" at what has transpired. LOL, did any of you see the press conference with Pelosi today? What a riot! I don't think she blinked one single time and my how she had the nation's best interest at heart. So dang funny and even funnier that she's got numerous colleagues who should have resigned and gone to prison YEARS ago. I sometimes wonder if our politicians, on BOTH sides, ever realize how ridiculous they look and sound when they get in front of a camera?

Ah yes, Washington, DC. Gotta love it.

[Ranger12 46]

The difference between dems and republicans is that dems rally around and try to defend when one of theirs does something wrong or illegal. Republicans make the person resign.

If any dems want to argue that point, I ask you where are both of the Kennedy offenders at now and then where is Foley now?

[TexasTiger 13,053]

The difference between dems and republicans is that dems rally around and try to defend when one of theirs does something wrong or illegal. Republicans make the person resign.

If any dems want to argue that point, I ask you where are both of the Kennedy offenders at now and then where is Foley now?

True conservatives are disgusted by this, and recognize that he was shielded by the Republican leadership, which also disgusts them. Folks like you and most other psuedo conservatives on this board continue to delude yourself that the Republicans took strong action and can't comment in on it without saying the Dems are worst.

[DKW 86 7,451]

The difference between dems and republicans is that dems rally around and try to defend when one of theirs does something wrong or illegal. Republicans make the person resign.

If any dems want to argue that point, I ask you where are both of the Kennedy offenders at now and then where is Foley now?

True conservatives are disgusted by this, and recognize that he was shielded by the Republican leadership, which also disgusts them. Folks like you and most other psuedo conservatives on this board continue to delude yourself that the Republicans took strong action and can't comment in on it without saying the Dems are worst.

1) We have all condemned it Tex.

2) We all site that the guy is completely gone.

3) We call BS on his defense so far.

4) I posted the thread about the Washington Post asking for Hastert to resign as well.

5) Historically the Dems did far worse and dished out decidedly less punishment to their troops.

Facts just get in the way here guys.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Mark 10:14 Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God.

"...societies are judged by how they treat the most vulnerable in their midst..."

[Ranger12 46]

Tex, as soon as I heard about this, I was happy he was gone. The guy is a pervert and needs help. The fact that he is know trying to get sympathy acting like a victim because of his supposed past makes me sick. It may be true, but it also seems like a convenient story also.

Like I said, republicans try to do the right thing, yet dems just try to justify it when one of theirs does something wrong.

I heard an interesting theory on a radio talk show today from a caller. I think it may have been on Alan Colmes show as a matter of fact. The question was raised if the GOP leadership tried to hide it at first and if they did, why? Well, a caller said that since the GOP is now saying they knew Foley was gay, that maybe they were afraid if they did anything to him after the first time he was warned, they would be accused of gay bashing. That may be stretching it and trying to make an excuse, but surprisingly, Colmes admitted that could be a possibility, though doubtful.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Hang 'em regardless of party affiliation. They are not suited for public service, nor are they suited for walking amongst the population. Get 'em all out of my capitol.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

Tex, as soon as I heard about this, I was happy he was gone. The guy is a pervert and needs help. The fact that he is know trying to get sympathy acting like a victim because of his supposed past makes me sick. It may be true, but it also seems like a convenient story also.

Like I said, republicans try to do the right thing, yet dems just try to justify it when one of theirs does something wrong.

I heard an interesting theory on a radio talk show today from a caller. I think it may have been on Alan Colmes show as a matter of fact. The question was raised if the GOP leadership tried to hide it at first and if they did, why? Well, a caller said that since the GOP is now saying they knew Foley was gay, that maybe they were afraid if they did anything to him after the first time he was warned, they would be accused of gay bashing. That may be stretching it and trying to make an excuse, but surprisingly, Colmes admitted that could be a possibility, though doubtful.

Colmes is a milquetoast idiot. That is why Fox hires his as the Librul voice. Republicans win elections by gay bashing. They are not shy about it. It is one of their most effective strategies. This is not a gay issue. Pages are juniors in high school. This isn't Foley and his 50 year old long-time companion we are talking about. Another Red Herring. Republicans DID NOT TRY TO DO THE RIGHT THING. Foley knew the gig was up when the IMs were going to be released. No one would survive that. He was tolerated for years and no investigation was done despite evidence that one should have been. The process wasn't followed. Quick listening to the damn talking points and look at the facts.

[Tiger Al 0]

Tex, as soon as I heard about this, I was happy he was gone. The guy is a pervert and needs help. The fact that he is know trying to get sympathy acting like a victim because of his supposed past makes me sick. It may be true, but it also seems like a convenient story also.

Like I said, republicans try to do the right thing, yet dems just try to justify it when one of theirs does something wrong.

I heard an interesting theory on a radio talk show today from a caller. I think it may have been on Alan Colmes show as a matter of fact. The question was raised if the GOP leadership tried to hide it at first and if they did, why? Well, a caller said that since the GOP is now saying they knew Foley was gay, that maybe they were afraid if they did anything to him after the first time he was warned, they would be accused of gay bashing. That may be stretching it and trying to make an excuse, but surprisingly, Colmes admitted that could be a possibility, though doubtful.

republicans try to do the right thing...The republican-controlled house ethics committee changed rules to allow Tom Delay to maintain his leadership position despite his four prior ethics citations and legal indictments. The Jack Abramoff scandal is exposed and the republican response is to...point to a handful of Democrats who received miniscule donations from him.

As for alan colmes' interesting theory, as TT already pointed out, it's a red herring. It reminds me of the excuse given for not hiring a black football coach, because, when you fire him, racial discrimination charges will be raised, therefore, don't hire him in the first place. Red herring. If Foley's predatory offenses were legitimate and properly laid out, then charges of 'gay bashing' would be easily, easily refuted. But, if that IS their excuse for their silence, then that shows extremely piss-poor leadership that this country, quite frankly, can ill-afford to keep and needs to be changed in November.

These days, if you violate your standards faster than you can lower them, you're probably a republican.

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

As an Independent voter, I don’t have a dog in this Republican/Democrat fight. But, this is certainly an interesting topic. People are “outraged” over this congressperson’s behavior. What did he do? Did he rape or attempt to rape another person in his official office? Did he engage in consensual sodomy in his office? Did he cheat on his spouse or”domestic partner?” From all accounts published, no he did not (and that precludes him from ever being considered Democratic presidential material – sorry, couldn’t resist!) Apparently, all he did was send lurid IMs & e-mails to another person of the age of consent (16 years) in DC and in Maryland. Is this against the law? No, as long as the recipient was above the age of consent. The internet is just another communication device, although without the privacy inherent with other devices. People have been sending lurid private letters, messages & phone calls to others for many years. Does this behavior set a new precedent within the hallowed halls of Congress? Sadly, no. As political sex scandals go, lurid IMs & e-mails are pretty tame. Was his behavior hypocritical considering his sponsorship of laws against using the internet to sexually exploit children? Of course it was. But is Foley the first hypocrite to hold political office? BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I laugh at the very thought of even posing the question. Should Foley have resigned over this? Nobody’s asked this question – everyone has just assumed he had to resign. As others here have pointed out, similar incidents associated with Reps Studds & Franks prove that standards of morality don’t necessarily apply to congresspersons. It would have been interesting to see if Foley’s “safe” congressional district would have re-voted him back in like the Massachusetts voters did with Studds & Franks after their sex scandals. I’d like to think the FL voters are smarter than the MA voters, but then I think back to the 2000 presidential election and realize that it was those folks who put the “duh” in Flori-duh.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

There is no need to worry people, because O'Reilly is on the case and working overtime on this ####. Notice how he labeled Foley a Democrat.

[DKW 86 7,451]

republicans try to do the right thing...The republican-controlled house ethics committee changed rules to allow Tom Delay to maintain his leadership position despite his four prior ethics citations and legal indictments. The Jack Abramoff scandal is exposed and the republican response is to...point to a handful of Democrats who received miniscule donations from him.

As for alan colmes' interesting theory, as TT already pointed out, it's a red herring. It reminds me of the excuse given for not hiring a black football coach, because, when you fire him, racial discrimination charges will be raised, therefore, don't hire him in the first place. Red herring. If Foley's predatory offenses were legitimate and properly laid out, then charges of 'gay bashing' would be easily, easily refuted. But, if that IS their excuse for their silence, then that shows extremely piss-poor leadership that this country, quite frankly, can ill-afford to keep and needs to be changed in November.

These days, if you violate your standards faster than you can lower them, you're probably a republican.

Yeah we have finally been in power long enough to become just like the Democrats.

Speaker of the House Jim Wright's Scandal

Jim McDermott and the Oil for Food Scandal

After his visit to Iraq, Rep. McDermott received a $5,000 contribution to an unrelated legal defense fund from Shakir al Khafaji, an Iraqi-American businessman with alleged ties to the Oil for Food scandal.

In December of 2004, Rep. McDermott came under investigation by the House Ethics Committee when they had to determine whether he violated standards of conduct for leaking an illegally recorded telephone conversations during a committee investigation in 1997. At that time the committee was investigating the conduct of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The illegal telephone converstation (recording was illegal) was recorded by a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, who overheard a conversation between Rep. Gingrich and top Republicans, on their police scanner inside their carWTF? . After listening to the conversation for several minutes they decided to record it, at first for posterity's sake and after listening further decided that it might be important for the Ethics Committee to hear.

Shortly afterward, Congressman McDermott leaked the tape to several media outlets, including the New York Times. Rep. John Boehner, who was part of the Gingrich conversation, sued McDermott for illegally leaking the tape; U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan concluded that McDermott was behind the leak and ordered him to pay Boehner for "willfull and knowing misconduct" that "rises to the level of malice".

McDermott challenged that ruling in a federal appeals court. But on March 29, 2006 the court ruled 2-1 that McDermott violated federal law when he turned over the illegally recorded tape to the New York Times and other media outlets. The court then ordered McDermott to pay for Boehner's legal costs (over $600,000) as well as $60K in damages

[TexasTiger 13,053]

A longtime chief of staff to disgraced former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) approached House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office three years ago, repeatedly imploring senior Republicans to help stop Foley's advances toward teenage male pages, the staff member said yesterday

...

Fordham says his warnings to Hastert's office dealt with a different matter: reports of Foley's troubling interest in male pages working in the Capitol Hill complex. He says he implored the highest ranks of the GOP leadership to intervene to thwart behavior that he had been unable to stop after multiple confrontations with his boss. Sources close to the matter say a meeting took place between a senior Hastert aide and Foley before Fordham's January 2004 departure, probably in 2003, in a small conference room on the third floor of the Capitol.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0400616_pf.html

[Bottomfeeder 244]

There is no need to worry people, because O'Reilly is on the case and working overtime on this ####. Notice how he labeled Foley a Democrat.

Now Hastert is a Democrat. Cammillion Congress?

Mejias Calls on House Speaker to Resign

LongIslandPress.com, NY - Oct 2, 2006

... Monday that House Speaker Dennis Hastert (D-Illinois) resign after Hastert failed to act on knowledge that former Congressman Mark Foley (D-Florida) engaged in ...

They have since corrected that error. Yea, right.