DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on October 02, 2006, 08:24:40 PM
-
Re: GOP Imploding As More and More Details Emerge
« Reply #72 on: Today at 04:58:56 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54:
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yet…but likely Friday
Teen: ok…ill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun
These are Im's , edited at that. The headline is misleading. Why would that be?
Anyone ever going to stand up and demonstrate how the Hell the GOP is "circling the wagons", defending what Foley did?, defending blatantly unaccetable behavior? ??? Or is it going to me more of the same rhetorical condemnations minus any merit? In other words, completly non-credible rantings by blinded hard left partisans
-
We'll all patiently wait
-
So, apparently credibility means nothing to the likes of Lanya, Tee, or Brass. That's pretty much what I thought, but it's always nice for the point to be continuously validated & reinforced. That's cool 8)
-
So, apparently credibility means nothing to the likes of Lanya, Tee, or Brass. That's pretty much what I thought, but it's always nice for the point to be continuously validated & reinforced. That's cool 8)
Better be careful, sirs. You are talking to yourself again.
-
Naaa, I'd be talking to all those who read posts here in the saloon, yourself included, though obviously your credibility was non-existant, pretty much from the start. Thus my question was never posed to you, as it was targeted to those who supposedly have or wish to have their commentary taken seriously
-
I guess I don't understand. GOP imploding seems a pretty apt description. What's wrong with that title? Is there another title used that I've missed?
I do have difficulty navigating this new forum.
Those IMs are enough to make me throw up and I can handle cleaning up puke, blood, feces, and phlegm without a problem.
The email was creepy. The page thought so. Red flags all around.
-
I guess I don't understand. GOP imploding seems a pretty apt description. What's wrong with that title? Is there another title used that I've missed?
The "implosion" of what Foley did is not limited to the GOP Lanya. Anyone with a sense of morals & ethics is "imploding" at what Foley did. So why the focus on the GOP? Are you implying that the Dems have no problem with this kind of behavior??
Those IMs are enough to make me throw up and I can handle cleaning up puke, blood, feces, and phlegm without a problem. The email was creepy. The page thought so. Red flags all around.
I suppose I need to ask the question again, since somehow it was avoided....Please demonstrate how the the GOP is "circling the wagons", defending what Foley did?, defending blatantly unaccetable behavior? That is the theme of the foaming at the moth accusations currently coming from your side
-
Is there another title used that I've missed?
He specifically asked about the thread titled "GOP Losers Circle Wagons For Child Predator."
-
Then why did he say Re: GOP Imploding As More and More Details Emerge ?
-
Then why did he say Re: GOP Imploding As More and More Details Emerge ?
Perhaps the "circle the wagons" with quotes around it was apparently too subtle. Regardless, how about addressing the question(s)
-
I guess I don't understand. GOP imploding seems a pretty apt description. What's wrong with that title? Is there another title used that I've missed?
The "implosion" of what Foley did is not limited to the GOP Lanya. Anyone with a sense of morals & ethics is "imploding" at what Foley did. So why the focus on the GOP? Are you implying that the Dems have no problem with this kind of behavior??
Those IMs are enough to make me throw up and I can handle cleaning up puke, blood, feces, and phlegm without a problem. The email was creepy. The page thought so. Red flags all around.
I suppose I need to ask the question again, since somehow it was avoided....Please demonstrate how the the GOP is "circling the wagons", defending what Foley did?, defending blatantly unaccetable behavior? That is the theme of the foaming at the moth accusations currently coming from your side
______________________________________________________________
You have got to be kidding. Tony Snow said "a few naughty emails." GOP leader denies he was ever told about it. Other GOP congressmen say they did tell him. He forgot. You all bring up any Dem you can remember, 20+ years ago, doesn't matter.
Matt Drudge says it was the pages' fault..."They were egging him on, the little beasts." Reynolds says "the page's parents didnt want us to go further so we didnt'." Some investigation.
Other members of Page Board say they were not notified (Kildee and Capito I think). Some pages were warned about him, some weren't.
There are calls on Hastert to step down from his leadership position.
People all over the country, Dem and Rep, are FURIOUS about this. Bay Buchanan is one. Did my heart good to listen to her and agree with her, for once. But I don't see a concerted effort by the party in power, the GOP, to protect the pages. If they knew years ago and did nothing, if they knew last spring and did nothing, why not? That's just unacceptable.
This is horrible.
-
People all over the country, Dem and Rep, are FURIOUS about this
Yea, yet, you and like minds, minus ANY credible facts, keep implying/accusing some sinister "circling of the wagons" by the GOP in mass, some sinister defense of Foley's acts. So, one last time, WHERE and HOW so??
-
Geeze, saw my name in the title bar and couldn't wait to rush in and see what new compliments and praise sirs was going to lavish upon me.
<<Yea, yet, you and like minds, minus ANY credible facts, keep implying/accusing some sinister "circling of the wagons" by the GOP in mass, some sinister defense of Foley's acts. So, one last time, WHERE and HOW so??>>
a "circling of the wagons," as I understand the phrase, means a group circles together around one of its wounded or disabled members to protect it from outside attack. I think the original phrase came from Indian attacks on wagon trains, but I stand to be corrected.
In this case, Foley is the disabled wagon, and the other wagons (Republicans) flocking to his defence or circling him protectively are, as Lanya has already pointed out:
1. Tony Snow (minimizing the seriousness of the offence by characterizing it as "a few naughty e-mails;"
2. Drudge, blaming it on the victims (typical Republican ploy;)
3. Reynolds, blaming the parents' lack of prosecutorial zeal for the half-assed "investigation" which left Foley free to continue his predations
An implosion (collapse under pressure from the outside in) is different concept from a circling of the wagons, and implies people outside the central core of the party attacking the insiders, and I guess examples of this would be the Washington Times and Bay Buchanan going after Hastert.
It's a pretty repulsive situation, and as the list of Republican pervs which I referred to in my last post shows, it seems to be pretty much endemic to the one Party, probably explaining in part why these sanctimonious hypocrites flocked to the Monica Lewinsky story, which involved nothing more eye-catching than consensual sex between adult hererosexuals.
-
it seems to be pretty much endemic to the one Party
You really are poorly informed, aren't you?
-
<<You really are poorly informed, aren't you?>.
Nah, that was just a troll. Hoping for some "conservative" to produce the list of Democratic pervs so I can point out how short it is in comparison to the list of Republican pervs.
-
Nah, that was just a troll.
Thought so.
Hoping for some "conservative" to produce the list of Democratic pervs so I can point out how short it is in comparison to the list of Republican pervs.
And if it's not?
-
<<And if it's not?>> [if the list of Democratic perverts isn't much much shorter than the list of Republican pervs?]
Then the country has no hope in hell of being governed by anybody other than a bunch of fucking perverts.
-
a "circling of the wagons," as I understand the phrase, means a group circles together around one of its wounded or disabled members to protect it from outside attack.
Precisely....now where the hell is this "circle of protection"? Everywhere I look he's being condemned up and down the political spectrum. Please, show me who's defending his actions. That's the question I seem to keep asking that fails to get answered
Tony Snow (minimizing the seriousness of the offence by characterizing it as "a few naughty e-mails;"
The "e-mails" were NOTHING compared to the im's. And the GOP told Foley to knock it off, when they got wind of those e-mails. It was the IM's that became the smoking gun, and as soon as that was brought to light and validated, you saw immediate condemnation. Still no "circling"
Drudge, blaming it on the victims
Drudge = GOP?? Since when??
Reynolds, blaming the parents' lack of prosecutorial zeal for the half-assed "investigation" which left Foley free to continue his predations
So, parents have nothing to do with this? You, the "Get Government out of my home" hard nosed lib is now citing that the Government didn't do enough to make the parents do more?? Under "desperation" in the dictionary is likely a reference to the last 2 examples" of yours.
Let me give you what would be scenarios for actually "circling the wagons". Circling would have been NO ATTEMPT at an investigation, or at minimum impeding it. Circling would have told the parents to go pound sand. Circling would have been what the Dems did with Rep. Studds & then President Clinton
An implosion (collapse under pressure from the outside in) is different concept from a circling of the wagons, and implies people outside the central core of the party attacking the insiders, and I guess examples of this would be the Washington Times and Bay Buchanan going after Hastert
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, be it the Wash Times or Bay. Does it make them correct. I could site a whole host of other publications and folks "outside the central core" who have no desire to see Hastert resign. Point being that the FACTS demonstrate no cover up, no attempt to cover up, & immediate demand for resignation once the explicit nature of Foley's actions were known. Not just by conservative consituents, but by the GOP leadership as well. Everything that the Dems DIDN'T do when it was one of their guys, I might add. There's your Hypocrisy
-
Remember that Monica did not want to testify at all, and Starr and his henchmen had to threaten her with incarceration to make her talk. And of course, Monica had committed no crime and was an adult.
I think that if this was serious enough to cause this congressman to resign, there is a lot more than we have heard so far.
-
Remember that Monica did not want to testify at all, and Starr and his henchmen had to threaten her with incarceration to make her talk. And of course, Monica had committed no crime and was an adult. I think that if this was serious enough to cause this congressman to resign, there is a lot more than we have heard so far.
And this has what to do with the tea in China?? Foley didn't even have sex with this page. Rep. Studds DID, and that page was underage as well. Was he driven out of the party? Was he condemned by his party? Studds was RELECTED........5X. HE'S GETTING A PENSION NOW, THAT WE PAY FOR
-
In this case, Foley is the disabled wagon, and the other wagons (Republicans) flocking to his defence or circling him protectively are, as Lanya has already pointed out:
Case you missed it Mikey, Foley resigned days ago, at the GOP Leaderships urging.
Some circling of wagons.
-
Responding to Sirs « Reply #17 on: October 03, 2006, 10:44:57 PM »
http://letterfromhere.blogspot.com/2006/10/beyond-bizzarre-now-theyre-hiding.html
Not only are they circling the wagons. They're putting the children OUT FRONT so the mean reporters won't ask adult questions on adult topics. Very sleazy.
Beyond bizzarre -- now they're hiding behind children?
Harry Scull Jr./Buffalo News
A Buffalo News photographer shot this iconic photo that perfectly sums up the whole damn Foleygate scandal, which has rapidly moved beyond the "merely" sleazy, salacious and corrupt. Now it's an utterly surreal, blame-shifting mass abdication of all personal responsibility.
In an affair that's defined by the failure of adults to accept their responsibility to protect the young people in their charge, NY congressman Thomas M. Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, topped everyone by surrounding himself with the children of supporters at a press conference called to defend his role as a House Republican leader. The New York Daily News blog reports:
The Upstate media today is all about Tom Reynolds' bizarre press conference yesterday, at which he surrounded himself by small children. At one point, reporters asked if he could make the children leave so they could ask adult questions, and he refused.
Earth to Republican Party: Get a grip!(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5436/819/1600/1003reynolds.jpg)
-
<<Case you missed it Mikey, Foley resigned days ago, at the GOP Leaderships urging.
<<Some circling of wagons. >>
The argument would be that the wagons had circled when the e-mails were disclosed to Hastert, as regards Foley. No hard-edged investigation, nothing happened to the guy, and he was left free to prey upon the pages or not, as he saw fit. Given the choice between raking up a lot of muck and possibly turning up something to the great discredit of the GOP, or just doing nothing and hoping that Foley would behave himself and nothing really bad would happen to the pages, the GOP leadership took the latter course. THAT'S what "circling the wagons" means with regard to Foley.
NOBODY missed Foley's resignation. At that point, the circling of the wagons had given up on Foley. Nobody was protecting him anymore, the guy was positively radioactive. The metaphor still applied to Hastert, who the wagons are still circled round. Including YOUR wagon, BT. They're gonna fight off any allegations that Hastert fucked up, failed to look into the e-mails energetically enough and/or preferred to leave the pages exposed to predators like Foley rather than dig up shit that might besmirch the GOP or cost it a seat in the House.
-
Lanya; Thomas M. Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, topped everyone by surrounding himself with the children of supporters at a press conference called to defend his role as a House Republican leader
And yet, STILL NO EXAMPLES, of ANYONE DEFENDING WHAT FOLEY DID In case you missed it the 1st time Lanya, that was my original question, that neither you nor Tee have been able to buttress
Tee; The argument would be that the wagons had circled when the e-mails were disclosed to Hastert, as regards Foley
How was telling Foley to knock it off, after seeing such e-mails "circling the wagons"?? How was upon learning of how explicit the IM's were, and demanding his resigniation, "circling the wagons"??
-
'Just an accident? We report, you decide.'
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570
The BRAD BLOG : INCREDIBLE! FOX 'NEWS' LABELS FOLEY AS DEM DURING O'REILLY FACTOR!
Screen shot is at link.
-
<<Precisely....now where the hell is this "circle of protection"? Everywhere I look he's being condemned up and down the political spectrum. Please, show me who's defending his actions. That's the question I seem to keep asking that fails to get answered>>
Oh, it's been answered. You just aren't listening. But that's OK. I'll answer it again. When Hastert was told about the e-mails - - which might be "innocent" enough to the Republicans as they circle their wagons, now around Hastert - - he and his staff took no effective action to determine the threat level to the pages. They kept it under wraps. They didn't want to rock the boat. The wagons - - Hastert and his people - - circled round Foley. He was left undisturbed. The pages were left at risk.
When matters reached the point where the GOP wagons could no longer afford to be seen as circling protectively round Foley, they threw him to the wolves pretty quickly, so that now, of course, he's completely on his own. But you'd like to use that to obliterate the earlier protection that he [Foley] enjoyed when nothing was done in response to his e-mails. When whatever pathetic response Hastert was able to muster left Folery unscathed and still free to molest and seduce.
<<MT: Tony Snow (minimizing the seriousness of the offence by characterizing it as "a few naughty e-mails;">>
<<sirs: The "e-mails" were NOTHING compared to the im's. >>
sirs, on the contrary. the e-mails were more than "a few naughty e-mails." MUCH more. Snow was minimizing some very disturbing and abnormal behaviour, where the lives of vulnerable adolescents hung in the balance. "Naughty" is a humourous way of describing off-colour or risque material ("French" post-cards, sexy lingerie, etc.) that is almost always for adult consumption; and moreover, for adults who, basically, are healthy, normal individuals; there's nothing "naughty" about a pedophile targeting vulnerable children and youths. It is despicable to try to whitewash that kind of predation as merely "naughty." Tony Snow actually in his attempts to lightly pass over the horrible breach of trust that Foley, even in the e-mails, was committing, is TYPICAL of the amorality and sleaziness of the whole Bush administration.
-
Oh, man, you are just making this WAY too easy for me, sirs.
<<How was telling Foley to knock it off, after seeing such e-mails "circling the wagons"?? >>
They presented to Foley a completely inadequate response to what he was doing and to the danger that such a person represented to the pages who they were supposed to be looking out for.
sirs, I can see you'd make one hell of a shepherd. If a wolf were circling your flock, you'd probably yell out at him, "Shoo!" or "Knock it off" and then retire for the night into your cabin, certain that you had taken all reasonable precautions with respect to the flock that you were responsible for. You are living proof of the INADEQUACY of the Republicans to look after anything or anybody, where they can't also line their own pockets at the same time.
<<How was upon learning of how explicit the IM's were, and demanding his resigniation, "circling the wagons"??>>
Well, of course, at THAT point, the guy was radioactive. By then he'd reached the point where circling the wagons was no longer an option. The wagons now are circling to protect Hastert and his immediate staff.
-
Oh, man, you are just making this WAY too easy for me, sirs.
I'm trying to Tee, but you keep failing miserably. Show me anyone who's defending Foley's acts. It can't get any easier than that. Show us anyone who says what Foley did is best left to the privacy of Foley, that what he does in his own private life is no one else's business. You know, what the Dems did with Representative Studds
If a wolf were circling your flock, you'd probably yell out at him, "Shoo!" or "Knock it off" and then retire for the night into your cabin, certain that you had taken all reasonable precautions with respect to the flock that you were responsible for
While in this world, when a supposedly responsible man says he'll do better, without a pattern to go by such as.....harrasing women while at various levels of executive leadership, like let say State AG, then Governor, and then President, the reasonable expectation is that the man we'll stay true to his word, unlike the wolf who doesn't know better, or an egregious womanizer who can't keep it in his pants
Well, of course, at THAT point, the guy was radioactive. By then he'd reached the point where circling the wagons was no longer an option
Yet, THAT's what you, Brass, and Lanya keep implying is happening. Must be more of that upside down Tee tactic of no facts/evidence is proof of such
-
"circling of the wagons," as I understand the phrase, means a group circles together around one of its wounded or disabled members to protect it from outside attack. I think the original phrase came from Indian attacks on wagon trains, but I stand to be corrected.
"
Was it part of the "circle the wagons " procedure to toss the injured one to the outside of the circle?
-
Case you missed it Mikey, Foley resigned days ago, at the GOP Leaderships urging.
Some circling of wagons.
[/quote]
But not before urging him to run again when he was thinking about not running again and KNOWING that he had inappropriate discussions with an underage page.
But that's just a little too non-technicality-laden for you apparently.
-
But not before urging him to run again when he was thinking about not running again and KNOWING that he had inappropriate discussions with an underage page.
What underage page? Age of consent in DC at the time was 16.
-
Guffaw!
You're really reaching now.
Do you think christian conservatives are going to buy that shit and let this all fall away?
LOL :D
-
You're really reaching now.
Simple statement of fact.
No reaching needed.
-
Guffaw!
You're really reaching now.
Do you think christian conservatives are going to buy that shit and let this all fall away?
LOL :D
_______________________________
Just listen to this legalistic response:
"Foley did not have inappropriate sexual contact with a minor."
So...he had appropriate sexual contact with a 16 year old? Or he just didn't have sex with anyone who wasn't 16 yet? Or what?
"Foley is not a pedophile."
No, he only hunts for the kids who have reached puberty. Whatta guy!
-
Just listen to this legalistic response:
"Foley did not have inappropriate sexual contact with a minor."
So...he had appropriate sexual contact with a 16 year old? Or he just didn't have sex with anyone who wasn't 16 yet? Or what?
"Foley is not a pedophile."
No, he only hunts for the kids who have reached puberty. Whatta guy!
"Sorry, not buying. None of the above. Get back to me when you find something illegal, OK? (I won't hold my breath)"
-
<<Show me anyone who's defending Foley's acts. It can't get any easier than that. Show us anyone who says what Foley did is best left to the privacy of Foley, that what he does in his own private life is no one else's business. >>
You keep missing the point, sirs. Nobody defended Foley's actions. The protection that was extended to him was in the inadequate response to what he did. Telling him to knock it off and then ignoring the problem is not a sufficiently zealous defence of the pages. It's more like a reluctance to press Foley, to cause a stink that might reflect back on the Party.
You seem to think that as long as they don't actually defend the guy, their handling of the situation was acceptable. But it's not. It's exactly like the shepherd who tells the wolf "Shoo! Go away!" and then retires for the night. He didn't defend the wolf. ("Show me anyone who defended Foley's act.") But whoever owns the sheep would be plenty pissed off to think that was ALL that the shepherd did in defence of the flock.
You just set a ridiculously lax standard for malfeasance. If Hastert had defended Foley, he'd be fair game. Unless he defended Foley, he doesn't deserve to be criticized. That's bullshit. Use the shepherd analogy and THINK about it for a minute.
<<While in this world, when a supposedly responsible man says he'll do better, without a pattern to go by . . . >>
Well, that's the problem right there, isn't it? There IS something to go by, a pattern if you will. A grown man, a powerful politician, DOES NOT ASK A 16-YEAR-OLD BOY WHO HE MET DURING THE KID'S TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT FOR A PHOTOGRAPH. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you? Do you really think that is healthy normal behaviour? Is it something that YOU would do? You go around asking 16-year-old boys for their pictures? You know God-damn well that is sick, and the guy is a sicko. And they also could have sized up the vulnerability inherent in the relationship, adolescent gophers and powerful politicians. And to just tell the guy, "Knock it off" and walk away, with no attempt to see how far this sickness has gone, who it's affected - - even in Middle America, even with the dumbest of the dumb, the schmucks who swallowed Bush's Iraq lies and fabrications without a question or a murmur, this will not fly.
<<From that one event. such as.....harrasing women while at various levels of executive leadership, like let say State AG, then Governor, and then President, the reasonable expectation is that the man we'll stay true to his word, unlike the wolf who doesn't know better, or an egregious womanizer who can't keep it in his pants . . . >>
Despicable that you would seek to avoid the moral cu;pability of Dennis Hastert, who FAILED TO PROTECT MINORS, who took absolutely no effective steps to protect minors, apart from telling the aggressor to "knock it off" and then never raising the subject again - - by referring to Clinton's wholly consensual and heterosexual tryst with Monica. Harassing women? Excuse me? I thought it was MONICA who initiated the whole thing. You sure as hell didn't hear any complaints from Monica. She never e-mailed anyone that it was "sick sick sick sick sick." It is not gonna work - - people know, as you should, that there is no comparison between consensual adult sex and a pervert who harasses teenage boys. None at all.
<<Yet, THAT's what you, Brass, and Lanya keep implying is happening. [that Foley is radioactive so the wagons aren't circling HIM any more] Must be more of that upside down Tee tactic of no facts/evidence is proof . . . >>
Well, sirs, you tell me . . . are the Republicans still circling their wagons around Foley or have they pretty much left him to the wolves?
-
<<Sorry, not buying. None of the above. Get back to me when you find something illegal, OK? (I won't hold my breath)>>
Kinda missing something aren't you?
Most people don't give a shit that nothing illegal was done. That's because most people have a heart.
You seem to forget that what's at stake are votes. What the Republicans are concerned about is an election, not a criminal trial.
It's not illegal to stand by the shore laughing and watching a little kid drown in three feet of water without lifting a finger to help, but try doing that and then asking for votes. This might surprise you, but you won't get any. See that's the problem - - Hastert didn't do anything illegal but nobody's gonna vote for him anyway. Because he doesn't give a shit.
-
See that's the problem - - Hastert didn't do anything illegal but nobody's gonna vote for him anyway. Because he doesn't give a shit.
Actually, I was talking about Foley. He hasn't done anything illegal, as far as I can tell. And neither has Hastert.
Besides, the votes don't seem to be a big deal. The Dems covered up something similar for 10 years, and the guy involved got re-elected 5 times after it came out.
Doesn't seem to be such a big deal for most. Only seems big among the liberals, who apparently like to dig into people's private lives and keep lists of people sexual predilections.
-
Actually, I was talking about Foley. He hasn't done anything illegal, as far as I can tell. And neither has Hastert.
Besides, the votes don't seem to be a big deal. The Dems covered up something similar for 10 years, and the guy involved got re-elected 5 times after it came out.
Doesn't seem to be such a big deal for most. Only seems big among the liberals, who apparently like to dig into people's private lives and keep lists of people sexual predilections.
[/quote]
Illegal? Maybe, maybe not. The investigation is only now kicking off.
But even FOLEY admits that the messages (IM's and emails) were "totally inappropriate". So, the original wagon circling done by BT and I think sirs won't fly either. He admitted to sending all of it.
And the fact that he himself says they were "totally inappropriate" is enough to sink him and if Hastert is proven to have known about his behaviour then that is ample to sink him as well in the same way it has sank Fordham. This is deep and the poo-poo'ing that you doing is totally outrageous and disgusting.
FBI Contacting Pages; Evidence Foley Solicited Sex
October 03, 2006 6:51 PM
Jason Ryan and Maddy Sauer Report:
Foley_fbi_nrFBI agents have begun to contact former congressional pages in the growing investigation of disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley, according to federal law enforcement officials.
At least one former page has reportedly offered evidence that Foley sought to solicit sex during instant message exchanges over the Internet.
The "preliminary investigation" appears to be heading towards a full field investigation, according to one official.
THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS
* EXCLUSIVE New Excerpts of Instant Messages a Former Page Said He Had with Foley
* New Foley Instant Messages: Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote
* Click Here for More of the Brian Ross Home Page
Officials say Foley's extensive knowledge of child exploitation laws may have helped guide him as to how far he could go without violating the law.
Instant messages obtained by ABC News indicated Foley met or arranged to meet young men under the age of 18 who had been pages.
Despite the fact that Foley's attorney has said Foley admits to sending the "totally inappropriate" e-mails and IMs, the FBI has still not seized his computer and hard drive.
"Mark has absolutely agreed on his own and with our counsel not to do anything with any computer, not to delete any messages, not to obliterate or attempt to obliterate any IMs, e-mails, Internet communications," said Roth.
The FBI confirmed today that it has not drawn up a search warrant for the equipment because the investigation is still preliminary, and they are still examining the messages they've obtained so far.
-
Illegal? Maybe, maybe not. The investigation is only now kicking off.
From your own article: "Officials say Foley's extensive knowledge of child exploitation laws may have helped guide him as to how far he could go without violating the law."
If it was not illegal, but only inappropriate, the solution in my mind is 1) give him a warning and 2) if it continues, ask him to resign. This is how "inappropriate" behaviour is handled in most other situations.
Still not seeing how anyone (except possibly Foley) has done anything wrong.
-
[/quote]
Still not seeing how anyone (except possibly Foley) has done anything wrong.
[/quote]
So, then are you one of the people who is denying that there has been a concerted effort to circle the wagons? Because if you are then you may not understand what the phrase "circle the wagons" means.
I mean you posts are the definition of the "circling the wagons".
-
<<Doesn't seem to be such a big deal for most. Only seems big among the liberals, who apparently like to dig into people's private lives and keep lists of people sexual predilections.>>
ROTFLMFAO. Thanks for my laugh of the day. So I guess it was the liberals who dug into Clinton's affair with Paula Jones and tried to crucify the guy for a consenting-adults BJ in the Oval Office. That's hilarious.
-
<<Besides, the votes don't seem to be a big deal. The Dems covered up something similar for 10 years, and the guy involved got re-elected 5 times after it came out.>>
Yeah, well the Democrats never ran on "family values" or solicited votes from Bob Jones University, did they? Never pushed for a Constitutional amendment to stop gay people from getting married, either. Maybe you also missed the hypocrisy factor here.
-
So, then are you one of the people who is denying that there has been a concerted effort to circle the wagons? Because if you are then you may not understand what the phrase "circle the wagons" means.
The only wagon i circled concerned Hastert and the GOP Leadership against charges of a coverup that you made and still haven't provided evidense that they were aware of any messaging other than the emails.
-
<< . . . and still haven't provided evidense that they were aware of any messaging other than the emails.>>
Oh, the e-mails. Right. And, as we all know, the e-mails are as healthy and normal as they could be. Hey, what 50-something guy WOULDN'T ask a cute teenage page for his photograph? Happens all the time, right?
I think you're like Ami and sirs, BT. You just focus on the fact that no laws were broken, which as I pointed out would be the case if he just watched a toddler drown in three feet of water, but most people (and even some Republicans) have higher standards than that. A depraved indifference to the fate of the young and vulnerable, whether or not laws are broken, is not exactly a recipe for gathering more votes in America. People tend to have a very low opinion of guys like Hastert, more interested in covering up scandal than they are in protecting vulnerable kids. He might not be a law-breaker, but that doesn't mean he's a vote-getter. So the Republicans - - yourself included - - circle your wagons around him, desperately chanting your mantra - - he didn't break the law! he didn't break the law! as if it's gonna save you. God, but you've got low standards. Whatever doesn't get you in jail is OK, is that it?
-
ROTFLMFAO. Thanks for my laugh of the day. So I guess it was the liberals who dug into Clinton's affair with Paula Jones and tried to crucify the guy for a consenting-adults BJ in the Oval Office. That's hilarious.
No, it was liberals who compiled that list you posted the other day
-
<<No, it was liberals who compiled that list you posted the other day>>
That was in reaction to the latest Republican scandal, coming from the same folks who brought you the Paula Jones - Monica Lewinsky witch-hunt. Who had the audacity to bring up not only Lewinsky, but a 20-year-old Democratic scandal as well in Foley's and Hastert's defence. Finally it was time to set the record straight on who the real pervs are in Washington.
BTW, I'm still waiting for that Republican list of Democratic perverts, you know the one that's longer than the list of Republican pervs. Ha, ha, ha, if it ever comes out, it'll be as reliable as that Fox News segment that Lana posted, "mistakenly" labelling Foley as a Democrat. That unravelling sound you hear all around you is the credibility of the Bush administration and the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
-
That was in reaction to the latest Republican scandal
Sounded like someone has been keeping score to me. It was pretty obvious.
BTW, I'm still waiting for that Republican list of Democratic perverts
I guess Republicans aren't into monitoring and keeping lists of the sexual predilections of their opponents as the Democrats apparently are.
-
<<I guess Republicans aren't into monitoring and keeping lists of the sexual predilections of their opponents as the Democrats apparently are.>>
Right. They'll steal elections, lie about an opponent's war record, lie their country into a war and find a new lie to continue an occupation, defend torture as a legitimate tool of modern warfare, spy on their own citizens, record every fucking library book you ever checked out - - but lists of sexual predilections??? NEVER! (They are, after all, the Moral Majority, remember?)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Right. They'll steal elections, lie about an opponent's war record, lie their country into a war and find a new lie to continue an occupation, defend torture as a legitimate tool of modern warfare, spy on their own citizens, record every fucking library book you ever checked out - - but lists of sexual predilections??? NEVER! (They are, after all, the Moral Majority, remember?)
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_11_55.gif)
-
The list was a really stupid topic of conversation in the first place.
-
The list was a really stupid topic of conversation in the first place.
So are most of the other things you repeat ad nauseum.
-
The list was a really stupid topic of conversation in the first place.
Especially when it simply reinforcies how null & void the garbage about Republicans "circling the wagons", and even condoning what Foley did via some meritless turning the other way :P
-
<<So are most of the other things you repeat ad nauseum [stupid topics of conversation.]>>
Not half as stupid as the right-wing garbage that provokes them
-
Not half as stupid as the right-wing garbage that provokes them
More so, actually. And that's an obviously true statement.
-
<<Especially when it [MT's stupid topics of conversation] simply reinforcies how null & void the garbage about Republicans "circling the wagons", and even condoning what Foley did via some meritless turning the other way >>
Huh? So now for three years the wagons DIDN'T circle around Foley and protect him? Wow, you really DO live in an alternative universe, don't you?
-
<<More so, actually. And that's an obviously true statement.>>
Yeah, obvious to an audience of right-wing nuts, maybe.
-
Yeah, obvious to an audience of right-wing nuts, maybe.
And anyone with a smattering of logic. So, I obviously don't expect you to get it.
-
When you rightwing nuts finally acquire a smattering of logic it will be a moment in human evolution comparable to the apes descending from trees.
-
So now for three years the wagons DIDN'T circle around Foley and protect him?
Bingo. I gave you examples of what "circling" might look like. Nothing remotely close has been demonstrated. You could say, nothing remotely in this universe. Your universe, as twisted and upside down as it is, perhaps so
-
Whenever they are surveyed , felons express a preference for the Democratic party .
http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/scjc/workingpapers/NLeong_06.pdf#search=%22felons%20surveyed%22
When the matter is discussed the party lines generaly break with the Republicans in favor of never allowing Felons to vote and Democrats in favor of reinfranchisment as early as possible.
I am in favor of allowing felons to vote , which makes me an unusual Republican I guess.
If that list of fifty or so Republicans is genuine , can we assume that all the rest of the felons are Democrats?
-
When you rightwing nuts finally acquire a smattering of logic it will be a moment in human evolution comparable to the apes descending from trees.
And I guess it will be even longer for you leftwing moonbats. Obviously, it takes longer for bats to become human than apes.
-
<<And I guess it will be even longer for you leftwing moonbats. Obviously, it takes longer for bats to become human than apes.>>
Well, let's look into that.
It wasn't any leftwing moonbat that got you mired in the Iraqi quagmire.
It wasn't any leftwing moonbat that turned a half-trillion-dollar surplus into a half-trill deficit.
It wasn't any leftwing moonbat that leaves the US spending more per capita than any other nation in the world on health care and getting less in return than most other industrialized nations
And it isn't leftwing moonbats who want to reserve the right to spy on their own citizens and torture their prisoners.
So I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind when you are talking about "becoming human," but I think the average leftwing moonbat would probably say, "Thanks but no thanks, we're kinda set on evolving in a different direction, a kinda "not-U" direction. Oooops, sorry, I think I might be boring Amianthus again. Poor guy needs more adulatory dialogue.
-
It wasn't any leftwing moonbat that leaves the US spending more per capita than any other nation in the world on health care and getting less in return than most other industrialized nations
And it isn't leftwing moonbats who want to reserve the right to spy on their own citizens and torture their prisoners.
Actually, both of those were done by leftwing moonbats.
Oooops, sorry, I think I might be boring Amianthus again. Poor guy needs more adulatory dialogue.
Yeah, when you repeat the same old things over and over, it's pretty boring. But not for those - like you - with memory problems, eh? Everything is fresh and new again?