NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe that the House Leadership has been smeared way too much for a transgression which they did not commit. Many liberals (maybe a few conservatives, too) claim that the Republican House Leadership was complicit in the Foley case because they were aware of it and took no action. This is patently false. The House Leadership was informed of the emails which Foley wrote up until that point (these (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Congressman_accused_of_sending_sick_emails_0928.html)). While creepy, inappropriate, and overly friendly, these emails were certainly not illegal as they did not schedule a meeting, nor were they sexually explicit. So what should the House Leadership do? Should they refer the case to the police? Of course not -- no crime had been committed. They did the only thing they could do, and showed exemplary ethics -- "the chairman of the House Page Board and the then Clerk of the House confronted Mr. Foley, demanded he cease all contact with the former page as his parents had requested, and believed they had privately resolved the situation as the parents had requested" (source (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/10/hastert_wants_f.html)). That's all they could do -- the parents of the child in question did not want to press the matter further, and even the newspapers that learned of the emails did not think they warranted a story on them (like this one (http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2006/09/a_note_from_the.html)). So was the House Leadership amiss in its action or not? Poll coming.

I can't believe you're actually making a defensive case for these assholes. I mean, even factoring in that it's you and everything, I still can't believe it.

What they did was cover Foley's ass. They covered his ass because they wanted his congressional seat. Now they are covering their own asses for covering his ass. Funny thing is that the only ass Foley cared about was that congressional page's. :)

I can't believe you're actually making a defensive case for these assholes. I mean, even factoring in that it's you and everything, I still can't believe it.

I'm not attempting to defend Foley here -- only the House Leadership which did all that it was in its power to do to stop the emails and assuage the family of the child. What more could they do? They received no compaints after they had a talk with Foley -- they're not pyschic, you know. What more could you ask of them?

BY the way, MTAE, you're either not paying attention, or you're lying, but Congressional leaders knew Foley was a problem as far back as 2001, because pages from that class were warned about him. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2514259&page=1)

I believe that the House Leadership has been smeared way too much for a transgression which they did not commit. Many liberals (maybe a few conservatives, too) claim that the Republican House Leadership was complicit in the Foley case because they were aware of it and took no action. This is patently false. The House Leadership was informed of the emails which Foley wrote up until that point (these (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Congressman_accused_of_sending_sick_emails_0928.html)). While creepy, inappropriate, and overly friendly, these emails were certainly not illegal as they did not schedule a meeting, nor were they sexually explicit. So what should the House Leadership do? Should they refer the case to the police? Of course not -- no crime had been committed. They did the only thing they could do, and showed exemplary ethics -- "the chairman of the House Page Board and the then Clerk of the House confronted Mr. Foley, demanded he cease all contact with the former page as his parents had requested, and believed they had privately resolved the situation as the parents had requested" (source (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/10/hastert_wants_f.html)). That's all they could do -- the parents of the child in question did not want to press the matter further, and even the newspapers that learned of the emails did not think they warranted a story on them (like this one (http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2006/09/a_note_from_the.html)). So was the House Leadership amiss in its action or not? Poll coming.

Such messages as "Do I make you a little horny" and "You in your boxers, too? ... Well, strip down and get naked." aren't sexual?


I'm sorry, but to be honest, fuck you.

I'm not attempting to defend Foley here -- only the House Leadership which did all that it was in its power to do to stop the emails and assuage the family of the child. What more could they do? They received no compaints after they had a talk with Foley -- they're not pyschic, you know. What more could you ask of them?

Oh, I dunno. Investigate? Don't you think a complait of that nature warrants a follow-up?

Oh, and what was wrong with my thread? I thought I did a nice job of portraying a casual atmosphere. :)

Such messages as "Do I make you a little horny" and "You in your boxers, too? ... Well, strip down and get naked." aren't sexual?

The House Leadership did not know of those emails. The only emails of which they were informed were ones asking what the page would like for her birthday and a request for a picture.

BY the way, MTAE, you're either not paying attention, or you're lying, but Congressional leaders knew Foley was a problem as far back as 2001, because pages from that class were warned about him. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2514259&page=1)

So far, he had done nothing illegal. Being a creepy guy isn't a crime. Again, because of their moral fibre, they warned people about him.

The House Leadership did not know of those emails. The only emails of which they were informed were ones asking what the page would like for her birthday and a request for a picture.

Hm, I was under the impression he was hitting young -boys-.

They needed to do one of a few things...they could have distanced themselves from him entirely or they could have quietly told him, "Hey, don't be a fuckup. We're not about to risk our careers so you can solicit sex from teenage boys. It's just not worth it to us." Instead, they protected him, and though they're not guilty of the same crime, they are guilty of gross stupidity. May all of them lose their House seats.

So far, he had done nothing illegal. Being a creepy guy isn't a crime. Again, because of their moral fibre, they warned people about him.

Because I'm sure they looked at the situation and examined the legal implications of it first. Riiiiight. :rolleyes:

I'll give you this much--you've done what I thought was impossible. You've outtrolled Deep Kimchi. Congrats. You've taken an undefendable situation and tried to make it a net plus for the Republican leadership.

So far, he had done nothing illegal. Being a creepy guy isn't a crime. Again, because of their moral fibre, they warned people about him.

Bullshit.

Janet Jackson's booby gets full congressional attention and a 'creepy' congressman's inappropriate conduct(even assuming there wasn't anything illegal yet) gets one warning and no scrutiny?

You've taken an undefendable situation and tried to make it a net plus for the Republican leadership.

It is a "net plus" for the Republican leadership. Rather, it should have been before they got smeared in the liberal media. They did everything that was in their power to do to control the situation -- the parents of the child did not file a complaint. They had a talk with Foley and thought they had handled the situation fully. Should they have spied on Foley and read his emails without a warrant? Is that what you would suggest they do? No, they showed moral scruples in trying to respect the rights of every party, and they did this to the best of their ability. They should be lauded, not slandered.

It is a "net plus" for the Republican leadership. Rather, it should have been before they got smeared in the liberal media. They did everything that was in their power to do to control the situation -- the parents of the child did not file a complaint. They had a talk with Foley and thought they had handled the situation fully. Should they have spied on Foley and read his emails without a warrant? Is that what you would suggest they do? No, they showed moral scruples in trying to respect the rights of every party, and they did this to the best of their ability. They should be lauded, not slandered.

You can't be for real. Nobody is this fucked up. :p

It is a "net plus" for the Republican leadership. Rather, it should have been before they got smeared in the liberal media. They did everything that was in their power to do to control the situation -- the parents of the child did not file a complaint. They had a talk with Foley and thought they had handled the situation fully. Should they have spied on Foley and read his emails without a warrant? Is that what you would suggest they do? No, they showed moral scruples in trying to respect the rights of every party, and they did this to the best of their ability. They should be lauded, not slandered.

Nice, but no one's buying, least of all your party's base. You should apply for a job at the White House, though. Maybe you can try to convince people that we're winning in Iraq and that low-wage people are doing better in this economy too.

Nice, but no one's buying, least of all your party's base. You should apply for a job at the White House, though. Maybe you can try to convince people that we're winning in Iraq and that low-wage people are doing better in this economy too.

And that Europe is on the other side of the moon. :p On a serious note, the fact that this guy was the head of the committee himself was what really freaked me out. It was kinda like when I realized that the person who is running our country is probably the worst possible person for the job.

It is a "net plus" for the Republican leadership. Rather, it should have been before they got smeared in the liberal media. They did everything that was in their power to do to control the situation -- the parents of the child did not file a complaint. They had a talk with Foley and thought they had handled the situation fully. Should they have spied on Foley and read his emails without a warrant? Is that what you would suggest they do? No, they showed moral scruples in trying to respect the rights of every party, and they did this to the best of their ability. They should be lauded, not slandered.

Seriously, huh? That's about all I can muster after reading that confusing diatribe. The fact remains, the GOP leadership knew he did this, it was, if not illegal, insane, and frankly, if he's trying to take down sexual predators and bring in moral values, maybe he needs to practice what he preaches. Therefore, he deserves whatever he gets. Hopefully, that means he's an outcast from politics and has trouble finding work as a McDonalds drive-thru guy.

Bullshit.

Janet Jackson's booby gets full congressional attention and a 'creepy' congressman's inappropriate conduct(even assuming there wasn't anything illegal yet) gets one warning and no scrutiny?

That's a good point showing an inconsistent leadership policy and exposing the generally shameless partisan "justice" in this country.

Such a good point that it will be ignored by MeansToAnEnd. Or dismissed as liberal misconstruing.

Therefore, he deserves whatever he gets.

I am not referring to Foley. I am talking about the Republican leadership, which tried to control Foley via all legal avenues. They could not do anything more -- calling the cops was not an option because they were not aware a crime had occurred. Instead, they attempted to reign Foley in by talking with the parents of the child and telling Foley "stop." After that, they thought Foley had indeed stopped and they had no way of knowing that he didn't.

I am not referring to Foley. I am talking about the Republican leadership, which tried to control Foley via all legal avenues. They could not do anything more -- calling the cops was not an option because they were not aware a crime had occurred. Instead, they attempted to reign Foley in by talking with the parents of the child and telling Foley "stop." After that, they thought Foley had indeed stopped and they had no way of knowing that he didn't.

Then why couldn't they just distance themselves from him? Let him handle his own problems. If they wanted, they could try to get someone else to run in his district who isn't a sexual predator. By trying to protect him when they knew people would look at him as a creep, they only made their situation worse. Therefore, they deserve what they get as well.

MeansToAnEnd is a TROLL. stop replying to him.

I am not referring to Foley. I am talking about the Republican leadership, which tried to control Foley via all legal avenues. They could not do anything more -- calling the cops was not an option because they were not aware a crime had occurred. Instead, they attempted to reign Foley in by talking with the parents of the child and telling Foley "stop." After that, they thought Foley had indeed stopped and they had no way of knowing that he didn't.
Oh really? Well, it seems not all the leadership was kept informed of ths situation. Not even the entire page board was told. (http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/200610021?pt=0) Not even all the Republicans on the Page board were told.
Several high-ranking House Republicans have known about the e-mails for months, including Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., chairman of the House Page Board.

Late last year, Shimkus met with Foley about the e-mails. But Shimkus never told Capito or the board’s other member, Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., about them until Friday, according to all three.

“There’s only three of us on the page board. I feel that we should have been informed,” Capito said. “I’m absolutely disgusted by what I’m hearing. I was caught totally unaware.”....

Capito said she would have been very concerned if she had read those e-mails.

“I don’t think it would pass the sniff test,” she said. “Even asking those questions — that is not normal between a 52-year-old adult and a 16-year-old. It’s not like they’re family friends or anything. I think it would raise some serious questions. But I wasn’t given that opportunity.”...

Capito said she heard about the explicit e-mails and instant messages from the media. She heard Friday afternoon that Foley resigned and then found Shimkus waiting for her in her office. That’s when she discovered that Shimkus and other Republican House leaders already knew about some of the e-mails, she said.

“I was astounded he knew about this before,” Capito said. “I thought they were as surprised as I was.”
So why keep the other members of the Page board out of the loop unless they were trying to cover up some bad shit? Hmmm?

Bullshit.

Janet Jackson's booby gets full congressional attention and a 'creepy' congressman's inappropriate conduct(even assuming there wasn't anything illegal yet) gets one warning and no scrutiny?

*gives LG a taco*

Well said. :)

Oh really? Well, it seems not all the leadership was kept informed of ths situation. Not even the entire page board was told. (http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/200610021?pt=0) Not even all the Republicans on the Page board were told.

So why keep the other members of the Page board out of the loop unless they were trying to cover up some bad shit? Hmmm?

Because the moral thing to do is to keep it a secret from as many people as possible and to trust the word of the man engaging in the inappropriate behavior that he in fact stopped. Haven't you read the Bible? ;)

So why keep the other members of the Page board out of the loop unless they were trying to cover up some bad shit? Hmmm?

Because they would most likely leak the issue to the media. Only the Democratic members were uninformed of the issue -- they would have taken the immoral course of action and turned it into a partisan political situation by blowing the emails out of propotion. They preempted such an immoral transgression by not telling the Democratic member(s?).

*gives LG a taco*

Well said. :)

Yum! Thank you. :)

Because they would most likely leak the issue to the media. Only the Democratic members were uninformed of the issue -- they would have taken the immoral course of action and turned it into a partisan political situation by blowing the emails out of propotion. They preempted such an immoral transgression by not telling the Democratic member(s?).
Hey--you might try reading the articles I post, because I post them for a reason. The woman interviewed for the piece, Shelley Capito, is a Republican and she was left out of the loop.

Don't try to answer too quickly--you'll need a few to finish off that crow you're having for lunch.

Yum! Thank you. :)

You're welcome. *hands him another*

Because they would most likely leak the issue to the media. Only the Democratic members were uninformed of the issue -- they would have taken the immoral course of action and turned it into a partisan political situation by blowing the emails out of propotion. They preempted such an immoral transgression by not telling the Democratic member(s?).

A fifty-two year old congressman is trading inappropriatly familiar and suggestive e-mails with a 16 year old congressional page. and they could blow that out of proportion?!? How??? How the fuck could they make that sound worse?!?

:

A fifty-two year old congressman is trading inappropriatly familiar and suggestive e-mails with a 16 year old congressional page. and they could blow that out of proportion?!? How??? How the fuck could they make that sound worse?!?


They could print pictures of him with a swastika photoshopped onto his forehead while he ogles a Stewie from Family Guy.

I'm not attempting to defend Foley here -- only the House Leadership which did all that it was in its power to do to stop the emails and assuage the family of the child. What more could they do? They received no compaints after they had a talk with Foley -- they're not pyschic, you know. What more could you ask of them?
At one end of the scale they could have asked Foley to resign. At the other end they could have instituted a proceedual policy that would have ensured it couldnt happen.

As for not calling in the law enforcement there is no reason why Foley's conduct ought not to have rung sufficient alarm bells to justify some form of scrutiny. The indicators were that it was possible Foley was preying on children, generally when there is some such indicators further investigation occurs. There was more than enough cause to warrent calling in the investigatory authorities.

This is an instance where children might be the victims of sexual predation. Not advising law enforcement agencies of their concerns is at best negligent and if it doesnt cross over into complicity and aiding, then it sure as heck pushes the borders.

They could print pictures of him with a swastika photoshopped onto his forehead while he ogles a Stewie from Family Guy.

I stand corrected. :p

Hey--you might try reading the articles I post, because I post them for a reason. The woman interviewed for the piece, Shelley Capito, is a Republican and she was left out of the loop.

Sorry, the article only mentioned the political affiliation of a Michigan Democrat, so I assumed that Capito was also a Democrat. However, since she was a Republican, that suggests that a decision was made not to leak the story any further than it had to go for the reasons I outlined above. It was a private matter -- a media leak would be a travesty. Thus, high-ranking Republicans decided to preserve the integrity of the office by letting the story spread no farther. They should be admired for that tough decision, even though it could later backfire on them and cast them in a conspirational light.

How??? How the fuck could they make that sound worse?!

By referring to him as a sexual predator? By insinuating that his actions were illegal?

At one end of the scale they could have asked Foley to resign. At the other end they could have instituted a proceedual policy that would have ensured it couldnt happen.

As for not calling in the law enforcement there is no reason why Foley's conduct ought not to have rung sufficient alarm bells to justify some form of scrutiny. The indicators were that it was possible Foley was preying on children, generally when there is some such indicators further investigation occurs. There was more than enough cause to warrent calling in the investigatory authorities.

This is an instance where children might be the victims of sexual predation. Not advising law enforcement agencies of their concerns is at best negligent and if it doesnt cross over into complicity and aiding, then it sure as heck pushes the borders.


Or if they wanted to get really crazy, they could have told him to not run for re-election. :p

By referring to him as a sexual predator? By insinuating that his actions were illegal?

He IS a sexual predator! His actions WERE illegal! Why the fuck do you thing that House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert has contacted the Justice Department?!? For his health?

Or if they wanted to get really crazy, they could have told him to not run for re-election. :p

The will of the people should not be tarnished by allegations of being a sexual predator. He was an excellent representative of the state of Florida -- his personal issues should not interfere with that.

He IS a sexual predator! His actions WERE illegal!


Not the actions which were revealed to the House Leadership -- those were simply creepy and overly friendly. Later on they became more perverted, but the child's family still did not file a complaint.

Not the actions which were revealed to the House Leadership -- those were simply creepy and overly friendly. Later on they became more perverted, but the child's family still did not file a complaint.

And you don't think they had a moral obligation to investigate further? Or to warn those in charge of the congressional pages to be wary of him?

Sorry, the article only mentioned the political affiliation of a Michigan Democrat, so I assumed that Capito was also a Democrat. However, since she was a Republican, that suggests that a decision was made not to leak the story any further than it had to go for the reasons I outlined above. It was a private matter -- a media leak would be a travesty. Thus, high-ranking Republicans decided to preserve the integrity of the office by letting the story spread no farther. They should be admired for that tough decision, even though it could later backfire on them and cast them in a conspirational light.

If you had actually clicked on the link, you would have seen the following sentence: Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., says she was not told about suggestive e-mails that a Florida congressman sent to a 16-year-old former Capitol page, even though she is one of three representatives who oversee the page program.

You're a fucking hack, no other way around it.

The will of the people should not be tarnished by allegations of being a sexual predator. He was an excellent representative of the state of Florida -- his personal issues should not interfere with that.

I mean it's not like he lied about a blowjob. ;)

You're a fucking hack, no other way around it.

I'm a hack because I don't click on every link supplied? I only read the part which you highlighted. Of course, R-W also stands for read/write, so maybe the article simply suggested that she was literate. :)

And you don't think they had a moral obligation to investigate further? Or to warn those in charge of the congressional pages to be wary of him?
That's the problem for Shimkus. He was one of the three Congresspeople in charge of the program, and he kept his fellow members of the Committee out of the loop, although he apparently thought it was a big enough deal to talk to the leadership about.

You know, this has been suggested on the blogs, but I think it's a good idea for those US Generalites with Republican representatives. Call their offices and see how they feel about Hastert's leadership right now. See if they think he ought to remain Speaker of the House after this.

I mean it's not like he lied about a blowjob. ;)

I have no problem with Clinton's sordid affairs. What I do have a problem with is his lying under oath about it. He can fuck whomever he legally wants, but he better not lie about it. At least Foley's taking it like a man and not denying the allegations.

I believe that the House Leadership has been smeared way too much for a transgression which they did not commit. Many liberals (maybe a few conservatives, too) claim that the Republican House Leadership was complicit in the Foley case because they were aware of it and took no action.

Anyone involved should be executed.

I mean it's not like he lied about a blowjob. ;)

Zing!

I'm a hack because I don't click on every link supplied? I only read the part which you highlighted. Of course, R-W also stands for read/write, so maybe the article simply suggested that she was literate. :)
No, you're a hack because you refuse to acknowledge that which is clear to everyone involved here and you continually look for ways to make it a plus for the fuck's who are responsible.

I have no problem with Clinton's sordid affairs. What I do have a problem with is his lying under oath about it. He can fuck whomever he legally wants, but he better not lie about it. At least Foley's taking it like a man and not denying the allegations.

After the e-mails went public. :p

I mean it's not like he lied about a blowjob. ;)

You win the thread. :cool:

*another taco*

[snip]also, it could be that he was approached by it by fellow party members and was encouraged and given a chance to seek help and to leave Honorably.

You win the thread. :cool:

*another taco*

Like shooting ducks in a barrel. :cool:

*munches on the taco*

am i the only one that thinks that instead of other members of the house doing investigations that maybe it should be the police?

how about members of the house get back to doing their job and let the police handle the situation. it seems today that politics have left caring over the situation of the country and have moved to being about what other politicians are doing in their personal lifes. it has turned into a damn soap opera. It is not one side doing it more then the other. they are both equally guilty. one side blames someone from the other side and then the other side seeks revenge by trying to blame someone on the other side.

No, you're a hack because you refuse to acknowledge that which is clear to everyone involved here and you continually look for ways to make it a plus for the fuck's who are responsible.

Of course it's "clear" to everyone here because they are blinded by partisan hatred. The fact remains that nothing more could be done with the information they possessed at that juncture. They were only aware of inappropriate acts, not illegal ones, and took the most private and best course of action -- talking with Foley, warning him about his actions, etc. His family did not complain further, so they had no way of knowing that Foley did not keep up his end of the bargain.

At least Foley's taking it like a man and not denying the allegations.

Taking it like a man?

Committing ritual suicide would be taking it like a man.

He's blaming it on his drinking problem.

Because everyone knows how booze makes you a kid toucher.

Of course it's "clear" to everyone here because they are blinded by partisan hatred. The fact remains that nothing more could be done with the information they possessed at that juncture. They were only aware of inappropriate acts, not illegal ones, and took the most private and best course of action -- talking with Foley, warning him about his actions, etc. His family did not complain further, so they had no way of knowing that Foley did not keep up his end of the bargain.

Take my word for it: If Foley were a democrat, he'd still be a sleazebag. If Democrats covered it up instead of keeping an eye on that fucker and telling those who could do the same, they would still be sleazebags. And if Democrats had done this, the House Ethics Committee would be in emergency session right now.

Of course it's "clear" to everyone here because they are blinded by partisan hatred.

Blinded by rage is more like it.


They were only aware of inappropriate acts, not illegal ones, and took the most private and best course of action -- talking with Foley, warning him about his actions, etc. His family did not complain further, so they had no way of knowing that Foley did not keep up his end of the bargain.

They should have called the police.

Of course it's "clear" to everyone here because they are blinded by partisan hatred.

For a guy whose ever other post complains about "liberals," you calling anyone else blinded by partisan hatred is just hypocrisy.

Not that you care about being a hypocrite!

Really, your trollishness is clear because it is fact. You probably know it too, unless you're dumber than you sound.

At least Foley's taking it like a man and not denying the allegations.

Unlike you. Have you changed your official stance on that yet, or do you still say he's just the innocent victim of liberal lies and that the poor child had every right to consent and we're just trying to rain on the freedom parade?

Take my word for it: If Foley were a democrat, he'd still be a sleazebag. If Democrats covered it up instead of keeping an eye on that fucker and telling those who could do the same, they would still be sleazebags. And if Democrats had done this, the House Ethics Committee would be in emergency session right now.

You're on a roll today.

*gives LG a whole bag filled with tacos*

Taking it like a man?

Committing ritual suicide would be taking it like a man.

He's blaming it on his drinking problem.

Because everyone knows how booze makes you a kid toucher.

Indeed. Though I'm sure MTAE will be the first to point out - with a winky face - how he's not technically a kid toucher because he never got to touch the kid in question. And hence how liberals are just smearing the name of a good man.

am i the only one that thinks that instead of other members of the house doing investigations that maybe it should be the police?

to an extent, I agree with you, until you realize that the house are in charge of budgeting for the police. It wouldn't be long before there's a case of "find me innocent and I'll double your funding"

It would be like someone investigating their own boss.

They should have called the police.

The police would not have been able to do anything about it because no crime had been committed.

You're on a roll today.

*gives LG a whole bag filled with tacos*

It's too easy.

I feel like I'm beating a quadraplegic in a bowling tournament. :p

Indeed. Though I'm sure MTAE will be the first to point out - with a winky face - how he's not technically a kid toucher because he never got to touch the kid in question.

I'm always happy to oblige, good sir. ;)

The police would not have been able to do anything about it because no crime had been committed.

You really are an impressive troll, huh?

The police would not have been able to do anything about it because no crime had been committed.

That they knew of. The police could have *gasp!* looked for one.

Or if there hadn't been one yet, maybe a call to the cops would have PREVENTED ONE! :eek:

The police would not have been able to do anything about it because no crime had been committed.

that's why he would be considered a suspect

If I drive around in a big white van giving candy to kids on the street, is it a crime? af course not. would the police take a look at what I'm doing anyway? you bet your ass they would.

there are millions of people found innocent every year. and If you're right, Foley would be one of them.

but does that mean we shouldn't investigate anyway?

Of course it's "clear" to everyone here because they are blinded by partisan hatred. The fact remains that nothing more could be done with the information they possessed at that juncture. They were only aware of inappropriate acts, not illegal ones, and took the most private and best course of action -- talking with Foley, warning him about his actions, etc. His family did not complain further, so they had no way of knowing that Foley did not keep up his end of the bargain.
So to recap, these Republian Powers-that-Be knew the identity of the suspect and the nature of the likely crime, but couldnt do anything because the building had not yet crashed down around them....gee, it's like 9/11 all over again.:rolleyes:

I'm always happy to oblige, good sir. ;)

Now, as long as you're down there, and you're being so obliging, you can get down to that business we discussed earlier. ;)

It's too easy.

I feel like I'm beating a quadraplegic in a bowling tournament. :p

ROFLMAO

That they knew of. The police could have *gasp!* looked for one.

Or if there hadn't been one yet, maybe a call to the cops would have PREVENTED ONE! :eek:
You Sir are well-named; only a lunatic would suggest bolting the stable-doors before the horses bolt. What next, fences on cliff edges instead of ambulances at the bottom? Sheer lunacy!

You Sir are well-named; only a lunatic would suggest bolting the stable-doors before the horses bolt. What next, fences on cliff edges instead of ambulances at the bottom? Sheer lunacy!

ROFLMAO

Hell, you deserve some, too! *hands Zagat a bunch of tacos*

If I drive around in a big white van giving candy to kids on the street

Talk about your childhood wishes (you can even eat the dishes).

ROFLMAO

Hell, you deserve some, too! *hands Zagat a bunch of tacos*
Tacos for breakfast....mmm tastes like chicken!

Or if there hadn't been one yet, maybe a call to the cops would have PREVENTED ONE! :eek:

Should the cops have monitored all the emails that Foley sent? If the police are monitoring him to prevent a possible crime in the future, the public would have known and his political career would have been over. It would be an irresponsible course of action to take -- no better than leaking the emails to the press.

Should the cops have monitored all the emails that Foley sent? If the police are monitoring him to prevent a possible crime in the future, the public would have known and his political career would have been over. It would be an irresponsible course of action to take -- no better than leaking the emails to the press.

I care more about children than some sleazy fucking politician's career.

Of course it's "clear" to everyone here because they are blinded by partisan hatred. The fact remains that nothing more could be done with the information they possessed at that juncture. They were only aware of inappropriate acts, not illegal ones, and took the most private and best course of action -- talking with Foley, warning him about his actions, etc. His family did not complain further, so they had no way of knowing that Foley did not keep up his end of the bargain.

You keep deluding yourself, but I guarantee you that if this had been a Democratic Congressman doing this, and Pelosi--who I voted for when I lived in San Francisco--had covered it up, I'd be leading the charge to make her resign over this. Not everything is partisan, you douchebag. Some shit is wrong no matter who does it.

Should the cops have monitored all the emails that Foley sent? If the police are monitoring him to prevent a possible crime in the future, the public would have known and his political career would have been over. It would be an irresponsible course of action to take -- no better than leaking the emails to the press.

are you saying that the people who vote for him should be lied to?

that if a polititician were investigated for this, it should be hidden from view?

I have an idea: every time a congressman commits a crime, nobody does anything about it, because if they did, their careers would be over!

and, of course, what is the security and safety of our nation's youth when compared to the job of a pedopheliac polititian?

Should the cops have monitored all the emails that Foley sent? If the police are monitoring him to prevent a possible crime in the future, the public would have known and his political career would have been over. It would be an irresponsible course of action to take -- no better than leaking the emails to the press.

And?

Should the cops have monitored all the emails that Foley sent? If the police are monitoring him to prevent a possible crime in the future, the public would have known and his political career would have been over. It would be an irresponsible course of action to take -- no better than leaking the emails to the press.

As soon as suspicion was cast on Foley, the police should have been called, a search warrant issued, and his onlne activites monitored.

Should the cops have monitored all the emails that Foley sent? If the police are monitoring him to prevent a possible crime in the future, the public would have known and his political career would have been over. It would be an irresponsible course of action to take -- no better than leaking the emails to the press.

Leaking the e-mails to the press got a two-faced sexual predator and alcoholic to resign from Congress before he got re-elected. How terribly irresponsible!

The police could have asked the pages past and present if Foley had ever contacted them inappropriately. They could have(with pemission) monitored the pages' contact with Foley.

We don't have to violate the fourth amendment. Lord knows, how much the administration values that! ;)

Indeed. Though I'm sure MTAE will be the first to point out - with a winky face - how he's not technically a kid toucher because he never got to touch the kid in question. And hence how liberals are just smearing the name of a good man.
That we know of so far. He certainly tried to set something up. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/emails_show_fol.html)
"I would drive a few miles for a hot stud like you," Foley said in one message obtained by ABC News....


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

The messages also show the teen is, at times, uncomfortable with Foley's aggressive approach.

Maf54: I want to see you
Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night
Maf54: and
Teen: I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here…im not sure what I would be comfortable with…well see

Leaking the e-mails to the press got a two-faced sexual predator and alcoholic to resign from Congress before he got re-elected. How terribly irresponsible!

The police could have asked the pages past and present if Foley had ever contacted them inappropriately. They could have(with pemission) monitored the pages' contact with Foley.

We don't have to violate the fourth amendment. Lord knows, how much the administration values that! ;)

*gives up, gives LG a taco-making machine with infinite batteries*

That we know of so far. He certainly tried to set something up. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/emails_show_fol.html)

Sick fuck. :mad:

I have an idea: every time a congressman commits a crime, nobody does anything about it, because if they did, their careers would be over!

Did you read a single one of my posts. I said it before and I'll say it again. At that point, it was not a crime! Get it?

Did you read a single one of my posts. I said it before and I'll say it again. At that point, it was not a crime! Get it?
Why? Because you say it wasn't? Seems to me that it's not the Republican leadership's place to decide what is and isn't a crime. We have an entire division of government for that---it's called, ironically at times, the Justice Department. But never let a little thing like that get in the way of defending your boys.

Did you read a single one of my posts. I said it before and I'll say it again. At that point, it was not a crime! Get it?

The post The Nazz made isn't a crime, but it's enough to start an investigation, which I'm sure would have led to far more disgusting and illegal behavior being uncovered.

Did you read a single one of my posts. I said it before and I'll say it again. At that point, it was not a crime! Get it?

Yeah, forgive me for having this strange notion, but I thought we had this crazy idea about preventing crime from happening. You know, protecting the general public?

Or would you really, really want to risk one of those kids hanging out "late into the night" with this suck c**t and being groomed or even raped?

Leaking the e-mails to the press got a two-faced sexual predator and alcoholic to resign from Congress before he got re-elected. How terribly irresponsible!

The police could have asked the pages past and present if Foley had ever contacted them inappropriately. They could have(with pemission) monitored the pages' contact with Foley.

We don't have to violate the fourth amendment. Lord knows, how much the administration values that! ;)

you forget LG.. this is concerning Politicians... they need to be properly tarred and feathered by the media and their constituants before being arrested by the police... then the investigation can start... while being hampered by other politicians, to give them time to remove the evidence of their wrong doings. :D

you forget LG.. this is concerning Politicians... they need to be properly tarred and feathered by the media and their constituants before being arrested by the police... then the investigation can start... while being hampered by other politicians, to give them time to remove the evidence of their wrong doings. :D

That's because the only people keeping a close eye on those bastards are people who get paid extra for finding dirt. Lovely how the system works, eh?

Did you read a single one of my posts. I said it before and I'll say it again. At that point, it was not a crime! Get it?
This is true, it's not a crime... UNTILL YOU ARE CAUGHT!

Did you read a single one of my posts. I said it before and I'll say it again. At that point, it was not a crime! Get it?

In the United States, US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 117, § 2425 makes it an offence to transmit information about a person below the age of 18 for the purpose of committing a sexual offence. Some states have additional statutes covering seducing a child online, such as the Florida law that makes "Use of a Computer to Seduce a Child" a felony.

Regardless, I'd say that those emails certainly warrant an investigation.

That's because the only people keeping a close eye on those bastards are people who get paid extra for finding dirt. Lovely how the system works, eh?

except they also don't get all the info... but other than that... full agreement. :D

That we know of so far. He certainly tried to set something up. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/emails_show_fol.html)

Revolting. Criminal. Unjustifiable.

Unsurprising.

Another interesting twist in this story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html).
On Friday afternoon, a strategist for Rep. Mark Foley tried to cut a deal with ABC's Brian Ross.

The correspondent, who had dozens of instant messages that Foley sent to teenage House pages, had asked to interview the Florida Republican. Foley's former chief of staff said the congressman was quitting and that Ross could have that information exclusively if he agreed not to publish the raw, sexually explicit messages.

"I said we're not making any deals," Ross recalls.
Good for him. That's good, solid reporting.

Did you read a single one of my posts. I said it before and I'll say it again. At that point, it was not a crime! Get it?

Perhaps so. But it is worth pointing out that his superiors have responsibility for his actions. In management we call it 'responsiblity' and it is why senior people get paid more than junior people.

If anything, the fact that they were aware of the problem and didn't stop it could be seen as tantamount to aiding and abetting.

Frankly, as a manager, if I was aware that one of the people in my division was bordering on the edge of an illegal act I would make damn sure that he did not do it either on government time or on government premises. I would give him a 'final warning', making it clear that if he did step over the line I would (a) see him fired from his job (b) make sure his future employers knew about his past and (c) that I would involve the police.

I would also spearhead an awareness campaign encouraging people to come forward should they be put in any situation that made them feel uncomfortable at work.
If even a shred of good evidence of him continuing his activities got back to me I would launch a priority investigation and, should the evidence be accurately indicative, fire him in the blink of an eye.

It is also worth noting that, as I was aware of his 'problem' I would be actively on the look out for it. Pro-active, not re-active. Not doing so would be negligence on my part.

So, from a purely managment perspective, his senior colleagues are culpable and should be seriously punished.
On a moral level, well, they will be judged by the electorate.

Of course, to make it simpler to understand, think about in these terms.

Senator Abraham was reported for talking about attacking a government building.
His boss, Senator Huckleberry, 'has a word with him'.
Abraham agrees to stop thinking about attacking the government but, a few weeks later, attacks a government building with a dirty bomb, killing 4,287 people in the immediate area and inflicting horrific pain on another 22,000.
I take it that you would be equally vocal supporting the nomination of Senator Huckleberry for a promotion, medal and freedom of the city for his moral fibre and leadership skills?

Of course not.

Stop being so pathetic.

Senator Abraham was reported for talking about attacking a government building.
His boss, Senator Huckleberry, 'has a word with him'.
Abraham agrees to stop thinking about attacking the government but, a few weeks later, attacks a government building with a dirty bomb, killing 4,287 people in the immediate area and inflicting horrific pain on another 22,000.
I take it that you would be equally vocal supporting the nomination of Senator Huckleberry for a promotion, medal and freedom of the city for his moral fibre and leadership skills?

It's a toughie, especially without the necessary and relevent facts. You seem to have left out the most important fact of all. I dont know how you could have over-looked this crucial detail, but for some reason you've neglected to tell us what political party 'ol Huck is aligned with. How could we possibly make a decision without this information since it is obviously the determining factor?

Otherwise your analysis is spot on...;)

Revolting. Criminal. Unjustifiable.

Unsurprising.

Amazing. This thread was restarted? The mods closed it for a reason.

Anyway, I totally agree. Foley should be prosecuted for his actions and any House member who knew about it and did nothing rebuked at the very least. The Republicans so scared about maintaining majority in the House decided to let a potential child abuser stay in office. Well, they'll pay now, the guy they replaced him with isn't going to be nearly as strong, be the perfect chance for the Democrat who was 10 points back to now take the seat.

Amazing. This thread was restarted? The mods closed it for a reason.

Anyway, I totally agree. Foley should be prosecuted for his actions and any House member who knew about it and did nothing rebuked at the very least. The Republicans so scared about maintaining majority in the House decided to let a potential child abuser stay in office. Well, they'll pay now, the guy they replaced him with isn't going to be nearly as strong, be the perfect chance for the Democrat who was 10 points back to now take the seat.

This thread was never closed, to my knowledge. Maybe it was another one?

Anyway, yes, this helps the Dem who is running in the district, largely because it's too late to get Foley's name off the ballot. The guy who takes his place--can't recall his name--will get Foley's votes, but how do you advertise that? "Vote for me by voting for the perv!"

This thread was never closed, to my knowledge. Maybe it was another one?

Anyway, yes, this helps the Dem who is running in the district, largely because it's too late to get Foley's name off the ballot. The guy who takes his place--can't recall his name--will get Foley's votes, but how do you advertise that? "Vote for me by voting for the perv!"

"Vote for Morality. Vote for Foley." :p

This thread was never closed, to my knowledge. Maybe it was another one?

Anyway, yes, this helps the Dem who is running in the district, largely because it's too late to get Foley's name off the ballot. The guy who takes his place--can't recall his name--will get Foley's votes, but how do you advertise that? "Vote for me by voting for the perv!"

Sorry, I meant a previous Foley thread that got closed because it became yet another pedo thread.



Yup, I think it is safe to say that the Dems have gained a seat. :)

Yup, I think it is safe to say that the Dems have gained a seat. :)

What a terrible outcome from his whole situation. Because Foley was a pervert, that means that a would-be Republican district is going to be voting Democrat? Nah, I hope that they'll still vote Republican, knowing that Foley will not be involved in the election.

What a terrible outcome from his whole situation. Because Foley was a pervert, that means that a would-be Republican district is going to be voting Democrat? Nah, I hope that they'll still vote Republican, knowing that Foley will not be involved in the election.

Foley's name will still be on the ballot even though someone else is running. Hopefully any moral person would feel sick actually punching in that bastards name.

Foley's name will still be on the ballot even though someone else is running. Hopefully any moral person would feel sick actually punching in that bastards name.

Why would they feel sick when voting for a Republican candidate aside from Foley? Of course they don't agree with Foley's perversion, but that disagreement should not extend to an unwillingness to vote for another Republican candidate by punching Foley's name. Ah, well, we'll see come November.

What a terrible outcome from his whole situation. Because Foley was a pervert, that means that a would-be Republican district is going to be voting Democrat? Nah, I hope that they'll still vote Republican, knowing that Foley will not be involved in the election.

With Foley' name still on the ballot? Don't count on it. Besides, Joe Negron has no momentum. Assuming he's even a desirable candidate.

With Foley' name still on the ballot? Don't count on it. Besides, Joe Negron has no momentum. Assuming he's even a desirable candidate.

And besides, if people like Hastert are the best the Republicans have to offer--and Hastert is a man who just said on CNN that 1)he doesn't remember Reynolds telling him about this and 2) it would have been mixed in among other campaign related stuff--do the Republicans really deserve to be in charge? I mean, when you're referring to congressional misconduct with a minor as a campaign issue (as MTAE has on this thread), should you really be in charge?

With Foley' name still on the ballot? Don't count on it. Besides, Joe Negron has no momentum. Assuming he's even a desirable candidate.

Wishful thinking on his part. He really can't stand the idea of a Democrat winning Foley's seat. :)

Wishful thinking on his part. He really can't stand the idea of a Democrat winning Foley's seat. :)

I'd prefer if neither party won it. If somehow, independent and third-party candidates could capture enough seats so neither Republicans nor Democrats had a majority in either the House or Senate, I would be as happy as a clam. :)

But Beggars can't be choosers. I'll settle for a changing of the guard.

I'd prefer if neither party won it. If somehow, independent and third-party candidates could capture enough seats so neither Republicans nor Democrats had a majority in either the House or Senate, I would be as happy as a clam. :)

Well now it is you who has wishful thinking. :D

I would be as happy as a clam. :)

I seem to recall that proportional to their size, clams have the largest penis of any animal. I guess that's why they're so happy. :)

Well now it is you who has wishful thinking. :D

The nice thing is that both parties are doing a wonderful job of helping me get my wish. :)

I seem to recall that proportional to their size, clams have the largest penis of any animal. I guess that's why they're so happy. :)

I thought that was the walrus? :confused: :p

The nice thing is that both parties are doing a wonderful job of helping me get my wish. :)

Well I suppose that if things continue as they are a third party might get a foothold in Congress...

Well I suppose that if things continue as they are a third party might get a foothold in Congress...
Not without severely reducing the size of congressional districts. which is why I advocate making the House of Representatives at least 4 times larger than it currently is. Ten times would be better, but I'd be happy wth 4.

Not without severely reducing the size of congressional districts. which is why I advocate making the House of Representatives at least 4 times larger than it currently is. Ten times would be better, but I'd be happy wth 4.

True, I guess I'll have to stick with my wishful thinking comment...

The House Republican Leadership knew Foley was a danger to children and covered it up to hold a seat in the House

The Foley Coverup Timeline (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/30/foley-coverup-timeline/)

Congressman Tom Reynolds' chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, tried to broker a secret deal last Friday to get ABC News to cover up the Foley child predator scandal.

"I said we're not making any deals," Ross recalls. (http://americablog.blogspot.com/)

Hastert Holds Meeting On Foley Scandal, Democratic Member of Page Board Excluded (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/02/hastert-foley-meeting/)

GOP Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) let Foley spend "a lot of time" with pages, including private dinner with one, after GOP knew Foley was a problem (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/gop-rep-john-shimkus-r-il-let-foley.html)

E-mails Show Foley Sought to Rendezvous with Page (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/emails_show_fol.html)

Hypocrite Foley on America's Most Wanted: "If I were one of these sickos..." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6BKR4cTmAg)

I am surprised MTAE did not think of this first!

Matt Drudge blames the kids for Predatorgate: They are 16 and 17 year old beasts (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/02/matt-drudge-blames-the-kids-for-predatorgate-they-are-16-and-17-year-old-beasts/)

Hey MeansToAnEnd keep defending the diddler and his enablers you worthless piece of garbage.
We already know you condone torture, genocide and murder.
Now you are all for child rape too!

It is a "net plus" for the Republican leadership. Rather, it should have been before they got smeared in the liberal media. They did everything that was in their power to do to control the situation -- the parents of the child did not file a complaint. They had a talk with Foley and thought they had handled the situation fully. Should they have spied on Foley and read his emails without a warrant? Is that what you would suggest they do? No, they showed moral scruples in trying to respect the rights of every party, and they did this to the best of their ability. They should be lauded, not slandered.

Wow. Fellow NS'ers, we should be honoured. It's plainly obvious we have either Tony Snow, Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity on this forum.
I mean, no-one else could possibly be this removed from reality and such an apologist for GOP.

With Foley' name still on the ballot? Don't count on it. Besides, Joe Negron has no momentum. Assuming he's even a desirable candidate.


My understanding from what I have read is that the ballots have already been printed and his name stays on them.

That being said, it would not surprise me in the least if somehow or other, that changed. But even if the Republicans do get it changed, the Democrats will make noise about that, so the problem is not going away for the Republcans.

And in the meanwhile, the Democratic candidate only has to continue to campaign against Foley, or "Foley's replacement" to keep that story in the foreground.

All that being said, this should not, ultimately, be a partisan issue. No matter which side of the House he came from, what he did was illegal and should be treated as such.

All that being said, this should not, ultimately, be a partisan issue. No matter which side of the House he came from, what he did was illegal and should be treated as such.The original crime, agreed. But the coverup? That's partisan, and it needs to be because it was handled as a partisan issue from the beginning. If Hastert et al had wanted a bipartisan solution, they had a chance at the beginning, and they cut not only the Democrats but fellow Republicans out of the loop, so Hastert and everyone involved needs to go. And frankly, so does any Republican who tried to get in the way of that.

I can't believe you're actually making a defensive case for these assholes. I mean, even factoring in that it's you and everything, I still can't believe it.

Oh C'mon! This is the guy who thinks torture is a good idea even if it gains no useful information, won't discourage terrorists, and gains us new enemies. Thinking that pedophelia is ok if it's a Republican doing it isn't a huge leap.

It is a "net plus" for the Republican leadership. Rather, it should have been before they got smeared in the liberal media. They did everything that was in their power to do to control the situation -- the parents of the child did not file a complaint. They had a talk with Foley and thought they had handled the situation fully. Should they have spied on Foley and read his emails without a warrant? Is that what you would suggest they do? No, they showed moral scruples in trying to respect the rights of every party, and they did this to the best of their ability. They should be lauded, not slandered.

Everything in their power???

No. Everything in their power would have included telling the ENTIRE page board of the concern. Everything in their power would have included actually looking to see if there was something more going on. It would have included turning the matter over to the police for investigation. It would have included making sure that all the pages were safe.

And, ultimately, it also would have included saying "Hey, Mark... this is bad. Very bad. You know how this looks, and we know what it means. You need to resign now, get yourself into therapy, and never, ever have any sort of contact like this with a child ever again before you do some real damage." Even those overly friendly emails were creepy, and red flags should have been flying all over the place. AND Foley knew it. He wrote the law, so he knew exactly how wrong what he was doing was.

This is not an issue like using the photocopier at work to make copies of your personal garage sale flyers. This is an issue where children get hurt, and badly, and should never be allowed to be swept away and ignored.

The original crime, agreed. But the coverup? That's partisan, and it needs to be because it was handled as a partisan issue from the beginning. If Hastert et al had wanted a bipartisan solution, they had a chance at the beginning, and they cut not only the Democrats but fellow Republicans out of the loop, so Hastert and everyone involved needs to go. And frankly, so does any Republican who tried to get in the way of that.

Of course, you are right. The Republicans made it a partisan issue by their actions.

I was thinking about starting a new thread about how long it'll take Hastert to resign as Speaker, now that hardcore conservocons like Michael Reagan and Michelle Malkin and the Washington Times are calling for it.

But I'll just leave it in here for now. ;)

I was thinking about starting a new thread about how long it'll take Hastert to resign as Speaker, now that hardcore conservocons like Michael Reagan and Michelle Malkin and the Washington Times are calling for it.

But I'll just leave it in here for now. ;)

Wow, if we had known that THIS was all it was going to take to make the Republicans start devouring themselves from the inside...

Wow, if we had known that THIS was all it was going to take to make the Republicans start devouring themselves from the inside...

From what I've read, there was already quite a bit of tension growing between groups within the Republican Party. This might be the proverbial 'last straw'. Unlikely, but possible. *nod*

Should they have spied on Foley and read his emails without a warrant?

They don't need warrants to read his email. There is no expectation of privacy online. His email address and all its contents are property of the united states government (assuming he sent them from a work email).

Should they have spied on Foley and read his emails without a warrant?

of course not.

When the paige stepped forward saying that they had an uncomfortable conversation with Foley, the district judge should have taken a look at the transcript presented, and issued a warrant for further investigation.

It's like a string lying on the ground that stretches through a dark doorway. you might follow the string and find that it's nothing, or you might find a full-blown child rapist on the other end.

as it seems, though: the truth is somewhere in the middle. but that's what the investigation is for.

As soon as suspicion was cast on Foley, the police should have been called, a search warrant issued, and his onlne activites monitored.

That's kinda how it's done in real-life. But what's the fun of being an oligarch if you can't touch little boys with impunity. I mean, come on:rolleyes: .

We don't have to violate the fourth amendment. Lord knows, how much the administration values that! ;)

Beautiful.

From what I've read, there was already quite a bit of tension growing between groups within the Republican Party. This might be the proverbial 'last straw'. Unlikely, but possible. *nod*

Any kind of disorganization within the Republican party could only be good for the American people.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If you ever want to know what the corrupt conservatives in power are up to, just pay attention to what they accuse liberals of doing.

If they're accusing liberals of corrupting children or "oversexualizing" young people, you can be damn sure that the "Family Values Conservatives" are intently grooming their next round of sex abuse victims. The louder they scream about how secular Democratic homos are after your sweet innocent babies, the more certain you can be that your kid isn't safe within ten miles of the oh-so-honorable conservative men.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If you ever want to know what the corrupt conservatives in power are up to, just pay attention to what they accuse liberals of doing.

If they're accusing liberals of corrupting children or "oversexualizing" young people, you can be damn sure that the "Family Values Conservatives" are intently grooming their next round of sex abuse victims. The louder they scream about how secular Democratic homos are after your sweet innocent babies, the more certain you can be that your kid isn't safe within ten miles of the oh-so-honorable conservative men.

Damn you, Bottle! :p

I would have put that in my sig, but it's too long. :(

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If you ever want to know what the corrupt conservatives in power are up to, just pay attention to what they accuse liberals of doing.


And you can extend that to any number of issues.

That fatassed inbred Hastert should be forced out on principles, it would be a dream come true if this pederasty scandal did him in. He looks like more a child molester than the foley guy.