Republican Congressman resigns today after sending sexual messages to 16 y/o boy - Page 6

thatguyoverthere · 10-01-2006, 11:20 PM

Thanks very much for the link to the Ted Kennedy thread, JaJae. I believe it counters your assertions very nicely.

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's interesting, most of the people attacking him in this thread defended Kennedy for killing the girl.

It seems you're wrong on that one.

With an extremely loose definition of "attacking (Foley)" In this thread I count seven posters who could possibly be classified that way:
Thogrim
Motivez
Scrumtralecent
Dos Equis
Kinggovernor
Ethyl
SpicyMcVoodoo

Conversely, judging from the Ted Kennedy thread link that you posted, I count five posters that could be classified as "pro-Kennedy." (Again, using a very loose definition.) Only two of those five posters had also posted in this thread:
Thogrim
Scrumtralecent

Originally Posted by JaJae

The fact that people attack this guy for this, yet defend Kennedy till they're blue in the face is what I think he's refering to.

In the thread you linked to, Scrumtralecent doesn't seem to defend Kennedy's actions at Chappaquiddick at all. He seems to ask questions about the event.

That leaves Thogrim, who defends Kennedy with a single post, consisting of two sentences, all in the context of him saying that he does not want to debate Chappaquiddick in the thread.

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I'm not getting in the 1000th chap. debate of my life...he was nervous, not accustomed to such situations, and screwed up, never forget she was the one who got in the car

It is certainly a fault on his part, but it does not take back from a life of public service some moron from MA like Kerry could never have matched

That's hardly defending Kennedy until he's blue in the face! I told you a thousand times never to exaggerate!

What was this thread about again? I forget.

Oh yeah... CAST FETISH!!!

motivez · 10-01-2006, 11:33 PM

Yeah, I don't think anyone in this thread defends Kennedy until they're "blue in the face", but it's a nice diversion away from the fact that one of the "moral majority" Republican Congressmen has been having inapropriate sexual conversations with an underage boy... and that the leadership of the House has known for years, it was swept under the rug, and the information was hidden from the one Democrat in a position to do something about it.

It's coming out now that House GOP has known since 2001 about Foley and his inappropriate behavior. That's 5 years to do something about it.

Hastert is through as the Speaker of the House, and this is happening at the worst political moment for the Republicans.. the fact that they covered up for a gay pedophile in order to protect their political interests.

Here's some interesting links for people who want some information on this blatent coverup:

AMERICAblog: A blog for a great nation that deserves the truth
AMERICAblog: A blog for a great nation that deserves the truth

10-01-2006, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

It's coming out now that House GOP has known since 2001 about Foley and his inappropriate behavior. That's 5 years to do something about it.

Hastert is through as the Speaker of the House, and this is happening at the worst political moment for the Republicans.. the fact that they covered up for a gay pedophile in order to protect their political interests.

Does it really matter what time its happening? This is pretty ridiculous if true and it appears to be true. This guy should be in jail for solicitation of a minor and hastert should be forced to resign from being a congressman if he did indeed know about it.

Absolutely dispicable behavior IMO.

If it costs republicans the house then I say they deserve it. This is ridiculous quite frankly and if his power as a congressman is used to lessen the sentence or any of that bullshit I think they'll piss off a LOT of people.

motivez · 10-02-2006, 01:05 AM

Yes, it does matter when it was happening, even though it doesn't change how bad the actions were, it means the situation has MUCH broader implications.

It was apparently known since 2001, which means the House GOP leadership has known about it for 5 years.. and failed to act. They've covered up his inappropriate and illegal sexual conquest of children for 5 years..

archangel003 · 10-02-2006, 03:42 AM

Talk about an October Surprise.

Good going, GOP.

enjoy the next few months.

SoFlaJDM · 10-02-2006, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Yes, it does matter when it was happening, even though it doesn't change how bad the actions were, it means the situation has MUCH broader implications.

It was apparently known since 2001, which means the House GOP leadership has known about it for 5 years.. and failed to act. They've covered up his inappropriate and illegal sexual conquest of children for 5 years..

party of values

ballz2wallz · 10-02-2006, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

party of values

Does that mean that Democrats are the 'party of no values'?

SoFlaJDM · 10-02-2006, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Does that mean that Democrats are the 'party of no values'?

no that means the GOP is the party of hypocracy

KatKanPlay · 10-02-2006, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Does that mean that Democrats are the 'party of no values'?

NO that is just what the repubs want everyone to think...

10-02-2006, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Yes, it does matter when it was happening, even though it doesn't change how bad the actions were, it means the situation has MUCH broader implications.

It was apparently known since 2001, which means the House GOP leadership has known about it for 5 years.. and failed to act. They've covered up his inappropriate and illegal sexual conquest of children for 5 years..

According to the news this morning they knew for a year and hastert has known for about 40 days. In each inquiry the republican leadership was told they were "overly friendly" and that there was no sexual conotations. This according to NBC this morning.

Thorgrim · 10-02-2006, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

According to the news this morning they knew for a year and hastert has known for about 40 days. In each inquiry the republican leadership was told they were "overly friendly" and that there was no sexual conotations. This according to NBC this morning.

This just reminds me of Bob Ney going on about how he was innocent and the GOP backed him in the primary...

These reports are all statements of denial from the offices of house leaders...they are not investigation reports

On CNN TV right now 9am EST:
-Hastert's office knew by January 2005 at the latest
-Other leaders told early 2006
-Other email messages are from years earlier but it is unclear whether or not those leaders knew (Leaders ofcourse deny they knew of anything beyond 'verly friendly')

Foley "I believe I am an alcoholic"

He may take questions later today!

David Gergen: This story is going to continue to develop
CNN: Story is just being picked up by average American today, this will be the week this story will really take off

Phantom · 10-02-2006, 10:16 AM

Maybe LL can catch me up on the story.

I read that he sent an email to the boy asking how he was doing, and for a picture, but that's the last I've heard.

Asking for a photo and how the boy is doing is not what we want our Congressmen doing, but it's far from soliciting sex or statutory rape. Did he do something more that I didn't hear about?

Scrum · 10-02-2006, 10:20 AM

Republican Congressman resigns today after sending sexual messages to 16 y/o boy

All the info is in there.

WickedLou9 · 10-02-2006, 10:20 AM

It was more than that. \

ABC News: READER DISCRETION STRONGLY ADVISED: Foley's Exchange With Underage Page

my last gf and i broke up a few weeks agi

Maf54 (7:47:11 PM): are you

Maf54 (7:47:11 PM): good so your getting horny

Xxxxxxxxx (7:47:29 PM): lol…a bit

Maf54 (7:48:00 PM): did you spank it this weekend yourself

Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:04 PM): no

Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:16 PM): been too tired and too busy

Maf54 (7:48:33 PM): wow…

Maf54 (7:48:34 PM): i am never to busy haha

Scrum · 10-02-2006, 10:22 AM

I also think the fact that he's the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children makes it a bit more disturbing as well.

10-02-2006, 10:24 AM

I doubt seriously that he sent anything via email that was sexual solicitation. My guess is that was done through IM's for security reasons.

Scrum · 10-02-2006, 10:29 AM

Here is a conservative blog talking abou this.

Did Hastert know last year that Foley was a pervert? Update: Pelosi wants GOP leaders questioned under oath

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Did Hastert know last year that Foley was a pervert? Update: Pelosi wants GOP leaders questioned under oath (Bumped)

This blog is horribly biased. He thinks this will hurt the Democrats worse than it will the Republicans.

Phantom · 10-02-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It was more than that. \

ABC News: READER DISCRETION STRONGLY ADVISED: Foley's Exchange With Underage Page

[/b]

o ya, that's bad

Scrum · 10-02-2006, 10:32 AM

The people on that blog are more outraged at the Democrats sitting on this story to do the most political damage than at the pedo for doing all this in the first place.

Stylerod · 10-02-2006, 11:03 AM

Holy crap that is disgusting.