Congressman Foley resigned

[Moonbeam]

I wonder if hate for Foley's party isn't all that's required to condemn the Republican leadership. I want concrete evidence they knew of the explicit nature or the e-mails before I go down that road. Wanting something to be something doesn't make it so. Being sure that something just has to be something in your opinion doesn't either.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
How can Republicans compare a Gay Republican that preys on underage boys to Clinton that got a blowob from a consenting adult female???

This Country is insane.

Last night Hannity also claimed that she was a teenager when this occurred. Actually she was 22.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I wonder if hate for Foley's party isn't all that's required to condemn the Republican leadership. I want concrete evidence they knew of the explicit nature or the e-mails before I go down that road. Wanting something to be something doesn't make it so. Being sure that something just has to be something in your opinion doesn't either.

"Novak writes, "A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running"

Is this concrete evidence?

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Yeah, the Repubican spin machine mouthpiece is shifting into high gear....
Oh, apparently it's been revealed that Foley has been attempting to get into kid's pants for many, many years, and the leadership has known about his prclivities since 1995!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5405596.stm

But but, he's a Democrat, says Fox. :disgust:

But but, my priest molested me, says Foley.

But but, we didn't know, lies Hastert.
The party of personal reponsibility is anything but responsible.

Please identify the bolded section of your comment.

I seem to have gotten the mod riled. Check all the evidence discovered so far (not just the stuff provided by the Republican spin machine, FOX news....) before accusing me of lying. The language Foley used is illegal, according to many legal scholars (this is very explicit sexual stuff, involving masturbation, sodomy, etc) and it could still be revealed that he carried out his perversions. Why- exactly- do you take issue with the statement:
"apparently it's been revealed that Foley has been attempting to get into kid's pants for many, many years, and the leadership has known about his prclivities since 1995!"
I stand by the statement. Read the link, do some research.

I read the link.

At this point, nothing except e-mails has come forward, I have not heard of any "private" meetings with any of the pages.

You seem to be reaching for theory rather than operating on existing facts.

You are making a statement that has not been validated - becomes slander.

I do not like what he did or the way he behaved; no support from me - he abused his position and responsiblities to the people that he represented.


Also, where did you rile a Mod? I see no comments from a Mod in any of your posts.

Then you haven't seen all the facts. It's most definitely not "slander" (wrong term anyway) and to say so is "slander", based on the facts as they've been reported. Or are you claiming he was really just attempting to play tiddly winks with those boys? :roll:
You also seem to be forgetting the fact that there was a coverup stretching back to 1995. IMO, you need to add that to your rather ho-hum description of what has been going on with this Republican Party scandal. Or do you also deny it's a scandal. It sure seems to quack like a duck to me.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Yeah, the Repubican spin machine mouthpiece is shifting into high gear....
Oh, apparently it's been revealed that Foley has been attempting to get into kid's pants for many, many years, and the leadership has known about his prclivities since 1995!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5405596.stm

But but, he's a Democrat, says Fox. :disgust:

But but, my priest molested me, says Foley.

But but, we didn't know, lies Hastert.
The party of personal reponsibility is anything but responsible.

Please identify the bolded section of your comment.

I seem to have gotten the mod riled. Check all the evidence discovered so far (not just the stuff provided by the Republican spin machine, FOX news....) before accusing me of lying. The language Foley used is illegal, according to many legal scholars (this is very explicit sexual stuff, involving masturbation, sodomy, etc) and it could still be revealed that he carried out his perversions. Why- exactly- do you take issue with the statement:
"apparently it's been revealed that Foley has been attempting to get into kid's pants for many, many years, and the leadership has known about his prclivities since 1995!"
I stand by the statement. Read the link, do some research.

I read the link.

At this point, nothing except e-mails has come forward, I have not heard of any "private" meetings with any of the pages.

You seem to be reaching for theory rather than operating on existing facts.

You are making a statement that has not been validated - becomes slander.

I do not like what he did or the way he behaved; no support from me - he abused his position and responsiblities to the people that he represented.


Also, where did you rile a Mod? I see no comments from a Mod in any of your posts.

Then you haven't seen all the facts. It's most definitely not "slander" (wrong term anyway) and to say so is "slander", based on the facts as they've been reported. Or are you claiming he was really just attempting to play tiddly winks with those boys? :roll:
You also seem to be forgetting the fact that there was a coverup stretching back to 1995. IMO, you need to add that to your rather ho-hum description of what has been going on with this Republican Party scandal. Or do you also deny it's a scandal. It sure seems to quack like a duck to me.

I am not trying to justify anything.
If there is evidence that the powers that be knew about this previously and did nothing to stop it; then they should be stripped of their powers.

Flirting electronically is not the same as in person. Let one page come forward and state that an advance was made in proivate, and I will concede.

Many times people write things that they should not do as an expression and possible a release knowing that it has to be only a fantasy.

It is still wrong to do so and can generate false impressions.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
dahunan, none of us have defended the behavior of Foley, I have not seen one post saying that what he did was ok. We have been talking about other things.

I believe the words that describe those "other things" you have been doing are called are distraction and dissembling.

Main Entry: dis·sem·ble
Pronunciation: di-'sem-b&l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): dis·sem·bled; dis·sem·bling /-b(&-)li[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English dissymblen, alteration of dissimulen, from Middle French dissimuler, from Latin dissimulare -- more at DISSIMULATE
transitive verb
1 : to hide under a false appearance
2 : to put on the appearance of : SIMULATE
intransitive verb : to put on a false appearance : conceal facts, intentions, or feelings under some pretense
- dis·sem·bler /-b(&-)l&r/ noun

In other words, pointing fingers everywhere and at everything other than the main issue, whether Hastert and others in the Republican leadership knew of strong warning signs about Foley's predatory pedophiliac contacts with House pages and actively covered up the problem. Exhibit A:

The complaint us Republicans have is the timing of this story, was it staged to do maximum damage?
And the guilt by association that the Democrats are using.

Exhibit B:

Foley has resigned for sending IMs to pages who were of legal age in Washington DC, i.e. they could have had sex and nothing would have been legally wrong with that.

Exhibit C:

At the same time William Jefferson, who had $100,000 in his freezer is still running for office. I guess the message here is that if you are a pervert you should be run out of town and anyone who ever talked to you should be run out of town as well, but if you abuse your power and take bribes from foreign corporations you should not only keep you seat but go ahead and run for re-election. Nice standards....

Nice choice of examples, especially since Hastert was among the loudest complaining about the FBI raid that netted the money stashed in Jefferson's freezer proving what a crook he was.

Hastert tells President Bush FBI raid was unconstitutional
By Patrick O?Connor

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) told President Bush yesterday that he is concerned the Federal Bureau of Investigation?s (FBI) raid on Rep. William Jefferson?s (D-La.) congressional office over the weekend was a direct violation of the Constitution.

Hastert raised concerns that the FBI?s unannounced seizure of congressional documents during a raid of Jefferson?s Rayburn office Saturday night violated the separation of powers between the two branches of government as they are defined by the Constitution.
.
.
(story continues)

As I said... Nice choice of an example... if you happen to be a moron or if you think the rest of us are stupid enough to fall for your BS. Far too many Democrats were on the same wrong page on that issue, but any other sins by any other members of any branch of government, or any party, do nothing to change the elements of this case.

The one distinction between his case and most others is, Foley presented an active threat to minors entrusted to the care of our elected Representatives. Nobody, including you, disputes that Foley's behavior stinks, but he's gone, and it remains for law enforcement agencies to deal with any criminal offenses this may entail.

The fact remains that there were warnings about Foley as long as five years ago, and there are ample reasons to believe that Hastert and other high level Republicans were warned about it somewhere between months and at least a year ago. This information didn't come from some malevolent politically motivated Democrats. It came from Republican sources to the Republican leadership, and individually, they can't get their stories straight between themselves. Hell! None of them seems to be able to keep their own stories straight from one day to the next.

The remaining, active questions are still:

What did each member of the Republican leadership know?

When did each member of the Republican leadership know it?

What did each member of the Republican leadership do about it?

NOTHING else from any other case at any other time matters IN THIS CASE and AT THIS TIME.
Notice, didn't mention Clinton once 🙂

Good thing you didn't (although you actually did by raising his name in your "denial"). It would only have given us one more example of your dissembling, distracting and outright lying. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

Get over this "homophobic hate" line already. There is at most a very small amount of Republicans who would count as being homophobic.

Uh-huh. That's why they scrambled so hard to whore themselves out to those nutcases by trying to pass a federal statute to ban gay marriage.

The most religious of the right would not hate anyone because it goes against their teachings, they would instead reach out and try to help these gays set their lives straight by accepting Jesus and giving up their "sinful" ways and all that.
I am not against "gay marriage" because I hate gays, but because I want to defend the institute of marriage as that of one between a man and a woman, as it was intended and created to be.

And you're so damned sure of this why? More important, how does it relate to the questions at hand. Even more important, who gives a flying fsck at a rolling doughnut what you think about gay marriage or anything else? :roll:

But thanks for yet another example of your piss poor attempts to distract attention from the main questions at hand. :laugh:

 

[International Machine Consortium]

"False Impressions"?

Excuses, distractions, obfuscation, everything but the truth coming out of you Republicans....
How much more proof do you need to call a spade a spade? For now I'm ignoring the Republican coverup conspiracy.
Warning: There is sexual language in the following quoted material, obtained at ABC News Online

Mark Foley was sexually molested by a clergyman when Foley was between the ages of 13 and 15 and "wants you to know he is a gay man," his lawyer, David Roth, said late Tuesday. Mr. Roth said the disclosure was part of his client's "recovery."

Asked why the former congressman did not reveal this information sooner, Roth said, "Shame, shame."

"As is so often the case with victims of abuse, Mark advises that he kept his shame to himself for almost 40 years," Roth said.
Foley, who checked into an alcohol rehabilitation facility in Florida, also "reiterates unequivocally that he has never had sexual contact with a minor," Roth said.

But instant messages obtained by ABC News do reveal that Congressman Foley met with an underage page in San Diego, a meeting which they spoke about in an instant message exchange from April, 2003.

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.

Roth said he knew but could not reveal the name and denomination of the clergyman who molested him. According to Foley's biography on his Web site, he was raised as a Roman Catholic in the West Palm Beach area.

Foley's lawyer said Foley takes responsibility for sending sexually graphic instant messages over the Internet and was under the influence of alcohol when he sent many of the messages.

He denied, however, that Foley ever offered to provide alcohol for teens at his Capitol Hill apartment.

But according to an instant message provided to ABC News by a former page, Foley did make such an offer to a former page in April, 2003.

Maf54: then we can have a few drinks
Maf54: lol
Teen: yes yes ;-)
Maf54: your not old enough to drink
Teen: shhh....
Maf54: ok
Teen: thats not what my ID says
Teen: lol
Maf54: ok
Teen: i probably shouldnt be telling you that huh
Maf54: we may need to drink at my house so we dont get busted

Read Foley's Attorney David Roth's Complete Statement.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/instant_message.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/fbi_contacting_.html

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.

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.

Parts of an IM session between Foley and a House Page. False impressions? haha. RIGHT. Apologize and make excuses all you want for this guy, but my mind is made up.

[redacted screenname] (7:41:57 PM): ugh tomorrow i have the first day of lacrosse practice

Maf54 (7:42:27 PM): love to watch that

Maf54 (7:42:33 PM): those great legs running

[redacted screenname] (7:42:38 PM): haha...they arent great

[redacted screenname] (7:42:45 PM): thats why we have conditioning

[redacted screenname] (7:42:56 PM): 2 days running....3 days lifting

[redacted screenname] (7:43:11 PM): every week

[redacted screenname] (7:43:14 PM): until the end of march

Maf54 (7:43:27 PM): well dont ruin my mental picture

[redacted screenname] (7:43:32 PM): oh lol...sorry

Maf54 (7:43:54 PM): nice

Maf54 (7:43:54 PM): youll be way hot then

[redacted screenname] (7:44:01 PM): haha...hopefully

Maf54 (7:44:22 PM): better be

Maf54 (7:46:01 PM): well I better let you go do oyur thing

[redacted screenname] (7:46:07 PM): oh ok

[redacted screenname] (7:46:11 PM): have fun campaigning

[redacted screenname] (7:46:17 PM): or however you spell it

[redacted screenname] (7:46:18 PM): lol

[redacted screenname] (7:46:25 PM): ill see ya in a couple of weeks

Maf54 (7:46:33 PM): did any girl give you a haand job this weekend

[redacted screenname] (7:46:38 PM): lol no

[redacted screenname] (7:46:40 PM): im single right now

[redacted screenname] (7:46:57 PM): 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

[redacted screenname] (7:47:29 PM): lol...a bit

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

[redacted screenname] (7:48:04 PM): no

[redacted screenname] (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

[redacted screenname] (7:48:51 PM): haha

Maf54 (7:50:02 PM): or tired..helps me sleep

[redacted screenname] (7:50:15 PM): thats true

[redacted screenname] (7:50:36 PM): havent been having a problem with sleep though.. i just walk in the door and collapse well at least this weekend

Maf54 (7:50:56 PM): i am sure

[redacted screenname] (7:50:57 PM): i dont do it very often normally though

Maf54 (7:51:11 PM): why not

Maf54 (7:51:22 PM): at your age seems like it would be daily

[redacted screenname] (7:51:57 PM): not me

[redacted screenname] (7:52:01 PM): im not a horn dog

[redacted screenname] (7:52:07 PM): maybe 2 or 3 times a week

Maf54 (7:52:20 PM): thats a good number

Maf54 (7:52:27 PM): in the shower

[redacted screenname] (7:52:36 PM): actually usually i dont do it in the shower

[redacted screenname] (7:52:42 PM): just cause i shower in the morning

[redacted screenname] (7:52:47 PM): and quickly

Maf54 (7:52:50 PM): in the bed

[redacted screenname] (7:52:59 PM): i get up at 530 and am outta the house by 610

[redacted screenname] (7:53:03 PM): eh ya

Maf54 (7:53:24 PM): on your back

[redacted screenname] (7:53:30 PM): no face down

Maf54 (7:53:32 PM): love details

[redacted screenname] (7:53:34 PM): lol

[redacted screenname] (7:53:36 PM): i see that

[redacted screenname] (7:53:37 PM): lol

Maf54 (7:53:39 PM): really

Maf54 (7:53:54 PM): do you really do it face down

[redacted screenname] (7:54:03 PM): ya

Maf54 (7:54:13 PM): kneeling

[redacted screenname] (7:54:31 PM): well i dont use my hand...i use the bed itself

Maf54 (7:54:31 PM): where do you unload it

[redacted screenname] (7:54:36 PM): towel

Maf54 (7:54:43 PM): really

Maf54 (7:55:02 PM): completely naked?

[redacted screenname] (7:55:12 PM): well ya

Maf54 (7:55:21 PM): very nice

[redacted screenname] (7:55:24 PM): lol

Maf54 (7:55:51 PM): cute butt bouncing in the air

[redacted screenname] (7:56:00 PM): haha

[redacted screenname] (7:56:05 PM): well ive never watched myslef

[redacted screenname] (7:56:08 PM): but ya i guess

Maf54 (7:56:18 PM): i am sure not

Maf54 (7:56:22 PM): hmmm

Maf54 (7:56:30 PM): great visual

Maf54 (7:56:39 PM): i may try that


[redacted screenname] (7:56:43 PM): it works

Maf54 (7:56:51 PM): hmm

Maf54 (7:56:57 PM): sound inetersting

Maf54 (7:57:05 PM): i always use lotion and the hand

Maf54 (7:57:10 PM): but who knows

[redacted screenname] (7:57:24 PM): i dont use lotion...takes too much time to clean up

[redacted screenname] (7:57:37 PM): with a towel you can just wipe off....and go

Maf54 (7:57:38 PM): lol

Maf54 (7:57:45 PM): where do you throw the towel

[redacted screenname] (7:57:48 PM): but you cant work it too hard....or its not good

[redacted screenname] (7:57:51 PM): in the laundry

Maf54 (7:58:16 PM): just kinda slow rubbing

[redacted screenname] (7:58:23 PM): ya....

[redacted screenname] (7:58:32 PM): or youll rub yourslef raw

Maf54 (7:58:37 PM): well I have aa totally stiff wood now

[redacted screenname] (7:58:40 PM): cause the towell isnt very soft

Maf54 (7:58:44 PM): i bet..taht would hurt

[redacted screenname] (7:58:50 PM): but you cn find something softer than a towell i guess

Maf54 (7:58:59 PM): but it must feel great spirting on the towel

[redacted screenname] (7:59:06 PM): ya

Maf54 (7:59:29 PM): wow

Maf54 (7:59:48 PM): is your little guy limp...or growing

[redacted screenname] (7:59:54 PM): eh growing

Maf54 (8:00:00 PM): hmm

Maf54 (8:00:12 PM): so you got a stiff one now

[redacted screenname] (8:00:19 PM): not that fast

[redacted screenname] (8:00:20 PM): hey

[redacted screenname] (8:00:32 PM): so you have a fetich

Maf54 (8:00:32 PM): hey what

[redacted screenname] (8:00:40 PM): fetish**

Maf54 (8:00:43 PM): like

Maf54 (8:00:53 PM): i like steamroom

Maf54 (8:01:04 PM): whats yours

[redacted screenname] (8:01:09 PM): its kinda weird

[redacted screenname] (8:01:14 PM): lol

Maf54 (8:01:21 PM): i am hard as a rock..so tell me when your reaches rock

[redacted screenname] (8:01:23 PM): i have a cast fetish

Maf54 (8:01:27 PM): well tell me

Maf54 (8:01:32 PM): cast

[redacted screenname] (8:01:44 PM): ya like...plaster cast

Maf54 (8:01:49 PM): ok..so what happens

Maf54 (8:01:58 PM): how does that turn you in

[redacted screenname] (8:02:02 PM): i dont know

[redacted screenname] (8:02:04 PM): it just does

[redacted screenname] (8:02:08 PM): ive never had one

[redacted screenname] (8:02:16 PM): but people that have them turn me on

[redacted screenname] (8:02:27 PM): and if i had one it would probably turn me on

[redacted screenname] (8:02:29 PM): beats me

[redacted screenname] (8:02:32 PM): its kinda weird

[redacted screenname] (8:02:50 PM): but along with that i like the whole catholic girl look....thats our schools uniform

Maf54 (8:03:02 PM): ha thats wild

[redacted screenname] (8:03:14 PM): ya but now im hard

Maf54 (8:03:32 PM): me 2

Maf54 (8:03:42 PM): cast got you going

Maf54 (8:03:47 PM): what you wearing

[redacted screenname] (8:04:04 PM): normal clothes

[redacted screenname] (8:04:09 PM): tshirt and shorts

Maf54 (8:04:17 PM): um so a big buldge

[redacted screenname] (8:04:35 PM): ya

Maf54 (8:04:45 PM): um

Maf54 (8:04:58 PM): love to slip them off of you

[redacted screenname] (8:05:08 PM): haha

Maf54 (8:05:53 PM): and gram the one eyed snake

Maf54 (8:06:13 PM): grab

[redacted screenname] (8:06:53 PM): not tonight...dont get to excited

Maf54 (8:07:12 PM): well your hard

[redacted screenname] (8:07:45 PM): that is true

Maf54 (8:08:03 PM): and a little horny

[redacted screenname] (8:08:11 PM): and also tru

Maf54 (8:08:31 PM): get a ruler and measure it for me

[redacted screenname] (8:08:38 PM): ive already told you that

Maf54 (8:08:47 PM): tell me again

[redacted screenname] (8:08:49 PM): 7 and 1/2

Maf54 (8:09:04 PM): ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Maf54 (8:09:08 PM): beautiful

[redacted screenname] (8:09:38 PM): lol

Maf54 (8:09:44 PM): thats a great size

[redacted screenname] (8:10:00 PM): thank you

Maf54 (8:10:22 PM): still stiff

[redacted screenname] (8:10:28 PM): ya

Maf54 (8:10:40 PM): take it out

[redacted screenname] (8:10:54 PM): brb...my mom is yelling

Maf54 (8:11:06 PM): ok

[redacted screenname] (8:14:02 PM): back

Maf54 (8:14:37 PM): cool hope se didnt see any thing

[redacted screenname] (8:14:54 PM): no no

[redacted screenname] (8:14:59 PM): she is computer dumb though

[redacted screenname] (8:15:01 PM): it makes me so mad

Maf54 (8:15:04 PM): good

Maf54 (8:15:08 PM): haha

Maf54 (8:15:11)

I'm sure it's all purely innocent.....:roll: But hey, keep defending, obfuscating and deflecting Republicans. You're only showing your true colors.

 

[dahunan]

Drudge.. hmm.. is he a Republican nut licker too?
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...:2006-05,GGLG:en&q=drudge+foley+beasts

 

[EKKC]

Leave it to Floridians to screwup a recount in a Presidential election and voting a pedophile into the office!

I just read the full transcript too: yeah its sickening. make this a political fight all they want, but the real question is how many more pedophiles are running America at this moment...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I wonder if hate for Foley's party isn't all that's required to condemn the Republican leadership. I want concrete evidence they knew of the explicit nature or the e-mails before I go down that road. Wanting something to be something doesn't make it so. Being sure that something just has to be something in your opinion doesn't either.

"Novak writes, "A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running"

Is this concrete evidence?

You ought to be able to answer your own question. Of course it is not evidence. If I thought Foley was a good man and a good politician and important to my party I would want him to run too. Where is the evidence that Reynolds knew he was sending the kind of emails we have learned about to pages? Jesus!

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I wonder if hate for Foley's party isn't all that's required to condemn the Republican leadership. I want concrete evidence they knew of the explicit nature or the e-mails before I go down that road. Wanting something to be something doesn't make it so. Being sure that something just has to be something in your opinion doesn't either.

"Novak writes, "A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running"

Is this concrete evidence?

You ought to be able to answer your own question. Of course it is not evidence. If I thought Foley was a good man and a good politician and important to my party I would want him to run too. Where is the evidence that Reynolds knew he was sending the kind of emails we have learned about to pages? Jesus!

:roll:

 

[Lemon law]

Well---in terms of those explicit Foley E-mails---maybe we should ask GWB---he and his many minions are reading all e-mails sent by everyone as it is.

 

[Fern]

Whether or not Foley commited a crime seems moot to the political debate. He has already resigned in shame.

(Many have said the concept of "shame" no longer exists in our society. Nice to see its return).

Many people seem to use the terms "email" and "text message" interchangably. Pardon my ingnorance, I haven't a cell phone so have never sent a text message. But aren't they different things? I could see someone geting a copy of an email, but how would one get a copy of a text message? Can someone please explain the technical part of this?

Seems premature to claim "cover up" at this point. If I understand correctly, Hastert and the others only saw copies of the emails, which are mostly innocuous. Seems to me that one would have to show they were aware of the (much more lurid) text messages and tried to "bury" them before a cover up can be reasonably claimed. Or must demonstrate that they were aware of some other "incriminating" bits not yet revealed.

My .02

Fern

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Fern
Seems premature to claim "cover up" at this point. If I understand correctly, Hastert and the others only saw copies of the emails, which are mostly innocuous. Seems to me that one would have to show they were aware of the (much more lurid) text messages and tried to "bury" them before a cover up can be reasonably claimed. Or must demonstrate that they were aware of some other "incriminating" bits not yet revealed.

That is my point that would answer so many of the posts in this thread. The news only knew of the innocuous emails. The GOP leadership claims they only knew of the innocuous emails. Thus, both the news media and the GOP leadership should not be blamed for anything.

However, if either the GOP leadership or the news did one of the following, then you can complain about a coverup / wrong doing:
1) Hide the fact that they actually knew of the more explicit communications.
2) Refuse to look at the more explicit communications in an attempt to ingore the problem.

I think the whole GOP leadership problem boils down to #2. Suppose someone is about to commit a crime. And suppose you knew some innocuous details about it. And suppose you just plugged your ears when you were told the real juicy details of the crime. Can you honestly claim that you aren't an accomplice just because you refused to hear the real details that you knew may exist? Is it your duty to listen to the plans and report them to the proper authorities? Or can you ethically just sit back and ignore it with your fingers in your ear forever?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I wonder if hate for Foley's party isn't all that's required to condemn the Republican leadership. I want concrete evidence they knew of the explicit nature or the e-mails before I go down that road. Wanting something to be something doesn't make it so. Being sure that something just has to be something in your opinion doesn't either.

"Novak writes, "A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running"

Is this concrete evidence?

You ought to be able to answer your own question. Of course it is not evidence. If I thought Foley was a good man and a good politician and important to my party I would want him to run too. Where is the evidence that Reynolds knew he was sending the kind of emails we have learned about to pages? Jesus!

:roll:

Um... are you trying to claim that that IS evidence? Where's the evidence in your "evidence"? I mean, point to something showing that they "knew of the explicit nature of [sic] the emails" as Moonbeam said.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Fern
would one get a copy of a text message? Can someone please explain the technical part of this?

The conversations are from AOL instant messaging. Presumably the chat application being used stores a copy of conversations in the program log files. Presumably someone has gained access to Foley's laptop and retrieved the conversations. It would have to be a laptop, because the instant messages being circulated which were apparently made from out of state. I don't think the instant messages could come from the young man himself or his family, as apparently they didn't want to make an issue of it and didn't provide full copies of the conversations when they complained (they just said Foley was being too "friendly" and they wanted the contact to stop).

 

[Vette73]

WOW... Talk about republicans getting desperate.

I guess they just keep reading from the same talking points hoping this will go away.

 

[aidanjm]

There is something a little bit sick about the Democrats trying to make political hay out of this scandal.

Which is going to be more damaging to the young man involved in this scandal,

1) sleazy emails from a guy old enough to be his father, or

2) records of an embarrassing conversation being circulated widely in the media, with all his family, friends at school/ university, etc. almost certainly aware that he is at the centre of this scandal..? Is the kid now fending off allegations that he is gay from his peers? How long until his name is revealed in the mainstream media? Being at the center of a political sex scandal seems to be a significant strain to place on a young person.

If you actually were concerned for the emotional/ psychological welfare of this young man, wouldn't you want to try and deal with the matter more quietly (the way he and his parents wanted when they first complained)? How difficult would it have been to bundle Foley out of office/ convince him to resign quietly?

It seems deeply cynical for Democrats to try and turn this into political advantage. Almost as cynical as Republicans ignoring the warning signs about Foley because they wanted his campaign donations or didn't want to lose his seat to democrats.

 

[aidanjm]

It's odd that Foley has finally decided to out himself as gay. Why does he feel the need to state he is a gay man? Is he hinting that a lifetime in the closet has caused him to behave in an unethical manner? Suddenly stating he is a gay man after being accused of sexually harrassing teen boys is not exactly good PR for gay equality, it just confirms the stereotypes people already have about gay people.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Fern
would one get a copy of a text message? Can someone please explain the technical part of this?

The conversations are from AOL instant messaging. Presumably the chat application being used stores a copy of conversations in the program log files. Presumably someone has gained access to Foley's laptop and retrieved the conversations. It would have to be a laptop, because the instant messages being circulated which were apparently made from out of state. I don't think the instant messages could come from the young man himself or his family, as apparently they didn't want to make an issue of it and didn't provide full copies of the conversations when they complained (they just said Foley was being too "friendly" and they wanted the contact to stop).

Thank you for the info. :beer:

I'm thinking the IM's are from a different young man than the one who did complain. But I could be wrong.

If true that these messages were retrieved from Foley's laptop then there are other problems evident here; national security concerns, and the violation of Foley's right to privacy (if, and I don't know as legal commentators seem divided on the issue, these IMs are somehow illegal and thus no expectation to a right to privacy exists seems a court warrent would be required. I assume that is not the case as these IMs apparently went straight to the press). Why is no one discussing these other issues?

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
There is something a little bit sick about the Democrats trying to make political hay out of this scandal.

Then I guess it's really too bad that half of those screaming their outrage at both Foley, for what he did, and the Republican leadership, for even the appearance of a cover up, are the more honest Republican legislators and the conservative press. :shocked:

It's been posted at least twice in this thread, once by me and once by Aegeon, and probably quoted, as well, but here it is again from the Washington Times:

The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress...

On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could be prowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything related to this matter with any Democrat.

Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109th Congress...

House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.

Conclusion of an article by conservative columnist, Maggie Gallagherl

With great power comes great responsibility. Memo to GOP House leaders: Have the decency to accept responsibility and resign from leadership. Or come November, I vote to let the other side put their bums in charge.

Conservative MSNBC commentator and former Congressman, Joe Scarborough:

But Democrats can do little to Republicans that they haven?t already done to themselves. Listen, the GOP right now is bloated. It?s a corrupt party. It?s no longer associated with Ronald Reagan. But as I told you last night, it?s become a party that?s being known as the party of Mark Foley, of Jack Abramoff, of Bob Ney, of Duke Cunningham and of Tom DeLay, very, very bad news for a Republican Party that hopes to maintain control of Congress in next month?s elections. It ain?t going to happen.

Democrats have no need to step into the center of this circular firing squad. 😎

 

[Gaard]

Is it just me or has every post by a Republican about this matter gone something like this

"Yes. What he did was wrong, but..."

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Fern
Whether or not Foley commited a crime seems moot to the political debate. He has already resigned in shame.

(Many have said the concept of "shame" no longer exists in our society. Nice to see its return).

Many people seem to use the terms "email" and "text message" interchangably. Pardon my ingnorance, I haven't a cell phone so have never sent a text message. But aren't they different things? I could see someone geting a copy of an email, but how would one get a copy of a text message? Can someone please explain the technical part of this?

Seems premature to claim "cover up" at this point. If I understand correctly, Hastert and the others only saw copies of the emails, which are mostly innocuous. Seems to me that one would have to show they were aware of the (much more lurid) text messages and tried to "bury" them before a cover up can be reasonably claimed. Or must demonstrate that they were aware of some other "incriminating" bits not yet revealed.

My .02

Fern

The history of an IM seesion can be saved, which is obviously what happened here. It even records the IPs AFAIK so Foley can't squirm out of it. It is very solid evidence. You can't "bury it" unless all participants clean their individual machines. Same thing with phone text messages. It's stored on both or all phones.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Fern
would one get a copy of a text message? Can someone please explain the technical part of this?

The conversations are from AOL instant messaging. Presumably the chat application being used stores a copy of conversations in the program log files. Presumably someone has gained access to Foley's laptop and retrieved the conversations. It would have to be a laptop, because the instant messages being circulated which were apparently made from out of state. I don't think the instant messages could come from the young man himself or his family, as apparently they didn't want to make an issue of it and didn't provide full copies of the conversations when they complained (they just said Foley was being too "friendly" and they wanted the contact to stop).

No no, I'm sure the boys provided it, or their parents. Or Foley is a huge idiot and didn't clear his (or not save it in the first place, that is configurable) Boom. Can't avoid that hammer. 😛

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
There is something a little bit sick about the Democrats trying to make political hay out of this scandal.

Which is going to be more damaging to the young man involved in this scandal,

1) sleazy emails from a guy old enough to be his father, or

2) records of an embarrassing conversation being circulated widely in the media, with all his family, friends at school/ university, etc. almost certainly aware that he is at the centre of this scandal..? Is the kid now fending off allegations that he is gay from his peers? How long until his name is revealed in the mainstream media? Being at the center of a political sex scandal seems to be a significant strain to place on a young person.

If you actually were concerned for the emotional/ psychological welfare of this young man, wouldn't you want to try and deal with the matter more quietly (the way he and his parents wanted when they first complained)? How difficult would it have been to bundle Foley out of office/ convince him to resign quietly?

It seems deeply cynical for Democrats to try and turn this into political advantage. Almost as cynical as Republicans ignoring the warning signs about Foley because they wanted his campaign donations or didn't want to lose his seat to democrats.

Oh sure, blame the situation on the Democrats. That's absurd. Stop knee-jerking for the gay man. I don't care if he's gay. This needs to be investigated and it will be. The idea that those who want answers are repsonsible for any emotional harm those boys might have is ridiculous. How about the Republicans who want answers? Is that "deeply cynical"? Wake up.