Smear the Pages! New, disgusting right wing tactic.

[techs]

Friday I was taking a long car trip and caught Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage on the radio.
The both spent a long time on the House Page scandal.
You want to know who is to blame, according to Rush and Savage.
The pages did it!!!
(interesting how both came up with this idea on their own, or did they?)
Some of it may put words in the others mouths since I was driving and couldn't write it down. Plus Savage directly contradicted himself much of the time.

Here's what they said.

The pages took advantage of Foley.
They were ambitious young men who came to Washington to score some points, get some political chits thru blackmail.
The pages were Democrats.
The pages went after Foley seeking sex and Foley was the victim!!
Savage said there was only one page (ignoring the fact that a number of pages have come forward).
Then Savage said "if there really was a page" and went on to say he thought the whole page thing was a Democratic smear and there probably wasn't any page.
They went on to talk about how this conspiracy was the work of homosexual lobby trying to get dirt on Republicans.

Disgusting

 

[RedBeard]

BTW - Most conseratives don't take everything/most Savage says seriously. (doesn't surprise me) You really have to filter what comes out of his mouth.

Not that I doubt you but I would rather hear exactly what Rush said (he usually makes some sense, even if he is full of himself). I don't think you will find many logical conservatives blame the pages themselves.

It is easy for Republicans to cry foul due to the timing of all the bad press recently... (not that it isn't true)

 

[ProfJohn]

Ditto what red said about Savage.

So far the only "blame the pages" thing I have seen is the fact that the sex IMs that got this thing started were part of a prank to make a congressman make a fool of himself so some pages could have a laugh.

Not sure anyone is excusing the behavior of Foley because of that though.

And the conspiracy by the homosexual lobby is real, sorry to say. I have posted lots of evidence of it in other threads.
1. One guy who goes around "outing" gays who he doesn't like said way back in March that "things may come out around election time"
2. Another radical gay site has a "list" of gay Republican staffers that he is passing around in order to smear these men and women.
3. CREW who started the whole Foley mess had the e-mails and maybe even the sex IMs way back in July and maybe as early as April and could not get one person to run the story until ABC fell for it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ditto what red said about Savage.

So far the only "blame the pages" thing I have seen is the fact that the sex IMs that got this thing started were part of a prank to make a congressman make a fool of himself so some pages could have a laugh.

Not sure anyone is excusing the behavior of Foley because of that though.

And the conspiracy by the homosexual lobby is real, sorry to say. I have posted lots of evidence of it in other threads.
1. One guy who goes around "outing" gays who he doesn't like said way back in March that "things may come out around election time"
2. Another radical gay site has a "list" of gay Republican staffers that he is passing around in order to smear these men and women.
3. CREW who started the whole Foley mess had the e-mails and maybe even the sex IMs way back in July and maybe as early as April and could not get one person to run the story until ABC fell for it.

LOL, blame the Homos on Foley being a Pedophile

 

[RedBeard]

LOL, blame the Homos on Foley being a Pedophile

LOL, make useless statement without addressing any of his points. :thumbsup:

LOL! LOL!

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: RedBeard
BTW - Most conseratives don't take everything/most Savage says seriously. (doesn't surprise me) You really have to filter what comes out of his mouth.

Not that I doubt you but I would rather hear exactly what Rush said (he usually makes some sense, even if he is full of himself). I don't think you will find many logical conservatives blame the pages themselves.

It is easy for Republicans to cry foul due to the timing of all the bad press recently... (not that it isn't true)

See if you can get a transcript and post it. Rush clearly put the blame on the pages.

 

[extra]

No one cares that Foley likes guys. Well, I'm sure it upsets a few of the republicans lol. But no reasonable people give a crap about someone's sexual orientation. Who cares.

The thing with Foley is that he engaged in sexual conduct with MINORS.

It probably would have been *worse* for him if it was female pages, because then people would be all "omg think of the poor innocent children wtfbbq~~". No one cares about some 16yr old male lol.

Trying to equate this foley thing with anything homosexual is just...well, it's almost beyond belief.

And get real, there is no homosexual agenda. So what if theres a few people out there who want to expose hypocrisy. OH NOEZ, we can't have that!!! Yes folks, if someone who bashes gays is exposed for being gay, well it must be the homosexual agenda. Couldn't just be that people are sick of hypocrits.

There's a lot of very conservative people who expose hypocrisy in stuff like the environmental movement (ie ppl being anti logging and living in log cabins) etc etc. Good for them too. No one should be accusing them of having an "agenda" either. Exposing people who do one thing and say another is just good for the country, no matter what is being exposed.

The other thing is that even if one (or more) of the pages did start the thing with the representantive, it doesn't matter. We have laws against stuff like that for a good reason. Just like if an underage student seduces a teacher, the teacher will still be in serious trouble. Same with a police officer, doctor, or other people who have authority. (Check local and state laws for more on that).

People in authority positions are often subjected to higher standards. In this case, one would expect their congressman to have h0t cyb0rz with adults, not their underage pages.

Who cares what party the guy is. You can bet if this was a democrat the republicans would be alllllll over this. And the independants like me would still be shaking our heads at how screwed up the guy was and praying for a third party to get some seats.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RedBeard
LOL, make useless statement without addressing any of his points. :thumbsup:

That's because none of the "points" raised by anyone have anything to do with Foley's pedopheliac contacts with minors of any gender or sexual persuasion. Foley is an adult who was elected to a high office that, by definition, carries a heavy burden of social responsiblity. That leaves zero tolerance for his behavior with respect to the juvenile pages entrusted to the care of Congress.

What Foley did is admitted and done, and what will happen to him is a matter for law enforcement and the courts so this is already dead issue. What's even more disgusting than his actions (if that's possible) is any cover up, or any appearance of cover up, by Republican leaders. If that's proven, any of them who were party to it should be driven from office.

Lush Limbaugh and other brain dead ultra-right mouthpieces spewing their futile attempts to distract and divert attention from any cover up is equally disgusting but more predictable. Limbaugh's about as credible on this subject as he was in his denials regarding his own drug busts. :roll:

 

[extra]

What Harvey said, pretty much ^_^

I must say the mayor of spokane, who pushed anti-homosexual policy, and then was outed as gay himself, was more entertaining than this though.

I'd like to see the media on all sides of the fence just shut up about this whole thing. The truth was revealed, he's not going to be representing anyone anymore, and law enforcement can deal with it if it is decided that it needs dealing with. Honestly, I think they should leave Foley alone, at least for the respect of the poor guy's family. Lets move on to talking about real issues like health care, economy, drug war, drilling for more oil (i still say we shuld drill for the oil we can get and make some of hte revenues go directly to alternative energy research!).

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: extra
I'd like to see the media on all sides of the fence just shut up about this whole thing. The truth was revealed, he's not going to be representing anyone anymore, and law enforcement can deal with it if it is decided that it needs dealing with. Honestly, I think they should leave Foley alone, at least for the respect of the poor guy's family. Lets move on to talking about real issues like health care, economy, drug war, drilling for more oil (i still say we shuld drill for the oil we can get and make some of hte revenues go directly to alternative energy research!).

Don't be silly. There's an election in less than 30 days. Democrats want the Foley stories to stay on the front pages and all over the news. They do not want to engage in a real, honest discussion about the plethora of real issues facing us. And their willing accomplices (read: the mainstream liberal media) are happy to keep up the charade.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: extra
I'd like to see the media on all sides of the fence just shut up about this whole thing. The truth was revealed, he's not going to be representing anyone anymore, and law enforcement can deal with it if it is decided that it needs dealing with. Honestly, I think they should leave Foley alone, at least for the respect of the poor guy's family. Lets move on to talking about real issues like health care, economy, drug war, drilling for more oil (i still say we shuld drill for the oil we can get and make some of hte revenues go directly to alternative energy research!).

Don't be silly. There's an election in less than 30 days. Democrats want the Foley stories to stay on the front pages and all over the news. They do not want to engage in a real, honest discussion about the plethora of real issues facing us. And their willing accomplices (read: the mainstream liberal media) are happy to keep up the charade.

Ah yes, the Republicans, the party of "real, honest discussion about real issues facing us". That or calling people "traitor" when they dare to disagree with the idiot policies of their leader. Because, you know, that looks a lot like "real, honest discussion" to Republicans. It's not that they are lying when they say they want to discuss the issues, it's that they don't understand what "discuss the issues" really means.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: extra
I'd like to see the media on all sides of the fence just shut up about this whole thing. The truth was revealed, he's not going to be representing anyone anymore, and law enforcement can deal with it if it is decided that it needs dealing with. Honestly, I think they should leave Foley alone, at least for the respect of the poor guy's family. Lets move on to talking about real issues like health care, economy, drug war, drilling for more oil (i still say we shuld drill for the oil we can get and make some of hte revenues go directly to alternative energy research!).

Don't be silly. There's an election in less than 30 days. Democrats want the Foley stories to stay on the front pages and all over the news. They do not want to engage in a real, honest discussion about the plethora of real issues facing us. And their willing accomplices (read: the mainstream liberal media) are happy to keep up the charade.

So what should "mainstream liberal media" cover, in your opinion?

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: extra
I'd like to see the media on all sides of the fence just shut up about this whole thing. The truth was revealed, he's not going to be representing anyone anymore, and law enforcement can deal with it if it is decided that it needs dealing with. Honestly, I think they should leave Foley alone, at least for the respect of the poor guy's family. Lets move on to talking about real issues like health care, economy, drug war, drilling for more oil (i still say we shuld drill for the oil we can get and make some of hte revenues go directly to alternative energy research!).

Don't be silly. There's an election in less than 30 days. Democrats want the Foley stories to stay on the front pages and all over the news. They do not want to engage in a real, honest discussion about the plethora of real issues facing us. And their willing accomplices (read: the mainstream liberal media) are happy to keep up the charade.

So what should "mainstream liberal media" cover, in your opinion?

Oh come on, the wonderful job Bush is doing, of course! They should cover his amazing speeches that he's giving. You know, the ones that reek of desperation and are only given to keep his Republican friends in power. They should talk about how it's Clinton's fault this country is mired in a foreign relations catastrophe the likes we have never seen before, and how it's Clinton's fault 9/11 happened, and how it's Clinton's fault North Korea has nukes, and how the gay agenda is bringing this country down, and how Christianity belongs in schools again, and how evolution is just one big hoax, etc. You know, the real issues.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: extra
I'd like to see the media on all sides of the fence just shut up about this whole thing. The truth was revealed, he's not going to be representing anyone anymore, and law enforcement can deal with it if it is decided that it needs dealing with. Honestly, I think they should leave Foley alone, at least for the respect of the poor guy's family. Lets move on to talking about real issues like health care, economy, drug war, drilling for more oil (i still say we shuld drill for the oil we can get and make some of hte revenues go directly to alternative energy research!).

Don't be silly. There's an election in less than 30 days. Democrats want the Foley stories to stay on the front pages and all over the news. They do not want to engage in a real, honest discussion about the plethora of real issues facing us. And their willing accomplices (read: the mainstream liberal media) are happy to keep up the charade.

So what should "mainstream liberal media" cover, in your opinion?

Oh come on, the wonderful job Bush is doing, of course! They should cover his amazing speeches that he's giving. You know, the ones that reek of desperation and are only given to keep his Republican friends in power. They should talk about how it's Clinton's fault this country is mired in a foreign relations catastrophe the likes we have never seen before, and how it's Clinton's fault 9/11 happened, and how it's Clinton's fault North Korea has nukes, and how the gay agenda is bringing this country down, and how Christianity belongs in schools again, and how evolution is just one big hoax, etc. You know, the real issues.

You mean the one she gives where says, and I quote, "Democrats want Americans to wait to be killed before doing anything" Or "Democrats don't want America to listen to phone calls of terrorists"?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: extra
I'd like to see the media on all sides of the fence just shut up about this whole thing. The truth was revealed, he's not going to be representing anyone anymore, and law enforcement can deal with it if it is decided that it needs dealing with. Honestly, I think they should leave Foley alone, at least for the respect of the poor guy's family. Lets move on to talking about real issues like health care, economy, drug war, drilling for more oil (i still say we shuld drill for the oil we can get and make some of hte revenues go directly to alternative energy research!).

Don't be silly. There's an election in less than 30 days. Democrats want the Foley stories to stay on the front pages and all over the news. They do not want to engage in a real, honest discussion about the plethora of real issues facing us. And their willing accomplices (read: the mainstream liberal media) are happy to keep up the charade.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that the Republicans aren't more then happy to talk about and defend one congressman screwing up in his sex life rather then to talk about the Iraqi war, the rising death toll, the lack of people enlisting to fight the war, things going backwards in Afghanistan, no WMD's, the cost of the war, the deficit, "The Axis of Evil", outsourcing, illegal immigrtation, the skyrocketing cost of healthcare, etc., etc., etc.

Maybe it was the Republicans who timed this story to break just before the elections?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: extra
I'd like to see the media on all sides of the fence just shut up about this whole thing. The truth was revealed, he's not going to be representing anyone anymore, and law enforcement can deal with it if it is decided that it needs dealing with. Honestly, I think they should leave Foley alone, at least for the respect of the poor guy's family. Lets move on to talking about real issues like health care, economy, drug war, drilling for more oil (i still say we shuld drill for the oil we can get and make some of hte revenues go directly to alternative energy research!).

Don't be silly. There's an election in less than 30 days. Democrats want the Foley stories to stay on the front pages and all over the news. They do not want to engage in a real, honest discussion about the plethora of real issues facing us. And their willing accomplices (read: the mainstream liberal media) are happy to keep up the charade.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that the Republicans aren't more then happy to talk about and defend one congressman screwing up in his sex life rather then to talk about the Iraqi war, the rising death toll, the lack of people enlisting to fight the war, things going backwards in Afghanistan, no WMD's, the cost of the war, the deficit, "The Axis of Evil", outsourcing, illegal immigrtation, the skyrocketing cost of healthcare, etc., etc., etc.

Maybe it was the Republicans who timed this story to break just before the elections?

One thing I haven't seen resurface yet is the Teri Schaivo debacle.

 

[Jaskalas]

Face it, Foley isn?t the only deviant in this situation.

He?s out and done for ? what is this still a big deal for?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Face it, Foley isn?t the only deviant in this situation.

He?s out and done for ? what is this still a big deal for?

I answered that completely in my previous post:

What's even more disgusting than his (Foley's) actions (if that's possible) is any cover up, or any appearance of cover up, by Republican leaders. If that's proven, any of them who were party to it should be driven from office.

We agree, Foley's case is over, but there's far too much evidence that Hastert and others knew about his predatory behavior months, or even years ago and did nothing other than to try and cover it up. That's an entirely different issue that raises serious ethical questions about anyone involved.

 

[OrByte]

This is still a story because the repubs did a really bad job of trying to cover it up.

you would think with all the practice they have at covering their sh!t up they can get it right one of these days.

 

[ProfJohn]

The Foley story is history. Unless some big event happens there is not else to say.
Foley resigned, and as someone said, once you resign they can't do any more to you.
If Foley faces criminal charges it won't be until after the election.

And unless some Republican is lying I don't think we will get any break through on that side.

The only thing left to come out in the story is the source for the e-mails and all that. And of course whether any Democrats were aware made aware of the story.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And unless some Republican is lying I don't think we will get any break through on that side.

Let's see, now. Hastert says he learned about it when the story broke on ABC News. Several other Republican members of Congress and two of their chiefs of staff say they notified Hastert anywhere between six months and six years ago. Here's only one of several stories you can easily find about it:

Hastert Was Warned About Foley Two Years Ago, GOP Aide Says

Speaker's Spokesman Disputes Fordham's Claim That He Previously Alerted Hastert's Office About Foley's Behavior

By JAKE TAPPER and JOHN YANG

Oct. 4, 2006 ? Despite claims by senior congressional aide Kirk Fordham that he notified House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office more than two years ago about possible inappropriate contact between former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., and underage congressional pages, the Speaker's office insists it did nothing wrong in the way it handled the investigation.

"That never happened," Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean told ABC News.

But Fordham, who resigned as Foley's chief of staff to work for another member of the GOP leadership, Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., said that as far back as 2003, Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, had been told that Foley was too friendly with pages. According to Fordham, Palmer spoke to Foley about the matter.

Neither Foley nor Palmer could be reached for comment, yet Hastert's office disputes the account.

Fordham, who is openly gay, acknowledged helping Foley deal with the fallout from ABC News' story about obscene instant messages he had sent former congressional pages, but Fordham added he "did so as a friend of my former boss, not as Congressman Reynolds' chief of staff. I reached out to the Foley family, as any good friend would, because I was worried about their emotional well-being."

Fordham also contradicted stories circulating in Washington that he had tried to prevent an investigation by House leadership into any questionable contact between Foley and pages.

"I never attempted to prevent any inquiries or investigation of Foley's conduct by House officials or any other authorities," he said.

Fordham said he was resigning because "It is clear the Democrats are intent on making me a political issue in my boss's race, and I will not let them do so."

But the questions about Fordham's role were being raised just as often ? if not, more so ? by Republicans.

"Fordham had, for a while, a good idea of the Foley situation, and he tried to suppress it," said one former House GOP leadership aide, who would speak only on condition of anonymity. This aide said he had "complete confidence that the Speaker and his senior people didn't know about Foley's prefatory issue with pages" until last Friday.

The aide did say it was an open question as to whether the Speaker's counsel, Ted VanderMeid, knew anything before then.

Asked to describe the mood among the Hastert team, the aide said they were "frustrated" and "deeply disappointed that so many people are willing to throw Denny to the sharks," a reference to conservatives who have called for Hastert's resignation, as well as to comments by Reynolds and Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, distancing themselves from Hastert.

"Boehner's instincts are the same he showed back in '98," the aide said, referring to the time Boehner pleaded ignorance about an attempted coup of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and was defeated in his re-election to House leadership largely as a result.

What we have are diametrically opposed stories. By definition, at least one of them is false, and the odds are against Hastert. Are all those other Repbulicans lying to set up Hastert? :roll:

The only thing left to come out in the story is the source for the e-mails and all that. And of course whether any Democrats were aware made aware of the story.

Of course, since Republicans are in control of Congress, and their leadership is responsible for the ethics of their own members, and the only stories that have been reported about Democrats is that they were kept far out of the loop, IF any Democrats knew about Foley's predatory pedophilia is that those Democrats could be held responsible to some level if they didn't at least try to report Foley to the Republican leadership in the vain hope they would have the honesty and courage to put the welfare of the juvenile pages ahead of their own political advantage. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

 

[aidanjm]

Are people aware that Foley was going to retire early this year? But apparently Karl Rove twisted his arm into staying on:

10.12.06

HOW ROVE TWISTED FOLEY'S ARM

It seems increasingly clear that the GOP congressional leadership, eager for every safe incumbent in the House to run for re-election, looked the other way as evidence accumulated that Mark Foley had a thing for pages. Holding onto his seat became more important than confronting him over his extracurricular activities.

But there's more to the story of why Foley stood for re-election this year. Yesterday, a source close to Foley explained to THE NEW REPUBLIC that in early 2006 the congressman had all but decided to retire from the House and set up shop on K Street. "Mark's a friend of mine," says this source. "He told me, 'I'm thinking about getting out of it and becoming a lobbyist.'"

But when Foley's friend saw the congressman again this spring, something had changed. To the source's surprise, Foley told him he would indeed be standing for re-election. What happened? Karl Rove intervened.

According to the source, Foley said he was being pressured by "the White House and Rove gang," who insisted that Foley run. If he didn't, Foley was told, it might impact his lobbying career.

"He said, 'The White House made it very clear I have to run,'" explains Foley's friend, adding that Foley told him that the White House promised that if Foley served for two more years it would "enhance his success" as a lobbyist. "I said, 'I thought you wanted out of this?' And he said, 'I do, but they're scared of losing the House and the thought of two years of congressional hearings, so I have two more years of duty.'"

The White House declined a request for comment on the matter, but obviously the plan hasn't worked out quite as Rove hoped it would.

--Ryan Lizza

 

[aidanjm]

pedophilia, psychosexual disorder in which there is a preference for sexual activity with prepubertal children.

http://www.answers.com/Pedophilia?nafid=3


i.e., it is not correct to describe Mark Foley as a pedophile.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
pedophilia, psychosexual disorder in which there is a preference for sexual activity with prepubertal children.

http://www.answers.com/Pedophilia?nafid=3


i.e., it is not correct to describe Mark Foley as a pedophile.

Nice try aidanjm, but the bomb throwers on here like the term pedophile cause it makes his actions seem all that worse.

I doubt anyone called Reynolds or Studds a pedophile. Heck doubt these guys called all the teachers having sex with 15 year olds pedophiles.

 

[ProfJohn]

Check out what techs said about the Debra Lafave story... where a teacher had real SEX with a 14 year old

Originally posted by: techs
She is one hot teacher.
And she will one rich hot babe once she gets done selling her story.

Where was the outrage techs??

It is nice to see that some of the people on here pointed out the double standard at least in regards to her having sex with a 14 year old.

Old Lafave thread