Mark Foley. Cover up?

[sentrido]

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/The...0506/news2.html
FYI to the "blame the dems soros did it conspiracy" losers.

 

[MrAeroMan]

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/The...0506/news2.html
FYI to the "blame the dems soros did it conspiracy" losers.

What's he say about the instant messages there ol' boy? Care to elaborate?

 

[bagstacker]

It matters because if his office wasn't informed, and I haven't seen anything yet to say his office did know, then how can they advise him about something they didn't know about? If they knew and didn't advise him that is one thing but from my understanding he didn't know and neither did they. The investigation will take care of this issue hopefully.

I agree that IF his staff knew then he should've been informed. Just like any entity the buck stops at the leaders desk and if someone under his/her leadership does something they shouldn't be doing the leader should deal with it when it comes out. If they don't know about it how can they deal with it? That makes no sense to me.

Not an excuse at all. If he didn't know how can he be held responsible? Now, if he found out and didn't act that's a different story and it's his responsiblity.

I support a womans right to choose also. She can choose to practice safe sexual practices and if something happens where she ends up pregnant then her rights are no more important that of the unborn child. Why should a fetus be killed just because the woman decides she doesn't want to be a mother. Put the child up for adoption but killing it isn't the answer. She should've thought about it before she spread her legs.

I think she's right on the money. DemoLibs hate her and that makes me love her even more.

Ahhh, how the rat-wingers swoon like moon-eyed calves for "Brownshirt Annie"! She does have a good gig milking the gullible suckers, though. B)

 

[PITbull]

What's he say about the instant messages there ol' boy? Care to elaborate?

Well, looks like Foley's ex chief of staff told Reynolds about these suggestive sexual e-mails to minors even two years ago. He states today he went to the highest authorities including Hastert, and THEY covered it up! My guess, around the corner was a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

Could that be why the Republicans COVERED IT UP AND THROUGH IT UNDER THE RUG...SO BUSH COULD GET REELECTED???

God only knows he won on a hair and a prayer!

I support a womans right to choose also. She can choose to practice safe sexual practices and if something happens where she ends up pregnant then her rights are no more important that of the unborn child. Why should a fetus be killed just because the woman decides she doesn't want to be a mother. Put the child up for adoption but killing it isn't the answer. She should've thought about it before she spread her legs.

How about rape? Incest???? But, hell, if you liked that sex, the Republicans say..."you will do what I say, and what I think" is right and moral for your life...isn't that how it goes with you righties?

I'm just posen the questions here.

This post is by far the worst, immature, uneducated, narrow minded, slanted, "righty" statement you have publicly written on this forum.

How about aborting the guy who got her pregnant, or doesn't the male have anything to do with it. How about rounding up the men who don't want to pay child support and putting them in prison for a life term so that they don't ever spread their toxin to anyone else that they could impregnate! Put the new born up for adoption?
...better the prospects that the baby could be adopted by a damn pedophile according to your kind of mindset! Hell, its a home ain't it :angry: :down:

GD loser Republicans...November 8th, can't wait to say those words.... B)

 

[Garfield1966]

It matters because if his office wasn't informed, and I haven't seen anything yet to say his office did know, then how can they advise him about something they didn't know about? If they knew and didn't advise him that is one thing but from my understanding he didn't know and neither did they. The investigation will take care of this issue hopefully.

I agree that IF his staff knew then he should've been informed. Just like any entity the buck stops at the leaders desk and if someone under his/her leadership does something they shouldn't be doing the leader should deal with it when it comes out. If they don't know about it how can they deal with it? That makes no sense to me.

Not an excuse at all. If he didn't know how can he be held responsible? Now, if he found out and didn't act that's a different story and it's his responsiblity.



I support a womans right to choose also. She can choose to practice safe sexual practices and if something happens where she ends up pregnant then her rights are no more important that of the unborn child. Why should a fetus be killed just because the woman decides she doesn't want to be a mother. Put the child up for adoption but killing it isn't the answer. She should've thought about it before she spread her legs.

I think she's right on the money. DemoLibs hate her and that makes me love her even more.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...foley-gop_x.htm

WASHINGTON — A top aide to former congressman Mark Foley said Wednesday that he alerted House Speaker Dennis Hastert's chief of staff to Foley's "inappropriate behavior" with congressional pages at least two years ago, long before Hastert or any other Republican leaders say they first learned of the problem.

Considering Fordham quit I do not see his motivation to lie. No surprise that Hassert is denying it but what else is new.

How can you say she is right on the money? He has no right to privacy. The wire tapping by the NSA has no relevance to this situation.

We don’t hate her. We just think she is a nut job like Jackson, Sharpton, Fallwell, Oreily….etc. She is a talking head who has created a persona to make money.


**edit**
Just saw an interview on CNN with Rep Reynolds who say that when he learned of the first emails he spoke directly to Hassert. Hassert does not recall the conversation

 

[700IAM]

Well, looks like Foley's ex chief of staff told Reynolds about these suggestive sexual e-mails to minors even two years ago. He states today he went to the highest authorities including Hastert, and THEY covered it up! My guess, around the corner was a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

Could that be why the Republicans COVERED IT UP AND THROUGH IT UNDER THE RUG...SO BUSH COULD GET REELECTED???

God only knows he won on a hair and a prayer!
How about rape? Incest???? But, hell, if you liked that sex, the Republicans say..."you will do what I say, and what I think" is right and moral for your life...isn't that how it goes with you righties?

I'm just posen the questions here.

This post is by far the worst, immature, uneducated, narrow minded, slanted, "righty" statement you have publically written on this forum.

How about aborting the guy who got her pregnant, or doesn't the male have anything to do with it. How about rounding up the men who don't want to pay child support and putting them in prison for a life term so that they don't ever spread their toxin to anyone else that they could impregnate! Put the new born up for adoption?
...better the prospects that the baby could be adopted by a damn pedophile according to your kind of mindset! Hell, its a home ain't it :angry: :down:

GD loser Repulicans...November 8th, can't wait to say those words.... B)

I didn't know Barbara Streisand was a member of the boards.

 

[delldude]

Hmmm...It was "proven" after they called him in front of a grand jury based on allegations...after it was all over the news that he "had sex with an intern". And I ask that in response to the outrage of this post Remember...before Clinton was "proven" to be guilty, the right wing had a field day with mere "allegations".

Funny,it was Monica's big mouth that got her and Willy into the headlines and nothing else....ask Linda Tripp Monica...one woman who shoulda kept her big mouth shut on more than one occassion...

Why Mr. President, its so big... :bleh:

 

[delldude]

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/The...0506/news2.html
FYI to the "blame the dems soros did it conspiracy" losers.

Suck on this:

 

[KCFlyer]

Republicans have always loved the Constitution but this is really a funny issue you bring up here.
Republicans are for the right to life and Democrats are for killing unborn children. Now, when it comes to the Constitution all of a sudden the DemoLibs are for the document to be a "Living and Breathing Document" so they can promote their twisted agenda on todays populace but when it comes to a living being that has yet to be born they are against preserving the life.
Basically, DemoLibs feel they can crawl into our founding fathers heads and determine what they were thinking about ao document that was established more than 200 years ago and put more stock in its life than it does in a fetus that has yet to be born.
Interesting....
I'm assuming you saw Ann's article too? For those that didn't she hits the nail on the head....as usual. You DemoLibs are going to love this one!
Ann's View....

A little off topic, but have you seen the HBO special "Mr. Conservative - Goldwater on Goldwater"? Interesting take that the "father of the conservative movement" didn't share today's conservative views on abortion. He didn't seem to think abortion is an issue for the Congress or Supreme Court to be involved in. I tend to agree with him.

There's a lot I agree with him on - but his best line was from 1963 when he said "In the future, concervatives of my ilk will be called liberals".

 

[Garfield1966]

I support a womans right to choose also. She can choose to practice safe sexual practices and if something happens where she ends up pregnant then her rights are no more important that of the unborn child. Why should a fetus be killed just because the woman decides she doesn't want to be a mother. Put the child up for adoption but killing it isn't the answer. She should've thought about it before she spread her legs.

So if a woman is raped or her child is conceived via incest should be required to carry the child full term as well?

 

[700IAM]

So if a woman is raped or her child is conceived via incest should be required to carry the child full term as well?

On the other hand, in your view she should be allowed to legally butcher another human being to make a moral correction thus saving the innocent unborn from this harsh world of very bad people. I’d say the moral alarm clock is missing it’s tick here.

 

[KCFlyer]

So if a woman is raped or her child is conceived via incest should be required to carry the child full term as well?

Actually, I have a scenario I'd like to hear Aeroman and the other pro-lifers opinion on. Forget rape or incest. Let's say a woman spreads her legs for her man (who happens to be her husband) because they felt they were ready to start a family. They both want it so bad. And they are blessed to discover that the test is positive...you are soon to be in the family way. Man...it doesn't get any better than this. And...good husband that I am sure you are...you're right there with here as she heads down to the doctors for that sonogram....what will most likley become the first picture in the new baby's photo album. And everybody's happy and giddy and feeling so wonderful. Until the doctor and technicians get very quiet...the laughter subsides...and they are looking intently at the screen. Only they aren't looking at what's there...they are paying more attention to what's NOT there...namely - a brain. The baby in her belly...the thing you wanted more than anything in this world...doesn't have a brain. It's a condition called "anencephaly"...the brain has failed to form, and while the fetus has a heartbeat...the only think keeping it alive is your wifes body. As soon as she gives birth, and they cut the cord - the lack of a brain means it won't even know how to breathe on it's own. Here is a picture of what the medical community lovingly refers to as a "monster".Now...it's not a threat to your wifes physical health. But what about her mental health? Should she carry that to term? I mean it's only 6 or so months that she'll have to deal with knowing that the baby she's carrying is all but dead. What's your stance on that?

I can tell you what my stance is, because I've lived that exact situation. Trust me, I wouldn't wish anyone else to have to face it either. And I apologize for a little rant, but Aeroman's flippant "shouldn't have spread her legs" comment makes it sound like the only people who get an abortion are irresponsible people. Many aren't. In fact... in a good Christian world, you should teach your SON not to utter the words to a woman "If you really love me, you'll do it" when it comes to the spreading of legs.

 

[Garfield1966]

I am assuming that you meant to address that to someone else. You know what my opinion is. Woman’s body, woman’s choice. If there is a god, it can sort it out at the end.

Mean while, back at the ranch, the republicans are throwing each other under the bus at an amazing rate. Majority Whip took a shot at Hassert. A Repub aid and a Repub representative said that Hassert knew about it along time ago. Several other Repubs are asking Hassert to quit. Afghanistan and Iraq are dragging on. Mean while, Bush is talking about 'no student left behind'.

 

[delldude]

GREENVILLE, S.C. - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says Democrats have done far worse things than sending lurid Internet messages to male teenage pages, actions which led to the resignation of U.S. Rep. Mark Foley.
Gingrich spoke Wednesday evening in Greenville, a GOP stronghold in a solidly Republican state.

He told the crowd of 300 at a hotel that Democratic sex scandals have been far worse and Democrats have wanted to punish their offenders far less.

"What we don't have to do is allow our friends on the left to lecture us on morality," Gingrich said. "There's a certain stench of hypocrisy."

Gingrich wouldn't say whether House Speaker Dennis Hastert should step down or talk about reports that Hastert may have known about Foley's problems with pages for more than three years.

"I don't know what he knew," Gingrich said before the speech. "I don't know what the guy told him and I haven't seen what that guy claimed to have told him."

 

[Ch. 12]

Immoral = wrong.
Immoral + Illegal = attrocious.

But I will say this...I think that the GOP is actually helping to keep this "scandal" flying high b/c it takes the voters' eyes off of real failures in domestic and international policy. I don't agree with any of the immoral actions by either side of the aisle but I really can't give a hoot about them when compared to loss of soldiers' lives, loss of healthcare, increased poverty, increased wage disparity, lower taxes + higher spending, and a rapidly declining status in the international community and economy.