Originally posted by: alchemize
..with Todd33 prancing right behind
Originally posted by: conjur
Keep it up, alchie.
Go ahead.
Defend this scuzzbucket
House knew about him for a year
(which he has confirmed entirely in interviews, btw, I'll post the link if you desire, but you'll just dodge this I'm sure).
I'm sure you'd do the same if the situation was reversed. But not me, I'm just here to smear this particular dong.Originally posted by: johnnobts
i wish the guy had been caught on that 20/20 show or whatever where they catch you on camera trying to solicit sex from boys or girls. sicko. but shame on the liberal lefties who will immediately try to smear all republicans in congress b/c this perv happened to have an (R) next to his name.
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: conjur
Keep it up, alchie.
Go ahead.
Defend this scuzzbucket
House knew about him for a year
I'm sorry you're confused who is defending whom. I fully acknowledge that Foley is a perv pedophile and I won't defend him for a second, and he ought to answer in a court of law, yet a pedophile like Ritter whom supports "your side" - well my "claims" are false according to you! You're the only one defending pedophiles, and you're the only one doing it for politics. Real classy. :roll:
PS: Damn can I call you or what?:
(which he has confirmed entirely in interviews, btw, I'll post the link if you desire, but you'll just dodge this I'm sure).
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: mylok
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Not really a valid comparisson unless a bunch of Dems come out against blow jobs, preach to the American public about values/morals etc, then get caught on the head-end of one. Personally, I am a huge supporter of getting bjs. My wife on the other hand leads the opposition
i am sorry but i am positive my wife is the leader of that group
See, their numbers are growing. Damn it! :brokenheart: Could there be twoGrand Poobahs in that sect
What are the qualifications - cause I have a nomination that (sadly) has outstanding credentials
You see, we have been fighting the wrong enemy! You and I are not the enemy of one another, the enemy resides within our homes and has a nasty disposition 32 days a month The only qualification I can find commonality in is the fact that they used to do things before they were married that they will no longer do unless a birthday or Christmas is involved lol.
Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who sponsored the page from his district, told reporters that he learned of the e-mails from a reporter some months ago and passed on the information to Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Republican campaign organization.
Alexander said he did not pursue the matter further because "his parents said they didn't want me to do anything."
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Todd33
How come the party of Homophobes is full of closet gays and pedophiles?
They said he would not run for re-election, he did not resign - this was MSNBC abuout 45 minutes ago.
Yah, I mean it's not like he was banging an intern and lied about it or anything and refused to resign. What really matters is that he belongs to a party that says you should have morals. It's perfectly OK to not have morals, just don't belong to the party that ascribes to them. Plenty of room for partisans, bigots and pedophiles in the democrat party, troll.
Edit: and for the record, sounds like a good riddance, there's no room for pedophiles in politics or anywhere, closeted or not. I personally don't care about the politics of it, but if it gives you a chubby, cest la vie.
Hot tongued, but pretty much to the same point I would have made. :thumbsup:
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Todd33
How come the party of Homophobes is full of closet gays and pedophiles?
They said he would not run for re-election, he did not resign - this was MSNBC abuout 45 minutes ago.
Yah, I mean it's not like he was banging an intern and lied about it or anything and refused to resign. What really matters is that he belongs to a party that says you should have morals. It's perfectly OK to not have morals, just don't belong to the party that ascribes to them. Plenty of room for partisans, bigots and pedophiles in the democrat party, troll.
Edit: and for the record, sounds like a good riddance, there's no room for pedophiles in politics or anywhere, closeted or not. I personally don't care about the politics of it, but if it gives you a chubby, cest la vie.
Hot tongued, but pretty much to the same point I would have made. :thumbsup:
Peas in the pedophilia pod vs philandering consenting adults . . . hmm . . . yeah no difference at all.:roll:
The GOP isn't a party that says you should have morals. It's a party that says you should have THEIR morals . . . with exceptions. If you happen to represent a blue state, it's OK to support abortion rights. If you are in a tight race, it's OK to pander to racists. If you've gotta win in the Bible Belt, by all means pander to religious bigots . . . you know the ones that think THEIR God is a registered Republican. That 'thou shalt not kill' . . . merely a suggestion unless you've got a really good reason . . . say for instance we don't like that country's leader.
So for the record . . . when were the leader's of the party of morals . . . going to say (better yet DO) something about Foley?
Craig you were doing good up too the Reagan part and then went to hell with the Clinton part.Originally posted by: Craig234
Sorry, John, your point is very bogus. Different situations - and the republicans have generally hung on as long as they can.
For example, how long after all kinds of things were clearly issues for DeLay was he still out there in office saying he'd run? It took everything from losing battles in court and others such as his attempt to change the house rules (put in by republicans when they were trying to make the democrats look bad) that indicted leaders had to leave positions.
How much pain did Nixon put the country through over a couple years, sacrificing all his aides to jail, with the House having voted for impeachment in committee and definitely going to impeach and convict before he resigned, always saying he was innocent.
Ronald Reagan refused to resign over Iran-Contra crimes, instead he pardoned the felons.
The current story - the guy had his spokespeople out saying how these were the worst sort of democrat partisan attacks and he'd done nothing wrong, until ABC showed him they had the sex IMs. Oops. He had little choice.
On the other hand, Clinton didn't resign - when faced with a highly partisan witch hunt, maintaining 68% public support the day the republicans impeached him for what they trumped up as 'high crimes and misdemeanors' in an abuse of the constitution, found not guilty by the Senate.
In the face of a long string of sorded beavior of lies and crimes by republicans, the best you can say is not to acknowledge the disproportionate number of republicans who are doing wrong, but merely to brag about the republicans resigning, and not even that with much accuracy.
Only if the person with them is under the age of 21, otherwise it is 18.Originally posted by: biggestmuff
isn't the age of consent in Florida 16 years of age?
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What this guy did is awful, but trying to draw a comparison to Republicans because of his actions are absurd.
If all Republicans are "closet gays and pedophiles" because of this then all Democrats cheat on their wives with 21 year old interns etc etc etc
BTW: What ever happened to you guys defending people for their personal behavior? How many times did we hear that what Clinton did doesn't mater cause it was a "personal affair"? Now that you have a Republican perhaps breaking the law over a personal affair you want to fry him and everyone he's ever known?
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What this guy did is awful, but trying to draw a comparison to Republicans because of his actions are absurd.
If all Republicans are "closet gays and pedophiles" because of this then all Democrats cheat on their wives with 21 year old interns etc etc etc
BTW: What ever happened to you guys defending people for their personal behavior? How many times did we hear that what Clinton did doesn't mater cause it was a "personal affair"? Now that you have a Republican perhaps breaking the law over a personal affair you want to fry him and everyone he's ever known?
I agree with what you are saying, my point was that group association is wrong.Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What this guy did is awful, but trying to draw a comparison to Republicans because of his actions are absurd.
If all Republicans are "closet gays and pedophiles" because of this then all Democrats cheat on their wives with 21 year old interns etc etc etc
BTW: What ever happened to you guys defending people for their personal behavior? How many times did we hear that what Clinton did doesn't mater cause it was a "personal affair"? Now that you have a Republican perhaps breaking the law over a personal affair you want to fry him and everyone he's ever known?
In all fairness, I don't think you'd disagree that there's a difference between an extramarital affair with a consenting adult, and making sexual advances toward a 16-year-old page. That is not to excuse President Clinton's behavior, but I hardly think they're the same thing.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Yea like the way Torricelli remained on the ballot in New Jersey after poll started showing that he was going to lose (oh wait he didn't say on the ballot even though the law said it was past the date to change the ballot... oops)Originally posted by: Todd33
Your right, they all say resign now. How fair is it that a guy with legal rroubles can just jump ship and get replaced with a few weeks left? It should be like Delay, stay on and pay for your crime with a big loss.
or
how Jim McGreevy announced in August of 2004 that he was going to resign as governor due his various scandals, but decided that he would stay in office until November 15 2004... why the delay? Because if he left office before September 3 there would have been a special election, can't have that happen can we, never know when a Republican might sneak in and take over for the corrupt Jersey Democrats.
Keep dreaming...Originally posted by: strummer
If latest news accounts hold true, then Hastert has known for almost a year. Ditto for the page's Louisiana congressman.
I think we are just at the tip of this thing. There is going to be a frenzy for a week or two. Hastert is going to go down with this. Most defintiely his leadership position, and probably his seat in November as well.
They looked into the event, Foley lied, since they had no proof of anything wrong they could do nothing more but slap him on the wrist and tell him to be a good little boy.Shimkus said that in late 2005 he learned ? through information passed along by Alexander's office ? about an e-mail exchange that August in which Foley asked about the youngster's well-being after Hurricane Katrina and what he wanted for his birthday and requested a photograph.
"Congressman Foley told the (House) clerk and me that he was simply acting as a mentor ... and that nothing inappropriate had occurred," Shimkus said.
Foley was ordered to cease all contact with the former page and assured Shimkus he would do so, the statement said. He also was advised to watch his conduct with current and former House pages, and he gave assurance he would do so, Shimkus said. He added that here were no further complaints.
Please explain to me what crime that Reagan commited that should have caused him to resign.
It was in no way a rogue operation," Mr. Walsh said. Rather, he described the scandal as "a willful pair of acts embraced by a president and carried out by persons who wanted to serve the president's policies but found they could not do so without running a risk of violating the law."
And BTW Reagan did not pardon anyone in the Iran-Contra scandal, it was Bush who pardoned Capar Weinberger, North and Poindexter had their convictions over turned due to 5th admendment issues and were not retried.
Mr. Bush "can never justify" his Christmas Eve 1992 pardon of former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and five other Iran-contra figures.
.
"President Bush will always have to answer for the pardon," Mr. Walsh declared.
2. What does "partisan witch hunt" have to do with Clinton breaking the law, lying under oath and commiting perjury? Did the partisan's force Clinton to get a blow job and then lie about it in a court of law and then on national tv to the entire country? Did the "partisans" hold Clinton in contempt of court for his lying in the Paula Jones case and did they force Clintom to surrender his law license?