| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2006 11:46:52 AM |
| Object: |
How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
A) Keep them away from Catholic priests
B) Keep them away from Republicans
C) Keep them away from Catholic Republicans
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2737 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
| User: "Robert Sturgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
10 Oct 2006 09:41:23 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 17:12:34 -0700, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:sphli21bg1nunogtp4gi186dkt927agc97@4ax.com...
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:26:21 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:d7qki2dtm00osilf40d45vcell07p91k7t@4ax.com...
So Foley ALSO broke no law? So what's all this "coverup"
***** about???
Whether or not he broke the law remains to be seen. The laws have changed
in
23 years. Specifically, I've heard tell of a law his committee authored
making it illegal to have sexual IM's with a minor.
If he broke that law, or any other similar felony law, I
hope he goes to prison. Is it a felony to lie under oath?
Did that fellow whom we all know lied under oath ever spend
any time in prison? No? Does it bother you that he didn't?
Who lied under oath?
Yeah, sure, like you don't know... It's a little late for
Democrats to be pretending to get all worked up over moral
turpitude. The Blue Dress Special has already left the
station, and they weren't on it. ***** about the excessive
spending, the foolish occupation of Iraq, whatever, but
don't bother with the sex scandal -- you just don't have any
credibility at all there.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
10 Oct 2006 07:42:52 PM |
|
|
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:kubni25bq6tg2ee80te585tjvahlndv9s5@4ax.com...
Who lied under oath?
Yeah, sure, like you don't know... It's a little late for
Democrats to be pretending to get all worked up over moral
turpitude. The Blue Dress Special has already left the
station, and they weren't on it. ***** about the excessive
spending, the foolish occupation of Iraq, whatever, but
don't bother with the sex scandal -- you just don't have any
credibility at all there.
Obfuscation! What a joke.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bradley K. Sherman" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
09 Oct 2006 05:28:32 PM |
|
|
In article <sphli21bg1nunogtp4gi186dkt927agc97@4ax.com>,
Robert Sturgeon <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote:
...
Oh, man -- the Republicans are covering up their knowledge
that one of them sent questionable emails and IMs to a page?
...
Yeah, why are they doing that?
Chapter and verse here:
<http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001759.php>
--bks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Karen Newton" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
09 Oct 2006 06:30:42 PM |
|
|
Please don't cross-post to the frugal living group.
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
news:egeieg$l66$1@reader1.panix.com...
In article <sphli21bg1nunogtp4gi186dkt927agc97@4ax.com>,
Robert Sturgeon <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote:
...
Oh, man -- the Republicans are covering up their knowledge
that one of them sent questionable emails and IMs to a page?
...
Yeah, why are they doing that?
Chapter and verse here:
<http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001759.php>
--bks
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John R. Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
09 Oct 2006 05:50:34 PM |
|
|
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:26:21 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:d7qki2dtm00osilf40d45vcell07p91k7t@4ax.com...
So Foley ALSO broke no law? So what's all this "coverup"
***** about???
Whether or not he broke the law remains to be seen. The laws have
changed in 23 years. Specifically, I've heard tell of a law his
committee authored making it illegal to have sexual IM's with a
minor.
If he broke that law, or any other similar felony law, I
hope he goes to prison. Is it a felony to lie under oath?
Did that fellow whom we all know lied under oath ever spend
any time in prison? No? Does it bother you that he didn't?
Regardless whiter he committed a crime or not, he certainly was in
violation of ethics standards, just as Studds was. Studds was
brought up for the ethics violations by the Democratic leadership
and censured by the House.
Censured? Wow. Was he expelled? Did his Democrat voters
refuse to re-elect him? No? Then your new-found "sexual
purity standard" is somewhat suspect, isn't it?
In Foley's case, Hastert knew of the allegations at least a year ago,
I doubt that. Got any proof?
Nah, not to the legal standard. The Republican's problem with Foley et al is
the effect this entiere episode, and the events leading up to Foley's
resignation, will have on thier voting base. How would you like to explain
this to a Southern Baptist or WV charismatic who had gotten behing your
party because of the high moral tone adopted? That is exactly the job many
Republican candidates face. No legal standard of proof is necessary. What is
important is what peoples judgement will be given what is both known and
suspected.
"(AP) A Republican member of Congress confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about
his Internet communications with teenagers as early as 2000, according to a
newspaper report."
"The report in the Washington Post pushes back by at least five years the
date when a member of Congress acknowledges learning of the Florida
Republican's questionable behavior toward pages."
...........................
"Hastert and his aides have been criticized for failing to act promptly
after receiving warnings about Foley's questionable electronic
communications with pages."
"Hastert since has insisted he was not aware of the communications until
recently. But on the day after Foley resigned, New York Rep. Tom Reynolds
said he had told Hastert months ago about concerns that Foley had sent
inappropriate messages."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/09/ap/politics/mainD8KL98I81.shtml
In a sharp exchange on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), the
vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, insinuated that Democrats
were behind the revelations of Foley's actions and the release of electronic
messages showing Foley having sexually graphic or highly suggestive
conversations with former pages.
"What I don't understand is where have these e-mails been for three years?
Are we saying that a 15-year-old child would have sat on e-mails that were
triple-X-rated for three years and suddenly spring them out right on the eve
of an election? That's just a little bit too suspicious, even for
Washington, D.C.," Kingston said.
Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) shot back, "If there's any evidence that you
need that the values in Washington have turned upside down, you could just
hear what Jack had to say. Only in Washington, D.C., can you take a group of
people in charge of the House and basically have evidence that they've been
looking the other way while a predator has been . . . going after 15- and
16-year-old pages, [and] they somehow . . . have the audacity to turn that
into a political attack against Democrats."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800855.html
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gunner" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
09 Oct 2006 11:26:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:50:34 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
<jcarroll@machiningsolution.com> wrote:
Nah, not to the legal standard. The Republican's problem with Foley et al is
the effect this entiere episode, and the events leading up to Foley's
resignation, will have on thier voting base. How would you like to explain
this to a Southern Baptist or WV charismatic who had gotten behing your
party because of the high moral tone adopted?
Which is why it shouldnt bother any Leftist. They have NO moral
standards.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
.
|
|
|
| User: "John R. Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
09 Oct 2006 11:51:59 PM |
|
|
Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:50:34 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
<jcarroll@machiningsolution.com> wrote:
Nah, not to the legal standard. The Republican's problem with Foley
et al is the effect this entiere episode, and the events leading up
to Foley's resignation, will have on thier voting base. How would
you like to explain this to a Southern Baptist or WV charismatic who
had gotten behing your party because of the high moral tone adopted?
Which is why it shouldnt bother any Leftist. They have NO moral
standards.
So if the choice were Foley and a Dem, say Jane Harman, you'd go with the
molester?
Illuminating.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gunner" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
10 Oct 2006 03:51:02 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:51:59 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
<jcarroll@machiningsolution.com> wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:50:34 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
<jcarroll@machiningsolution.com> wrote:
Nah, not to the legal standard. The Republican's problem with Foley
et al is the effect this entiere episode, and the events leading up
to Foley's resignation, will have on thier voting base. How would
you like to explain this to a Southern Baptist or WV charismatic who
had gotten behing your party because of the high moral tone adopted?
Which is why it shouldnt bother any Leftist. They have NO moral
standards.
So if the choice were Foley and a Dem, say Jane Harman, you'd go with the
molester?
Illuminating.
Jane Harmon is a molester? Really? *****..how come I didnt hear about
it?
Fasinating segway though. Ever consider writing for the DNC?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skully" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
09 Oct 2006 04:43:59 PM |
|
|
You didn't answer my questions.
1 - > >> He was "censured by the house".
What does that mean?
2 - > >> Does it mean that it is OK for elected officials to break the
law?
Most regular folks go to jail when they "do" a minor.
Yes, Foley broke the law but that has nothing to do with my question.
Foley should resign (he did...one down), Foley should be investigated by the
same folks that would investigate you or me if we did these things.
Foley should be treated like any other American who breaks the law, but we
all know it isn't done that way.
Skully
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 19:38:14 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"skully" <skullywv@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XifWg.4470$Ed5.1362@trnddc03...
So, a member of our government had sex with a 17 year old.
He was "censured by the house".
What does that mean?
It's basically like being put in the stocks for a day.
Does it mean that it is OK for elected officials to break the law?
Most regular folks go to jail when they "do" a minor.
So Foley ALSO broke no law? So what's all this "coverup"
***** about???
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Sturgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
10 Oct 2006 09:44:57 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:43:59 GMT, "skully"
<skullywv@verizon.net> wrote:
You didn't answer my questions.
1 - > >> He was "censured by the house".
What does that mean?
2 - > >> Does it mean that it is OK for elected officials to break the
law?
Most regular folks go to jail when they "do" a minor.
Yes, Foley broke the law but that has nothing to do with my question.
Foley should resign (he did...one down), Foley should be investigated by the
same folks that would investigate you or me if we did these things.
Foley should be treated like any other American who breaks the law, but we
all know it isn't done that way.
Skully
You're right, of course. Congress-critters SHOULD be
treated just like the rest of us, but they aren't. ALL of
the criminals in Congress should face the same justice as we
would, but they very seldom do, regardless of which party
has them.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skully" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
11 Oct 2006 07:10:29 PM |
|
|
Thanks...real information is a good thing. However I doubt that your
"stocks" analagy is close, it was probably more like "we are going to act as
if we don't like you for a day...and no evening bourbon for you!!!"
Skully
"Geoff" <geoff@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:scqdnTi6i912FrTYnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"skully" <skullywv@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XifWg.4470$Ed5.1362@trnddc03...
So, a member of our government had sex with a 17 year old.
He was "censured by the house".
What does that mean?
It's basically like being put in the stocks for a day.
Does it mean that it is OK for elected officials to break the law?
Most regular folks go to jail when they "do" a minor.
He broke no law. The age of consent 20+ years ago in DC is (and for all I
know remains to be) 16. It was an ethical issue, in that he was having a
sexual relationship with a subordinate.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
08 Oct 2006 01:51:00 PM |
|
|
"Marsha" <mas@ves.org> wrote in message
news:Rs2dnYmn3elKorTYnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@buckeye-express.com...
Bernard Spilman wrote:
"Marsha" <mas@ves.org> wrote in message
news:avCdnf9EvZ4jqbTYnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@buckeye-express.com...
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
A) Keep them away from Catholic priests
B) Keep them away from Republicans
C) Keep them away from Catholic Republicans
Both sides have skeletons. You forgot about Democrat Gerry Studds and
his 17-year-old male page. And those wonderful people in Martha's
Vineyard, who saw fit to re-elect this icon of decency five times
thereafter.
Marsha/Ohio
Studds broke no law. Democratic leaders did not know
of Studds' misdeeds and did not trry to cover them up for
political reasons. If you have a problem with the "wonderful
people in Martha's Vineyard," I suggest you take it up with
them, they do not speak for the Democratic Party.
WS
Sounds like you're taking it personally.
Sounds like you don't have anything but Limbaugh talking points.
Studds was wrong for having a sexual relationship with a subordinate. He was
censured. End of story.
The current situation is different. Yes, the relationship was innapropriate.
But the cover up was heinous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Sturgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
08 Oct 2006 06:53:05 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 14:51:00 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
(snips)
Sounds like you're taking it personally.
Sounds like you don't have anything but Limbaugh talking points.
Studds was wrong for having a sexual relationship with a subordinate. He was
censured. End of story.
Yes, that WAS the end of the story. The Democratic
congressional leadership did not hound him out of office.
They didn't investigate him. His idiotic Democratic voters
in MA re-elected him, over and over again. When the
Republican got caught, he was out.
The current situation is different. Yes, the relationship was innapropriate.
But the cover up was heinous.
WHAT "coverup"??? When the Republican congressional
leadership found out, Foley was OUT. Studds was allowed to
stay, and helped in his re-election. So yes, the situation
is quite a bit different. How the Democrats can find
anything good about their behavior with regards to scandals
concerning their own people in Congress (or in the Executive
branch) is a mystery.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morton Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
08 Oct 2006 09:46:19 PM |
|
|
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:4f3ji2tbda77ceh49upo1alnv33aqp9535@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 14:51:00 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
(snips)
Sounds like you're taking it personally.
Sounds like you don't have anything but Limbaugh talking points.
Studds was wrong for having a sexual relationship with a subordinate. He
was
censured. End of story.
Yes, that WAS the end of the story. The Democratic
congressional leadership did not hound him out of office.
They didn't investigate him. His idiotic Democratic voters
in MA re-elected him, over and over again. When the
Republican got caught, he was out.
The current situation is different. Yes, the relationship was
innapropriate.
But the cover up was heinous.
WHAT "coverup"??? When the Republican congressional
leadership found out, Foley was OUT. Studds was allowed to
stay, and helped in his re-election. So yes, the situation
is quite a bit different. How the Democrats can find
anything good about their behavior with regards to scandals
concerning their own people in Congress (or in the Executive
branch) is a mystery.
Look at Reynolds. Caught screwing a female page, arrested, tried, convicted
of sex crimes, sent to prison. Pardoned by Bill Clinton. Hired by Jessie
Jackson to work with children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Sturgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
09 Oct 2006 10:16:44 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 02:46:19 GMT, "Morton Davis"
<antikerry@go.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:4f3ji2tbda77ceh49upo1alnv33aqp9535@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 14:51:00 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
(snips)
Sounds like you're taking it personally.
Sounds like you don't have anything but Limbaugh talking points.
Studds was wrong for having a sexual relationship with a subordinate. He
was
censured. End of story.
Yes, that WAS the end of the story. The Democratic
congressional leadership did not hound him out of office.
They didn't investigate him. His idiotic Democratic voters
in MA re-elected him, over and over again. When the
Republican got caught, he was out.
The current situation is different. Yes, the relationship was
innapropriate.
But the cover up was heinous.
WHAT "coverup"??? When the Republican congressional
leadership found out, Foley was OUT. Studds was allowed to
stay, and helped in his re-election. So yes, the situation
is quite a bit different. How the Democrats can find
anything good about their behavior with regards to scandals
concerning their own people in Congress (or in the Executive
branch) is a mystery.
Look at Reynolds. Caught screwing a female page, arrested, tried, convicted
of sex crimes, sent to prison. Pardoned by Bill Clinton. Hired by Jessie
Jackson to work with children.
They protect their perverts and various other sexual
offenders. The Republicans get rid of theirs.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: NeoCon Robert Sturgeon Lie of the Day: GOP Don't Protect Their Sexual Offenders (GOP=God's Own Pedophiles) |
09 Oct 2006 10:42:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:16:44 -0700, Robert Sturgeon
<rsturge@inreach.com> wrote:
They protect their perverts and various other sexual
offenders. The Republicans get rid of theirs.
You mean like this?
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/tom-reynolds-r-ny-chose-to-keep-don.html
"Tom Reynolds (R-NY) chose to keep Don Sherwood (R-PA) in key GOP
leadership job after Sherwood allegedly beat and tried to strangle his
mistress"
....
An article dated 2005 from Sherwood's local paper informing us that
the National Republican Congressional Committee decided to keep
Sherwood in a leadership position even after they learned of
Sherwood's alleged attempt to strangle his not-at-all-alleged
mistress, a woman he allegedly beat for five years.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2749 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
08 Oct 2006 10:19:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 02:46:19 GMT, "Morton Davis" <antikerry@go.com>
wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:4f3ji2tbda77ceh49upo1alnv33aqp9535@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 14:51:00 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
(snips)
Sounds like you're taking it personally.
Sounds like you don't have anything but Limbaugh talking points.
Studds was wrong for having a sexual relationship with a subordinate. He
was
censured. End of story.
Yes, that WAS the end of the story. The Democratic
congressional leadership did not hound him out of office.
They didn't investigate him. His idiotic Democratic voters
in MA re-elected him, over and over again. When the
Republican got caught, he was out.
The current situation is different. Yes, the relationship was
innapropriate.
But the cover up was heinous.
WHAT "coverup"??? When the Republican congressional
leadership found out, Foley was OUT. Studds was allowed to
stay, and helped in his re-election. So yes, the situation
is quite a bit different. How the Democrats can find
anything good about their behavior with regards to scandals
concerning their own people in Congress (or in the Executive
branch) is a mystery.
Look at Reynolds. Caught screwing a female page, arrested, tried, convicted
of sex crimes, sent to prison. Pardoned by Bill Clinton. Hired by Jessie
Jackson to work with children.
Look at GOP Reynolds, know about Foley's pedophile ways years in
advance, said nothing, took his money, hired his staff, and helped
cover up his crimes.
GOP=God's Own Pedophiles.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2737 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
26 Oct 2006 06:47:29 PM |
|
|
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:4f3ji2tbda77ceh49upo1alnv33aqp9535@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 14:51:00 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
(snips)
Sounds like you're taking it personally.
Sounds like you don't have anything but Limbaugh talking points.
Studds was wrong for having a sexual relationship with a subordinate. He
was
censured. End of story.
Yes, that WAS the end of the story. The Democratic
congressional leadership did not hound him out of office.
They didn't investigate him. His idiotic Democratic voters
in MA re-elected him, over and over again. When the
Republican got caught, he was out.
Small detail: what Studds did was not illegal, what Foley did almost
certainly was. Neither will get my vote as citizen of the year.
The current situation is different. Yes, the relationship was
innapropriate.
But the cover up was heinous.
WHAT "coverup"??? When the Republican congressional
leadership found out, Foley was OUT.
A mere 1 - 5 years later, and ONLY after it was broadcast on
national TV, that national TV having refused a bribe to keep it
off the air.
Studds was allowed to
stay, and helped in his re-election. So yes, the situation
is quite a bit different. How the Democrats can find
anything good about their behavior with regards to scandals
concerning their own people in Congress (or in the Executive
branch) is a mystery.
And therein lies the rub, you really cannot understand the difference.
Dan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
08 Oct 2006 10:27:21 PM |
|
|
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:4f3ji2tbda77ceh49upo1alnv33aqp9535@4ax.com...
Yes, that WAS the end of the story. The Democratic
congressional leadership did not hound him out of office.
He did not commit a crime.
They didn't investigate him. His idiotic Democratic voters
in MA re-elected him, over and over again. When the
Republican got caught, he was out.
What Republican? You mean Foley? He resigned.
The current situation is different. Yes, the relationship was
innapropriate.
But the cover up was heinous.
WHAT "coverup"??? When the Republican congressional
leadership found out, Foley was OUT.
He resigned. Now the Republican leadership is covering their collective *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Sturgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
09 Oct 2006 10:20:42 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:27:21 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:4f3ji2tbda77ceh49upo1alnv33aqp9535@4ax.com...
Yes, that WAS the end of the story. The Democratic
congressional leadership did not hound him out of office.
He did not commit a crime.
Since he actually had sex with a 17 y.o. page, and Foley
only sent emails and IMs, he certainly must have come closer
to some sort of criminal activity than Foley did. And the
results? Foley -- out. Studds -- several more terms in
office. The differences between the two parties is rather
obvious here, and how Democrats can possibly imagine that
they're looking better is a complete mystery.
They didn't investigate him. His idiotic Democratic voters
in MA re-elected him, over and over again. When the
Republican got caught, he was out.
What Republican? You mean Foley? He resigned.
The current situation is different. Yes, the relationship was
innapropriate.
But the cover up was heinous.
WHAT "coverup"??? When the Republican congressional
leadership found out, Foley was OUT.
He resigned. Now the Republican leadership is covering their collective *****.
You are blind to reality. Seek help.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
09 Oct 2006 03:16:36 PM |
|
|
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:ovpki29k80lebnoo5330r33oh9nkpk89d3@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:27:21 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:4f3ji2tbda77ceh49upo1alnv33aqp9535@4ax.com...
Yes, that WAS the end of the story. The Democratic
congressional leadership did not hound him out of office.
He did not commit a crime.
Since he actually had sex with a 17 y.o. page, and Foley
only sent emails and IMs, he certainly must have come closer
to some sort of criminal activity than Foley did.
See. That's where you're wrong. Studds did not commit a crime. He displayed
an amazing lack of judgement, but did not commit a crime.
Whether or not Foley committed a crime, I don't know.
And the
results? Foley -- out.
He resigned. How is that the Dems fault.
Studds -- several more terms in office.
You'll have to take that to the voters on Martha's Vineyard. Again, not the
Dems fault. If anything, blame the Republicans for not fielding a candidate.
The differences between the two parties is rather
obvious here, and how Democrats can possibly imagine that
they're looking better is a complete mystery.
The differences are not what you seem to think they are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Sturgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
09 Oct 2006 05:03:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:16:36 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:ovpki29k80lebnoo5330r33oh9nkpk89d3@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:27:21 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:4f3ji2tbda77ceh49upo1alnv33aqp9535@4ax.com...
Yes, that WAS the end of the story. The Democratic
congressional leadership did not hound him out of office.
He did not commit a crime.
Since he actually had sex with a 17 y.o. page, and Foley
only sent emails and IMs, he certainly must have come closer
to some sort of criminal activity than Foley did.
See. That's where you're wrong. Studds did not commit a crime. He displayed
an amazing lack of judgement, but did not commit a crime.
Whether or not Foley committed a crime, I don't know.
I don't either. If he did, I hope he goes to prison. But
then, I also hoped the various Democratic criminals went to
prison. They very seldom did. On the other hand, the
supporters of the various Democrat bad boys not only didn't
want them to go to prison -- they wanted them to stay in
office.
And the
results? Foley -- out.
He resigned. How is that the Dems fault.
It has nothing to do with the Democrats. So it isn't to
their credit, either.
Studds -- several more terms in office.
You'll have to take that to the voters on Martha's Vineyard.
Who are overwhelmingly Democrats...
Again, not the
Dems fault.
It's the fault of those Democrats in MA who continued to
vote for him.
If anything, blame the Republicans for not fielding a candidate.
In MA, it wouldn't matter.
The differences between the two parties is rather
obvious here, and how Democrats can possibly imagine that
they're looking better is a complete mystery.
The differences are not what you seem to think they are.
One party protects, celebrates, and re-elects their
predators, perverts, adulterers, et al. The other makes
them resign. The difference seems obvious enough.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
09 Oct 2006 06:54:10 PM |
|
|
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:08hli2t4kh8sp8q5k3i61doidk9d8iic8j@4ax.com...
I don't either. If he did, I hope he goes to prison. But
then, I also hoped the various Democratic criminals went to
prison. They very seldom did. On the other hand, the
supporters of the various Democrat bad boys not only didn't
want them to go to prison -- they wanted them to stay in
office.
For instance?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Sturgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
10 Oct 2006 09:30:39 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:54:10 -0700, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:08hli2t4kh8sp8q5k3i61doidk9d8iic8j@4ax.com...
I don't either. If he did, I hope he goes to prison. But
then, I also hoped the various Democratic criminals went to
prison. They very seldom did. On the other hand, the
supporters of the various Democrat bad boys not only didn't
want them to go to prison -- they wanted them to stay in
office.
For instance?
You're joking, right? Bill Clinton, Gary Studds, Barnie
Franks, Ted Kennedy, Wilber Mills, I could go on, but it
would require me to do some Googling, and you wouldn't pay
any attention to the results anyway. The Democrats have a
long history of protecting their bad boys, only dumping the
REALLY bad ones, so when they now pretend to be in high
dudgeon over this Foley fellow, they just look ridiculous.
If they wanted to be our moral guardians, well, they're a
little late to the party.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
10 Oct 2006 07:36:44 PM |
|
|
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:4abni2perf5dbgktsc1v1c083co81mda72@4ax.com...
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:54:10 -0700, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:08hli2t4kh8sp8q5k3i61doidk9d8iic8j@4ax.com...
I don't either. If he did, I hope he goes to prison. But
then, I also hoped the various Democratic criminals went to
prison. They very seldom did. On the other hand, the
supporters of the various Democrat bad boys not only didn't
want them to go to prison -- they wanted them to stay in
office.
For instance?
You're joking, right? Bill Clinton
Witch hunt totally irrelevent to the investigation which turned up nothing
germane.
Gary Studds
What crime?
Barnie Franks
What crime?
Ted Kennedy
Left the scene of a fatal accident. Should have paid a price. I'll give you
that one.
Wilber Mills
What crime?
So what's the point of this obfuscation? Are you implying that Republican
have always paid the price for their crimes?
All one has to say is Richard Nixon, who would have certainly been convicted
of felony conspiracy had he not been pardoned by Ford.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Sturgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
11 Oct 2006 09:28:58 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:36:44 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:4abni2perf5dbgktsc1v1c083co81mda72@4ax.com...
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:54:10 -0700, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:08hli2t4kh8sp8q5k3i61doidk9d8iic8j@4ax.com...
I don't either. If he did, I hope he goes to prison. But
then, I also hoped the various Democratic criminals went to
prison. They very seldom did. On the other hand, the
supporters of the various Democrat bad boys not only didn't
want them to go to prison -- they wanted them to stay in
office.
For instance?
You're joking, right? Bill Clinton
Witch hunt totally irrelevent to the investigation which turned up nothing
germane.
He lied under oath. What part of that don't you understand?
Gary Studds
What crime?
I'd have to search the DC laws, but I'm sure he did
something unlawful. :-)
Barnie Franks
See above. Oh, and there was that minor matter of allowing
a house of prostitution to exist in his house. That will
get YOU in trouble, but not a big time Democratic
politician.
What crime?
Ted Kennedy
Left the scene of a fatal accident. Should have paid a price. I'll give you
that one.
Wilber Mills
What crime?
Public intoxication, solicitation of prostitution, adultery
(you know adultery IS a crime in DC, right?).
So what's the point of this obfuscation? Are you implying that Republican
have always paid the price for their crimes?
No, they certainly have not. The difference that is
unescapable is that the Republicans USUALLY force their bad
boys out of office (including Nixon), while the Democrats
usually help theirs stick around. Just compare and contrast
how the Republicans responded to Nixon's trouble (went to
him and got him to quit) and how the Democrats responded to
Clinton's (rallied around him and saved him). If you don't
see a difference, you just aren't looking.
All one has to say is Richard Nixon, who would have certainly been convicted
of felony conspiracy had he not been pardoned by Ford.
That's right. We could fill up the Federal prisons with
politicians guilty of felony conspiracy, if we tried. Do
you think there's any chance of that happening?
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
14 Oct 2006 02:57:11 PM |
|
|
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:j2vpi25nldl3kqqphdbeep6ugvi31hon6c@4ax.com...
Witch hunt totally irrelevent to the investigation which turned up nothing
germane.
He lied under oath. What part of that don't you understand?
He lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinski which was completely
irrelevant to the investigation of Whitewater.
Gary Studds
What crime?
I'd have to search the DC laws, but I'm sure he did
something unlawful. :-)
Let us know when you find something.
Barnie Franks
See above. Oh, and there was that minor matter of allowing
a house of prostitution to exist in his house. That will
get YOU in trouble, but not a big time Democratic
politician.
He didn't allow it. Once he found out about it, he kicked the guy out.
What crime?
Ted Kennedy
Left the scene of a fatal accident. Should have paid a price. I'll give
you
that one.
Wilber Mills
What crime?
Public intoxication, solicitation of prostitution, adultery
(you know adultery IS a crime in DC, right?).
Really? Can you give me a cite?
So what's the point of this obfuscation? Are you implying that Republican
have always paid the price for their crimes?
No, they certainly have not. The difference that is
unescapable is that the Republicans USUALLY force their bad
boys out of office (including Nixon), while the Democrats
ROFL...yeah, Republicans forced Nixon out. Keep dreaming.
How about Hastert changing the rules in the House to save Delay's *****?
usually help theirs stick around. Just compare and contrast
how the Republicans responded to Nixon's trouble (went to
him and got him to quit) and how the Democrats responded to
Clinton's (rallied around him and saved him). If you don't
see a difference, you just aren't looking.
There are plenty of differences. Clinton got a *****. Nixon was about to
be impeached and convicted of felony conspiracy.
All one has to say is Richard Nixon, who would have certainly been
convicted
of felony conspiracy had he not been pardoned by Ford.
That's right. We could fill up the Federal prisons with
politicians guilty of felony conspiracy, if we tried. Do
you think there's any chance of that happening?
Yep...plenty of Republicans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Sturgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
14 Oct 2006 04:47:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:57:11 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:j2vpi25nldl3kqqphdbeep6ugvi31hon6c@4ax.com...
Witch hunt totally irrelevent to the investigation which turned up nothing
germane.
He lied under oath. What part of that don't you understand?
He lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinski which was completely
irrelevant to the investigation of Whitewater.
That wasn't about Whitewater. It was about Paula Jones'
sexual harassment suit, so Clinton's sexual history WAS
germane. You have bought into MoveOn's party line. Think
for yourself for a change.
(rest snipped)
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
14 Oct 2006 05:56:37 PM |
|
|
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:gjm2j29iegrl65lcae7bhha3sumo1qje35@4ax.com...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:57:11 -0400, "Geoff"
<geoff@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robert Sturgeon" <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:j2vpi25nldl3kqqphdbeep6ugvi31hon6c@4ax.com...
Witch hunt totally irrelevent to the investigation which turned up
nothing
germane.
He lied under oath. What part of that don't you understand?
He lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinski which was completely
irrelevant to the investigation of Whitewater.
That wasn't about Whitewater. It was about Paula Jones'
sexual harassment suit
I stand corrected.
so Clinton's sexual history WAS
germane. You have bought into MoveOn's party line. Think
for yourself for a change.
Seeing as I've never read anything by MoveOn.org, that's probably unlikely.
It's more likely the result of fading memory. Eight years is a long time.
(rest snipped)
OK...I'll assume you agree with me then.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bradley K. Sherman" |
|
| Title: Re: How To Ensure Your Children's Safety |
10 Oct 2006 10:00:27 AM |
|
|
In article <4abni2perf5dbgktsc1v1c083co81mda72@4ax.com>,
Robert Sturgeon <rsturge@inreach.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:54:10 -0700, "Geoff"
Better turn on your TV, Robert. Hastert just changed
his story --again.
--bks
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
