| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
| Date: |
07 Oct 2006 11:41:13 AM |
| Object: |
Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock ....
Cheers!
-- Marvie
---------------------------------------
Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off
By Jonathan Weisman
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON - House Speaker Dennis Hastert's chief of staff confronted
then-Rep. Mark Foley about inappropriate social contact with male pages
well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a
current congressional staff member said Friday.
The staff member, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Hastert's
chief of staff, Scott Palmer, met with Foley at the Capitol to discuss
complaints about the Florida Republican's behavior.
The alleged meeting occurred long before Hastert says aides in his
office dispatched Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., and the clerk of the House
in November 2005 to confront Foley about troubling e-mails he had sent
to a Louisiana boy.
The staff member's account supports Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk
Fordham, who said this week that he had appealed to Palmer in 2003 or
earlier to intervene, after Fordham's efforts to stop Foley's behavior
had failed. Fordham said Foley and Palmer, one of the most powerful
figures in the House, met within days to discuss the allegations.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003293173_foley07.html
.
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
07 Oct 2006 11:56:51 AM |
|
|
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Yes, Woods already started a thread on this topic, and I've already
addressed it.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
Or so says some anonymous aide, whom you obviously believe even though
there is no evidence to back up the anonymous aide, whom you obviously
believe because you want to.
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
What behavior? Please explain *exactly* what behavior we're talking
about here. The problem with this debate is the lack of specificity in
*exactly* what behavior was discussed at what particular time. So
please explain the behavior you're talking about. Thank you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
07 Oct 2006 09:00:02 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Yes, Woods already started a thread on this topic, and I've already
addressed it.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
Or so says some anonymous aide, whom you obviously believe even though
there is no evidence to back up the anonymous aide, whom you obviously
believe because you want to.
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
What behavior? Please explain *exactly* what behavior we're talking
about here.
You know, you're like the only person in the USA who doesn't know
what we're talking about. How bizarre.
The problem with this debate is the lack of specificity in
*exactly* what behavior was discussed at what particular time. So
please explain the behavior you're talking about. Thank you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
08 Oct 2006 01:25:51 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Yes, Woods already started a thread on this topic, and I've already
addressed it.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
Or so says some anonymous aide, whom you obviously believe even though
there is no evidence to back up the anonymous aide, whom you obviously
believe because you want to.
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
What behavior? Please explain *exactly* what behavior we're talking
about here.
You know, you're like the only person in the USA who doesn't know
what we're talking about. How bizarre.
I know that you're all talking in platitudes ("Foley's behavior;
Hastert knew") and generalities ("Foley's 'inappropriate' behavior;
Hastert knew"), but I want specifics. I've asked each of you several
times to come up with specifics, but so far not one of you has been
able to do that. Look, you even left this at the bottom of your post
with no response:
The problem with this debate is the lack of specificity in
*exactly* what behavior was discussed at what particular time. So
please explain the behavior you're talking about. Thank you.
Not one response from any of you. Why can't one of you answer the
questions I've been asking? Just explain exactly what you think Hastert
knew, and when he knew it. And be sure to back up your claims with
evidence and sources. Is that too difficult for you lame brains?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
08 Oct 2006 06:03:06 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:25:51 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Yes, Woods already started a thread on this topic, and I've already
addressed it.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
Or so says some anonymous aide, whom you obviously believe even though
there is no evidence to back up the anonymous aide, whom you obviously
believe because you want to.
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
What behavior? Please explain *exactly* what behavior we're talking
about here.
You know, you're like the only person in the USA who doesn't know
what we're talking about. How bizarre.
I know that you're all talking in platitudes ("Foley's behavior;
Hastert knew") and generalities ("Foley's 'inappropriate' behavior;
Hastert knew"), but I want specifics. I've asked each of you several
times to come up with specifics, but so far not one of you has been
able to do that. Look, you even left this at the bottom of your post
with no response:
All we know is (1)they knew about the contents of the original email
(which should have been a red flag, even if they did NOT know about
anything else and (2)that Republicans making the claims felt that Foley's
behavior was inappropriate with regards to the pages. If you want the
details on what Foley was doing with the pages, you'll have to ask the
Republicans who are making the claims. What we do know is that it was a
recurring problem that the Republicans felt they had to deal with, and
Foley was "spoken to" on several occasions to cease and desist whatever
behavior he was engaging in with the pages.
Do we really need to know the details of his behavior? Isn't knowing that
he had to be called in and spoken to about his activities with pages
sufficient to realize that the Republican leadership already knew there
was an issue there? For most rational people, the answer to that question
is yes, that's more than enough.
The problem with this debate is the lack of specificity in *exactly*
what behavior was discussed at what particular time. So please
explain the behavior you're talking about. Thank you.
Not one response from any of you. Why can't one of you answer the
questions I've been asking? Just explain exactly what you think Hastert
knew, and when he knew it. And be sure to back up your claims with
evidence and sources. Is that too difficult for you lame brains?
You been given that a number of times, you just keep dodging reality.
Really, for someone who's desperate to cover for them, you sure seem to be
bent on dragging this out as long as possible.
Here - let me simplify:
Hastert was aware of an inappropriate, even bizarre, email to an underage
page that freaked the page out, and alarmed the page's sponsor. He did
absolutely nothing. Nor did Shimkus, the head of the page board. All
Reynolds did was to pass the buck. That's JUST on the email, mind.
It has since come out that there was a lot more going on than just "overly
friendly" emails, and when that came out, the Republican leadership not
only turned on each other, but couldn't keep their stories straight.
Again, that's just about the emails, nothing else.
There's lots more, and if you want to continue to insist you don't
understand what the problem is and demand details about the entire
FoleyGate scandal, go right ahead and do so. I'm sure you can keep it
going right up through election day ...
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
08 Oct 2006 03:07:04 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun
<woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:25:51 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe
and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Yes, Woods already started a thread on this topic, and I've already
addressed it.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
Or so says some anonymous aide, whom you obviously believe even
though
there is no evidence to back up the anonymous aide, whom you
obviously
believe because you want to.
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
What behavior? Please explain *exactly* what behavior we're talking
about here.
You know, you're like the only person in the USA who doesn't know
what we're talking about. How bizarre.
I know that you're all talking in platitudes ("Foley's behavior;
Hastert knew") and generalities ("Foley's 'inappropriate' behavior;
Hastert knew"), but I want specifics. I've asked each of you several
times to come up with specifics, but so far not one of you has been
able to do that. Look, you even left this at the bottom of your post
with no response:
All we know is (1)they knew about the contents of the original email
(which should have been a red flag, even if they did NOT know about
anything else and (2)that Republicans making the claims felt that
Foley's
behavior was inappropriate with regards to the pages. If you want the
details on what Foley was doing with the pages, you'll have to ask the
Republicans who are making the claims. What we do know is that it was a
recurring problem that the Republicans felt they had to deal with, and
Foley was "spoken to" on several occasions to cease and desist whatever
behavior he was engaging in with the pages.
Do we really need to know the details of his behavior? Isn't knowing
that
he had to be called in and spoken to about his activities with pages
sufficient to realize that the Republican leadership already knew there
was an issue there? For most rational people, the answer to that
question
is yes, that's more than enough.
The problem with this debate is the lack of specificity in *exactly*
what behavior was discussed at what particular time. So please
explain the behavior you're talking about. Thank you.
Not one response from any of you. Why can't one of you answer the
questions I've been asking? Just explain exactly what you think Hastert
knew, and when he knew it. And be sure to back up your claims with
evidence and sources. Is that too difficult for you lame brains?
You been given that a number of times, you just keep dodging reality.
Really, for someone who's desperate to cover for them, you sure seem to
be
bent on dragging this out as long as possible.
Here - let me simplify:
Hastert was aware of an inappropriate, even bizarre, email to an
underage
page that freaked the page out, and alarmed the page's sponsor. He did
absolutely nothing. Nor did Shimkus, the head of the page board. All
Reynolds did was to pass the buck. That's JUST on the email, mind.
Stephen's response to this one is that the page's parents asked
to not have this information come public (as if this makes Foley's
actions somehow ok), and Stephen equates this request to the
Republican House leaders not doing ANYTHING to stop Foley's activities.
Foley's perverted overtures could have been stopped without any of
it going public... the House leaders just needed to apply the right
kind of pressure (but it appears they just turned a blind eye to it).
The Republicans have collectively shot themselves in the foot.
It has since come out that there was a lot more going on than just
"overly
friendly" emails, and when that came out, the Republican leadership not
only turned on each other, but couldn't keep their stories straight.
Again, that's just about the emails, nothing else.
There's lots more, and if you want to continue to insist you don't
understand what the problem is and demand details about the entire
FoleyGate scandal, go right ahead and do so. I'm sure you can keep it
going right up through election day ...
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
09 Oct 2006 07:17:56 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:07:04 -0500, Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun
<woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:25:51 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe
and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Yes, Woods already started a thread on this topic, and I've already
addressed it.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
Or so says some anonymous aide, whom you obviously believe even
though
there is no evidence to back up the anonymous aide, whom you
obviously
believe because you want to.
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
What behavior? Please explain *exactly* what behavior we're talking
about here.
You know, you're like the only person in the USA who doesn't know
what we're talking about. How bizarre.
I know that you're all talking in platitudes ("Foley's behavior;
Hastert knew") and generalities ("Foley's 'inappropriate' behavior;
Hastert knew"), but I want specifics. I've asked each of you several
times to come up with specifics, but so far not one of you has been
able to do that. Look, you even left this at the bottom of your post
with no response:
All we know is (1)they knew about the contents of the original email
(which should have been a red flag, even if they did NOT know about
anything else and (2)that Republicans making the claims felt that
Foley's
behavior was inappropriate with regards to the pages. If you want the
details on what Foley was doing with the pages, you'll have to ask the
Republicans who are making the claims. What we do know is that it was a
recurring problem that the Republicans felt they had to deal with, and
Foley was "spoken to" on several occasions to cease and desist whatever
behavior he was engaging in with the pages.
Do we really need to know the details of his behavior? Isn't knowing
that
he had to be called in and spoken to about his activities with pages
sufficient to realize that the Republican leadership already knew there
was an issue there? For most rational people, the answer to that
question
is yes, that's more than enough.
The problem with this debate is the lack of specificity in *exactly*
what behavior was discussed at what particular time. So please
explain the behavior you're talking about. Thank you.
Not one response from any of you. Why can't one of you answer the
questions I've been asking? Just explain exactly what you think Hastert
knew, and when he knew it. And be sure to back up your claims with
evidence and sources. Is that too difficult for you lame brains?
You been given that a number of times, you just keep dodging reality.
Really, for someone who's desperate to cover for them, you sure seem to
be
bent on dragging this out as long as possible.
Here - let me simplify:
Hastert was aware of an inappropriate, even bizarre, email to an
underage
page that freaked the page out, and alarmed the page's sponsor. He did
absolutely nothing. Nor did Shimkus, the head of the page board. All
Reynolds did was to pass the buck. That's JUST on the email, mind.
Stephen's response to this one is that the page's parents asked
to not have this information come public (as if this makes Foley's
actions somehow ok), and Stephen equates this request to the
Republican House leaders not doing ANYTHING to stop Foley's activities.
Foley's perverted overtures could have been stopped without any of
it going public... the House leaders just needed to apply the right
kind of pressure (but it appears they just turned a blind eye to it).
The Republicans have collectively shot themselves in the foot.
Apparently, another Congressman (Republican) knew about Foley sending
sexually explicit stuff back in 2000 and did no more than talk to Foley.
From
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800855.html
"A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages
shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The
Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted."
Between that, North Korean nuclear test and the failures in
Iraq, etc, .... well, it's just ridiculous, is all.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
09 Oct 2006 08:28:25 AM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:07:04 -0500, Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun
<woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:25:51 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe
and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Yes, Woods already started a thread on this topic, and I've already
addressed it.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
Or so says some anonymous aide, whom you obviously believe even
though
there is no evidence to back up the anonymous aide, whom you
obviously
believe because you want to.
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
What behavior? Please explain *exactly* what behavior we're talking
about here.
You know, you're like the only person in the USA who doesn't know
what we're talking about. How bizarre.
I know that you're all talking in platitudes ("Foley's behavior;
Hastert knew") and generalities ("Foley's 'inappropriate' behavior;
Hastert knew"), but I want specifics. I've asked each of you several
times to come up with specifics, but so far not one of you has been
able to do that. Look, you even left this at the bottom of your post
with no response:
All we know is (1)they knew about the contents of the original email
(which should have been a red flag, even if they did NOT know about
anything else and (2)that Republicans making the claims felt that
Foley's
behavior was inappropriate with regards to the pages. If you want the
details on what Foley was doing with the pages, you'll have to ask the
Republicans who are making the claims. What we do know is that it was a
recurring problem that the Republicans felt they had to deal with, and
Foley was "spoken to" on several occasions to cease and desist whatever
behavior he was engaging in with the pages.
Do we really need to know the details of his behavior? Isn't knowing
that
he had to be called in and spoken to about his activities with pages
sufficient to realize that the Republican leadership already knew there
was an issue there? For most rational people, the answer to that
question
is yes, that's more than enough.
The problem with this debate is the lack of specificity in *exactly*
what behavior was discussed at what particular time. So please
explain the behavior you're talking about. Thank you.
Not one response from any of you. Why can't one of you answer the
questions I've been asking? Just explain exactly what you think Hastert
knew, and when he knew it. And be sure to back up your claims with
evidence and sources. Is that too difficult for you lame brains?
You been given that a number of times, you just keep dodging reality.
Really, for someone who's desperate to cover for them, you sure seem to
be
bent on dragging this out as long as possible.
Here - let me simplify:
Hastert was aware of an inappropriate, even bizarre, email to an
underage
page that freaked the page out, and alarmed the page's sponsor. He did
absolutely nothing. Nor did Shimkus, the head of the page board. All
Reynolds did was to pass the buck. That's JUST on the email, mind.
Stephen's response to this one is that the page's parents asked
to not have this information come public (as if this makes Foley's
actions somehow ok), and Stephen equates this request to the
Republican House leaders not doing ANYTHING to stop Foley's activities.
Foley's perverted overtures could have been stopped without any of
it going public... the House leaders just needed to apply the right
kind of pressure (but it appears they just turned a blind eye to it).
The Republicans have collectively shot themselves in the foot.
Apparently, another Congressman (Republican) knew about Foley sending
sexually explicit stuff back in 2000 and did no more than talk to Foley.
From
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800855.html
"A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages
shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The
Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted."
Between that, North Korean nuclear test and the failures in
Iraq, etc, .... well, it's just ridiculous, is all.
Woods
And the thing is, it's not just us fringe, extreme leftists who find
Bush's leadership to be a failure but Bush's right-of-center,
pluralist, compassionate conservative base is starting to see his
policies as complete failures with little to no hope of ever
succeeding.
The man is a disaster. The writing is on the wall -- the Religious
Right take-over of the Republican Party has run it's course and that
course has ended in the disaster that you see before you now. If Bush
wasn't a born-again Christian he would never have been chosen to
represent the GOP.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
09 Oct 2006 09:16:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 06:28:25 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Apparently, another Congressman (Republican) knew about Foley sending
sexually explicit stuff back in 2000 and did no more than talk to Foley.
From
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800855.html
"A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages
shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The
Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted."
Between that, North Korean nuclear test and the failures in
Iraq, etc, .... well, it's just ridiculous, is all.
Woods
And the thing is, it's not just us fringe, extreme leftists who find
Bush's leadership to be a failure but Bush's right-of-center,
pluralist, compassionate conservative base is starting to see his
policies as complete failures with little to no hope of ever
succeeding.
The man is a disaster. The writing is on the wall -- the Religious
Right take-over of the Republican Party has run it's course and that
course has ended in the disaster that you see before you now. If Bush
wasn't a born-again Christian he would never have been chosen to
represent the GOP.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
It's only disastrous for them because they've been portraying themselves
as the "family values" party, and the party with a plan to secure America
- and it's being demonstrated quite clearly that they are neither. A
politician, or a political party, can survive a lot of scandal, but not if
the scandal involves something that's in direct opposition to the party's
stated platform - I mean, that's what they're voted in on, so why would
anyone continue to support them once their actions demonstrate the
contrary? In fact, human nature is such that the reaction is much stronger
in opposition when one is disappointed than if the expectation was never
raised in the first place.
Hatred and love are very strong and, therefore, closely related on the
emotions, it's *apathy* that's the opposite of love. Love can quickly
morph into hate, as many of us have seen in divorces - and it can last a
very long time.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
09 Oct 2006 10:00:06 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 06:28:25 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Apparently, another Congressman (Republican) knew about Foley sending
sexually explicit stuff back in 2000 and did no more than talk to Foley.
From
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800855.html
"A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages
shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The
Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted."
Between that, North Korean nuclear test and the failures in
Iraq, etc, .... well, it's just ridiculous, is all.
Woods
And the thing is, it's not just us fringe, extreme leftists who find
Bush's leadership to be a failure but Bush's right-of-center,
pluralist, compassionate conservative base is starting to see his
policies as complete failures with little to no hope of ever
succeeding.
The man is a disaster. The writing is on the wall -- the Religious
Right take-over of the Republican Party has run it's course and that
course has ended in the disaster that you see before you now. If Bush
wasn't a born-again Christian he would never have been chosen to
represent the GOP.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
It's only disastrous for them because they've been portraying themselves
as the "family values" party, and the party with a plan to secure America
- and it's being demonstrated quite clearly that they are neither. A
politician, or a political party, can survive a lot of scandal, but not if
the scandal involves something that's in direct opposition to the party's
stated platform - I mean, that's what they're voted in on, so why would
anyone continue to support them once their actions demonstrate the
contrary? In fact, human nature is such that the reaction is much stronger
in opposition when one is disappointed than if the expectation was never
raised in the first place.
Hatred and love are very strong and, therefore, closely related on the
emotions, it's *apathy* that's the opposite of love. Love can quickly
morph into hate, as many of us have seen in divorces - and it can last a
very long time.
So what are you implying with this? That because a couple of gay
Republicans didn't live up to the "family values" plan, conservatives
are going to reject ALL Republicans? Nice try. The Foley case is over.
He resigned as soon as those instant messages were made public (after
someone obviously sat on them for who knows how long, waiting for the
opportune time to release them). As for Kolbe, he'll be gone soon
enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
10 Oct 2006 04:20:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:00:06 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 06:28:25 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Apparently, another Congressman (Republican) knew about Foley sending
sexually explicit stuff back in 2000 and did no more than talk to Foley.
From
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800855.html
"A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages
shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The
Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted."
Between that, North Korean nuclear test and the failures in
Iraq, etc, .... well, it's just ridiculous, is all.
Woods
And the thing is, it's not just us fringe, extreme leftists who find
Bush's leadership to be a failure but Bush's right-of-center,
pluralist, compassionate conservative base is starting to see his
policies as complete failures with little to no hope of ever
succeeding.
The man is a disaster. The writing is on the wall -- the Religious
Right take-over of the Republican Party has run it's course and that
course has ended in the disaster that you see before you now. If Bush
wasn't a born-again Christian he would never have been chosen to
represent the GOP.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
It's only disastrous for them because they've been portraying themselves
as the "family values" party, and the party with a plan to secure America
- and it's being demonstrated quite clearly that they are neither. A
politician, or a political party, can survive a lot of scandal, but not if
the scandal involves something that's in direct opposition to the party's
stated platform - I mean, that's what they're voted in on, so why would
anyone continue to support them once their actions demonstrate the
contrary? In fact, human nature is such that the reaction is much stronger
in opposition when one is disappointed than if the expectation was never
raised in the first place.
Hatred and love are very strong and, therefore, closely related on the
emotions, it's *apathy* that's the opposite of love. Love can quickly
morph into hate, as many of us have seen in divorces - and it can last a
very long time.
So what are you implying with this? That because a couple of gay
Republicans didn't live up to the "family values" plan, conservatives
are going to reject ALL Republicans? Nice try. The Foley case is over.
He resigned as soon as those instant messages were made public (after
someone obviously sat on them for who knows how long, waiting for the
opportune time to release them). As for Kolbe, he'll be gone soon
enough.
What I'm saying is that the politicians who are making noises about
"family values" are willing to lie, cheat, and cover-up for a pedophile
preying on kids than they are in actually upholding what the rest of the
world considers to be "family values".
What Foley did was morally repugnant, but he finally did the right thing
in resigning, and he is no longer an issue unless the FBI finds that he
engaged in criminal activity. At issue is what the REST of the party did
when they knew perfectly well what was going on - which was cover it all
up at the expense of the kids in the page program.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
10 Oct 2006 05:20:01 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 06:28:25 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Apparently, another Congressman (Republican) knew about Foley sending
sexually explicit stuff back in 2000 and did no more than talk to Foley.
From
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800855.html
"A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages
shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The
Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted."
Between that, North Korean nuclear test and the failures in
Iraq, etc, .... well, it's just ridiculous, is all.
Woods
And the thing is, it's not just us fringe, extreme leftists who find
Bush's leadership to be a failure but Bush's right-of-center,
pluralist, compassionate conservative base is starting to see his
policies as complete failures with little to no hope of ever
succeeding.
The man is a disaster. The writing is on the wall -- the Religious
Right take-over of the Republican Party has run it's course and that
course has ended in the disaster that you see before you now. If Bush
wasn't a born-again Christian he would never have been chosen to
represent the GOP.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
It's only disastrous for them because they've been portraying themselves
as the "family values" party, and the party with a plan to secure America
- and it's being demonstrated quite clearly that they are neither. A
politician, or a political party, can survive a lot of scandal, but not if
the scandal involves something that's in direct opposition to the party's
stated platform - I mean, that's what they're voted in on, so why would
anyone continue to support them once their actions demonstrate the
contrary? In fact, human nature is such that the reaction is much stronger
in opposition when one is disappointed than if the expectation was never
raised in the first place.
Hatred and love are very strong and, therefore, closely related on the
emotions, it's *apathy* that's the opposite of love. Love can quickly
morph into hate, as many of us have seen in divorces - and it can last a
very long time.
So what are you implying with this? That because a couple of gay
Republicans didn't live up to the "family values" plan, conservatives
are going to reject ALL Republicans? Nice try. The Foley case is over.
He resigned as soon as those instant messages were made public (after
someone obviously sat on them for who knows how long, waiting for the
opportune time to release them). As for Kolbe, he'll be gone soon
enough.
Equating 'conservatives' with the Republican Party doesn't balance out
anymore I think.
Fiscal conservatives have nothing in common with the current party in
charge.
*If* House leaders or other members of the family value party knew and
did nothing about Foley's e-mails (and only 24% in a recent survey
believe they didn't while 52% thought they did) then 'family values'
conservatives will no longer trust the party.
Republican's trump card, keeping Americans safe, just fell flat on it's
face yesterday when North Korea tested it's first nuclear bomb. Iraq is
a mess and Iran and is resisting international pressure to halt uranium
enrichment. Iran also has a great deal of influence in the M.E. region,
helping Hezbollah in their fight with Israel and supporting and
influencing Iraqi Shiites. And Bush comes across with the same old
slogan's 'Stay The Course', 'Fighting them there ...' , 'As we stand
down, they'll stand up' ....
Bush Sr.'s Sec. of State James Baker has assembled a bipartisan panel
to help Lil' Georgie put his 'Stay The Course' slogan aside and start
dealing with reality. Junior's lost so Daddy's coming to the rescue.
----------
"Stay-the-course" not U.S.'s only Iraq option: Baker
Sun Oct 8, 2006 2:35 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - James Baker, a former U.S. secretary of state
and close political associate of the Bush family, said on Sunday there
are alternatives in Iraq for the United States other than the
"stay-the-course" policy of President George W. Bush's administration.
Baker -- the co-chair of a high-level panel of prominent former
officials charged by members of Congress with taking a fresh look at
America's policy on Iraq, which has support from the White House --
said it would be a mistake for the United States to withdraw from Iraq
over the next year.
But, in an interview on ABC's "This Week," he added, "I happen to
think, and I think it's fair to say our commission believes, that there
are alternatives between the stated alternatives ... of stay-the-course
and cut-and-run."
Read the rest here --
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-10-08T183441Z_01_N08230118_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA.xml&WTmodLoc=USNewsHome_C2_domesticNews-1
----------------------
What kind of conservative could still support the Republican Party?
Cheers!
-- Marvie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
08 Oct 2006 04:55:12 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun
<woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:25:51 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe
and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Yes, Woods already started a thread on this topic, and I've already
addressed it.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
Or so says some anonymous aide, whom you obviously believe even
though
there is no evidence to back up the anonymous aide, whom you
obviously
believe because you want to.
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
What behavior? Please explain *exactly* what behavior we're talking
about here.
You know, you're like the only person in the USA who doesn't know
what we're talking about. How bizarre.
I know that you're all talking in platitudes ("Foley's behavior;
Hastert knew") and generalities ("Foley's 'inappropriate' behavior;
Hastert knew"), but I want specifics. I've asked each of you several
times to come up with specifics, but so far not one of you has been
able to do that. Look, you even left this at the bottom of your post
with no response:
All we know is (1)they knew about the contents of the original email
(which should have been a red flag, even if they did NOT know about
anything else and (2)that Republicans making the claims felt that
Foley's
behavior was inappropriate with regards to the pages. If you want the
details on what Foley was doing with the pages, you'll have to ask the
Republicans who are making the claims. What we do know is that it was a
recurring problem that the Republicans felt they had to deal with, and
Foley was "spoken to" on several occasions to cease and desist whatever
behavior he was engaging in with the pages.
Do we really need to know the details of his behavior? Isn't knowing
that
he had to be called in and spoken to about his activities with pages
sufficient to realize that the Republican leadership already knew there
was an issue there? For most rational people, the answer to that
question
is yes, that's more than enough.
The problem with this debate is the lack of specificity in *exactly*
what behavior was discussed at what particular time. So please
explain the behavior you're talking about. Thank you.
Not one response from any of you. Why can't one of you answer the
questions I've been asking? Just explain exactly what you think Hastert
knew, and when he knew it. And be sure to back up your claims with
evidence and sources. Is that too difficult for you lame brains?
You been given that a number of times, you just keep dodging reality.
Really, for someone who's desperate to cover for them, you sure seem to
be
bent on dragging this out as long as possible.
Here - let me simplify:
Hastert was aware of an inappropriate, even bizarre, email to an
underage
page that freaked the page out, and alarmed the page's sponsor. He did
absolutely nothing. Nor did Shimkus, the head of the page board. All
Reynolds did was to pass the buck. That's JUST on the email, mind.
Stephen's response to this one is that the page's parents asked
to not have this information come public (as if this makes Foley's
actions somehow ok),
Where have I ever said Foley's actions were okay, you Purse-eyed scad?
and Stephen equates this request to the
Republican House leaders not doing ANYTHING to stop Foley's activities.
But they DID stop Foley's activities in that regard, you Purse-eyed
scad.
Foley's perverted overtures could have been stopped without any of
it going public...
Foley's email exchange with the former page in Louisiana WAS stopped,
you Purse-eyed scad.
the House leaders just needed to apply the right
kind of pressure (but it appears they just turned a blind eye to it).
Wrong, you Purse-eyed scad.
The Republicans have collectively shot themselves in the foot.
You're still conflating the original email with the instant messages
because you're an idiot, you Purse-eyed scad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
09 Oct 2006 08:32:56 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Wrong, you Purse-eyed scad.
The Republicans have collectively shot themselves in the foot.
You're still conflating the original email with the instant messages
because you're an idiot, you Purse-eyed scad.
I think Stephen is angry because his beloved 'family value' neocon
congressmen have proven themselves to be little more than lecherous
yes-men bent on retaining power at any cost.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
09 Oct 2006 10:01:29 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Wrong, you Purse-eyed scad.
The Republicans have collectively shot themselves in the foot.
You're still conflating the original email with the instant messages
because you're an idiot, you Purse-eyed scad.
I think Stephen is angry
I'm not angry, Purse-eyed.
because his beloved 'family value' neocon
congressmen have proven themselves to be little more than lecherous
yes-men bent on retaining power at any cost.
Why are you and Woods mocking gay men (Foley and Kolbe)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
10 Oct 2006 06:45:56 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Wrong, you Purse-eyed scad.
The Republicans have collectively shot themselves in the foot.
You're still conflating the original email with the instant messages
because you're an idiot, you Purse-eyed scad.
I think Stephen is angry
I'm not angry, Purse-eyed.
because his beloved 'family value' neocon
congressmen have proven themselves to be little more than lecherous
yes-men bent on retaining power at any cost.
Why are you and Woods mocking gay men (Foley and Kolbe)?
Actually I'm only mocking you for continuing to support
the idiots with blinders on. I thought you caught on quicker
than that Stephen. 'Stay the course' really means 'please
stay seated while we drive over this cliff'.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
08 Oct 2006 04:51:51 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:25:51 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Yes, Woods already started a thread on this topic, and I've already
addressed it.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
Or so says some anonymous aide, whom you obviously believe even though
there is no evidence to back up the anonymous aide, whom you obviously
believe because you want to.
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
What behavior? Please explain *exactly* what behavior we're talking
about here.
You know, you're like the only person in the USA who doesn't know
what we're talking about. How bizarre.
I know that you're all talking in platitudes ("Foley's behavior;
Hastert knew") and generalities ("Foley's 'inappropriate' behavior;
Hastert knew"), but I want specifics. I've asked each of you several
times to come up with specifics, but so far not one of you has been
able to do that. Look, you even left this at the bottom of your post
with no response:
All we know is (1)they knew about the contents of the original email
(which should have been a red flag, even if they did NOT know about
anything else and (2)that Republicans making the claims felt that Foley's
behavior was inappropriate with regards to the pages. If you want the
details on what Foley was doing with the pages, you'll have to ask the
Republicans who are making the claims. What we do know is that it was a
recurring problem that the Republicans felt they had to deal with, and
Foley was "spoken to" on several occasions to cease and desist whatever
behavior he was engaging in with the pages.
We do know that Fordham's original claims about Foley did not include
overtly sexual advances, nor did they include the emails or instant
messages. So what behavior do you think Hastert should resign over?
Specifically, please.
Do we really need to know the details of his behavior? Isn't knowing that
he had to be called in and spoken to about his activities with pages
sufficient to realize that the Republican leadership already knew there
was an issue there? For most rational people, the answer to that question
is yes, that's more than enough.
For behavior that did not include overtly sexual advances, what do you
think should have been done to Foley? Specifically, please.
The problem with this debate is the lack of specificity in *exactly*
what behavior was discussed at what particular time. So please
explain the behavior you're talking about. Thank you.
Not one response from any of you. Why can't one of you answer the
questions I've been asking? Just explain exactly what you think Hastert
knew, and when he knew it. And be sure to back up your claims with
evidence and sources. Is that too difficult for you lame brains?
You been given that a number of times, you just keep dodging reality.
Really, for someone who's desperate to cover for them, you sure seem to be
bent on dragging this out as long as possible.
I'm not covering for anyone. I'd just like to know what specific charge
you have that would require Hastert to resign? Specifically, please.
Here - let me simplify:
Hastert was aware of an inappropriate, even bizarre, email to an underage
page that freaked the page out, and alarmed the page's sponsor. He did
absolutely nothing.
Wrong. Foley was told to stop, and he stopped. Now then, what charge do
you have that would require Hastert to resign? Specifically, please.
Nor did Shimkus, the head of the page board. All
Reynolds did was to pass the buck. That's JUST on the email, mind.
Foley was told to stop, and he stopped.
It has since come out that there was a lot more going on than just "overly
friendly" emails, and when that came out, the Republican leadership not
only turned on each other, but couldn't keep their stories straight.
Again, that's just about the emails, nothing else.
There's lots more, and if you want to continue to insist you don't
understand what the problem is and demand details about the entire
FoleyGate scandal, go right ahead and do so. I'm sure you can keep it
going right up through election day ...
You think I can keep the media interested in this story by posting on
APN? You really think I have that kind of power? Amazing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
08 Oct 2006 02:46:22 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Yes, Woods already started a thread on this topic,
and I've already addressed it.
Translation: You've already parroted the GOP talking
points.
So much for "Fair & Balanced"... SHEESH!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
07 Oct 2006 11:59:22 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:41:13 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock ....
Apparently there's a rumor going around among journalists about another
congressman and a member of the Speaker's staff that have some kind of
page scandal that hasn't been confirmed yet.
See http://americablog.blogspot.com/ and scroll down. (I wouldn't have
put any credence into this blog, but Hastert mentioned him, incorrectly,
as breaking the Foley story, so he must have some real, honest-to-Gawd
credibility).
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
07 Oct 2006 12:18:05 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:41:13 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock ....
Apparently there's a rumor going around among journalists about another
congressman and a member of the Speaker's staff that have some kind of
page scandal that hasn't been confirmed yet.
See http://americablog.blogspot.com/ and scroll down. (I wouldn't have
put any credence into this blog, but Hastert mentioned him, incorrectly,
as breaking the Foley story, so he must have some real, honest-to-Gawd
credibility).
Oh this is good -- start spreading around unsubstantiated rumors. That
blogger is a disingenuous *****. Hastert said something to the effect
that anyone who knew of those instant messages and sat on them should
be investigated. Hastert did not imply that anyone with unsubstantiated
rumors should post them on a blog -- or repeat unsubstantiated rumors
on APN for that matter. But then I'm really starting to doubt your
honesty, Woods. You don't care about the truth, as this entire debate
the past few days demostrates. You only care about political
expediency, and your desperate hope that this scandal is the ticket to
a Democratic majority -- because obviously the Democrats can't win it
on merit. The Democrats have put forth no positive agenda, and are
instead basing their election hopes on scandal. It's a cynical strategy
that might work for the short term.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
07 Oct 2006 12:30:02 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:18:05 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:41:13 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock ....
Apparently there's a rumor going around among journalists about another
congressman and a member of the Speaker's staff that have some kind of
page scandal that hasn't been confirmed yet.
See http://americablog.blogspot.com/ and scroll down. (I wouldn't have
put any credence into this blog, but Hastert mentioned him, incorrectly,
as breaking the Foley story, so he must have some real, honest-to-Gawd
credibility).
Oh this is good -- start spreading around unsubstantiated rumors. That
blogger is a disingenuous *****. Hastert said something to the effect
that anyone who knew of those instant messages and sat on them should
be investigated. Hastert did not imply that anyone with unsubstantiated
rumors should post them on a blog -- or repeat unsubstantiated rumors
on APN for that matter. But then I'm really starting to doubt your
honesty, Woods. You don't care about the truth, as this entire debate
the past few days demostrates. You only care about political
expediency, and your desperate hope that this scandal is the ticket to
a Democratic majority -- because obviously the Democrats can't win it
on merit. The Democrats have put forth no positive agenda, and are
instead basing their election hopes on scandal. It's a cynical strategy
that might work for the short term.
Do try to pay attention to the content instead of trying to attack the
messenger, Steven. That doesn't work on usenet. Besides, I'm just
guessing that the guy gets credible information and only publishes it when
he has sufficient information - it's a place to watch for cutting news.
He indicated he's got the same level of info that he had back in July, so
it's more than just idle gossip.
If you'd bothered to read the comments, instead of frothing like an out of
control astruturfer, you'd have seen the following, which indicates that
something else in in the pipeline, probably what the AmericaBlog was
referring to:
'On this weekend's Chris Matthews show (not Hardball, the other one)
Tucker apparently said this.
This came from the show promo.
TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC:
"Mark Foley's not the only one who behaved in an inappropriate way with
pages. There is at least one other -- a heterosexual -- and his name, I
believe, will come out."'
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
07 Oct 2006 12:38:08 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:18:05 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:41:13 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock ....
Apparently there's a rumor going around among journalists about another
congressman and a member of the Speaker's staff that have some kind of
page scandal that hasn't been confirmed yet.
See http://americablog.blogspot.com/ and scroll down. (I wouldn't have
put any credence into this blog, but Hastert mentioned him, incorrectly,
as breaking the Foley story, so he must have some real, honest-to-Gawd
credibility).
Oh this is good -- start spreading around unsubstantiated rumors. That
blogger is a disingenuous *****. Hastert said something to the effect
that anyone who knew of those instant messages and sat on them should
be investigated. Hastert did not imply that anyone with unsubstantiated
rumors should post them on a blog -- or repeat unsubstantiated rumors
on APN for that matter. But then I'm really starting to doubt your
honesty, Woods. You don't care about the truth, as this entire debate
the past few days demostrates. You only care about political
expediency, and your desperate hope that this scandal is the ticket to
a Democratic majority -- because obviously the Democrats can't win it
on merit. The Democrats have put forth no positive agenda, and are
instead basing their election hopes on scandal. It's a cynical strategy
that might work for the short term.
Do try to pay attention to the content instead of trying to attack the
messenger, Steven. That doesn't work on usenet. Besides, I'm just
guessing that the guy gets credible information and only publishes it when
he has sufficient information - it's a place to watch for cutting news.
Spreading unconfirmed rumors is not news. You've been making stuff up
since the start of this debate, then having to backtrack when shown you
were wrong. So let's let this play out and see what happens.
He indicated he's got the same level of info that he had back in July, so
it's more than just idle gossip.
I've never heard of this blog, so I don't know what level of info he
had back in July. Please explain.
If you'd bothered to read the comments, instead of frothing like an out of
control astruturfer, you'd have seen the following, which indicates that
something else in in the pipeline, probably what the AmericaBlog was
referring to:
'On this weekend's Chris Matthews show (not Hardball, the other one)
Tucker apparently said this.
This came from the show promo.
TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC:
"Mark Foley's not the only one who behaved in an inappropriate way with
pages. There is at least one other -- a heterosexual -- and his name, I
believe, will come out."'
Did he definitely say it was a Republican? Maybe yes, maybe no? Maybe
it's just an unsubstantiated rumor?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
07 Oct 2006 12:53:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:38:08 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:18:05 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:41:13 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock ....
Apparently there's a rumor going around among journalists about another
congressman and a member of the Speaker's staff that have some kind of
page scandal that hasn't been confirmed yet.
See http://americablog.blogspot.com/ and scroll down. (I wouldn't have
put any credence into this blog, but Hastert mentioned him, incorrectly,
as breaking the Foley story, so he must have some real, honest-to-Gawd
credibility).
Oh this is good -- start spreading around unsubstantiated rumors. That
blogger is a disingenuous *****. Hastert said something to the effect
that anyone who knew of those instant messages and sat on them should
be investigated. Hastert did not imply that anyone with unsubstantiated
rumors should post them on a blog -- or repeat unsubstantiated rumors
on APN for that matter. But then I'm really starting to doubt your
honesty, Woods. You don't care about the truth, as this entire debate
the past few days demostrates. You only care about political
expediency, and your desperate hope that this scandal is the ticket to
a Democratic majority -- because obviously the Democrats can't win it
on merit. The Democrats have put forth no positive agenda, and are
instead basing their election hopes on scandal. It's a cynical strategy
that might work for the short term.
Do try to pay attention to the content instead of trying to attack the
messenger, Steven. That doesn't work on usenet. Besides, I'm just
guessing that the guy gets credible information and only publishes it when
he has sufficient information - it's a place to watch for cutting news.
Spreading unconfirmed rumors is not news. You've been making stuff up
since the start of this debate, then having to backtrack when shown you
were wrong. So let's let this play out and see what happens.
He indicated he's got the same level of info that he had back in July, so
it's more than just idle gossip.
I've never heard of this blog, so I don't know what level of info he
had back in July. Please explain.
Well, if you haven't read it, why are you making comments about how
"unsubstantiated" the rumors are? Or, as I suspect, are you deliberately
obfuscating the journalistic meaning of "rumor"? Generally, when a
journalist says there are "rumors" about things, it means that they're
getting information, but it's either stuff that people aren't willing to
go on the record for, or they haven't confirmed with other sources.
Often, journalists will get off-the-record information from a credible
source, and hear the same from other journalists who got the same info
from a different credible source. To a journalist, that's what a 'rumor'
is.
If you'd bothered to read the comments, instead of frothing like an out
of control astruturfer, you'd have seen the following, which indicates
that something else in in the pipeline, probably what the AmericaBlog
was referring to:
'On this weekend's Chris Matthews show (not Hardball, the other one)
Tucker apparently said this.
This came from the show promo.
TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC:
"Mark Foley's not the only one who behaved in an inappropriate way with
pages. There is at least one other -- a heterosexual -- and his name, I
believe, will come out."'
Did he definitely say it was a Republican? Maybe yes, maybe no? Maybe
it's just an unsubstantiated rumor?
It's highly unlikely to be "unsubstantiated", if he went on air with it.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
07 Oct 2006 01:14:41 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:38:08 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:18:05 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:41:13 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock ....
Apparently there's a rumor going around among journalists about another
congressman and a member of the Speaker's staff that have some kind of
page scandal that hasn't been confirmed yet.
See http://americablog.blogspot.com/ and scroll down. (I wouldn't have
put any credence into this blog, but Hastert mentioned him, incorrectly,
as breaking the Foley story, so he must have some real, honest-to-Gawd
credibility).
Oh this is good -- start spreading around unsubstantiated rumors. That
blogger is a disingenuous *****. Hastert said something to the effect
that anyone who knew of those instant messages and sat on them should
be investigated. Hastert did not imply that anyone with unsubstantiated
rumors should post them on a blog -- or repeat unsubstantiated rumors
on APN for that matter. But then I'm really starting to doubt your
honesty, Woods. You don't care about the truth, as this entire debate
the past few days demostrates. You only care about political
expediency, and your desperate hope that this scandal is the ticket to
a Democratic majority -- because obviously the Democrats can't win it
on merit. The Democrats have put forth no positive agenda, and are
instead basing their election hopes on scandal. It's a cynical strategy
that might work for the short term.
Do try to pay attention to the content instead of trying to attack the
messenger, Steven. That doesn't work on usenet. Besides, I'm just
guessing that the guy gets credible information and only publishes it when
he has sufficient information - it's a place to watch for cutting news.
Spreading unconfirmed rumors is not news. You've been making stuff up
since the start of this debate, then having to backtrack when shown you
were wrong. So let's let this play out and see what happens.
He indicated he's got the same level of info that he had back in July, so
it's more than just idle gossip.
I've never heard of this blog, so I don't know what level of info he
had back in July. Please explain.
Well, if you haven't read it, why are you making comments about how
"unsubstantiated" the rumors are?
Because I read the article you pointed to with your link, and here is
what I read:
[quoting the rumor mongering blogger] "I've heard rumors.
Unsubstantiated talk. No proof yet." [end quote]
Did you see that? He used the word "unsubstantiated" himself. So, once
again, you're proven wrong.
Or, as I suspect, are you deliberately obfuscating the
journalistic meaning of "rumor"?
No, I'm merely using the word your own source used. And by the way,
just so you know, bloggers are not journalists. One should not take
everything that shows up in a blog as honest truth, anymore than I take
what I read from all you libs on usenet as honest truth.
Generally, when a journalist says there are "rumors" about things,
it means that they're getting information, but it's either stuff that
people aren't willing to go on the record for, or they haven't
confirmed with other sources.
Journalists do not publish or broadcast unsubstantiated rumors.
Often, journalists will get off-the-record information from a credible
source, and hear the same from other journalists who got the same info
from a different credible source. To a journalist, that's what a 'rumor'
is.
And they don't publish it or broadcast it until they have it confirmed
by independent sources.
If you'd bothered to read the comments, instead of frothing like an out
of control astruturfer, you'd have seen the following, which indicates
that something else in in the pipeline, probably what the AmericaBlog
was referring to:
'On this weekend's Chris Matthews show (not Hardball, the other one)
Tucker apparently said this.
This came from the show promo.
TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC:
"Mark Foley's not the only one who behaved in an inappropriate way with
pages. There is at least one other -- a heterosexual -- and his name, I
believe, will come out."'
Did he definitely say it was a Republican? Maybe yes, maybe no? Maybe
it's just an unsubstantiated rumor?
It's highly unlikely to be "unsubstantiated", if he went on air with it.
Tucker Carlson is a commentator, not a journalist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
07 Oct 2006 01:31:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:14:41 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:38:08 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:18:05 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:41:13 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock ....
Apparently there's a rumor going around among journalists about another
congressman and a member of the Speaker's staff that have some kind of
page scandal that hasn't been confirmed yet.
See http://americablog.blogspot.com/ and scroll down. (I wouldn't have
put any credence into this blog, but Hastert mentioned him, incorrectly,
as breaking the Foley story, so he must have some real, honest-to-Gawd
credibility).
Oh this is good -- start spreading around unsubstantiated rumors. That
blogger is a disingenuous *****. Hastert said something to the effect
that anyone who knew of those instant messages and sat on them should
be investigated. Hastert did not imply that anyone with unsubstantiated
rumors should post them on a blog -- or repeat unsubstantiated rumors
on APN for that matter. But then I'm really starting to doubt your
honesty, Woods. You don't care about the truth, as this entire debate
the past few days demostrates. You only care about political
expediency, and your desperate hope that this scandal is the ticket to
a Democratic majority -- because obviously the Democrats can't win it
on merit. The Democrats have put forth no positive agenda, and are
instead basing their election hopes on scandal. It's a cynical strategy
that might work for the short term.
Do try to pay attention to the content instead of trying to attack the
messenger, Steven. That doesn't work on usenet. Besides, I'm just
guessing that the guy gets credible information and only publishes it when
he has sufficient information - it's a place to watch for cutting news.
Spreading unconfirmed rumors is not news. You've been making stuff up
since the start of this debate, then having to backtrack when shown you
were wrong. So let's let this play out and see what happens.
He indicated he's got the same level of info that he had back in July, so
it's more than just idle gossip.
I've never heard of this blog, so I don't know what level of info he
had back in July. Please explain.
Well, if you haven't read it, why are you making comments about how
"unsubstantiated" the rumors are?
Because I read the article you pointed to with your link, and here is
what I read:
[quoting the rumor mongering blogger] "I've heard rumors.
Unsubstantiated talk. No proof yet." [end quote]
Did you see that? He used the word "unsubstantiated" himself. So, once
again, you're proven wrong.
Unsubstantiated, as in the emails he had in hand were unsubstantiated to
actually be from Foley to an underage page. You're imploding.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
07 Oct 2006 09:07:48 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun
<woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
Did you see that? He used the word "unsubstantiated" himself. So, once
again, you're proven wrong.
Unsubstantiated, as in the emails he had in hand were unsubstantiated to
actually be from Foley to an underage page. You're imploding.
Dr. Dr. help me please, I know you'll understand,
Theres a time device inside of me, I'm a self-destructin' man.
Theres a red under my bed,
And there's a little green man in my head
- Kinks, 'Destroyer'
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Staffer Backs Up Alleged 2003 Foley Face-Off |
07 Oct 2006 01:50:37 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:14:41 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:38:08 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:18:05 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:41:13 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Hastert and his backers are either going to have move quickly in
dealing with this or pull the plug and step aside.
Media reporting seems to be well out in front of the Ethics probe and
it's not looking very promising for the GOP leadership.
Hastert's former Chief Of Staff backs Foley's former Chief Of Staff
that Foley's behaviour was discussed and a request to the GOP
leadership to deal with it was made in 2003.
Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock ....
Apparently there's a rumor going around among journalists about another
congressman and a member of the Speaker's staff that have some kind of
page scandal that hasn't been confirmed yet.
See http://americablog.blogspot.com/ and scroll down. (I wouldn't have
put any credence into this blog, but Hastert mentioned him, incorrectly,
as breaking the Foley story, so he must have some real, honest-to-Gawd
credibility).
Oh this is good -- start spreading around unsubstantiated rumors. That
blogger is a disingenuous *****. Hastert said something to the effect
that anyone who knew of those instant messages and sat on them should
be investigated. Hastert did not imply that anyone with unsubstantiated
rumors should post them on a blog -- or repeat unsubstantiated rumors
on APN for that matter. But then I'm really starting to doubt your
honesty, Woods. You don't care about the truth, as this entire debate
the past few days demostrates. You only care about po | | | | | | | | |
