Author Topic: Foley-gate congressional perv (Read 3115 times)

rpm · « **Reply #135 on:** October 05, 2006, 09:11:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BTW
This from http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Amid_questions_ABC_says_messages_couldnt_1005.html

---

Nobody at ABC would specifically deny the Drudge contention about the now-infamous instant message conversation

---

It goes on to say that ABC plans to introduce other conversations with pages.
I don't know where this going to go either. I don't know if ABC is in CYA mode or not. But I'll tell you it is NOT what it was first presented as, a Congressman sexually harassing a 16 year old boy. That's what its not. So right now the whole story just stinks and it should be investigated fully. The emails we all saw were not with a minor. That was a lie. So now we have to see how far the lies go. Now we have to see who put out the lie. The IM's were with an 18 year old page, not a 16 year old page. There's a legal difference of course.

Drudge, a website I never heard of, Limbaugh. I'm sure there's something on NewsMax, too. Naaa, the RNC would'nt be in full spin mode right now.

I'd wait for the congressional hearings outcome before I go defending the guy. What about Hastert? Nobody defending him?

bj229r · « **Reply #136 on:** October 05, 2006, 09:58:26 PM »

This is gonna keep dripping till Nov 2-- all you've heard and more is in possession of someone well organized, and it won't be hard to get it into print. Apparently there is a tax-exempt group called "Crew" that has info on every gay politician who is in the closet, and THEY all gonna come out (whether they know it or not). ABC won't run it at first, but after it becomes a talked-about-enough story (and the Pubs look even worse than they do NOW..) it'll be on 6:00 news. I hope noone is under the impression that this stuff is about 'protecting children'--it's politics, nothing more--had they been THAT concerned about the page-kids, they wouldn't have sat on the Foley loser until a month before election day. You give the other side an opening and they lunge for it. It's not hard to see why a lotta good people want nada to do with politics.

BTW · « **Reply #137 on:** October 05, 2006, 10:08:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Drudge, a website I never heard of, Limbaugh. I'm sure there's something on NewsMax, too. Naaa, the RNC would'nt be in full spin mode right now.

I'd wait for the congressional hearings outcome before I go defending the guy. What about Hastert? Nobody defending him?

You've never heard of Drudge? Well here's a clue..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drudge_Report

its not a new source:rolleyes:

edit - sorry reread your post. I got lost in the commas

Thought you never heard of Drudge

BTW · « **Reply #138 on:** October 05, 2006, 10:11:44 PM »

Yep, I suspect the closet Republican gay list is going to blow up all over the Democratic party. Its going to be very hard to get those stains out. US politics at its finest hour:rolleyes:

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #139 on:** October 05, 2006, 11:43:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Nope, Foley has to be fully investigated. If there are criminal activities, he should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Absolutely. But a resignation at the outset (I would think) would be an appropriate response.

rpm · « **Reply #140 on:** October 05, 2006, 11:48:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BTW
You've never heard of Drudge? Well here's a clue..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drudge_Report

its not a new source:rolleyes:

edit - sorry reread your post. I got lost in the commas Thought you never heard of Drudge

I was on a roll.

BTW · « **Reply #141 on:** October 06, 2006, 06:17:16 AM »

Here's an interesting link and where the Foley story started.

http://stopsexpredators.blogspot.com

Now note a few things as you review this site. You need to read the archive links on the home page.

The site pops up in July as a place to expose sex predators. There is a total of ONE post in July. In August, the blogger posts a brief list of 6 people already arrested for sex crimes. Then, as the JonBenet /Karr incident comes to light, this site (which is dedicated to exposing sexual predators), treats the case by posting a short cut and paste of the incident from CNN news.

It then jumps straight to Congressional sex predators where it never leaves.
According to all news accounts, this is the site that broke the story on Foley. It doesn't take a genius to see that this site was put up with only that purpose in mind. One of history's biggest unsolved child sex murders comes back in the news, and the owner of the site sees fit to give it a short cut and paste from CNN. Odd.

But then, after googling "congressional sex scandals" the blogger's post come alive with emotion. In some places, all caps are used!

This site is very brief. It shouldn't take a reader more than 15 minutes to skim the entire site. The site looks like it was put up for one purpose- that is to out Foley. It also looks like it tried to lamely disguise itself as something else.

The only question is, who owns the site?

BTW · « **Reply #142 on:** October 06, 2006, 07:20:08 AM »

Anyone remember Reuters? Thats the press agency that doctored photos to make damage look worse in Lebanon. They're also the news agency that refused to identify the employee who sent death threats to the owner of the Little Green Footballs blog.

Here a line from one of their stories yesterday.

--

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ask some Republicans what is behind the scandal that forced a congressman from their party to resign for sending dirty e-mails to underage boys and they'll give you a list of the usual suspects.

--

Now whats wrong with that line?

1. There were no dirty emails, but dirty IM's
2. The dirty IM's were not to an underage boy but to an 18 year old man.

But when has Reuters allowed facts to get in the way of a good story?
If fact, its starting to get concerning that the bait and switch scam is being used so much in this story.

Looking up through this thread, people were stating the difference between Clinton and Foley, is that the page Foley was having sex chats with was a minor. Now that we know that's an outright lie, that the page was an adult, what is the difference? I can think of one - Clinton actually had sex with an of age intern. Foly talked of having sex with an of age page. Clinton is portrayed as a victim and Foley is portrayed as a pedophile.

No doubt this whole thing is one big bait and switch scam. And all the people who were earlier stating "Clinton had sex with an adult - NOT A CHILD," are silent. Do you really think it fair that the guy was painted as a pedophile? Are you still confident in that?

This thread started with this..

---
Republicans knew this dude was exchanging lewd messages with young boys for a year, rumors that he was some kinda pervert circulated for years prior to that. When it made its way to some bipartisan committee thats responsible for that junk, the Repubs failed to tell the other side.. ignoring what's right to protect their political sphincter, hide the truth and allow the perv to continue being a perv.
----

I think this person is misinformed because ABC wanted him to be misinformed. They knew the im and emails were to two different people. They knew the emails were innocuous, and the lewd exchanges were with an 18 year old. But ABC obscured the fact.

Full Reuters article here

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20061005/2006-10-05T203749Z_01_N05389255_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SCANDAL-CONSPIRATORS-DC.html

x0847Marine · « **Reply #143 on:** October 06, 2006, 09:28:31 AM »

Hestert says he can't remember his fellow Repub advising of a Foley issue way back when.

I can believe him, anyone here whose been a supervisor can probably relate too...

When a subordinate starts to tell you damaging information, the first thing you do is cover your ears and yell "LALALA!!! IM NOT LISTENING LALA!!" as you run the other way.

"I dont remember him telling me that" is a valid answer. If pressed, however, I think Hastert will have to admit "I do remember yelling LA!LA!LA! and running away'''