It's not a matter of a party "getting their way"....it's that the two parties have turned our government into a political football game, by design.
They've divided the public into two rooting sections, wishing ill will on their opponent and blindly cheering for "their side".
The offensive part of the game is to attack the other team with a constant barrage of character assassination, name calling and personal attacks.
While the defensive part of the game is to prevent your opponent from accomplishing anything that might actually benefit ALL the people with fear of losing their fans.
The Offense is exciting and keeps all the fans occupied cheering for their team while talking trash about the opposing team.
The Defense prevents anything from being accomplished other than things that will appeal to the extreme, diehard supporters of the team since they aren't potential defectors of the party.
So from time to time each party actually "gets their way" but the majority of the country, the 60-80% who aren't "Fans For Life" of etiher party, are the ones who aren't getting their needs filled by EITHER party.
You can pick that apart all you want....I'm not stating it as fact, nor am I trying to shove it down anyone's throat.
It's simply how I have grown to believe how our government operates....It sucks that we have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
How bout talking about some of issues i mentioned instead of just playing the aloof, bitter role? Once again,
How about you get back to me when ANY of those issues get solved.
A certain someone from a certain party proposed universal healthcare, like 10 years ago. Of course a certain party Rockadelic loves to defend killed it.
Look you seem like a nice enough guy, but I'm really not feeling how your your jaded "seen it all" persona gives you cover to both implicitly attack the Democrats and be a Republican apologist, rationalizing their worst as simply a product of the poisonous atmosphere.
I'm just trying to get to the botton of how anyone could still not see the difference between these two parties.
you tacitly accept the moral equivalence of the two parties.
Not at all. I'm just not naive enough to think that the solution to the shittiness that has been Republican single-party rule is Democratic single-party rule. Because--say it with me, now--single party rule does not work. Which has been my point all along. Why that pisses you off so much, I really don't know. Or care.
It's not a matter of a party "getting their way"....it's that the two parties have turned our government into a political football game, by design.
They've divided the public into two rooting sections, wishing ill will on their opponent and blindly cheering for "their side".
The offensive part of the game is to attack the other team with a constant barrage of character assassination, name calling and personal attacks.
While the defensive part of the game is to prevent your opponent from accomplishing anything that might actually benefit ALL the people with fear of losing their fans.
The Offense is exciting and keeps all the fans occupied cheering for their team while talking trash about the opposing team.
The Defense prevents anything from being accomplished other than things that will appeal to the extreme, diehard supporters of the team since they aren't potential defectors of the party.
So from time to time each party actually "gets their way" but the majority of the country, the 60-80% who aren't "Fans For Life" of etiher party, are the ones who aren't getting their needs filled by EITHER party.
You can pick that apart all you want....I'm not stating it as fact, nor am I trying to shove it down anyone's throat.
It's simply how I have grown to believe how our government operates....It sucks that we have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
How bout talking about some of issues i mentioned instead of just playing the aloof, bitter role? Once again,
How about you get back to me when ANY of those issues get solved.
A certain someone from a certain party proposed universal healthcare, like 10 years ago. Of course a certain party Rockadelic loves to defend killed it.
Look you seem like a nice enough guy, but I'm really not feeling how your your jaded "seen it all" persona gives you cover to both implicitly attack the Democrats and be a Republican apologist, rationalizing their worst as simply a product of the poisonous atmosphere.
I'm just trying to get to the botton of how anyone could still not see the difference between these two parties.
The only reason anyone might think I'm a "Republican Apologist" is because I don't support the Democrats...
You think the Repubs are scum.....They think you are scum.....and I think they're all scum.....you find that opinion incredulous???
Here's a pretty good interview on NPR's Fresh Air today about the differences between Clinton and Bush's style of campaigning. Interesting stuff. It's a Real Audio file.
Besides making a good comparison between the two styles of campaigning (Clinton wanted to be as popular as possible to try to overcome the divide in politics, while Bush tried to win slim majorities and play up the divisions amongst people), they say that the main casualties have been facts and civilized debate
Even if this kid was 18 and even if it was a girl, he's still the victim of some nasty-ass IM's even though he talks about his girlfriend and appears obviously not interested in this creepy old man. Sexual harrassment is illegal. Just add underage and gay and it's double wrong. (gay is not wrong, but old men coming on to straight young boys is)
Even if this kid was 18 and even if it was a girl, he's still the victim of some nasty-ass IM's even though he talks about his girlfriend and appears obviously not interested in this creepy old man. Sexual harrassment is illegal. Just add underage and gay and it's double wrong. (gay is not wrong, but old men coming on to straight young boys is)
Does anybody else remember hearing something about at least one of the boys being gay too?
If these parties put as much effort into fixing the problems of this country as they do in attacking, investigating and denegrating each other we'd all be a lot better off.
The only reason anyone might think I'm a "Republican Apologist" is because I don't support the Democrats...
That and the fact that on a few of the occasions you've expressed an opinion on an issue you've cited right wing sources as back up. I could be wrong, but I don't think you've done the same with left wing sources. Maybe that's just because you're in Texas, and thereby more exposed to the former, I don't really know.
You think the Repubs are scum.....They think you are scum.....and I think they're all scum.....you find that opinion incredulous???
That may be true, and it may not. But it seems weird to imply one can't criticize a policies of one party without giving equal time to the other. If I agree with Democrats, it's because they happen to align with my own personal views and opinions, not simply because they are Democrats. I think the majority of the people in this thread feel the same way. Many are not the unthinking sheep you accuse them of being, which I imagine is why they take issue with you.
That loud banging sound you just heard is Dennis Hastert's wingtip hitting the floor. He'll be gone by the end of the weekend.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 ??? A former Congressional aide said Wednesday that Speaker J. Dennis Hastert???s office knew about reports of ???inappropriate behavior??? by Representative Mark Foley far earlier than Mr. Hastert???s office has acknowledged.
The Impact of Mark Foley's Downfall A look at the times when House Speaker Dennis Hastert or his staff were allegedly notified about potential problems with Representative Mark Foley and house pages.
Hastert???s chief of staff, Scott Palmer, denied the account of the former aide, Kirk Fordham, who said in an interview that he had informed Mr. Palmer of the concerns about Mr. Foley before 2004. Mr. Hastert???s office had previously said it first learned of concerns about Mr. Foley in the fall of 2005.
Mr. Fordham worked in Mr. Foley???s office until January 2004, and on Wednesday, he resigned as chief of staff to Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the House Republican campaign committee. Mr. Fordham said he had become a political liability in Mr. Reynolds???s re-election campaign.
Mr. Fordham???s assertion about early reports raised more questions about whether Mr. Hastert and his staff had failed to respond quickly and forcefully enough to multiple warnings about the conduct of Mr. Foley, the Florida Republican who resigned from the House on Friday after being confronted with sexually explicit messages he had sent to teenage pages.
The statement further clouded Mr. Hastert???s prospects of retaining his position as speaker as his party reached for a strategy to deal with a controversy that seems to have undermined its chances of keeping control of Congress on Election Day.
???I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest levels of the House of Representatives, asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley???s inappropriate behavior,??? Mr. Fordham said after resigning from Mr. Reynolds???s staff. ???I have no congressman and no office to protect.???
Mr. Fordham said he had informed Mr. Palmer of the concerns while working for Mr. Foley, after the House clerk, Jeff Trandahl, approached him. Mr. Trandahl told him, Mr. Fordham said, that pages had come forward with accounts about Mr. Foley???s behavior. Mr. Trandahl, who resigned his position last year, did not return calls on Wednesday.
The accounts did not include accusations of overtly sexual advances and did not involve e-mail or instant messages of the sort that surfaced last week, Mr. Fordham said. Instead, they encompassed reports that Mr. Foley had been ???way too friendly??? toward the pages, he said.
Mr. Fordham said that he could not recall the specific date of his meeting with Mr. Palmer, but that it was between 2001 and the end of 2003.
A spokesman for Mr. Hastert, Ron Bonjean, issued a statement in Mr. Palmer???s name saying, ???What Kirk Fordham said did not happen.???
Earlier Wednesday, Mr. Hastert???s allies thought they were making progress in solidifying the rank and file behind the speaker as lawmakers issued generally supportive remarks.
Republicans here and across the country not only expressed anger, but also feared that the latest disclosures would drag the controversy over Mr. Foley into a second week and eclipse a critical campaign period in their effort to retain their House majority.
At the same time, Republicans said in interviews that the disclosures solidified worries in the party that Mr. Foley???s conduct ??? hardly a secret ??? might have been kept quiet because Republicans were facing a tight election year.
Other suggestions surfaced on Wednesday that Mr. Foley???s undue interest in pages had previously been known. Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, a member of the leadership, asked the current clerk of the House, Karen L. Hass, to investigate reports raised this week in a party conference call that Mr. Foley was once turned away from the pages??? living quarters and that the staff in the page program had raised concerns about him with the former clerk.
In a sign of the strains in the House leadership, Representative Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, the majority whip, said Wednesday that he had not been told about Mr. Foley???s case until last week. Mr. Blunt criticized the handling of the inquiry into the initial e-mail messages.
He added that the matter should have been more vigorously pursued when an e-mail message from Mr. Foley to a former page was first brought to the attention of Mr. Hastert???s office last year.
???I think I could have given some good advice here, which is you have to be curious, you have to ask all the questions you can think of,??? Mr. Blunt told reporters in Missouri, The Associated Press reported. ???You absolutely can???t decide not to look into activities because one individual???s parents don???t want you to.???
???As the father of a 2-year-old boy and a 4-year-old girl, I believe that we must always err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting our children,??? Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, said. ???And it is clear that what appeared to some to be innocuous e-mails at the time should have been investigated further.???
Word of the new disclosures rattled lawmakers, many of whom remained quiet late Wednesday as they sought to digest the developments and learn more before deciding whether to continue supporting Mr. Hastert.
Federal prosecutors sent a letter on Wednesday to the general counsel of the House, directing Congressional authorities to safeguard all relevant records in Mr. Foley???s former office.
In the letter, obtained by The New York Times, the acting United States attorney in Washington, Jeffrey A. Taylor, asked for the safekeeping of ???documents and items??? in Mr. Foley???s former offices ???including his computer, electronic storage materials, hard copy documents and other items.???
The F.B.I. is conducting a preliminary investigation, officials said, and the request was intended to preserve records pending a decision by prosecutors on opening a full criminal inquiry into whether Mr. Foley violated federal sex crime laws.
The letter said House officials had already agreed to several actions, including changing the locks on Mr. Foley???s former office, stopping his remote access to computers and warning staff members not to delete or shred any documents.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California and minority leader, said Mr. Fordham???s statement was more evidence that House leaders needed to be brought before the ethics committee for a thorough investigation.
???Conflicting stories between Republican leadership and Republican staff about their cover-up of Mark Foley???s abhorrent behavior,??? Ms. Pelosi said, ???underscore the urgency for the Republican leadership to be immediately questioned under oath by the ethics committee.???
The committee, long criticized for lacking teeth and as failing to treat accusations of Congressional wrongdoing with urgency, is scheduled to have its initial meeting on the Foley controversy on Thursday.
The furor seeped even deeper into political races. In debates and on the campaign trails, Democrats asked their Republican opponents whether they supported the Republican leadership in Congress.
Washington was consumed by what Mr. Hastert would and should do. Republicans said he continued to weigh remaining in his post or announcing that he would step aside.
Mr. Fordham, 39, who had risen through the ranks of Republican politics and gained a reputation as a strategist, said he felt maligned by suggestions that he tried to participate in a cover-up for Mr. Foley. He decided, he said, to confront Mr. Hastert about his assertion
that he was not aware of Mr. Foley???s circling too closely to young people.
In an interview, Mr. Fordham said he had hired a lawyer and intended to give his account to the F.B.I. on Thursday.
Mr. Bonjean, Mr. Hastert???s spokesman, denied that the speaker???s office had been aware of Mr. Foley???s conduct for at least three years.
???This matter has been referred to the Standards Committee, and we fully expect that the bipartisan panel will do what it needs to do to investigate this matter and protect the integrity of the House,??? Mr. Bonjean said in a statement.
The only reason anyone might think I'm a "Republican Apologist" is because I don't support the Democrats...
That and the fact that on a few of the occasions you've expressed an opinion on an issue you've cited right wing sources as back up. I could be wrong, but I don't think you've done the same with left wing sources. Maybe that's just because you're in Texas, and thereby more exposed to the former, I don't really know.
Given the political climate of SS what kind of "argument" would there be if I cited left wing sources???
Incidentally since youve moved on to criticising fox(over something which is almost certainly a simple error)
Dolo, sorry man, but there is NO WAY in the history of fuck-ups that listing a KNOWN REPUBLICAN as a Democrat beneath his picture on television is a "simple error". Think about it - a producer or video editor actually had to key that in. It's not happening like that. Don't kid yourself. And if you still have any doubts, look no further than the source.
Come on. Do you honestly think that fox would deliberately lie about his party affiliation and just hope their viewers didnt find out?
You mean to tell me you can't see it as concievable that, in this, the final weeks before the election, with the public clearly leaning Democrat in the polls thanks to numerous recent scandals, the war in Iraq and a general mistrust of the current administration, that Fox would purposefully indicate Foley is a Democrat 3 TIMES[/b] in a desperate attempt to confuse people?
It is widely known they come from the Rove school of tactics. So wide in fact, there is an entire Wiki page devoted to Fox News Channel controversies.
On October 3, 2006 The O'Reilly factor claimed on a banner that Mark Foley was a democrat three times on the air.
On March 23, 2003 the FOX News channel headline banners were rolling: "Huge chemical weapons factory found in Iraq... Reports: 30 Iraqis surrender at chem weapons plant... coal. troops holding Iraqi in charge of chem. weapons." On the next day the Dow Jones Newswires reported that U.S. officials had admitted that morning that the site contained no chemicals at all and had been abandoned long before the Iraq War.
A news article on the Fox News website during October 2004 by Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of Fox News, contained three fabricated quotes attributed to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The quotes included: "Women should like me! I do manicures," "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great?" and "I'm metrosexual [Bush's] a cowboy." Fox News retracted the story and apologized [40], citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice."
I dont find it inconcievable that fox would attempt to decieve viewers in order to further a political agenda. I do find it inconcievable that they would choose such a stupid and completely ineffectual way to do so.
so what's your opinion of Foley sending IM's to underage boys?
Based upon the information presently available I dont much care. The most he has demonstrated to have done to this point is have consentual cybersex with a boy nearing 18 years of age. Of course if he is later found to have sodomised a bunch of 12 year olds my opinion is liable to change somewhat.
A Web forum run by the House Page Alumni Association was taken offline soon after the scandal broke. However, CNN identified archived versions of those Web pages in which Foley was discussed.
On the alumni site, one page in August 2004 wrote that Foley had "taken the time to find out who I was and then he actually remembered who I was a few months later!"
Another user of the message board posted in April 2005 that he had applied to be a page in Foley's office. In response, a former page simply wrote "eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Foley."[/b]
The latest poll on the upcoming Governor's Race reveals that the two Independent candidates, Carol "One Tough Grandma" Keaton Strayhorn Rylander and "Kinky" Friedman have a combined 34.5% of the vote while odds on favorite, Republican Rick Perry has 33% with almost 20% listed as "Undecided".
While I don't really expect either of the Indies to win, the fact that Texans are not just voting along the party line(s) is a telling and good sign, imo.
I'm totally lost. This story is all over the place.
Was there any laws broken?
And Anna, I understand about harassment. But, so far it just seems like this was done over IM correct? Isn't that the reason for the ability to block someone? Shit still ain't right mind you. I just don't understand why IMing went on for as long as it did.
I'm guessing there are much bigger things going on right now than a perv talking dirty with a 17 year old.
I wouldn't bet against people on both sides of the table using this shit for their own purposes.
I feel bad for any of the youths involved. Mainly for having to deal with that perv, but also... They are probably going to have to put up with alot of crap for the rest of their lives. The media ain't gonna make life easy.
The latest poll on the upcoming Governor's Race reveals that the two Independent candidates, Carol "One Tough Grandma" Keaton Strayhorn Rylander and "Kinky" Friedman have a combined 34.5% of the vote while odds on favorite, Republican Rick Perry has 33% with almost 20% listed as "Undecided".
While I don't really expect either of the Indies to win, the fact that Texans are not just voting along the party line(s) is a telling and good sign, imo.
My sister (who lives in San Antonio) is a confessed Rush Limbaugh fan. When Clinton was in office, she reveled in calling him "Slick Willie."
I called her on her birthday last week and we chatted for a long time. At one point, she told me that she was planning to vote for Kinky. My jaw dropped! She said, "I do NOT like Perry."
If she feels that way, I can only imagine countless others do, too. BTW: she was celebrating her 40th birthday, so there's hope for old folks, too.
Comments
A certain someone from a certain party proposed universal healthcare, like 10 years ago. Of course a certain party Rockadelic loves to defend killed it.
Look you seem like a nice enough guy, but I'm really not feeling how your your jaded "seen it all" persona gives you cover to both implicitly attack the Democrats and be a Republican apologist, rationalizing their worst as simply a product of the poisonous atmosphere.
I'm just trying to get to the botton of how anyone could still not see the difference between these two parties.
Not at all. I'm just not naive enough to think that the solution to the shittiness that has been Republican single-party rule is Democratic single-party rule. Because--say it with me, now--single party rule does not work. Which has been my point all along. Why that pisses you off so much, I really don't know. Or care.
The only reason anyone might think I'm a "Republican Apologist" is because I don't support the Democrats...
You think the Repubs are scum.....They think you are scum.....and I think they're all scum.....you find that opinion incredulous???
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6195034
Besides making a good comparison between the two styles of campaigning (Clinton wanted to be as popular as possible to try to overcome the divide in politics, while Bush tried to win slim majorities and play up the divisions amongst people), they say that the main casualties have been facts and civilized debate
Does anybody else remember hearing something about at least one of the boys being gay too?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6196749
That and the fact that on a few of the occasions you've expressed an opinion on an issue you've cited right wing sources as back up. I could be wrong, but I don't think you've done the same with left wing sources. Maybe that's just because you're in Texas, and thereby more exposed to the former, I don't really know.
That may be true, and it may not. But it seems weird to imply one can't criticize a policies of one party without giving equal time to the other. If I agree with Democrats, it's because they happen to align with my own personal views and opinions, not simply because they are Democrats. I think the majority of the people in this thread feel the same way. Many are not the unthinking sheep you accuse them of being, which I imagine is why they take issue with you.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 ??? A former Congressional aide said Wednesday that Speaker J. Dennis Hastert???s office knew about reports of ???inappropriate behavior??? by Representative Mark Foley far earlier than Mr. Hastert???s office has acknowledged.
The Impact of Mark Foley's Downfall
A look at the times when House Speaker Dennis Hastert or his staff were allegedly notified about potential problems with Representative Mark Foley and house pages.
Hastert???s chief of staff, Scott Palmer, denied the account of the former aide, Kirk Fordham, who said in an interview that he had informed Mr. Palmer of the concerns about Mr. Foley before 2004. Mr. Hastert???s office had previously said it first learned of concerns about Mr. Foley in the fall of 2005.
Mr. Fordham worked in Mr. Foley???s office until January 2004, and on Wednesday, he resigned as chief of staff to Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the House Republican campaign committee. Mr. Fordham said he had become a political liability in Mr. Reynolds???s re-election campaign.
Mr. Fordham???s assertion about early reports raised more questions about whether Mr. Hastert and his staff had failed to respond quickly and forcefully enough to multiple warnings about the conduct of Mr. Foley, the Florida Republican who resigned from the House on Friday after being confronted with sexually explicit messages he had sent to teenage pages.
The statement further clouded Mr. Hastert???s prospects of retaining his position as speaker as his party reached for a strategy to deal with a controversy that seems to have undermined its chances of keeping control of Congress on Election Day.
???I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest levels of the House of Representatives, asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley???s inappropriate behavior,??? Mr. Fordham said after resigning from Mr. Reynolds???s staff. ???I have no congressman and no office to protect.???
Mr. Fordham said he had informed Mr. Palmer of the concerns while working for Mr. Foley, after the House clerk, Jeff Trandahl, approached him. Mr. Trandahl told him, Mr. Fordham said, that pages had come forward with accounts about Mr. Foley???s behavior. Mr. Trandahl, who resigned his position last year, did not return calls on Wednesday.
The accounts did not include accusations of overtly sexual advances and did not involve e-mail or instant messages of the sort that surfaced last week, Mr. Fordham said. Instead, they encompassed reports that Mr. Foley had been ???way too friendly??? toward the pages, he said.
Mr. Fordham said that he could not recall the specific date of his meeting with Mr. Palmer, but that it was between 2001 and the end of 2003.
A spokesman for Mr. Hastert, Ron Bonjean, issued a statement in Mr. Palmer???s name saying, ???What Kirk Fordham said did not happen.???
Earlier Wednesday, Mr. Hastert???s allies thought they were making progress in solidifying the rank and file behind the speaker as lawmakers issued generally supportive remarks.
Republicans here and across the country not only expressed anger, but also feared that the latest disclosures would drag the controversy over Mr. Foley into a second week and eclipse a critical campaign period in their effort to retain their House majority.
At the same time, Republicans said in interviews that the disclosures solidified worries in the party that Mr. Foley???s conduct ??? hardly a secret ??? might have been kept quiet because Republicans were facing a tight election year.
Other suggestions surfaced on Wednesday that Mr. Foley???s undue interest in pages had previously been known. Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, a member of the leadership, asked the current clerk of the House, Karen L. Hass, to investigate reports raised this week in a party conference call that Mr. Foley was once turned away from the pages??? living quarters and that the staff in the page program had raised concerns about him with the former clerk.
In a sign of the strains in the House leadership, Representative Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, the majority whip, said Wednesday that he had not been told about Mr. Foley???s case until last week. Mr. Blunt criticized the handling of the inquiry into the initial e-mail messages.
He added that the matter should have been more vigorously pursued when an e-mail message from Mr. Foley to a former page was first brought to the attention of Mr. Hastert???s office last year.
???I think I could have given some good advice here, which is you have to be curious, you have to ask all the questions you can think of,??? Mr. Blunt told reporters in Missouri, The Associated Press reported. ???You absolutely can???t decide not to look into activities because one individual???s parents don???t want you to.???
???As the father of a 2-year-old boy and a 4-year-old girl, I believe that we must always err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting our children,??? Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, said. ???And it is clear that what appeared to some to be innocuous e-mails at the time should have been investigated further.???
Word of the new disclosures rattled lawmakers, many of whom remained quiet late Wednesday as they sought to digest the developments and learn more before deciding whether to continue supporting Mr. Hastert.
Federal prosecutors sent a letter on Wednesday to the general counsel of the House, directing Congressional authorities to safeguard all relevant records in Mr. Foley???s former office.
In the letter, obtained by The New York Times, the acting United States attorney in Washington, Jeffrey A. Taylor, asked for the safekeeping of ???documents and items??? in Mr. Foley???s former offices ???including his computer, electronic storage materials, hard copy documents and other items.???
The F.B.I. is conducting a preliminary investigation, officials said, and the request was intended to preserve records pending a decision by prosecutors on opening a full criminal inquiry into whether Mr. Foley violated federal sex crime laws.
The letter said House officials had already agreed to several actions, including changing the locks on Mr. Foley???s former office, stopping his remote access to computers and warning staff members not to delete or shred any documents.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California and minority leader, said Mr. Fordham???s statement was more evidence that House leaders needed to be brought before the ethics committee for a thorough investigation.
???Conflicting stories between Republican leadership and Republican staff about their cover-up of Mark Foley???s abhorrent behavior,??? Ms. Pelosi said, ???underscore the urgency for the Republican leadership to be immediately questioned under oath by the ethics committee.???
The committee, long criticized for lacking teeth and as failing to treat accusations of Congressional wrongdoing with urgency, is scheduled to have its initial meeting on the Foley controversy on Thursday.
The furor seeped even deeper into political races. In debates and on the campaign trails, Democrats asked their Republican opponents whether they supported the Republican leadership in Congress.
Washington was consumed by what Mr. Hastert would and should do. Republicans said he continued to weigh remaining in his post or announcing that he would step aside.
Mr. Fordham, 39, who had risen through the ranks of Republican politics and gained a reputation as a strategist, said he felt maligned by suggestions that he tried to participate in a cover-up for Mr. Foley. He decided, he said, to confront Mr. Hastert about his assertion that he was not aware of Mr. Foley???s circling too closely to young people.
In an interview, Mr. Fordham said he had hired a lawyer and intended to give his account to the F.B.I. on Thursday.
Mr. Bonjean, Mr. Hastert???s spokesman, denied that the speaker???s office had been aware of Mr. Foley???s conduct for at least three years.
???This matter has been referred to the Standards Committee, and we fully expect that the bipartisan panel will do what it needs to do to investigate this matter and protect the integrity of the House,??? Mr. Bonjean said in a statement.
Given the political climate of SS what kind of "argument" would there be if I cited left wing sources???
I dont find it inconcievable that fox would attempt to decieve viewers in order to further a political agenda. I do find it inconcievable that they would choose such a stupid and completely ineffectual way to do so.
Based upon the information presently available I dont much care. The most he has demonstrated to have done to this point is have consentual cybersex with a boy nearing 18 years of age. Of course if he is later found to have sodomised a bunch of 12 year olds my opinion is liable to change somewhat.
= 16 years old
Do you believe ABC when they say a "glitch" accidently revealed the identity of the recipient of Foley's text messages?
http://drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm
there is hope .........
I hope he can convinvce the Dem leaders that he can do it....
I worry that Hillary sees him as a perfect Vice-Presidential running mate.
BAN !
she needs to keep doing what she's doing
for NY
Agreed. Let Warner run!! NRA-friendly Dem ex-governors from Southern states are the wave of the future. Highly electable.
A Web forum run by the House Page Alumni Association was taken offline soon after the scandal broke. However, CNN identified archived versions of those Web pages in which Foley was discussed.
On the alumni site, one page in August 2004 wrote that Foley had "taken the time to find out who I was and then he actually remembered who I was a few months later!"
Another user of the message board posted in April 2005 that he had applied to be a page in Foley's office. In response, a former page simply wrote "eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Foley."[/b]
No. The transcript im refering to takes place with an individual a few weeks away from his 18th birthday. Its revealed in the transcript itself.
That makes all the difference.
Sounds very Clintonian, "depends how youd define..."
The latest poll on the upcoming Governor's Race reveals that the two Independent candidates, Carol "One Tough Grandma" Keaton Strayhorn Rylander and "Kinky" Friedman have a combined 34.5% of the vote while odds on favorite, Republican Rick Perry has 33% with almost 20% listed as "Undecided".
While I don't really expect either of the Indies to win, the fact that Texans are not just voting along the party line(s) is a telling and good sign, imo.
Was there any laws broken?
And Anna, I understand about harassment. But, so far it just seems like this was done over IM correct? Isn't that the reason for the ability to block someone? Shit still ain't right mind you. I just don't understand why IMing went on for as long as it did.
I'm guessing there are much bigger things going on right now than a perv talking dirty with a 17 year old.
I wouldn't bet against people on both sides of the table using this shit for their own purposes.
I feel bad for any of the youths involved. Mainly for having to deal with that perv, but also... They are probably going to have to put up with alot of crap for the rest of their lives. The media ain't gonna make life easy.
My sister (who lives in San Antonio) is a confessed Rush Limbaugh fan. When Clinton was in office, she reveled in calling him "Slick Willie."
I called her on her birthday last week and we chatted for a long time. At one point, she told me that she was planning to vote for Kinky. My jaw dropped! She said, "I do NOT like Perry."
If she feels that way, I can only imagine countless others do, too. BTW: she was celebrating her 40th birthday, so there's hope for old folks, too.
True,
But when you block somebody, they don't know do they? Or.. Is it's not a good look if u continue on with it if ur using to forward ur career?
Whatever the case is. This is messed up. No good will come of this. NONE