If Hastert "ordered" him to stop, then there was obviously a concern. No follow up? If some 54 year old man was emailing your daughter, would you want to know, why weren't the parents notified, a man who they knew was gay, yet didn't talk about it, was emailing a 16 year old.
You don't order someone to stop something unless you're concerned, and you don't just forget it. We're talking about a man who is now claiming he was drunk while doing this, yet the emails happened while he was working! Yet no one ever saw him take a drink... suspend disblelief and it's still a 54 year old emailing a 16 year old, in what by their own words were "overly friendly". That's a very gentle way of saying it was too much, regardless. Hastert knew of this, and did nothing. His stories don't jive. On Friday he said he just heard of the emails. Then he said he meant the IM's, fine, easy mistake. BUT!!! He did know of the emails, and anyone who has heard this story, will ask, if he ordered the man to stop, others also knew, and no one did anything afterwards, there must be a reason they did nothing. specualtion is, Foley's generousity and fundraising is a reason. Especially with the timing of $100k in contributions from foley at the time of the "order". Coincidence, maybe, it doesn't look good, and it doesn't matter.
It still boils down to the simple fact, a 54 year old was emailing a 16 year old, was ordered to stop, b/c it was deemd overly friendly, he didn't and no one followed up.
You can't call this a leak, b/c this information wasn't even given to the 16 year olds parents. Just that alone is enough for me.
I still have more concerns. Another pretty fucking obvious one. There's no way in hell this is isolated. No fucking way! This is not his first time, and how many times may he have been successful. and I hope I'm wrong, but as a aprent, that's a major concern. did people who saw the signs, ignore or try to hide the truth? Either way, they may have put other teeenagers at risk to a sexual predator.
Thjis is not a leak, it is the truth coming out, and it is not IMO, to be compared to older offenses, b/c this is now, not an old issue of Franks, Studds or Clinton.
foley was able to do good work in regars to Missing and exploited childrens legislation, too bad he's actually also a predator. He did good work at that job, unfortunatley the Fox was in the Hen House.
Foley is fucked, and I pray he didn't abuse anyone, like he was abused as a teen.
I like dennis Hastert, and i'm incerdibly dissapointed, he let me down. Congress is out of control. It's obvious it was too much for him, if all he did was order him to stop emailing. not enough, and he needs to step down, even if that's the worst! and it may be worse, and that is really a shame, b/c if it is, it makes The republicans loook really bad. right now, just two people look really bad. I applud the conservative Washing Times asking him to step down. This isn't the New york times, and there's no leak in a criminal act, prior to any investigation, it doesn't exist by definition... A leak is information being released that is classified or being kept secret during an investigation, and neither apply here. I'm not sure what else to call it, except the truth is getting out about Foley, and it seems that people "may" have witheld information of a possible criminal offense, and definitely did not notify the teens parents, which is a moral failure! Family Values! Protecting our children, these are not just talking points and soundbites, you need action behind them to make them real!
3rd October 2006 08:49 PM
Saint Sway
quote:Riffhard wrote:
I find it more than a little crazy to ask Hastert to step down for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is,what was he supposed to do? I mean Foley asks for pictures and has some alarming e-mails(with no sexual content btw),and Hastert warned him to knock it off. Was he supposed to ask for his resignation?
methinks riffy and tele have not read what the congressman actually IM'd....
3rd October 2006 09:01 PM
pdog
quote:lotsajizz wrote:
methinks riffy and tele have not read what the congressman actually IM'd....
Fuck The IM's, that's the part people say they didn't know about...... If anyone who is 54 emails a kid who is 16, asking for pics...
Ding!
RED FLAG...
Why the hell do you "order" someone to stop doing something, and not tell the parents, their own child is on the other end of the said "order"...
Can one person explain this to me... If that was my kid, I would be pissed!!!
Foley was smart to hide in a rehab... Just wait, we'll see how many times he committed rape, he aqlready has a felony coming for soliciting sex from a minor on the internet.
One bright note, seems the kids parents knew about this...
3rd October 2006 09:16 PM
sirmoonie
Its almost as if I'm being dared to post that 9/11 video of George Walker Bush III. Like my mettle is being tested. Well, I'll tel you right now goddamit, I will not hesitate to post that video if I feel this thread needs it! You hear me?!?!?! I'll post the living fuck out of that video!!!!
3rd October 2006 09:20 PM
pdog
quote:sirmoonie wrote:
Its almost as if I'm being dared to post that 9/11 video of George Walker Bush III. Like my mettle is being tested. Well, I'll tel you right now goddamit, I will not hesitate to post that video if I feel this thread needs it! You hear me?!?!?! I'll post the living fuck out of that video!!!!
Did you read that IM?
3rd October 2006 09:30 PM
Riffhard
Hastert told him to stop. He apparently did stop. These IMs are old pdog! This did not happen just last week! It was an intentional media tip by someone working for the Dems. They knew it too! Should Pelosi resign? I mean if your right and there is so much more to the story then why did the Dem leadership wait until now to raise hell about it?
This was nothing more than a media dump. Drop some incriminating evidence in the lap of ABC,and watch the shit hit the fan while gleefully rubbing their hands together and trying to bring down as many Repubs as they can. It's a setup pdog!! Can't you see that?! Of course this assclown Foley should be forced to resign! Republicans have the decency to act responsibly on these matters. Again though I ask,when have the Democrats ever done the same thing? Never! When Condit was caught did the Republicans try and force Daschale out? No!
I am not even trying to defend this Foley fucker. However,at least he resigned within minutes of the truth coming out. The same can,and never has been,true of Democrats. Why the double standard?
You say that you respect the conservative Washington Times. I too have always respected the paper. However,resigning a leadership position for this is crazy. Hastert is not this guy's babysitter. He told him to knock it off. That was all that he could have been expected to do. The Dem leadership never asked any of their own perverts to resign much less the leadership of the party. For that matter the Repubs never once suggested that the Dem leadership should resign.
Many other conservative pundits have taken the WT to task for suggesting that Hastert reign. I tend to agree with them. Now if it can be proven that he was intentionally covering for Foley that's one thing,but that has not been proven at all. He said he was "shocked and disgusted" to learn about these sick IMs. Who am I to argue that point with no evidence to suggest otherwise? What I want to know is where did these IMs come from? Who had them? Who gave them to ABC? It sure as hell was not the Republicans. That's why I say that this is an obvious setup,and this sick twisted Foley fuck fell right into it. That does not mean that the whole party was privy to these messages though.
Riffy
3rd October 2006 09:35 PM
sirmoonie
quote:pdog wrote:
Did you read that IM?
No I didn't. That stuff creeps me out. But frankly, I think Foley is getting raked through the mud too much. And these pigeons, I mean c'mon, not like they weren't having fun themselves. Talk about hypocrites.
He had to resign, no doubt, grown men can't chase teenagers and expect anyone not to think they are fucked in the head, but as far as I know, he committed no crime. He was probably drunk, fucking around, got carried away, typed a lot of yack without thinking about what he was doing. I'm not defending him, just don't believe he's the scumbag everyone now says he is. He's like maybe a 6 on the scumbaggital rankage.
3rd October 2006 09:39 PM
Riffhard
quote:lotsajizz wrote:
methinks riffy and tele have not read what the congressman actually IM'd....
What he IM'd is sick,twisted,and fucked beyond belief! That is not what Hastert saw though!!! He says he only saw the e-mails. There was none of that graphic mastabatory shit in the e-mails. Foley reisgned! He did not fuck an underage male page either. He Im'd him some shit that may,or may not,be a prosecutable offense. I hope they do bust this freak! Now Studds,on the other hand,did fuck an underage male page! Where was this holier than thou outrage then by the Dems? Here's a hint-they reelected the pervert twice and gave him three standing ovations at a subsequent Dem fundraiser! Fucking goddamned hypocrites can't even admit this glaring,blaring,over the top double standard! Too fucking funny really.
Riffy
3rd October 2006 09:59 PM
sirmoonie
Howe did this thread get hijacked into Pigeon-gate anyway? With all the stuff we could be blasting and laughing at George Walker Bush III and the denizen Geeks about, we end up talking about muffpuncing e-mails between Frogman Foley and his Pinchaderos? WTF is wrong with this board? Is it, or is it not nation time?
Allright. I've been pushed to the limit. Enough is enough. You fucking asked for it! Here's the goddamn motherfucking video of George Walker Bush III sitting on his ass for 6 minutes afert being informed America is under attack. Happy now?? Huh??? Want some more of this?? Bring it on!
3rd October 2006 10:01 PM
glencar
quote:rasputin56 wrote:
Well, was it priceless or $800K? Which one?
I see, Clinton did it so it all goes away? I see where you could equate sex between consenting adults with pedophilia, though.
It's not pedophilia if it doesn't involve actual sexual congress with prepubescent children. Since this apparently didn't involve actual sex & the children in question were over 16, you're wrong.
3rd October 2006 10:01 PM
Riffhard
quote:pdog wrote:
One bright note, seems the kids parents knew about this...
Right pdog,and please take note that it was the Republicans who notified the parents too. Why they were ok with the relationship is too weird for me to comprehend though! Also note this blog trys,once again,to imply that Hastert knew of these sick IM's. He states emphatically that he knew nothing of them,and to date no evidence has surfaced that he did know. That would never stop the hypocrites from making baseless charges though. Tell a lie long enough and some morons are stupid enough to buy into the bullshit.
Riffy
3rd October 2006 10:10 PM
glencar
Why are Dems so upset? Miss Monica was 4 years older & we had actual proof of sexual congress. Bunch of hypocrites. I saw stretchy skin on TV today howling about protecting the kids. Gawd, that harridan bores me.
3rd October 2006 10:17 PM
rasputin56
Even funnier is that Republicans and their followers are getting pissy now about dirty tricks! Really, too funny!
Also, according to the WaPo, pages were warned about Mr. Foley as early as 1995? That info never trickled up to the leadership in 11 years? Of course, not.
Don't worry guys, the "I'm a drunk" thing didn't fly, now Mr. Foley is a victim of clergy abuse. That might work better. Then again, he's no McKinney or Jefferson.
3rd October 2006 10:18 PM
rasputin56
quote:glencar wrote:
Why are Dems so upset? Miss Monica was 4 years older & we had actual proof of sexual congress. Bunch of hypocrites. I saw stretchy skin on TV today howling about protecting the kids. Gawd, that harridan bores me.
True, legally not much difference between 17 and 21, right?
3rd October 2006 10:21 PM
glencar
quote:rasputin56 wrote:
True, legally not much difference between 17 and 21, right?
I don't think there is. Listen, this guy Foley is a scumbag & they should have forced him out years ago. At this point, I see no way for the GOP to hold the House. Frankly, they don't deserve to. But the idea of Stretchy Skin doing her macaw act every night annoys me. As much as the GOP pisses me off, the idea of the Dems running things again pisses me off just a tad more.
3rd October 2006 10:33 PM
Riffhard
quote:rasputin56 wrote:
Even funnier is that Republicans and their followers are getting pissy now about dirty tricks! Really, too funny!
Also, according to the WaPo, pages were warned about Mr. Foley as early as 1995? That info never trickled up to the leadership in 11 years? Of course, not.
Don't worry guys, the "I'm a drunk" thing didn't fly, now Mr. Foley is a victim of clergy abuse. That might work better. Then again, he's no McKinney or Jefferson.
So are you suggesting that because it was a known "secret" that he was gay he should have been scrutinized? I mean he never actully fucked a minor ala Studds did he? Just what are you saying here Raspy? Do you have some evidence that nobody in the media or the Senate has? Because,to date,there is not one sintilla of evidence that anyone covered for Foley other than for his sexual orintation. I thought you libs embraced alternative lifestyles? More hypocrisy me thinks.
Riffy
3rd October 2006 10:36 PM
glencar
It all depends on what the meaning of "gay" is, I guess!
3rd October 2006 10:44 PM
Riffhard
quote:glencar wrote:
It all depends on what the meaning of "gay" is, I guess!
LOL! Yeah exacly! If it's gay-R then it's an abomination. However a gay-D is a fine thing. A good thing even! You are a hero that gets reelected even if your gay lover was pimping out of your DC townhouse,or screwing a 17 year old page! Thanks for clearing that up Blue!
Riffy
3rd October 2006 10:49 PM
sirmoonie
quote:Riffhard wrote:
So are you suggesting that because it was a known "secret" that he was gay he should have been scrutinized? I mean he never actully fucked a minor ala Studds did he? Just what are you saying here Raspy? Do you have some evidence that nobody in the media or the Senate has? Because,to date,there is not one sintilla of evidence that anyone covered for Foley other than for his sexual orintation. I thought you libs embraced alternative lifestyles? More hypocrisy me thinks.
Riffy
Riffy, forget Foleyism, this battle was lost the day it started. Plus, its creepy. Instead, marshall your posting energy for the Frist thread. I have no idea howe Frist can be saved, but if anyone can do it, you can.
3rd October 2006 11:03 PM
Riffhard
quote:sirmoonie wrote:
I have no idea howe Frist can be saved, but if anyone can do it, you can.
This is true. I could save the whole of the Republican party. However,there is no saving the Democrats. Even if I wanted to do there is just no way to cover for their dumbassedness.
Riffy
4th October 2006 12:17 AM
Brainbell Jangler
quote:Riffhard wrote:
This is true. I could save the whole of the Republican party. However,there is no saving the Democrats. Even if I wanted to do there is just no way to cover for their dumbassedness.
Riffy
Save me, Riffy. Get over to that Taliban thread and save me now! But first, drop two of these in your Kool-Aid and drink up!
4th October 2006 01:22 AM
pdog
quote:Riffhard wrote:
What he IM'd is sick,twisted,and fucked beyond belief! That is not what Hastert saw though!!! He says he only saw the e-mails. There was none of that graphic mastabatory shit in the e-mails. Foley reisgned! He did not fuck an underage male page either. He Im'd him some shit that may,or may not,be a prosecutable offense. I hope they do bust this freak! Now Studds,on the other hand,did fuck an underage male page! Where was this holier than thou outrage then by the Dems? Here's a hint-they reelected the pervert twice and gave him three standing ovations at a subsequent Dem fundraiser! Fucking goddamned hypocrites can't even admit this glaring,blaring,over the top double standard! Too fucking funny really.
Riffy
I was underage in 1985... Ignorant and stoned... Didn't Clinton get blown in the mid 90's... by a 22 year old. I understand the anger about these and other events, but I don't see the relivance to what is happening right now!
This political, b/c it's a month from elections, no doubt. There's alist of Republicans who may have known about how bad this was and didn't speak up. This unnamed democratic bean spiller... Might very well exist, but it doesn't change the truth that Foley was an active sexual predator, in the midst of the caucus for msising and exploited teens and Haster is the leader of the house of reps, and directly responsible for the pages. As a parent i can't help be sickened by all this, and in a few days we'll be hearing about how many teenagers Foley solicited, and well known it was and I'm sure, he had sex with some. There's too much smoke, the flames are here...
I hope Hastert is clear of thisshit, b/c if he isn't and this went on, can you even begin to imagine what else is going on, how inept our government is, and why we should not re-elect on preson, and keep the doors revolving, and get OUR country back from partisan hacks who don't give a fuck about anything besides retaining power!
4th October 2006 01:28 AM
pdog
quote:glencar wrote:
the idea of the Dems running things again pisses me off just a tad more.
As a country, we should say fuck you to both parties, especially since they don't stand for anything they claim to, and that which they claim to stand for isn't what they parties once stood for.
It'll probably never happen, sadly, but I'm pledging to never vote to re-elect anyone ever again. Even if I jave to write it in, I'll put myself down...
This is absolutely the ugliest election year I've ever seen. Imagine what 2008 is going to be like! I wish Tucker Carlson or Pat Buchanan would run...
4th October 2006 08:57 AM
rasputin56
quote:Riffhard wrote:
So are you suggesting that because it was a known "secret" that he was gay he should have been scrutinized? I mean he never actully fucked a minor ala Studds did he? Just what are you saying here Raspy? Do you have some evidence that nobody in the media or the Senate has? Because,to date,there is not one sintilla of evidence that anyone covered for Foley other than for his sexual orintation. I thought you libs embraced alternative lifestyles? More hypocrisy me thinks.
Riffy
Wow, have you been hanging around with Tele? Who said anything about being gay? I don't have a problem with gays. Do you? I do have a problem with sexual predators who prey on children regardless of their orientation. But that's OK it's not the first time you've taken a statement and illogically went to some bizarre level with it. I guess you just get hyper-emotional about things, too.
I was going to start the day by saying I may have gone too far by claiming Mr. Foley was a pedophile until I read Riffy's illogical, emotional rant. I'll do it now. You're right. There is no proof that he had sex with minors, yet. And that's a big yet. Right now we know that pages were warned about him and his advances for the past 11 years and that he engaged in some disgusting IM's and emails where he expressed the desire and willingness to engage in sexual activities with minors (it sure is easier to just say "pedophile"). Where meetings with these minors were proposed on a number of occassions, I guess I just made the leap that in those 11 years odds are that he followed through on those desires and wishes. Silly me. Mea culpa.
As far as cover-up, that too was a leap. I guess I just took the lead from the Washington Times that has called for Denny's resignation because of foreknowledge of this sexual predator of minor children who exhibited desire and willingness to engage in sexual practices with minors. Or maybe it was Boner who said he talked with Denny about 5 months ago and said he had taken care of it? Or maybe it's the reports that Mr. Foley's "friendliness" was well known among the pages and their superiors for as long as a decade. If it's not a cover up then it must be just further proof of the Republican leadership's gross incompetence and negligence. Mea culpa.
It's all moot, anyways. He's a drunk who was abused by a clergy member. Oh, and Gerry Studds from 33 years ago.
Meanwhile, Condi is really starting to find it difficult to keep her story straight these days.
[Edited by rasputin56]
[Edited by rasputin56]
4th October 2006 09:16 AM
glencar
Has anyone acknowledged having sex with Foley yet?
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour
NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
