Foley Hastert & The Homophobic Right

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:28 am

Why hasn't anyone said anything about this? Interesting that the \"morally and ethically\" fulfilled party has quite a scandal going. Do the Dems have some of these guys? Probably, but at least they are smart enought to keep it quiet.

Will, what you think?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:32 am

The democrates smartest hand is to just let this die. If they try and ride this for political gain it is going to backfire on them.

I think this hurt the republicans, but if they try and run home off of this hit then they will be tagged out at second. (hey, its October)

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:07 am

I think they should make enough of a stink to get Foley jailed, and Hastert fired. Don't need anything more than that. They're probably not saying much 'cause they're worried half of'em are probably just as guilty.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:57 pm

You KNOW I'm not a big fan of the Republicans, but it appears to me that Hassert isn't really to blame on this. Not unless he had a lot more information than I've been able to dig up.

The parents complained that the emails sent to their son were overly-friendly, but not sexual in nature. That's not something you fire someone for.

Unfortunantly, I can't find that anyone has published the TEXT of the email messages. (Anyone got a link for that?)

BUT, if the sequence went as it has been described, I don't think Hassert handled anything innapropriatly here. Foley recieved a warning about the emails, which seems the right level of response. When the IM messages with sexual content came out, Foley resigned.

Fry Foley, but I'm not yet convinced Hassert deserves any blame.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:11 pm

Zuruck wrote:Why hasn't anyone said anything about this? Interesting that the "morally and ethically" fulfilled party has quite a scandal going. Do the Dems have some of these guys? Probably, but at least they are smart enought to keep it quiet.

Will, what you think?

I haven't said anything because I'm not sure I've heard all there is to hear. But since you're willing to proclaim that they have quite a scandal going on based on the same limited knowledge then I'll play along to answer your question.
If Hastert is telling the truth and didn't know about all the instant messages Foley sent, and he only knew that Foley was gay and had sent a single email to a page on one occasion which Hastert did do something about... then where is the wrong?

Remember that you're talking about two adults of the age of consent thanks to Washington DC's screwed up laws. So if Hastert should have done more at that time then you are advocating the republicans interfere with the private lives of their fellow congressmen.
Seems to me there was quite a bit of energy expended by the democrats to convince america that it was just none of our business what two consenting adults do!

I imagine if Hastert tried to kick Foley out of congress back then simply because he flirted with a boy then you would be posting how the republicans are gay bashing bastards who should stay out of other peoples private lives!

If you think this is such a crime, what Foley did, then if any democrats knew about it but kept it a secret until right before the election, then leaked the instant messages for political gain, will you be posting about how the democrats have put the lives of young pages at risk just so they could get some political scandal going right before the election?

You should ask yourself, who leaked these instant message logs and when did they first get them? I doubt it was a republican....

PS: I think Gooberman is right on target.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:44 pm

I mentioned his resignation from just reading something about Hastert coming up with three seperate stories of how he 'wasn't involved'. Doesn't sound good for him.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:00 pm

Testiculese wrote:I mentioned his resignation from just reading something about Hastert coming up with three seperate stories of how he 'wasn't involved'. Doesn't sound good for him.

Yea Hastert has already pissed off a lot of the more conservative republicans so they see this as a way to get rid of him or pay him back, that plus in anticipation of the dem's winning the house they think they can distance themselves from taking any blame for the loss by creating a scapegoat.
Personally I wish all of them would duel it out at 1 meter using double barrel 12 guage shotguns...but hey, that's just me

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:38 pm

re: my insinuation that this was a democrat campaign October surprise

Read it and weep... http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2 ... s-fall.php
And if you think the democrats are somehow different and only they are interested in saving the youngsters from being congressional sex toys you don't know your recent history.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:13 am

Well yeah Will, I already said I'm sure the Democrats have the same thing going around. I'm sure they all get BJs under their desk too but it only matters if you get caught in politics. I just hope all this stuff costs them...the Republicans say that this country will fall apart if the Dems take control. I don't know, it's been a long time since this country has been this polarized and they are to blame for it. Oh well, I'm willing to bet the GOP contingent on this board feels that the Democrats are more to blame for this than the man who was potentially a pedophile. It's a little azz backward.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:44 am

Zuruck wrote:Well yeah Will, I already said I'm sure the Democrats have the same thing going around. I'm sure they all get BJs under their desk too but it only matters if you get caught in politics. I just hope all this stuff costs them...the Republicans say that this country will fall apart if the Dems take control. I don't know, it's been a long time since this country has been this polarized and they are to blame for it. Oh well, I'm willing to bet the GOP contingent on this board feels that the Democrats are more to blame for this than the man who was potentially a pedophile. It's a little azz backward.

Well it looks like you don't care at all about the morality or ethics of a congressman making sexual advances toward a page, you merely want the republicans who might have done so to suffer for it.
So I guess you don't care that the same democrats who are feigning contempt for Foley sending lurid messages to a page were not willing to even censure a democrat congressman who did much more than send a message, he actually had sex with an under aged page and went on to be re-elected two times!

The hypocrisy doesn't bother you because you only care about the democrats pulling off a victory.

As far as I can tell there isn't anyone here who has claimed the democrats are to blame for Foleys acts, but the democrats are definitely guilty of total hypocrisy and they get away with it because people like you are so willing to be polarized by their tactics! Ironic that you think only the republicans are responsible for the polarization of america when you display such a blatent willingness to facililtate the democrat polarization tactics.
And now they are circulating a list of gay republicans and gay republican staff members....
Do you not find it more than just a bit troubling that the party that supposedly champions the gay citizens is trying to out and embarras these gay people just to stir up some more political momentum for their party?
I guess you will rationalize this tactic as well, anything for the team right?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:50 am

Will Robinson wrote:Do you not find it more than just a bit troubling that the party that supposedly champions the gay citizens is trying to out and embarras these gay people just to stir up some more political momentum for their party?

Just because they are gay doesn't give them the right to molest children. Two completely different issues. (Yes, I realize you were just taunting the left)

Fry Foley, AND I do believe it is a federal offense to NOT report information about child molestation if you are aware of it, so go for anyone in the chain who had knowledge of the sexualy explicit IM's, republicans, democrats, or whatever.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:03 am

Kilarin wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Do you not find it more than just a bit troubling that the party that supposedly champions the gay citizens is trying to out and embarras these gay people just to stir up some more political momentum for their party?
Just because they are gay doesn't give them the right to molest children. Two completely different issues. (Yes, I realize you were just taunting the left)

Fry Foley, AND I do believe it is a federal offense to NOT report information about child molestation if you are aware of it, so go for anyone in the chain who had knowledge of the sexualy explicit IM's, republicans, democrats, or whatever.

I think you are missing something on both of those points.
First, as far as we know, Foley apparantly has broken NO LAWS.
ABC reported the page was under age but actually he was 18...
Maybe a sexual harassment suit is in order but then Clinton sort of burned that option up didn't he? Well I guess since Foley is a republican that law may still be in effect..for him.

So far the only gay pedophile congressman to have sex with an underaged page was a democrat and he was re-elected twice and only some of the democrats in office at that time were willing to censure him!

Second, the democrats are now circulating lists of gay republicans who have done nothing! Why do you say: "Just because they are gay doesn't give them the right to molest children." when these people on the list are merely staffers and congressmen/women who happen to be gay!
The democrats are outing them for no other reason than to use guilt by association and it seems to have worked on you!

Here's the path your logic just took-
*Foley is gay and flirts with page
*ABC falsely reports the page he communicated with was a minor = Foley is pedophile
*republicans who are gay = pedophile

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:19 am

Will Robinson wrote:Foley apparantly has broken NO LAWS, ABC reported the page was under age but actually he was 18.

Really?!!!!?? Ok, that was not in ANY news report I read on this. That puts a completely different spin on it. The only complaint here can be that the page was "in his chain of command", which is an ENTIRELY different level of problem. Do you have a link on the pages age?

Will Robinson wrote:Why do you say: "Just because they are gay doesn't give them the right to molest children." when these people on the list are merely staffers and congressmen and woman who happen to be gay!

I was speaking ONLY of Foley, I wasn't aware of this "List", nor of the fact that the page was 18. I thank you for the corrections on both points.

Circulating a list of republican homosexuals in this manner is both hypocritical and reprehensable. And could easily backfire on them. It might increase Gay and Lesbian support for the republican party.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:30 am

It's too early to say if Foley will be innocent of any law breaking because the story is still unfolding. A few minutes ago I read of another page that thinks Foley was flirting with him on a chat screen...why the kid knew Foleys screen name I don't know. Could be an over zealous anti-conservative piling on or could be true.

Lots more to come so I'm not convinced Foley is totally innocent. He's a scum bag though either way just like Clinton was a scumbag for fooling around with Monica.

Check the Drudge Report for the links to most of the major media outlets and all the breaking stuff on this story. I'm pretty sure that's where I found the stuff I was talking about. If not there, one or two links beyond after following one of those linked there...

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:09 pm

The real question is: Who leaked the info to ABC?
If it turns out to be a Dem hoarding info so the info can be used at the appropriate time, all the while leaving pages at risk...gues where the real fall out is going to rain down

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:20 pm

From my further research, it looks like ABC is saying that SOME of the conversations happened before the boy turned 18, and some after.

We need more facts, but they don't seem to be coming out very well.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:22 pm

woodchip wrote:The real question is: Who leaked the info to ABC?
If it turns out to be a Dem hoarding info so the info can be used at the appropriate time, all the while leaving pages at risk...gues where the real fall out is going to rain down

Yeah, I am glad the republicans are getting ★■◆●, but if a democrat was such a twat that he held the information, I hope his ass is fried too.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:32 pm

http://www.drudgereport.com/page.htm

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:47 am

Kilarin, I think in most states the age of sexual consent is 16. Unless of course you're in some redneck states where it is 12.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:02 am

Yea gooby, it was all a big prank. That the same site where you get all your info huh Will? Well yeah that makes sense.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:05 am

Zuruck wrote:Yea gooby, it was all a big prank. That the same site where you get all your info huh Will? Well yeah that makes sense.

Zuruck, if you want to challenge the validity of any info I've shared here please do so, just because you make some vague comment about where it was published doesn't make it unreliable. Go ahead and tell us specifically what you find untrue about anything I've shared....

As far as The Drudge Report, you might have noticed, if you bothered to open your eyes instead of turn up your nose, that the site is a launch pad for tons of news sources ranging from Al Jazeera to the Wall Street Journal so you can go read it from the source as he posts links to almost everything he puts up and most of the headlines he posts are direct scoops of the stories about to be released in any number of those publications.
My guess is he pays for anonymous leaks from employees within each news orginazation.

As to the 'it was a prank story', it could be true, but if it is, it was probably instigated by the staffers knowledge of Foleys open secret that he was into young men. So it doesn't excuse his behavior or explain all the other times he went after young men. But it does expose some really bad, partisan journalism!

Another example is how the lefty press keeps saying "Hastert knew years ago about the messages"...well a good reporter wouldn't let that go unqualified since it appears that their are two sets of messages, the email that Hastert did know about and did something about..and the lurid instant messages that he didn't know about! It's pretty obvious partisan "reporting" to go on and describe the instant message content and follow up with reporting that Hastert
'knew about the messages years ago" without clarifying which messages Hastert did and didn't know about!

You must have an awful lot of faith in the democrat party to be willing to let them get away with fixing the fight with the help of the judges(press).

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:29 am

I have no argument with what you've said, Will. Just a question...

If reliable information is brought forward that there are leaders who knew of lurid messages to underage pages, should those leaders step down?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:34 am

No, I have no faith in the Democratic party...but I have even less in the Republican party and hope that they fail miserably this year. They've had 6 years to tear this country to shreds, which they've done, time to get them out. Are the Dems the best answer? Of course not, different puppet same strings. But, since we are only allowed two choices in this country, lesser of the two evils. That's what I've been saying since 2000. Bush has never, ever, ever bene the lesser of the two evils.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:39 am

Palzon wrote:If reliable information is brought forward that there are leaders who knew of lurid messages to underage pages, should those leaders step down?

I'll give MY answer, NO. They should NOT step down.

Instead they should be taken away in handcuffs by cops.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:14 pm

Kilarin wrote:
Palzon wrote:If reliable information is brought forward that there are leaders who knew of lurid messages to underage pages, should those leaders step down?
I'll give MY answer, NO. They should NOT step down.

Instead they should be taken away in handcuffs by cops.

X2

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:14 pm

Palzon wrote:I have no argument with what you've said, Will. Just a question...

If reliable information is brought forward that there are leaders who knew of lurid messages to underage pages, should those leaders step down?

Yes they should step down if they tried to cover it up

BUT!!!!!

if it also turns out that any democrats knew about this and held it quiet for 2+ years PURELY for political gain at election time should they step down also?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:51 pm

if it also turns out that any democrats knew about this and held it quiet for 2+ years PURELY for political gain at election time should they step down also?

But 2+ years brings us before the Bush/Kerry election. Which, if we are talking \"democrates\" as a whole they would of much rather had a story like this break during the Dan Rather scandel.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:19 pm

Palzon wrote:I have no argument with what you've said, Will. Just a question...

If reliable information is brought forward that there are leaders who knew of lurid messages to underage pages, should those leaders step down?

Absolutely! I belive there has to be some degree of guilt along those lines too, maybe they had no knowledge of the instant messages but there is just no way they couldn't have considered him a lecherous old bastard who was trying to screw very young men/boys. Washington politics doesn't allow the possibility that those concerns weren't discussed among the republican leadership. My guess is they needed him to hold his seat more than they worried he could emberras them....oh how wrong they were!

None of that excuses the rampant partisan journalism though! The loss of an objective press is much more of a threat than a room full of Foleys.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:25 pm

Yea gooby, it was all a big prank. That the same site where you get all your info huh Will? Well yeah that makes sense.

Usually ideologically we agree on most things Z. I just hate that, after how many days have gone by, if you go to cnn.com right now the main story is a Foley story.

Why?

Not to make light of the situation, but we have a sex scandle here with no actual sex. As far as sex scandles go this is a pretty boring one! At least with Clinton we had the cigar, the desk, the oval office, a story that would make for -- and has been made into -- a great porno. But this sex story will never be made into a pornographic film, because it is freakin boring.

So why are we still hearing about it?

You havn't won any ground on the battle for ideas if your ideas achieve victory soley by tainting the character of those whom have differing ideas.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:43 pm

CUDA wrote:
Palzon wrote:I have no argument with what you've said, Will. Just a question...

If reliable information is brought forward that there are leaders who knew of lurid messages to underage pages, should those leaders step down?
Yes they should step down if they tried to cover it up

BUT!!!!!

if it also turns out that any democrats knew about this and held it quiet for 2+ years PURELY for political gain at election time should they step down also?

Yes! I HOPE that the democrats didn't do this, but if they did they should be fried with the republicans who held it back too!

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:28 am

Foley is now a Democrat according to Fox News.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/04/fo ... fies_.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/06/mo ... eled_.html

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:32 am

woodchip wrote:The real question is: Who leaked the info to ABC?
If it turns out to be a Dem hoarding info so the info can be used at the appropriate time, all the while leaving pages at risk...gues where the real fall out is going to rain down

Glad to know where your priorities lie. That's your first reaction? lol

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:07 pm

This keeps getting curiouser and curiouser...

I've read a few places that several people (R and D congressmen, AND even parts of the press) knew about the e-mails (which I've read; they're creepy but not incriminating) -- but were reluctant to act on them because they were worried about being called homophobic. Here's a quote about the Miami Herald (from OJ/BOTW):

\"Our decision at the time was . . . that because the language was not sexually explicit and was subject to interpretation, from innocuous to 'sick,' as the page characterized it, to be cautious,\" said Tom Fiedler, executive editor of the Herald. \"Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay, and lacking any corroborating information, we chose not to do a story.\"

It was, apparently, common knowledge that Foley was gay and had an interest in pages. But nobody wanted to raise a stink and then have it backfire on them because the early evidence wasn't really incriminating. Once the sexually explicit set of IM's came out, of course, nobody was going to hold back. But EVERYBODY held back when, had it been a man sending slightly creepy messages to girls, they would've been investigating or publishing -- because nobody wants the label \"homophobe\".

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:47 am

Gooberman wrote:Not to make light of the situation, but we have a sex scandle here with no actual sex. As far as sex scandles go this is a pretty boring one! At least with Clinton we had the cigar, the desk, the oval office, a story that would make for -- and has been made into -- a great porno. But this sex story will never be made into a pornographic film, because it is freakin boring.

I gotta differ with you here. If there were no kids involved, I'd agree. I wouldn't care if Foley tried to screw every married woman (or man) on his block so long as they were adults.

Fact is, most kids are molested by people they know or to whom they are related. And it is rarely forcible rape. Typically there is a lot of what we call "grooming" that takes place first. What Foley did goes far beyond inappropriate. It is scandalous, even if it is not illegal. Monica Lewinsky was 22 yo.

Gooberman wrote:You havn't won any ground on the battle for ideas if your ideas achieve victory soley by tainting the character of those whom have differing ideas.

Here, you have me confused. Is this an endorsement for NAMBLA? Seriously.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:39 pm

I gotta differ with you here. If there were no kids involved, I'd agree. I wouldn't care if Foley tried to screw every married woman (or man) on his block so long as they were adults.

Fact is, most kids are molested by people they know or to whom they are related. And it is rarely forcible rape. Typically there is a lot of what we call \"grooming\" that takes place first. What Foley did goes far beyond inappropriate. It is scandalous, even if it is not illegal. Monica Lewinsky was 22 yo.

And how often does this occur, I really don't know, I imagine you do from previous posts. How many of these stories are still on the front page after 15 some days? Better yet, how many of these stories make the front page the first day?

If Foley refused to resign, then we have a continuing story. If we had republicans standing up for him then we have a continuing story. But all we are left with is:

1. The actual story. Which doesn't deserve this elongated media attention, because as I said before, is kind of boring.

2. The fact that there was a \"cover up\" ok, maybe something there. But if this was happening in January the investigation wouldn't be the head story for half a month.

We have a war in Iraq that isn't looking too good right now, we still have something going on in Afghanistan, N.Korea is testing nukes, Iran is trying to get nuclear technology.....and we also have a few internal social issues as well.

So yah, poltically, I just don't care what Foley did with some kid. Send him to jail, get the kid rehab. But this time of the year lets be discussing stuff that actually matters.

...and yes, I am a big fan of Marlon Brando look alikes.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:43 pm

In support of Goob's post, I loved this comic.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:54 pm

Isn't the US (insert any country) big enough to take care of both subjects, or are you arguing because you're influenced by the size of CNN bytes attributed to both subjects? Or, and here's the scary one...are the people that are supposed to be able to multitask....not?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:58 pm

Gooberman wrote:So yah, poltically, I just don't care what Foley did with some kid. Send him to jail, get the kid rehab. But this time of the year lets be discussing stuff that actually matters...

There's the problem, apparantly the democrat party and their accomplices in the press don't think they can get elected discussing those other things so they are trying to ride the scandal train back to power.

There has never been a more obvious need to reject both parties at the ballot box than today.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:20 pm

Flabby Chick wrote:Isn't the US (insert any country) big enough to take care of both subjects,

Not wothout screwing itself in the process...

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:37 pm

Speaking of "who knew what when" and why this came out when it did:

John Fund wrote:Politics is all about timing. Apparently, the liberals behind Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the group that received information about Mark Foley's sexual instant messages as far back as April, originally planned to unleash its blockbuster a bit later in the 2008 election cycle. The American Spectator reports that a political consultant with ties to the Democratic National Committee told the magazine: "I'm hearing the Foley story wasn't supposed to drop until about ten days out of the election. It was supposed to be the coup de grace, not the first shot."

But as another Democratic operative told the magazine, the political climate at the end of September was suddenly turning ominous. "Bush's national security speeches were getting traction beyond the base, gas prices were dropping, economic outlook surveys were positive. Republicans were back to [holding enough House] seats for a 15-seat majority. In the Senate, it looked like a wash." All that may have played a role in prompting Democratic partisans to speed up the use of opposition research on Mr. Foley that had been put aside for later in the campaign.

That's the first I'd heard about a group knowing about the actually-incriminating, rather than just-creepy, messages.

Does it surprise anyone that this was brought up just before the election? And does it surprise anyone that the media is covering this more than any other subject?

Of course, the White House ignoring Kim Jong Il is all part of the plan, anyway... KJI has always negotiated by bullying and threatening. Fire a missile, expect negotiations. Fire 2 missiles, expect the other side to give you something you want. And the White House has responded very well so far -- by giving them less, rather than more, when they make aggressive moves.

Foley Hastert & The Homophobic Right

Foley Hastert & The Homophobic Right

Re: Foley Hastert & The Homophobic Right