The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 115

wendybeth · 10-08-2006, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

There is another angle I've heard to this as well now, being that the dems have known about this for months as well and wished to have it times for release closer to the election. If so, that is as despicable as what I believe Hastert is possibly guilty of.

It is all conjecture, of course, except for the Foley part. I would not put it past republican leadership to try to hold the story until after the elections and the dems to try to hold the story until weeks before them.

And to finish the part of my quote that you left out..."I don't know much about it, but I do know that no one has yet to produce any proof regarding the Dems and whether or not they knew beforehand."

Again, all I am saying is that I don't know enough about this (I am a Dem, after all) to really say how I feel about Hastert, etc. By your own admission, neither do you. So, wtf are we arguing about here?

scaeagles · 10-08-2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

So, wtf are we arguing about here?

Because you're a freakin' lib and therefore must be up to no good!

wendybeth · 10-08-2006, 10:15 PM

At least our pervs are loud and proud, baby!

scaeagles · 10-09-2006, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

At least our pervs are loud and proud, baby!

Hey - If Barney Frank didn't know his boyfriend was running a male prostitution ring out of his house, I can believe Hastert didn't know about this.

scaeagles · 10-03-2006, 05:30 AM

No, I'm saying if they knew 6 months ago they had a responsibility to disclose it at that time, the same as Hastert had the responsibility to disclose it. Hastert didn't want it to come out prior to the election. If the theories I have heard regarding the dems knowing as well are true, they should not have waited until now.

Anyone who knew this was going on and did not do anything about it in order to maximize political advantage in terms of timing is despicable, whether it was to protect a seat or damage a party. There was a something sick going on that needed to be stopped immediately.

The left has a political football, and in this case I really don't mind if they use it. A predator and the leadership protecting him deserve all they get. I just hope the dems weren't sitting on it for months the same as Hastert (allegedly - I could be wrong). Politics is politics, but this goes beyond some fund raising scandal or some other such thing.

It is always possible I am jumping to conclusions about Hastert.

Moonliner · 10-03-2006, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The left has a political football, and in this case I really don't mind if they use it. A predator and the leadership protecting him deserve all they get.

From the reports I'm seeing, it looks like a lot of people share your thoughts Leo. I really think this points to a disconnect between the republican leadership, their promotion of family values, and the people. I really feel like it's coming as a shock to some of these politicians that good people like you really believe in the message and not in the politicians who are just giving it lip service.

Alex · 10-03-2006, 08:42 AM

According to this timeline, from a right-leaning source, the story was first given to the press in November 2005 but the St. Petersburg Times did nothing with it (presumably because they felt those early emails weren't sufficient or perhaps they were protecting a local politician). It also has the emails being provided to the FBI (though it isn't clear on which ones) in June of this year.

So it sounds like there were attempts and opportunities for this to hit the press much earlier than now.

Alex · 10-03-2006, 08:46 AM

The source on the pages having been warned about Foley is Matthew Loraditch, current president of the page alumni association. He says he was warned that Foley was gay and not to get too involved with him.

Loraditch has also, on some blog of his said that the Associated Press overstated his quote into a bigger warning than it was.

I wonder what we would think if presented with a warning from a Republican staffer to avoid someone because they were gay.

JWBear · 10-03-2006, 08:36 AM

I just heard this on the radio this morning and I haven’t had time to verify it… Apparently Foley's "interests" have been common knowledge on Capitol Hill for the last 5 years, and some staffers have been warning pages to avoid him. If this is true, so much for the “Haslert didn’t know the emails were sexual” defense.

Nephythys · 10-03-2006, 12:04 PM

Do you actually think this crap happens in a republican vacuum?

Good lord- that takes a naive view and some serious blinders.

Swear to God- you guys drag Clinton up more than anyone else here does- and HEAVEN for freaking forbid that that article has a good point.

<----indeed.

10-08-2006, 10:15 PM	#3
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	At least our pervs are loud and proud, baby! __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 05:30 AM	#5
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	No, I'm saying if they knew 6 months ago they had a responsibility to disclose it at that time, the same as Hastert had the responsibility to disclose it. Hastert didn't want it to come out prior to the election. If the theories I have heard regarding the dems knowing as well are true, they should not have waited until now. Anyone who knew this was going on and did not do anything about it in order to maximize political advantage in terms of timing is despicable, whether it was to protect a seat or damage a party. There was a something sick going on that needed to be stopped immediately. The left has a political football, and in this case I really don't mind if they use it. A predator and the leadership protecting him deserve all they get. I just hope the dems weren't sitting on it for months the same as Hastert (allegedly - I could be wrong). Politics is politics, but this goes beyond some fund raising scandal or some other such thing. It is always possible I am jumping to conclusions about Hastert.
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 08:42 AM	#7
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	According to this timeline, from a right-leaning source, the story was first given to the press in November 2005 but the St. Petersburg Times did nothing with it (presumably because they felt those early emails weren't sufficient or perhaps they were protecting a local politician). It also has the emails being provided to the FBI (though it isn't clear on which ones) in June of this year. So it sounds like there were attempts and opportunities for this to hit the press much earlier than now.
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 08:46 AM	#8
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	The source on the pages having been warned about Foley is Matthew Loraditch, current president of the page alumni association. He says he was warned that Foley was gay and not to get too involved with him. Loraditch has also, on some blog of his said that the Associated Press overstated his quote into a bigger warning than it was. I wonder what we would think if presented with a warning from a Republican staffer to avoid someone because they were gay.
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 08:36 AM	#9
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	I just heard this on the radio this morning and I haven’t had time to verify it… Apparently Foley's "interests" have been common knowledge on Capitol Hill for the last 5 years, and some staffers have been warning pages to avoid him. If this is true, so much for the “Haslert didn’t know the emails were sexual” defense. __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 12:04 PM	#10
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	Do you actually think this crap happens in a republican vacuum? Good lord- that takes a naive view and some serious blinders. Swear to God- you guys drag Clinton up more than anyone else here does- and HEAVEN for freaking forbid that that article has a good point. <----indeed.
	Submit to Quotes