Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 164
  1. #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tastypeppers View Post
    Fair comment! Mr. D. ain't necessarily a Fountain of Credibility, eh? Let's just wait and see.
    Indeed. What possible good can come from that? The Republicans obviously agree with you; they had the opportunity to end it today but decided to drag it out. What can they be thinking? I hope that the Democrats have the good grace, not to mention the good sense, to remain silent as the Republicans savage themselves.
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tastypeppers View Post
    Fair comment! Mr. D. ain't necessarily a Fountain of Credibility, eh? Let's just wait and see.
    Like I said,


    Three More Former Pages Accuse Foley of Online Sexual Approaches

    October 05, 2006 5:20 PM
    Brian Ross, Rhonda Schwartz & Maddy Sauer Report:

    Three more former congressional pages have come forward to reveal what they call "sexual approaches" over the Internet from former Congressman Mark Foley.

    The pages served in the classes of 1998, 2000 and 2002. They independently approached ABC News after the Foley resignation through the Brian Ross & the Investigative Team's tip line on ABCNews.com. None wanted their names used because of the sensitive nature of the communications.

    "I was seventeen years old and just returned to when Foley began to e-mail me, asking if I had ever seen my page roommates naked and how big their *****es were," said the page in the 2002 class.

    The former page also said Foley told him that if he happened to be in Washington, D.C., he could stay at Foley's home if he "would engage in oral sex" with Foley.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...more_form.html
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35 View Post
    ........Hastert may end up paying the same price as Martha Stewart and Clinton - the cover up (or even the perception of a cover up) is more severely punishable than the actual non-criminal but non-ethical activity.........
    I do not think that the issue is cover up but Hastert does. He thinks that the issue is cover up, the standard of proof is high, and that he can beat the rap.

    I think that the issue is a failure of leadership, that the standard of proof is much lower, and he cannot possibly beat it. The issue will last as long as he does, and the longer it lasts, the more members of his party will go down with him.

    I wish I could say that I am sorry but I am trying not to take too much satisfaction.
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    Like I said,
    Indeed. One can only wonder what Foley was thinking. It is much more obvious what the kids were thinking. They were thinking that it was all about them and that they dared not expose themselves, much less Foley.
  5. #145  
    The former page also said Foley told him that if he happened to be in Washington, D.C., he could stay at Foley's home if he "would engage in oral sex" with Foley.
    Now we have (evidence of) solicitation. (I am still carefully parsing what I say but the evidence mounts and the benefit of any doubt shrinks.)
    Last edited by whmurray; 10/05/2006 at 07:04 PM.
  6. #146  
    I think Hastert has to go.

    People either have standards/ethics or they don't. You can't compartmentalize your life -- saint over here, cut corners over there. Mr. Hastert has yet to demonstrate a satisfactory level of internal ethical standards. Foley is one instance. His rush to defend Mr. Jefferson in the search of Jefferson's office is a second one.

    If the Republicans have any sense of ethics they'd toss Mr. Hastert overboard forthwith.

    If the Republicans had a long view they'd do so even if they lose this election cycle. Give up short term gain to walk the walk of being known as the Party with a Backbone and Integrity. Well, assuming you ARE that and you can live that way. Which I don't think the R's have demonstrated, unfortunately.

    Nor can the D's but we're not talking about the D side right now.

    I generally vote R but first and foremost I'm a dad, a business owner who makes sure my employees have payroll checks that will clear on the 15th and 30th and get health insurance, and generally believes in cleaning up your own messes and not acting like a victim/blaming others for your own deals. I don't think the R's as a group necessarily earn my vote. Individuals might. The party no.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tastypeppers View Post
    I think Hastert has to go.

    People either have standards/ethics or they don't. You can't compartmentalize your life -- saint over here, cut corners over there. Mr. Hastert has yet to demonstrate a satisfactory level of internal ethical standards. Foley is one instance. His rush to defend Mr. Jefferson in the search of Jefferson's office is a second one.

    If the Republicans have any sense of ethics they'd toss Mr. Hastert overboard forthwith.

    If the Republicans had a long view they'd do so even if they lose this election cycle. Give up short term gain to walk the walk of being known as the Party with a Backbone and Integrity. Well, assuming you ARE that and you can live that way. Which I don't think the R's have demonstrated, unfortunately.

    Nor can the D's but we're not talking about the D side right now.

    I generally vote R but first and foremost I'm a dad, a business owner who makes sure my employees have payroll checks that will clear on the 15th and 30th and get health insurance, and generally believes in cleaning up your own messes and not acting like a victim/blaming others for your own deals. I don't think the R's as a group necessarily earn my vote. Individuals might. The party no.

    Very well put. Many on this board have a hard time seeing past the political party tag that is attached to a name, both Dems and Repubs. They would prefer to see a party fail instead of seeing a nation advance.

    I think all that are involved should go, it appears that numerous individuals were aware to some extent of activities on both sides. There are rumblings that others are not saying much right now for fear that their indiscretions may come to light.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8. #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tastypeppers View Post
    ........
    If the Republicans have any sense of ethics they'd toss Mr. Hastert overboard forthwith.
    It is a little much to expect a political party to have a "sense of ethics" beyond survival. In this case, one would expect that to be enough.
  9. #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio View Post
    .........I think all that are involved should go, .........
    That is what elections are for. We have one coming up.

    However, Hastert is a special case. He has to go, not because he did anything wrong, but because he failed in his leadership role. He would like to "accept responsiblity" while avoiding consequences. One does not even know what that means.
  10. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tastypeppers View Post
    I think Hastert has to go.

    People either have standards/ethics or they don't. You can't compartmentalize your life -- saint over here, cut corners over there. Mr. Hastert has yet to demonstrate a satisfactory level of internal ethical standards. Foley is one instance. His rush to defend Mr. Jefferson in the search of Jefferson's office is a second one.
    I totally agree. However, if we are kicking everybody out with low standards and ethics, congress would be empty.
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    However, Hastert is a special case. He has to go, not because he did anything wrong, but because he failed in his leadership role. He would like to "accept responsiblity" while avoiding consequences. One does not even know what that means.
    Sad but true....both parties have long histories of protecting their high profile leaders when they have been caught in scandals, even (or especially) sexual ones. I am sure both sides of the fence could make a list to show the historical precedence pretty fast (even if we only start keeping score since 1990).
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    It is a little much to expect a political party to have a "sense of ethics" beyond survival. In this case, one would expect that to be enough.
    Exactly! All that the politicos care about is survival and clinging on to power at any cost.

    But you're right - even if Hastert is not to blame, it's time for a bit of house-cleaning.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps View Post
    I totally agree. However, if we are kicking everybody out with low standards and ethics, congress would be empty.
    LOL! Or at least two out of the three branches of the goverment would have to clear out - DC would be such a "clean" city!
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  14. #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35 View Post
    LOL! Or at least two out of the three branches of the goverment would have to clear out - DC would be such a "clean" city!
    Unfortunately, since we only have two viable parties, and they're both corrupt, we'd be trying to clean the house with a muddy rag.
  15. #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35 View Post
    LOL! Or at least two out of the three branches of the goverment would have to clear out - DC would be such a "clean" city!
    There would still be all of those tacky tourists in shorts with no sleeves and no socks.
  16. #156  
    Congressmen McHenry and Kingston have just asserted on Hard Ball that the only question is "What did the Democrats know and when did they know it?" "This is not about Dennis Hastert."
  17.    #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Congressmen McHenry and Kingston have just asserted on Hard Ball that the only question is "What did the Democrats know and when did they know it?" "This is not about Dennis Hastert."
    Could you elaborate on that statement. I'm a little slow.
  18. #158  
    < < Edited by Septimus > >
  19. #159  
    Saturday's Wash. Post describes a much earlier confrontation by Hastert's staff about Foley's horrible behavior.

    He might've been able to get away with being stupid -- but when it comes out that he's actively lying NOW his days will be numbered.


    Earlier Role by Hastert's Office -- Confrontation With Foley Detailed

    By Jonathan Weisman
    Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, October 7, 2006; A01

    House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his inappropriate social contact with male pages well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

    The staff member said Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, met with the Florida Republican at the Capitol to discuss complaints about Foley's behavior toward pages. The alleged meeting occurred long before Hastert says aides in his office dispatched Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and the clerk of the House in November 2005 to confront Foley about troubling e-mails he had sent to a Louisiana boy.

    The staff member's account buttresses the position of Foley's onetime chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, who said earlier this week that he had appealed to Palmer in 2003 or earlier to intervene, after Fordham's own efforts to stop Foley's behavior had failed. Fordham said Foley and Palmer, one of the most powerful figures in the House of Representatives, met within days to discuss the allegations...

    The emergence of a second congressional staffer describing such a meeting came on a day that Hastert (R-Ill.) was working to solidify his hold on the speakership. Prominent Republicans, including President Bush, have defended Hastert...

    Hastert maintains that he knew nothing of Foley's actions until last week, when the story first broke and Foley resigned. His stance contradicts that of House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), both of whom said they had informed Hastert this spring.

    Palmer has resolutely said he had no earlier meeting with Foley...

    Hastert's office contends that the first confrontation with Foley occurred in November 2005...Fordham's account not only pushed the matter back at least two years but also indicated that alarms over Foley's behavior had gone well beyond bland e-mails.

    Sources close to Fordham say Trandahl repeatedly urged the longtime aide and close family friend to confront Foley about his inappropriate advances on pages. Each time, Foley pledged to no longer socialize with the teenagers, but, weeks later, Trandahl would again alert Fordham about more contacts. Out of frustration, the sources said, Fordham contacted Palmer, hoping that an intervention from such a powerful figure in the House would persuade Foley to stop.

    Now, a second House aide familiar with Foley and his actions told The Washington Post yesterday that "Scott Palmer had spoken to Foley prior to November 2005."...

    ...Several people who spoke with Palmer said the chief of staff was emphatic in denying that he knew anything about Foley's questionable contacts with young male pages.

    Palmer, who shares a townhouse with Hastert when they are in town, is more powerful than all but a few House members. Members know that he speaks for Hastert...

    Trandahl's departure came within days of his confrontation with Foley over e-mails that the congressman had sent a former page. House aides say the circumstances of Trandahl's exit were oddly quiet..."He seemed to suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke."...

    Congressional aides point to another factor that links Trandahl to the Foley matter. A member of the board of the national gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, Trandahl is openly homosexual and personally close to the now-disgraced former lawmaker, who announced through his lawyer this week that he is gay.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  20. #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Could you elaborate on that statement. I'm a little slow.
    No, I do not think that you are. Rather, I think that the claims are self-absolving, not to say outrageous. As is the usual politics in such situations, the issue is never about our failure but about their "vast left/right wing conspiracy."

    It is clearly time to "throw the rascals out," inexperienced rascals being preferable to entrenched ones.
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions