Comments on: Congressman Mark ‘Page Boy’ Foley Resigns

By: Tyrone

Tyrone — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:54:13 +0000

I meant to say 2003 email not 1993.

By: Tyrone

Tyrone — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:08:40 +0000

Here’s my two cents. The email sent last year was pretty tame, but it Foley was confronted by republicans over it. The email Foley sent back in 1993 is the one that was very explicit. The email Foley sent back in 1993 was recently released, this email is the one that has caused the uproar. Someone held this email for three full years, and then decided to release it a few weeks before the general election. Obviously Foley is sick in the head and needs help,but what would be the purpose of holding on to such an email for that period of time? I believe there should be two investigations. One obviously should be for Foley, but the other investigation should be into who held the 1993 email. This email has put a cloud over the republican party just in time for the election. I truly believe thats what it was intended to do. I have two words for you all.

OCTOBER SURPRISE!!!

If a parent discovered that an adult was sending these types of emails to their son or daughter, do any of you think they would save them for three years and then release them to the police or the media?

By: JohnD

JohnD — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:42:01 +0000

All I can say, is the rest of the world are (probably) hoping that you boys and girls actually take a break from flinging poop at each other.

You know, actually crack a few open around the BBQ, have a laugh, share some non-Nationalist, non-racist, non-partisan humour.

I mean, you do, don’t you?

By: Heliotrope

Heliotrope — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:00:54 +0000

#44 go1:

You have really gone deep into the septic tank for this site. What’s the matter, you can’t find anything to offset Kennedy, Frank, Hastings, Byrd, Clinton, et. al?

Is there a Republican site that trashes the Democrat through the idiocy of their pea-brained supporters? I suppose, but I wouldn’t give it the time of day.

Gerry Studds and Barney Frank and Bill Clinton still stand as poster boys for Democratic party double standards.

The fact that you would even recommend this site is proof of your inane bigotry. I wouldn’t give most of those “Republicans” cab fare to a rehabilitation seminar.

You people are really amazing. You set your own hair on fire and then yell “arson”!

By: Doug

Doug — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:08:43 +0000

Check back over at Hot Air to see Allah’s updates on this scandal, and how it had developed.

By: go1

go1 — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:18:40 +0000

Studds was 33-34 years ago when he had his affair. You got anything more recent? . . . Like maybe these ones: http://www.armchairsubversive.com/

By: Heliotrope

Heliotrope — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:05:08 +0000

#42 Jim R:

And Gerry Studds had sex with a page and only suffered censure of the House because………………? I am breathlessly awaiting your justification.

I do not want Foley in the House. Barney Frank doesn’t belong there either. Alcee Hastings is no pillar of rectitude. There is a Senator who drowned a girl and bought his way to eternal election. Another Senator recruited for the KKK and rose to become the leader of the Senate. I don’t want them there either. They stink up the place.

But, Foley and the Republican leadership are due the chance to reveal what took place. The news only hit on Friday and nobody has got much of the story yet. If you want to shoot Foley and charge the leadership with cover up, go ahead. It only shows how easily you excuse the Democrat trash and how readily you will shoot to kill the Republicans without any clear knowledge of the case at hand.

Democrats spin for their problem representatives and keep reelecting them. Republicans cut the cancer out.

I can’t wait to read the definitive Democrat guide to “it’s just about sex.” Clinton can write the intro.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:49:11 +0000

Heliotrope sounds like he was the one advising the House Leadership on how to cover….er, handle, the damage.

How many times does it take for supposedly intelligent people to learn the cover does more harm that the offense in the long run. What was that definition of insanity again…..anyone?

By: Heliotrope

Heliotrope — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:07:08 +0000

Whoa!, there hoss! There are several threads to follow in the Foley mess and to discover how (if at all) they are connected.

Thread #1 is what exactly did Foley do and when did he do it?Strand from Thread #1 is did Foley break any laws?

Thread #2 is how much did the leadership know and when did they know it? Strand from Thread #2 is did they engage in any form of cover-up?

Thread #3 is did Foley have the right to a presumption of innocence? Strand of thread #3 is was there a point where his actions outweighed the presumption of innocence and when did that occur?

Thread #4 is the Gerry Studds precedent and the determination of how the Foley evidence parallels or differs from the precedent.

Thread #5 is the political season and the possible party balance shift in the House of Representative. Strand of Thread #5 is whether Democrats are more driven by outrage or opportunity? Strand of Thread #5 is are Republicans driven by a fear of losing the House?

Congress can not keep from leaking sensitive secrets concerning the national security. How could they ever sit down and honestly examine ethics charges in a room full of A-type personalities all jockeying for a political advantage?

By: Rhymes With Right

Rhymes With Right — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:54:26 +0000

A Question On The Foley Affair

When I first read about the emails by Rep. Mark Foley to a congressional page, I dismissed the matter as unimportant and not worthy of comment. After all, this was not a stranger seeking out kids on the internet –…

By: dianne

dianne — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:12:12 +0000

Can anyone tell me “who” is the equivalent of “Human Resources” in the House of Representatives? In most corporations, if there was a charge of sexual harrassment, any manager would be required to report the allegation to HR and HR would then conduct an investigation and take appropriate action. Was Hastert the responsible party to investigate and take action?

By: mj

mj — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:56:02 +0000

Example of a change in definition: when women want the pregnancy, the life growing inside them is a forthcoming baby. When they don’t want it, they don’t describe it that way.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:06:47 +0000

That would be ‘deserve’ not ‘deserved’.

Add to the disgust, these creeps had this creep assigned to lead a committee on exploited children. There is just no excuse possible for it.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:03:29 +0000

The fact Congress, controlled by Republicans, chose a ‘Vatican’ cover-up for almost a year, and very likely would have never exposed it if they themselves were not ‘outed’, add double disgust and damage to conservative causes.

Add this to the other scandals under their leadership, I think they deserved to be fired by conservatives in the next election.

By: Tyrone

Tyrone — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 06:14:04 +0000

This is all liberal chatters have been talking about in the political chat rooms. It’s going to be awhile before they get tired of this story.