Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/2/06 08:33 PM, Truthiness wrote: As more information comes out, it appears an awful lot of people knew about this, and they all sat on their hands with the information. They even went so far as to warn Republican Party Pages, but not Democratic Pages, to stay away from Rep. Foley.

Foley needs to be put in jail.

I'm just not as reactive about it since it's not at all new to me how political "leaders" are corrupt.

At 10/2/06 08:33 PM, Truthiness wrote: They even went so far as to warn Republican Party Pages, but not Democratic Pages, to stay away from Rep. Foley.

That's because Democratic pages are gay.

Didn't anyone learn a lesson from the Catholic sex scandals? The faithful left in droves when they found out about the whole thing. The molestations were one thing, but the church covering it up was what most people were angry about. It was as if Mother Church was condoning these activities. And the Republicans have basically set themselves up in the same position. I could say that one man does not a party make, but when the higher-ups deliberately turn a blind eye on this sort of thing it certainly gives the impression that they condone Foley's actions.

I've been reading more of these messages back and forth. It's strange to me how much this kid played along. I wonder what was in it for him. Was he just trying to advance himself? Or maybe Foley gave him expensive presents, or something. Or, I suppose, it's possible he really was interested in the creepy old guy. Who knows.

If my Senator gave me presents, I would totally hit that.

At 10/2/06 02:43 PM, WolvenBear wrote: You really sound stupid sometimes. One republican does something and it's inditing against all Republicans. A good chunk of the Democratic coffers defend the ACLU on their crusade to erode protections for children against pedophiles and rapists.

And yet when one Democrate, it indites against all Democrates... amirite? But the same can NEVER EVER be said true for the Republicans.

C'est la vie--

I mean, it is Republicans who are against helping the poor and stuff... just like how Demos are out there to molest little kids and stuff...

*eye rollie*
You sound like a hack if there were any--

Oh, and by the way, the kid was 16.

I guess you could see it both ways-- like a glass full of water.
Just 2 years from being a 14 years old kid...
or
Just 2 years away from being an adult.

I don't really know--
Things do have shades between them. Consentual adult afairs and child molestation are bad...

But OBVIOUSLY there is a worse one here--
even if the kid is 16... but oh wait... that's like only 2 years from being consentual.

Next on the Republican agenda: demanding the guy step down, getting him out of office, filing charges against him, and moving on. Doesn't change that Clinton was scum. And you're a RAGING hypocrite. Nambla OK, party that ousts someone over a sex scandal bad! Ridiculous.

Because you seem to agree with it.

EXCUSE ME? OK, Fli, quite simply, this is the stupidest thing you have ever said. I have said it was bad, I have said it was stupid, and I pointed out my party condemned it. You're so ridiculously partisan that it would be funny if you weren't a grown man.

LOL--
So said the pot to the kettle.

*eye rollie*
I won't speak about your ideas as a Republican and pretend to know what you stand for, and you extend the same courtesy to me.

I condemned it. Said it was bad. My stance is pretty easy to stand. Pedophile bad. Rapist bad. As opposed to you: Republican pedo bad, Democrat rapist...ok.

You don't get it...
Both things are bad... but there is something worse going on when a kid is involved and for you it's like you don't see the distinction of HOW bad is one from the other.

I'm sure you're not amused by the fact that I called you a kid lover, and like wise-- I didn't find it pleasent that you did the same to me. I'm not fond of "tit-for-tat." Let's just move on.

I'll call this Barbara Boxer outrage. "We are not for abortion on demand. That what we are accused of, and nothing could be further from the truth1...OK, back to legalizing abortion on demand." I can't remember hearing you say that a Democrat was bad. You have argued me repeatedly, defending the ACLU even with things like NAMBLA and child porn in their belts, telling me how wonderful they are. Now you're defending a man who abused his office to prey on women and was accused of rape. Saying that everything Clinton did was consentual is ridiculous. But a guy who abuses his office to go after a potential victim and is REPUBLICAN to boot...oh he gets your ire. Sorry, but my criticism stands, if this was a democrat I doubt we'd be hearing a word from you.

First off--
I'm Democrate not because I like child porn and am a kid lover.

And second, I don't defend ACLU for NAMBLA and all that stuff. But if I say anything like, "Oh look, ACLU is defending Jerry Falwell... I guess this shows that they're not after religion and all that." Hey... maybe Foley will be next to be represented by them.

And then for it's it's like, "OH... You don't disagree with them? YOU'RE EVIL!"
*eye rollie*

I view that ACLU tries to actively work for rights and equality, and I commend them. Although my criticism is that they don't see some stuff that shouldn't be okay.

OH MY!
Look at Fli... not disagreeing on ACLU with WolvenBear... so he must enjoy pedophilia! Grrrr... roar...

*eye rollie*

Pedophiles are their own category that is neither gay nor straight.
And since your people, Straighty, haven't been stigmatized by people saying gay people are pedophiles (despite the fact that there are statistically more, and I'm gonna use your words, "straight pedophiles,") I can understand why you could toss something serious as this as irrelevent in the most childish type of manner (and stupid to boot.)

I don't know which is statistically more likely, and honestly I don't care. A crime is a crime. And I find it silly that you've gotta come out and shake the pom-poms. No gayness from a dude going after a 16 year old boy. When people make an issue out of something like that...the major thing seems to go away (i.e. the improper conduct). Hell, look at Clinton...he just lied about sex, he just lied about sex....why was Clinton in court? Cause he lied about sex. Oh wait, no, he was being sued for sexual harassment, and to deny this woman her day in court, he committed perjury. What's remembered? He lied about sex. Ridiculous.

Yes, because to lie on an consentual affair is as equally horrible as to lie about wanting to exploit a kid.

Now let's discuss how masturbation is equally bad to 1st degree murder.

Aye--
forgivable...

You mean Republicans are frontin' on my molesting grounds?

At 10/3/06 05:40 PM, Truthiness wrote: You mean Republicans are frontin' on my molesting grounds?

Everyones been fronting on your molesting grounds party member.

Just to put this out, you seem to try to keep a persona of a moderate democrat but you just seem to have an unnatural hate for anything Republican.

It's just wierd.

At 10/3/06 06:09 PM, Grammer wrote:

That's right, you're trying to justify a wrong by pointing to another wrong. This has nothing to do with Clinton whatsoever.

No no, I'm not trying to justify anything. Just noticing a trend.

At 10/3/06 06:00 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 10/3/06 05:40 PM, Truthiness wrote:

Just to put this out, you seem to try to keep a persona of a moderate democrat but you just seem to have an unnatural hate for anything Republican.

I condemned Gingrich, Livingston and Clinton for their sex scandals, Abramoff and DeLay for their lobbying scandals, Traficant for his racketeering, Pastrick for HIS racketeering, and many others. I am an equal opportunity condemner.

At 10/2/06 03:13 PM, stafffighter wrote: Even in the worst accusations she never said Clinton raped her. That's going as far as beleiving her story which isn't easy to do. And who did Kennedy murder?

Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape. He never denied it, and as for finding it "hard to believe the charges against Clinton", he admitted to almost all of them eventually. So it's pretty hard NOT to believe them.
http://www.washingto..broaddrick022599.htm

As for Kennedy...I am of course speaking of Ted, his criminal negligence killing Mary Jo Kopechne.

Yes, after knowing about it for years they fully admit how bad it was

And Dennis Hastert is ALSO being asked to step down, despite his claims that he never saw the worse emails.

Actually what Clinton did there sounds more like saolisitation than big scary dracula letters RAPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And what did he do to make it safer for terrorist? he had comprehensive plans in place that the current administration had months to look at.

Clinton rape thing discussed above. It's sad that no one remembers anyone except for Lewinski (or the rare person remembers Paula Jones. Even in Richard Clarke's version of events Clinton was pretty damn negligent. He also helped create the lovely "wall of seperation" bettween CIA and FBI. As well as selling secrets to the Chinese, and allowing them to commit espionage with no action against it (thanks for letting me know about that JoS).

Which you can't do so you're making it up as you go along

*Grammers comment on arresting I forgot and deleted*

I've now backed up everything I've said.

As do we. And the Republicans are working on it.

After two years of sitting on it.

Yea, you really have nothing here. Because all teh Republicans who "sat on it" for a year, are now also being pushed out the door by the rest of the party. Since Hastert is one guy...your accusation is as useless as it was before. Since the people calling for the resignations had no way of knowing about this before it came out....there's no possible criticism you can have of them.

At 10/2/06 05:32 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Whats better is the Republican parties corruption of recent years makes Democratic impropriety look like Jesus in comparison.

WOW! Or not. You sir, are truely full of shit.

I mean, gimme a fucking break. I think the Democrats have their retards but the Republicans far beat out the Dems in recent years on the scandal scene. WolvenBear, you will lose this debate if you want to start debating ethics and the goodness of parties. The Republicans are so fucking corrupt nowadays it is not even funny.

Tom fucking Delay. What else needs saying.

Actually the fun thing is...I WON'T!

Of course there was the Clinton corruption, which extended FAAARRRR beyond the sexual scandals. Then there was William Jefferson...which was ridiculously bad. Then there was the Democratic involvement in the Abromoff scandals. Sandy Berger stealing federal documents. Barney Frank. Etc.

And let's mention once that nothing that our deal Foley did was actually illegal. 16 is the age of censent in Florida. So the Republican party wants him gone over ethics violations! Wow, it's kinda like the Paula Jones thing....without the perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.

Sorry, Fab, if we wanna get into this, this is ANOTHER subject you won't win on.
And part of it comes in that, Republicans have no problem outting other Republicans.

It comes down to how I always say it. I may not agree with the Republicans on a lot of issues...but I agree with the Democrats on nothng.

At 10/2/06 06:09 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: In a court case which never should have been allowed to happen. Permitting a sitting President to be taken to court in a sexual harassment suit is ridiculous, and was obviously an attempt to corner Clinton into a situation wherein he would perjure himself (or resign to avoid embarrassment, which would have been even more juicy and wonderful).

That's moronic. You are in effect saying that the President shouldn't be held to the rule of law. Quite frankly all he had to do is pay her 20 grand or so (which wouldn't even have come out of his pocket) and she wouldn't have been remembered a week later.

And, frankly, who cares? What does Clinton (or any other sex scandal) have to do with the matter at hand? Oh, dear, the people see a Republican child predator as worse than a Democrat adulterer. Perhaps it's because Foley comes from a party that claims a "moral authority" in this country. He's supposed to be a paragon of virtue.

There are two reasons for this. One he's on a committee to promote child welfare...and that scares people...it should. Two, despite the fact that the boy was legal, Foley used his position to exert pressure on the kid to have sex with him. That is unacceptable from ANY of our political leaders right or left.

As a Republican (perhaps not for long, at this rate) I feel that my party should hold itself to a higher moral standard than everyone else. I don't give a damn what happens to Democrats who engage in lewd acts. That's their party's problem. Let's not go pointing fingers at anyone else in an effort to escape our own guilt.

WE have no guilt. Foley has the guilt. Anyone who's even sneezed in the direction of this nonsense....we're telling them to step down. We have the moral high ground for a reason.

At 10/2/06 06:18 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Being nit-picky, Foley is not technically a pedophile in the same way men who look at 17-year-old girls are not pedophiles. Pedophilia is defined in psychological terms as sexual interest in prepubescent children. At 16 or 17, this kid was almost certainly nearing sexual maturity. It's still a crime to make sexual advances toward this kid, and Foley should be held accountable. I don't know the man, and I haven't read all of the materials that have come out, so I can't judge whether or not his behavior should be categorized as predatory. It was certainly inappropriate, both because of the boy's age and because of his subordinate position.

Legal age in Florida is 16. So no real crime was committed. However, it was still dead wrong. And we're getting rid of him.

At 10/3/06 03:53 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 10/2/06 08:33 PM, Truthiness wrote: They even went so far as to warn Republican Party Pages, but not Democratic Pages, to stay away from Rep. Foley.

That's because Democratic pages are gay.

Didn't anyone learn a lesson from the Catholic sex scandals? The faithful left in droves when they found out about the whole thing. The molestations were one thing, but the church covering it up was what most people were angry about. It was as if Mother Church was condoning these activities. And the Republicans have basically set themselves up in the same position. I could say that one man does not a party make, but when the higher-ups deliberately turn a blind eye on this sort of thing it certainly gives the impression that they condone Foley's actions.

AMEN. Truer words on this forum have never been spoken.

At 10/3/06 04:33 PM, fli wrote: And yet when one Democrate, it indites against all Democrates... amirite? But the same can NEVER EVER be said true for the Republicans.

NOPE. Because the Dems STILL support Clinton (as yourself) when he's proven guilty. Republicans are accused of something and the right wing calls for their head begin. One person doesn't indict the party, but if the party stands behind them...then the party indicts itself. It's a distinction that even moderately intelligent people make.

I mean, it is Republicans who are against helping the poor and stuff... just like how Demos are out there to molest little kids and stuff...

YAWN. Yea, dems are for the poor. That's why the sweeping reforms of welfare were a success. Such a ridiculous affront.

I guess you could see it both ways-- like a glass full of water.
Just 2 years from being a 14 years old kid...

Or you could look at it as the kid being legal. As he was.

or
Just 2 years away from being an adult.

Or still being legal.

You don't get it...
Both things are bad... but there is something worse going on when a kid is involved and for you it's like you don't see the distinction of HOW bad is one from the other.

I'm sorry, but 16 (legal) is not a kid in the law's eyes. I see how one is bad from the other. But nasty talk is not as bad as rape. Sorry. I'd liken this to the Jones scandal, but there was no perjury, obstruction.....we know the speel.

And then for it's it's like, "OH... You don't disagree with them? YOU'RE EVIL!"
*eye rollie*

Sounds like you and Clinton. How dare anyone accuse him of improper conduct. Hell, you won't even acknowledge that he was accused of rape.

I view that ACLU tries to actively work for rights and equality, and I commend them. Although my criticism is that they don't see some stuff that shouldn't be okay.

Well, hell, then. Foley did some damn good stuff for kids...we should ignore his overtures to barely legal boys. The good is outweighed by the bad...VASTLY, in both cases.

OH MY!
Look at Fli... not disagreeing on ACLU with WolvenBear... so he must enjoy pedophilia! Grrrr... roar...

And again, the fact that you're willing to overlook it because you feel the ACLU does some good proves my point. Which is again, whatI've said over and over. Not that you like pedophilia, but that you're willing to over look any action by your side as long as you agree with them overall. You can try to sarcasm it all you like, but I'm still not hearing even condemnation of the ACLU for doing that. Instead...you defend them, because they do some good. I find it ironic that you prove me "wrong" by proving me right.Victim roll doesn't work with me, chuckles.

Yes, because to lie on an consentual affair is as equally horrible as to lie about wanting to exploit a kid.

My point once more. Any infraction. legal or not, by the Republicans is inescusable, but nothing your side does is wrong.

Now let's discuss how masturbation is equally bad to 1st degree murder.

So, you write a whole post to tell me how I'm wrong about you overlooking bad actions by your party,....by overlooking every bad action of your party.

You're hopeless.

I’m of the opinion, that a man or woman’s personal life has little, if anything to do with their professional.

A company XO wouldn’t be fired for having an affair…

Now Fox News is lying about it.

WolvenBear, you are so partisan. The funny part is when you pretend you arent.

At 10/4/06 01:05 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: WolvenBear, you are so partisan. The funny part is when you pretend you arent.

Heh, altho everyone is partisan in their own way.

WolvenBear is doing what most Republican talking-heads are doing: trying to turn this around to 1996, because President Clinton is obviously the most important thing to talk about right now. When Clinton dies, who will the Right have to blame everything on?

At 10/4/06 02:56 PM, Truthiness wrote: WolvenBear is doing what most Republican talking-heads are doing: trying to turn this around to 1996, because President Clinton is obviously the most important thing to talk about right now. When Clinton dies, who will the Right have to blame everything on?

Gays.

At 9/30/06 03:27 AM, fli wrote:

At 9/29/06 09:49 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Babay-- pulease...
Most 13 year old boys look like girls... if the man was gay, he would solicit men.

He did solicit men.

This thing didn't start with a child...it started with a consensual male page, in the mid nineties.

This man's open homosexuality (open in the sense that GOP leadership knew of it) was the first red flag...and it should not have been ignored.

At 9/30/06 02:40 PM, Truthiness wrote: If someone were to solicit sex from Hillary Clinton, would it be considered solicitation of a young boy?

Definitely. Worse, even, than soliciting sex from a young boy.

And as far as clinton goes?
Foley is immoral, and his acts were reprehensible. Clinton was immoral, and his acts were reprehensible JFK was immoral, and his acts were reprehensible.

Politicians are immoral, and they acts reprehensibly.

Stop acting like your party is any different. All politicians are the same. If it's not homosexuality, it's pedophelia. If it's niether of those, it's alcoholism. If it's none of the above, it's the acceptance of bribes.

You act like a consensual blowjob is the same as soliciting sex from a child.

At 10/4/06 04:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 10/4/06 02:56 PM, Truthiness wrote: WolvenBear is doing what most Republican talking-heads are doing: trying to turn this around to 1996, because President Clinton is obviously the most important thing to talk about right now. When Clinton dies, who will the Right have to blame everything on?

Gays.

Or atheists. Or anyone who they believe violates their "Moral Christian Values" just because they think or act differently. >:|

At 10/4/06 11:52 PM, Truthiness wrote: You act like a consensual blowjob is the same as soliciting sex from a child.

No one said it was.

I said that both acts were morally reprehensible, for an elected official to take part it.

The majority of American could care less if the republicans think they're being treated unfairly compared to their left-wing counterparts. If the republicans' way of establishing some damage control to the Foley scandal is: "why don't people treat us like democrats?" you're in bad shape, fellas.

At 10/4/06 01:05 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: WolvenBear, you are so partisan. The funny part is when you pretend you arent.

Hooray! You have nothing and aren't even trying to hide it.

And even if I am partisan...Mr. Pot...I do believe you're a bit silly for calling me black.

At 10/4/06 02:56 PM, Truthiness wrote: WolvenBear is doing what most Republican talking-heads are doing: trying to turn this around to 1996, because President Clinton is obviously the most important thing to talk about right now. When Clinton dies, who will the Right have to blame everything on?

Well, we could blame stuff on Nagin, Blanco, the ACLU, Kennedy, Byrd, etc.

And I'm not turning anything around. He did nothing illegal and is being forced out for simply the appearance of impropriety. Which is the way it always should work. If the democrats did it more often, I could start to respect the party.

And you dear sir are doing while all LIBERAL pundits are doing. Refusing to ackowledge your own party's failings and pretending that somehow the entire Republican party is to blame even though they forced him out.
The Clinton thing just shows that everyone here has no problem with any wrong doing by a Democrat and use the appearance of impropriety by ONE man, who is then rejected by the party...to condemn us all.

Yet I'M the partisan. Pretty funny actually.

At 10/4/06 11:52 PM, Truthiness wrote: You act like a consensual blowjob is the same as soliciting sex from a child.

Sorry, 16 isn't "a child". It's legal where the incident happened. Have a nice day!

At 10/5/06 01:53 AM, Nylo wrote: The majority of American could care less if the republicans think they're being treated unfairly compared to their left-wing counterparts. If the republicans' way of establishing some damage control to the Foley scandal is: "why don't people treat us like democrats?" you're in bad shape, fellas.

Oh, be for real. The first thing we did was get rid of Foley. Now, that he's gone and people are still demonizing the party...it's more than a tad appropriate to point out to the people that they're being more than a little hypocritical.

At 10/10/06 10:37 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Yet I'M the partisan. Pretty funny actually.

Clinton fucked that bitch almost a decade ago. It has no relevance to Foley or Hastert covering Foleys actions up. Yes, you are the partisan one.

The new mantra of Republicans: "It was JUST unethical, not illegal."

At 10/10/06 10:57 PM, Truthiness wrote: The new mantra of Republicans: "It was JUST unethical, not illegal."

At least he wasn't getting paid to have his dick sucked. Now THAT would be embarressing.

No queers in office, EVER. Cuz now we got proof that they're predators. OMG>

At 10/10/06 10:53 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 10/10/06 10:37 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Yet I'M the partisan. Pretty funny actually.

Clinton fucked that bitch almost a decade ago. It has no relevance to Foley or Hastert covering Foleys actions up. Yes, you are the partisan one.

No, Fab, I'm not. Just shut up and stop sounding stupid already. I know that's hard for you.
Foley didn't break ANY laws. Clinton did, during the Jones scandal. That, in and of itself, makes him worse, ignoring all else.
Since the point was made that everyone on this board who is condemning Foley now was ok with what Clinton did (which sparked the firestorm), and it is therefore ridiculous to get offended now, everyone on the left on this board got offended. Yourself included.
So stop crying like a little child that your pathetic duplicity has been revealed on Foley and your own ilk.

But, hey, I got off Clinton and onto Jefferson and the Abramoff Democrats, both who ALSO fragrantly broke the law in the not so distant future and were defended by their party. Whereas the Republicans were all forced to resign...gee, I'm seeing a patern.

At 10/10/06 10:57 PM, Truthiness wrote: The new mantra of Republicans: "It was JUST unethical, not illegal."

The new mantra of Republicans:
We get rid of those who do ANYTHING wrong, even if not illegal, while Democrats defend their felons to the death.

But hell if we want to get into the present:
Jimmy Carter and Clinton pay N.K. not to develop nukes, which is then used to develop nukes, and generate our current crisis.
William Jefferson who was found with a freezer full of bribes.
Murtha, who was caught on tape trying to get under the table bribes. (He got off because he turned state's evidence).
The mayor of D.C. who was elected AFTER being a felon.
Nagin and Blanco's absolute refusal to do anything during Katrina, and Blanco's telling Bush via video that the levees had not broken...24 hours after the levees had broken.
Kenneth Lay, DNC and RNC contributer is found guilty.
I could go on.

But the point is simple. Foley is told by his party to leave. Delay is told to leave. When a Republican is accused of corruption, they are told to get the hell out. Occasionally, as Hastert has done, they refuse.
I say again, I may disagree with the Republicans on a lot, but I don't agree with the Democrats on a damn thing.

Wow, trying to bill Ken Lay as a Democrat. That's a Republican propaganda machine in overdrive.

At 10/11/06 02:54 AM, WolvenBear wrote: But the point is simple. Foley is told by his party to leave. Delay is told to leave. When a Republican is accused of corruption, they are told to get the hell out. Occasionally, as Hastert has done, they refuse.

Surely if the republicans are the high and mighty people you make them out to be they could, and would, remove Hestart from the party? That way, it shows they are doing somethign about the cover up, and no just ignoring it as they seem to be.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hestarts deputy know about this as well? And didn't he actually go to Hestart about this sometime last year, or early this year? If that is true, then what's your excuse for them not doing anything about it when they first became aware of it?

Now I can accept that it might not actually be illegal if the kid is 16 which could be why they didn't do anything about it, but if it wasn't illegal then why ,oh why, did Foley resign? If he's done nothing wrong why did he go?

Enlighten me, please.

Judging by recent revealings by Republican leaders, they knew about this as far back as 2000.

At 10/11/06 02:54 AM, WolvenBear wrote: I say again, I may disagree with the Republicans on a lot, but I don't agree with the Democrats on a damn thing.

Disagree? The most I ever see from you is passing strikes at Republicans that you then add a giant BUT to.

You are funny.

At 10/11/06 03:35 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Enlighten me, please.

Shhh, dont talk to much about it and dont talk to loud and maybe people will forget what happened. Also, dont forget to blame Clinton, its always his fault.