tim foly scandal

thomas40 · Post by **thomas40** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:49 pm

more fallout is happening from the scandel it may effect the election next month

rainbowsmiles · Post by **rainbowsmiles** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:42 pm

I think it will only effect those on the conservative side of things, which I read is where the strong majority lies for the republican party.

But I agree flopstock - this could have been a democrat or a republican. There are probably a few on both sides lurking around in Washington carrying on with a few minors as we speak for all we know.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:44 pm

And that is so sad to think of....................

rainbowsmiles · Post by **rainbowsmiles** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:52 pm

^ yes it is chonsi

thomas40 · Post by **thomas40** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:20 am

was wondering that thew media and the poles are really making a big thing out of it

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:22 am

They certainly are! And I don't blame them; I think it's terrible.

Let's face it: the Democrats are running away with it. But if a Democrat did that, then the Republicans would do the same thing.

That's politics for you, right Thomas? :-6

thomas40 · Post by **thomas40** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:35 pm

guess so

rainbowsmiles · Post by **rainbowsmiles** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:08 pm

cherandbuster wrote: They certainly are! And I don't blame them; I think it's terrible.

Let's face it: the Democrats are running away with it. But if a Democrat did that, then the Republicans would do the same thing.

That's politics for you, right Thomas? :-6

Very true Cher!

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:04 pm

Sorry..but every time I see this thread, I think it reads tin foil scandal.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:29 pm

U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, a Democrat, had actual homosexual sex with a 17 year old Page. He didn't resign and served several more terms. Foley, a Republican, sent text messages that were sexually charged to a Page and resigned. And now the Democrats are throwing rocks that for some reason are hitting their targets without breaking the glass in their own house. I don't get it.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:42 am

flopstock wrote: The problem they have Clint, is that they weren't smart enough to not present themselves as better then the democrats, ya know? Family values, god bless america, holier then thou in effect. That kind of thing tends to come back and haunt you later. They presented themselves in such a way that folks just expect more from them then the lowly democrats. :wah:
So, didn't the Republicans take the high ground by forcing him to resign? If they were being wolves in sheeps clothing wouldn't they have made excuses for him and let him stay on hoping to keep another seat. The thing is, he couldn't have been elected again because the people who put him there in the first place would have dropped him for anybody, including a Democrat.

I think the way they handled this is consistant with the values they have been claiming. Not bad for a bunch of people who sold their souls to anybody who would support their campaigns (Rs and Ds alike).

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:35 am

Diuretic wrote: I think it's not so much the text messages, which are bad enough, but the cover-up that's causing the political problems.

BINGO!!

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:51 am

Marie5656 wrote: Sorry..but every time I see this thread, I think it reads tin foil scandal.

This is slander ! Absolutely preposterous !! All things in the world of tinfoil are just as they should be. Lets not plant any seeds ok Marie ?:mad:

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:53 am

Diuretic wrote: I'm a bit hesitant to get involved in someone else's domestic politics (their foreign policy is fair game though

) but one this one I think it's not so much the text messages, which are bad enough, but the cover-up that's causing the political problems. I think with Studds the Democratic Party may have acted quickly and openly whereupon he was censured but they dodged the cover-up issue.
And hesitate you should if you are going to repeat allegations as fact.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:01 am

Diuretic wrote: I'm a bit hesitant to get involved in someone else's domestic politics (their foreign policy is fair game though

) but one this one I think it's not so much the text messages, which are bad enough, but the cover-up that's causing the political problems. I think with Studds the Democratic Party may have acted quickly and openly whereupon he was censured but they dodged the cover-up issue.So it's not the sex, but lying about the sex?

.......................... :yh_think

Where have I heard that before?

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e · Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:08 am

Clint wrote: And hesitate you should if you are going to repeat allegations as fact.

There is no need for him to hesitate, he has it on the money, what allegations are you repeating Clint?

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:15 am

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e wrote: There is no need for him to hesitate, he has it on the money, what allegations are you repeating Clint?
At the point a recent President was found guilty of perjury his attempt to cover up became a fact. Why the new standard?

rainbowsmiles · Post by **rainbowsmiles** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:20 am

What part of all this is an allegation if Foley admitted to sending the emails (according to his attorney) and apologized for it? He also had excuses for his behavior which were sexual abuse, homosexuality and alcoholism. I know his attorney said they weren't excuses but since the definition of excuse is: To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood - I call it an excuse.

I think these would be considered allegations if Foley denied any wrong doing and stuck around to fight it out but his running off to rehab and offering up excuses screams guilt to me.

But I'm not going to jump up and down for either political party because I have a feeling this stuff goes on with both sides.

Cover up? There definitely was a cover up, the question is, who was doing the covering up? Several republicans have claimed to know about this situation with Foley and the pages since 2000. Who is responsible for the cover up? I think it can be an obvious conclusion that it was a republican doing the covering up since a democrat would have ran with that information.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:26 am

rainbowsmiles wrote: What part of all this is an allegation if Foley admitted to sending the emails (according to his attorney) and apologized for it? He also had excuses for his behavior which were sexual abuse, homosexuality and alcoholism. I know his attorney said they weren't excuses but since the definition of excuse is: To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood - I call it an excuse.

I think these would be considered allegations if Foley denied any wrong doing and stuck around to fight it out but his running off to rehab and offering up excuses screams guilt to me.

But I'm not going to jump up and down for either political party because I have a feeling this stuff goes on with both sides.
It does go on on both sides but that doesn't excuse it. Foley admitted to doing wrong and resigned. I think his resignation took the wind out of the Democrat's sails so now they are saying there was a cover-up. Maybe there was but no one has proved it. The charges of a cover-up seem to be an effort to keep it alive.

rainbowsmiles · Post by **rainbowsmiles** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:28 am

I disagree, I think there definitely was a cover up, the question is, who was doing the covering up? Several republicans have claimed to know about this situation with Foley and the pages since 2000. Who is responsible for the cover up? I think it can be an obvious conclusion that it was a republican doing the covering up since a democrat would have ran with that information.

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e · Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:33 am

Where are you coming from Clint, I'm not following?

Clint wrote: At the point a recent President was found guilty of perjury his attempt to cover up became a fact. Why the new standard?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

I'm a bit hesitant to get involved in someone else's domestic politics (their foreign policy is fair game though

) but one this one I think it's not so much the text messages, which are bad enough, but the cover-up that's causing the political problems. I think with Studds the Democratic Party may have acted quickly and openly whereupon he was censured but they dodged the cover-up issue.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:33 am

rainbowsmiles wrote: Well, there definitely was a cover up, the question is, who was doing the covering up? Several republicans have claimed to know about this situation with Foley and the pages since 2000. Who is responsible for the cover up? I think it can be an obvious conclusion that it was a republican doing the covering up since a democrat would have ran with that information.
What did they cover up? Was it the questionable messages that could have been taken wrong...or not. Was it the messages after the page went home and became an adult? Was it that they thought he was too friendly with some Pages but didn't have proof of wrong doing. What was covered up?

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e · Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:38 am

rainbowsmiles wrote: I disagree, I think there definitely was a cover up, the question is, who was doing the covering up? Several republicans have claimed to know about this situation with Foley and the pages since 2000. Who is responsible for the cover up? I think it can be an obvious conclusion that it was a republican doing the covering up since a democrat would have ran with that information.

More important who was in charge of the young men and women that served as Pages? Shouldn't he at least been a cut above the rest?

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:40 am

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e wrote: Where are you coming from Clint, I'm not following?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

I'm a bit hesitant to get involved in someone else's domestic politics (their foreign policy is fair game though

) but one this one I think it's not so much the text messages, which are bad enough, but the cover-up that's causing the political problems. I think with Studds the Democratic Party may have acted quickly and openly whereupon he was censured but they dodged the cover-up issue.
The same people who are all over this Foley thing were very defensive when President Clinton was sexually involved with an 19 year-old intern. There was clearly a cover-up by him that was exposed when he was found guilty of perjury and impeached. They say there is a cover-up but they don't have the goods as far as I know.

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e · Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:41 am

Clint wrote: The same people who are all over this Foley thing were very defensive when President Clinton was sexually involved with an 19 year-old intern. There was clearly a cover-up by him that was exposed when he was found guilty of perjury and impeached. They say there is a cover-up but they don't have the goods as far as I know.

What does Clinton have to do with it?

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:43 am

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e wrote: What does Clinton have to do with it?
A double standard by the Democrats. I guess it's okay though because they don't pretend to hold to any one standard.

rainbowsmiles · Post by **rainbowsmiles** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:44 am

I wonder if we will ever know. It seems there is an investigation going on into this matter and I just hope they do some serious house cleaning when it is all over with (on both sides).

And hopefully this investigation isn't just going to involve those involved in this one case. It should be a thorough investigation of all.

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e · Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:46 am

Clint wrote: A double standard by the Democrats. I guess it's okay though because they don't pretend to hold to any one standard.

Why is there a double standard? This man is a creep!

he was asked to stop and he didn't.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:46 am

rainbowsmiles wrote: I wonder if we will ever know. It seems there is an investigation going on into this matter and I just hope they do some serious house cleaning when it is all over with (on both sides).

And hopefully this investigation isn't just going to involve those involved in this one case. It should be a thorough investigation of all.
I agree. The problem is that we elect them and they are a reflection of us.

rainbowsmiles · Post by **rainbowsmiles** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:47 am

Clint wrote: A double standard by the Democrats. I guess it's okay though because they don't pretend to hold to any one standard.

I think comparing Clinton and the Foley scandal is like comparing apples and oranges. Monica wasn't a minor. She was an adult. Nor was Clinton responsible for making laws that impacted children like Foley was. I think that is the real scandal. I'm not minimizing what Clinton did at all - I've had my say on that in the past but this is completely different as far as I'm concerned.

Comparing the democrat that did this sort of thing with a page in the past does make sense.

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e · Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:49 am

Diuretic wrote: Yes, lying about it isn't a good move - and being involved in any cover-up for partisan political reasons isn't too clever either - the truth will out

From the "party of accountability" maybe (lol) "The Republican Party" right Clint? :wah:

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:50 am

rainbowsmiles wrote: I think comparing Clinton and the Foley scandal is like comparing apples and oranges. Monica wasn't a minor. She was an adult. Nor was Clinton responsible for making laws that impacted children like Foley was. I think that is the real scandal. I'm not minimizing what Clinton did at all - I've had my say on that in the past but this is completely different as far as I'm concerned.

Comparing the democrat that did this sort of thing with a page in the past does make sense.
They were both done by men with power to young people without power. They were both abuse of power and a demonstration of a lack of morals, character and ethics. Clinton had the responsibilty of setting a standard for the whole country and that makes him like Foley only........

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e · Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:51 am

Clint wrote: I agree. The problem is that we elect them and they are a reflection of us.

You are the one sticking up for him.

Bill Clinton has nothing to do with this.

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e · Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:54 am

Clint wrote: They were both done by men with power to young people without power. They were both abuse of power and a demonstration of a lack of morals, character and ethics. Clinton had the responsibilty of setting a standard for the whole country and that makes him like Foley only........

Was Monica not a willing participant, did she not seek Clinton out? Shae was 19 as opposed to 16, she was an adult.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:54 am

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e wrote: You are the one sticking up for him.

Bill Clinton has nothing to do with this.
I'm not sticking up for him. I'm simply pointing out a double standard that is as obvious as anything could be but being denied by those who fear admitting it.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:58 am

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e wrote: Was Monica not a willing participant, did she not seek Clinton out? Shae was 19 as opposed to 16, she was an adult.
The Page was actually of legal age for consent in DC, so throw that one out. 19 opposed to 16...a huge difference there. I don't care if they were in their 40s, both Clinton and Foley were wrong in what they did. If you are going to make excuses for Clinton then make them for Foley too.

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e · Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:02 am

Clint wrote: I'm not sticking up for him. I'm simply pointing out a double standard that is as obvious as anything could be but being denied by those who fear admitting it.

So why are you putting political labels on it?

You sound like Fox news trying to mislead it's viewers with false party affiliations in their news report. (They had Foley labeled a demo in a news report):-2

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:08 am

I don't care which party your for these days they all seem to be the bottom of the barrel when it comes to a moral compass. Just that simple for me they all make my stomach turn.

Who's fault is it ??? not sure maybe our since we vote the scumbags into office. Or is it the canidates fault for deceiving us time and time again.

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e · Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:18 am

CARLA wrote:

I don't care which party your for these days they all seem to be the bottom of the barrel when it comes to a moral compass. Just that simple for me they all make my stomach turn.

Who's fault is it ??? not sure maybe our since we vote the scumbags into office. Or is it the canidates fault for deceiving us time and time again.

It's our responsibility to not roll over on our backs.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:23 am

Correct your are. My concern is that there truly isn't an honest politician out there. They run ugly campaigns, undressing their opponents totally, and they get elected and turn out to be just as bad if not worse. :-5

[QUOTE]It's our responsibility to not roll over on our backs.[/QUOTE]

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:28 am

CrÃ¨me brÃ»lÃ©e wrote: So why are you putting political labels on it?

You sound like Fox news trying to mislead it's viewers with false party affiliations in their news report. (They had Foley labeled a demo in a news report):-2
I put political labels on it because this is political at its core. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be such a cloudy mess. There are clearly two sides with names going after each other to see who can make the other look worse.

I'd sure like to know what the real issues are and the plans each side has for dealing with them. There are so many red herrings on the trail it's hard for anyone to follow it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:06 pm

If I thought Creme "StupidCowboyTricks" Bruhaha Lay was worth responding to, I'd point out the irony in her remarks. You could pick it up with a magnet, for chrissakes.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:35 pm

Accountable wrote: If I thought Creme "StupidCowboyTricks" Bruhaha Lay was worth responding to, I'd point out the irony in her remarks. You could pick it up with a magnet, for chrissakes.
:wah: Goood shot!:yh_rotfl