Dennis Hastert is a total stroke

Of course you don't, because you're a Dem.

Far as I can tell, Foley didn't have sex with any of these people. Studds did.

You're who's pathetic.

 

I'm not failing to grasp the distinction. I think you're making an assumption (of course, libs are great at making assumptions, just look around).

If Foley mysteriously didn't run for re-election in 2004, as he was planning to do, then the left would be up in arms because the GOP had put the muscle on a gay member of Congress. Assuming the alleged pedophilia wasn't acknowledged as the reason, which it probably wouldn't be.

I'm quite aware there's a distinction between being gay and being a pedophile. Sorry that doesn't fit your stereotype of your typical Republican.

 

You should stick to fighting battles you can win.

Any Conservative should admit that Foley is a total scumbag, that he was wrong and there is a possibility Hastert was, too, then cut your losses.

Whoever said we need a middle-of-the-road party for civilized adults was onto something ...

 

Then call him a pedophile. Of course doing that would kill your argument, so you prattle on as if the only reason he got run out was the fact he's gay, that the apparent pedophilia had nothing to do with it. His gayness has NOTHING to do with why Hastert should have convinced him to quietly fade into the background and retire. His pedophilia has everything to do with it.

 

*sigh*

OK, morons, listen up, because you're apparently hearing only what you want to hear or reading only what you want to read.

I'll say this again, maybe a little more slowly this time:

I am not defending Mark Foley. He's a scumbag who got what was coming to him. And he should be nailed to the wall, so to speak, if he committed any crimes.

(That's one big difference between Republicans and Democrats. We want to see our guys get punished when they do wrong. Dems just keep electing them, or keep on saying "It's just about sex," ad nauseam. But I digress.)

I'm not ready to throw the book at Hastert because he says all he knew about were the initial e-mails, which weren't necessarily incriminating but, in retrospect, should have raised a few flags. Sitting down with Foley privately and telling him to cut it out or else probably was the correct approach to take, particularly considering that's how the page's parents wanted it handled, too. As I said before, I think Hastert's career prior to politics would make him particularly sympathetic to inappropriate behavior.

And Sportschick apparently isn't reading the posts too carefully, so, here goes: With my reference to "running a gay man out of the House," I was responding to a post that said Hastert should have leaned on Foley not to run again in 2004. Not what happened last week. If Hastert had done that in 2004, the same people calling for his head now would have been calling for his head because he was a homophobe (if the pedophilia accusations had not come to light then, which they probably would not have; that's why the St. Pete Times and Miami Herald didn't run the stories then, because there was no way to connect the dots).

Thus concludes Reading Comprehension 101 for the day.

 

Nice straw man.

Here's the Merriam-Webster online definition of pedophilia:
Main Entry: pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: "pe-d&-'fi-lE-&, 'pE-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

Now when I think of "children" in that context, I don't think of someone who's 16. And then, to make your case even weaker, it now turns out that the page in question was actually 18 at the time of the IMs. ABC is claiming some of the IMs were just before he turned 18, but the age of consent in Louisiana is 17, so that still makes it a moot point. So what we're now talking about is simply a gay man fantasizing over the Internet.

But please, please keep overplaying this. It's actually going to come back to hurt the Democrats.

I love how it was pointed out today that Pelosi voted for Gerry Studds to be a committee chair five different times AFTER he was CONVICTED by the Ethics Committee of ACTUALLY HAVING SEX with a 17-year-old page (and he got the page drunk, first, making it date rape at a minimum). The Dems thought they could claim the moral high ground and it's already biting them.

And I also heard a couple of reports on the radio today that Pelosi is trying to shut down a proposed investigation by Louis Freeh into things involving politicians and pages. Wonder why? I don't. I just wonder who.

Foley's scum, and he's gone. But he won't be convicted of anything. And in the end, that will be just fine with the Democrats. They're only in this for the politics.

 

Lyman lecturing others on reading comprehension makes his argument even more hilarious.

Once again, how in the world would Democrats been "up in arms" about Foley being run out of the House in 2004 if he admitted his homosexuality only after this scandal?

Man, it must be nice to try and make arguments based on what you THINK the other side would say -- a totally invalid assumption since, in 2004, Foley wasn't known for sure to be gay -- and condemn them as if it actually happened.

And yes, I'm quite certain that, after this whole Foley scandal plays out, the Democrats will have suffered the most politically. (Hey, if Fox News keeps showing that D-FL graphic, you never know.)

The GOP can rest easy. They've got Fantasyland's electoral votes sewn up for years to come.

 

Foley's sexuality has been one of the bigger open secrets around Washington for some time.

And as far as how this affects the election, I have no idea how it will play out, but I do know this: Never underestimate the ability of Dems to overplay their hands (in Patty Wetterling's case in Minnesota, this already is happening).

Why doesn't Pelosi want this investigated? Maybe for the same reason she and Rahm Emanuel refused polygraph tests about whether they knew about this "October surprise."

Funny how those "October surprises" seem to benefit only one party, eh?

 

Your getting semantical about advances -- from a superior, it should be noted -- to pages?

Fucking Plasticman doesn't have that kind of reach, and that line of thinking will never pass anyone's smell test.

But I'd love Hastert, et al, to try that argument.

"Pedophilia, I mean, doesn't that mean Foley is fantasing about younger kids than these pages? I mean, my God, they've reached puberty. Can I get an Amen?

My fellow Americans, all Mr. Foley did was crank his yank to the nubile, but nearly manly pages in our Congress, and if we can't be open to a little fantasy mixed in with potential sexual harassment, then the flag I pledge allegiance to now isn't the same flag I pledged allegiance to when I was covering this up leading the House."

As for which party this hurts? I have the morbid curiosity to have Hastert stay and see how it pans out for the GOPers.

 

You can call it semantics if you want, Bubbler, but the fact is that sc and liberals are trying to throw out completely flammatory terms like pedophile knowing they're wrong but not caring and hoping it'll stick anyway.

Kind of has something to do with the fact that Dems have absolutely no agenda to run on ... for about the 10th election in a row. But they know there are a lot of dem voters out there stupid enough to follow them off the cliff.

 

Far as you can tell......

That's the issue.

 

Yeah, because we know that in Columbo-World, having sex with a 17-year-old page that you got drunk (Studds) is not nearly as bad as talking dirty to an 18-year-old page over the Internet.

And you question Lyman's credibility?