EvilMonkey

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 12, 2006 -> 03:10 AM) Instapundit is a Republican blog. Instapundit didn't defend Reid, he pointed out that a commenter who claims to be a tax lawyer was defending him, and then said "That seems right, but we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on a single wire story. No doubt we'll learn more in coming days." Sounds like he is excercising caution before going all nutzo criticizing Reid. Later, he posted this" MY EARLIER POST on the Harry Reid scandal was somewhat skeptical. But this post by Ed Morrissey suggests that there may be more to the story than I thought." The link in his post is here. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

Anyone have a clue whyAlec Baldwin wanted to get to the scene of the crash? http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&...s_crash_newyork

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 02:09 PM) I don't know, but wiki said only 3 people DIDN'T vote for censure. So, I can't quite imagine who would have given it. And all the references I can find on the web are from right wing blogs (blogsforbush, gopusa, etc). So, I don't know if it happened either way. I sent a request to snopes about it though. So, it's okay for him to sleep with a 17 year old female page? I don't see that situation any different from Studds'. Nope. Just making sure someone didn't think that Studds and Crane were tag-teaming someone, they were each dirtbags on their own.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 11, 2006 -> 01:54 PM) From wiki: In addition to the censure, the Democratic leadership stripped Studds of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine subcommittee. Studds was later appointed chair of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Studds received standing ovations, not in Congress as has been reported, but in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure. The other member of congress implicated in the scandal, Dan Crane (R, IL), was also censured and defeated at election time. Crane was in his own scandal, with a female, not an 17 year old boy like Studds.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 08:05 PM) Another random thought here.... if it isn't OK to group the radical Islamists as represently all Islam, why is it OK to paint all repubs are being a part of this scandal? Guys like Hastert I understand, but unless Dems are calling the entire party coverup artists and child molesters, this should be affecting anyone except the few people who have been named, right?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 02:12 PM) Imagine, if you will, if someone on the dems made this statement about a dem leader in the same situation as Foley. EM would be the first to rip them from here to kingdom come. And imagine the moment I did LCR and Balta shouting me down with 'he didn't break any laws', and 'must be a Rove October suprise'. And you know that it would happen. Do you all even read the entire part of what I read? If hastert ignored the IM's, then he should not only resign his leadership post, but should get out of politics altogether. If all he saw were the same emails that a hellova lot of other people saw, then while I question his judgement on that, you should let the people decide if he should stay or go. Foley should be locked up. As a father, I want to kick his ass (I would also want to throw a few at Denny for his judgement, but he would probably squish me!). This is Fitzmas all over again with liberals practically wetting themselves over this situation. Using a pedophile to make political gains. Concentrate on finding out what Foley did. Concentrate on who, on BOTH sides, knew what. But stop making it a political which hunt.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 10, 2006 -> 03:57 AM) Let me see if I understand this GOP knew about it for years, did nothing. FBI knew about it for months/years, did nothing. Someone may have gone to the Dems, they did something. And we are thinking what the Dems may have done was a bad thing? They knew about "it"? They DIDN'T know about the IM's. They knew of some emails that apparently noone thought were bad enough to do anything about. Even CREW and a rabid lefty blogger did nothing except turn them over to the FBI. Your post makes it sound like Hastert and the FBI knew he was telling 17 year olds to take off their boxers. While that may yet be proven to be true, so far, it has not. If it does turn out that Hastert knew about the IM's as well, i will join you in your condemnation. As for the Dems doing wrong, please reread that section of my post. Please note the word IF.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 10:09 PM) Ah, finally, someone came out & finally spouted the repeated lies about how it was the Dems' fault for this leaking when it did. First and foremost, yes, CREW had the suggestive emails, along with John Avarosis of Americablog.com, in the summer of this year. CREW forwarded those emails to the FBI and did not publish them. Crew has in fact given the name of the specific FBI Agent they gave the emails to to CNN. The FBI has not yet responded. Secondly... This of course ignores those damn little facts of how ABC actually got the info. Link. ABC Producer Maddy Sauer. So, 2 different people at ABC say the person who tipped them off was either a Republican or not a member of a Democratic Campaign. End of story. And finally...Given what has been discovered about the guy, are you saying it is a bad thing that his emails came out? Look, the fact is, the Republicans knew about this guy's problems years ago. They may not have known how bad it was, but they clearly had the hint of some things. They could have and should have taken care of this earlier. At least 5 years ago in at least one case. But nothing was done beyond an occasional talking to. The Republicans have known about this for years, and it's the Democrats fault for it coming out, and so we're the bad guys? Wow. Maybe we'd all be better off if the Republicans had just kept ignoring it. Finally, one more point. The issue is not outing a gay Republican. The issue is outing a potential child Predator who happens to be a Republican. There is a monstrous difference there. For the last f***ing time, nothing I am saying excuses anthing that Foley did, or thought of doing. Regardless of party, it is a GOOD thing that he is gone, hopefully for a long time. And I don't care how many people at ABC comne out and say they got it from a Republican source. How hard is it to lie about that? i mean, news organizations have made up stories out of thin air (think rathergate), doctored photos to further an agenda (or just because they were stupid), so why wouldn't they lie about this too? Especially if they really got it from a prominent democrat. The 'blog' that they first appeared on is stopsexpredators.blogspot.com. Here is a breakdown of that fake blog http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006...foleys-fall.php Now, I doubt that a Republican staffer set this site up. Or is it all some evil plot gone awry by Karl Rove? The person who exposed Foley did the right thing, but it's starting to look more and more like they did it in the wrong way. This has the signatures of a "political hit," carefully timed and arranged to do the maximum political damage to the Republican party very close to the election. That means that instead of exposing Foley and his deviant ways as soon as they could, the let him continue posing a potential threat to young men until the timing suited the exposer's agenda -- and that is utterly despicable. Had Foley actually committed any overt acts against an underaged person during that time, the exposer would have shared in the moral responsibility for allowing it to happen. So, to sum up, again for those of you who can't comprehend, Foley is a loathsome scumbag, and deserves public scorn and suspicion for the rest of his days. The person who exposed him did the nation a favor by doing so. But if -- IF -- that person sat on the information until such time as suited their own political agenda, then they, too, ought to be held up for public contempt, at LEAST to the level you are trying to put on hastert.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 03:51 PM) The same thing Hastert should have done. Take it to the whole committee overseeing the Congressional Page program. Ask them to look into things. Or at least have someone take a few steps to make sure that it didn't go any farther than where it was. Just because taking it public and screaming "Pedophile!" from rooftops wasn't a good option doesn't mean there weren't other things that could have been done behind the scenes to make sure worse things hadn't happened and didn't happen afterwards. We all know how well seecrets are kept in Washington, I'm sure that the information would NEVER have gotten out had they gone to the page program directly. Foley is the worst kind of creep, and deserves whatever he gets. While you are on your quest to find out what people knew and when they knew it, how about those on the Democrat side? It sure seems like alot of people there knew at least as much as Hastert, but yet also chose to do nothing. That is, until it was politically advantageous to them. The page that 'leaked' the info worked for a Democrat, the website the ABC guy says he saw was created about 2 days before he saw it. I doubt google even knew it existed at that time. It has also been shown that the blog entries were made up, and the blog paid for anonomously. Souonds like someone on the Dem side wanted to out a gay Republican without seeming to out a gay Republican, so they can still appear to be nice to gays. This is a complicated issue (as every damn thing out there in DC is). What's that phrase I keep hearing from the left, oh yeah, 'Not every thing is black and white'. But wait, the Dems knowledge of this and when they knew it isn't the point, painting all republicans with as broad a brush as we can find is!

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 10:04 AM) It seems as if Republican congressmen knew of this situation as early as last week, this summer, this spring, last year, 2001, 2000. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6100800855.html And what more would you have liked Kolb to have done? You seem to be implying that 'they knew and did nothing'. Conmsidering that at that point nothing illegal had been known to be done, there wasn't too much Kolb could have done. Maybe he yelled at him, maybe he simply admonished him to be more carefull. However, since he told the (former) page to go tell all, my guess is that he wasn't nice to Foley. But again, what would you have wanted Kolb to do? Run to the papers? 'Out' him to the papers? At some point, Foley is an adult responsible for his own actions. For someone who hates it when conservatives on here paint with a broad brush, you seem to be using a spray gun trying to get all Republicans here.

Sorta makes you wish we had a missle defense system that worked right about now.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Oct 9, 2006 -> 01:35 AM) Yet you and Nuke freely label EVERY Muslim as a rabid decapitator. I guess I'm just as likely to be beheaded by an african Amercian-Muslim as some terrorist nut job in the middle east? How come Muslims don't get the party, racial, geographical treatment? A little biased are we? Go back andread MY posts. Every time I said ISLAMOFASCISTS. Not Muslims. There are over 1 BILLION Muslims in the world. If the ISLAMOFASCISTS represent just a few percent, that is still a staggering number. As for the other 98%, I belive I called them chicken, or something along those lines, for not distancing themselves from that 2%, but instead b****ing at the rest of the world for having a bad view of them. Oh, and is there anothergroup out there that would be known for its beheadings? One from this century, perhaps?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Oct 8, 2006 -> 11:35 PM) I know a lot about 'honor killings'. I've helped out with organizations to cut down on those types of activities. Then again, I've seen a few "good, Christian conservative" dads go apes*** and beat the Hell out of their daughters because they became 'unpure' before marriage in the news. Every religion has it to a degree. Again, it isn't about Islam. It is about fundamentalism. Take a look at the threats that came out because of the TV show, "The Book of Daniel". It is all about small sects of fundamentalist belief in any religion. Buddy Christ and Dashboard Muhammad powers activate! Boycotts do not equate to death threats. As for your'Christian dad's', That goes across all party, racial and religious lines. Don't EVEN try to say that is only a 'Christian' thing. You argue better than that.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Oct 8, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) Uh...Eagle Forum, Promise Keepers, laws telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies here or denying a vaccine to a disease that afflicts women because it would violate their religious fundamentalist code to allow it to be used -- much? Again, it's all about fundamentalism much more than it is about a specific religion. Eagle Forum, Promise Keepers = Islamofascist. I don't think so, try again. What you fail to point out is that the Promise Keepers don't 'honor kill' their daughters for showing their legs or for kissing a boy. If you are claiming moral equivilence here, you can't claim it doesn't exist between Foley and Butts.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 6, 2006 -> 02:50 PM) I mean heck, look at some of those threads on this board when they happened - guys here were too pre-occupied deciding whether or not they'd "hit that" to notice it was technically rape. Maybe in this tech savy world we should change that phrase to I would IM that? Sounds less violent and more up to date.

I joined it just so i could get that card to put with my White Sox shrine, but I also did not get the code to purchase tickets, and could not get anyone to help with that.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Oct 6, 2006 -> 08:49 AM) I've become one of the bigger Brian Anderson fans around, however the Marlins are absolutely loaded with young arms, so you at least have to listen to what they have to offer. Correct! Doesn't cost anything to listen. And you just never know what you may get offered.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...path=News/World Wonder how long until the Palistinians claim that it was theirs before it was stolen from them? (If there was a half-green color, I would have put that line in it.)

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 6, 2006 -> 12:22 AM) Limbaugh also struggles to find a way to blame the kids. And get this, he thinks it's Abu Ghraib all over again: nothing but a prank. Why would it be so unbelievable to think that some kids could have been 'having fun' with him by stringing him along? People all the time represent themselves as somebody they are not whiel on the internet. Back in the AOL internet days you heard all sorts of stoies about people pretending to be a woman and getting some guy to have 'cyber' with them, only to later bust out and proclaim themselves a man. And before you start foaming at the mouth, noone said this in any way absolved Foley from being a creep.

I think it would be a race to see who goes forst between Jose and Garcia. Despite 'Big Game''s performance late in the season, I don't think KW trusts him. And Jose is only getting older. His value would be highest for the Sox now, assuming he isn't hurt. There has to ba a team in the NL somewhere thinking they are only one starter away......

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 5, 2006 -> 04:33 PM) For all those posts that aren't just funny looking. How about for the posters that aren't funny looking?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 5, 2006 -> 10:10 PM) That's a long time ago, but you don't see any Christian sectarian violence, as long as you ignore the IRA attacks in England, the break up of Yugoslavia and the sectarian violence that followed... or the terrorist bombing of Hindus by Christian extremists in India in 2004, or the Christian Identity terrorist Eric Rudolph who bombed the 1996 Olympics, abortion clinics and gay bars. But let's not split hairs. With the exception of the IRA crap, those don't even compare to the Islamofascists that are around today. Crusades? Get into this decade, or even century. Christianity evolved. Sure, they might boycot Disney, but they don't chop off Mickey's head just because he doesn't pray to Allah. While some Christian groups may want to keep gays at bay, they don't kill them, like the Isamofascists would do. While some Christians have a problem with too much female skin, the Isamofascists have a problem with ANY female skin. Many Muslims here in the states have joined this century, but many over in the middle east are still stuck in a time warp.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Oct 5, 2006 -> 08:22 PM) So then the other 97 or 98 percent is an even "HUGER" number. Why not make a broad generalization about something using those guys instead? Ok, the 97 or 98 % who are not violent fanatics are too scared to stand up to the 2 or 3% of their religion that make them look bad and cause them trouble. You get funny looks in airports BECAUSE of that 2 or 3 percent. You have people watching you (the 97 or 98 percent) BECAUSE of that 2 or 3 percent. Do something about it, and STFU.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 5, 2006 -> 02:04 PM) No, but I wonder how some people here would react if I made a reference to putting a buddy jesus in a noose and hang it from my windshield mirror here. Something tells me it wouldn't be with laughter. Public scorn vs. beheading. No comparrison. Damn those evil Christians and their scorn!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 5, 2006 -> 02:18 PM) Oh please. If people elsewhere in the world watch the news about the U.S., and see school shootings and violence on the news, are they right to think that all Americans are violent? Look at broad information. Look at entire countries of Muslims that don't have these issues. Look at the fact that those protests on TV are, what... a few hundred people? Please rejoin us in reality. The religion of Islam is not the problem. Extremism and violence are the problem. Oh come on. All we hear about is how it is a small percentage. Even if it is only 2 or 3 percent, that is still a HUGE number.