mr d Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Hello Want humor, read the news. Yes it will provide you more chuckels and laughs than you thought possible. This is in regards to the fun time America is having with former Florida Rep. Mark Foley. Caught sending 'salacious' email to an underaged male page, a fact known by House leaders of his own party and ignored by them till the need to cover their own posteriors arose from the revelation. What's funny, I find this is. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061004/ap_on_go_co/congressman_e_mails;_ylt=AvtQ_dXj2isciRbvNPMc0hCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM- Now remember folks, as your leaders (and criminal defense attorneys) are quite adept at showing you. You are never responcible for your own actions, someone or something is always hanging about for you to pin your foibles on. You are never to be blamed or held responcible, however do remember at press conferences to shead a tear or two when claiming how these people-places-events scarred you for life, and they are responicble for making you do what you did. Oh, and if you can announce your going into treatment, like Rep. Foley or the actor Mel Gibson, plus bonus points if you can shortly there after find God (if in the West thrown in the name Jesus here and there, good Christians are compelled to forgive you then) who is now your personal savior. So remember no matter what mistakes you do in life it is not your fault. Mr D ps... how bad can a day be in which you get to use the words foible and salacious?
Sisyphus Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Kind of a bizarre episode all around. If somebody made it up it wouldn't be believable. Mark Foley, popular moderate and champion of fighting internet predators, is revealed to be trying to seduce male teenage interns, and claims it has to do with being molested by clergy as a boy! I'm pretty much speachless.
YT2095 Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 ps... how bad can a day be in which you get to use the words foible and salacious? quite bad, if you spell "Responsible" the way YOU did 3 times in one post!
mr d Posted October 4, 2006 Author Posted October 4, 2006 Hello Using the original Hutu spelling of the word. Glad to see however I have my very own English Professor, but tell me do I not get any pudding if I don't finish all my meat? Vvery responcylible off yuk olde chap. Mr D
Severian Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Mind you,... "I miss you," Foley said in one message, according to ABC. "ya me too," the teen replied. "we are still voting," Foley responded. ...doesn't sound terribly lurid. I hope they can do better than that.
ParanoiA Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 This is in regards to the fun time America is having with former Florida Rep. Mark Foley. Caught sending 'salacious' email to an underaged male page, a fact known by House leaders of his own party and ignored by them till the need to cover their own posteriors arose from the revelation. Actually that's not true. I listened to Hastart yesterday on Rush Limbaugh, and he made it very clear that they knew about some letters in 2002, and talked with Foley and his attorneys at that time. Apparently there was little to go on, but they met about the situation anyway. The emails from 2003 were not known by Hastart and company, until a few days ago when all of this blew up. That's why Hastart was talking about pursuing this from an "obstruction" point of view. Someone sat on this evidence for 3 years now. What if that kid was being molested all of this time? That's disgusting and shameful. I'll bet this is going to lead back to some punk journalist. But hey, for once, folks are being caught BEFORE they commit the crime. Think about that. Most of the time we're hearing empty apologies "to the friends and family" blah blah blah after they've scarred someone for life. If the republicans are smart, they'll spin the angle that he was caught before damage could be done.
Sisyphus Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Mind you,... ...doesn't sound terribly lurid. I hope they can do better than that. As a matter of fact... Maf54: do you really do it face down Teen: ya Maf54: kneeling Teen: well i dont use my hand...i use the bed itself Maf54: where do you unload it Teen: towel Maf54: really Maf54: completely naked? Teen: well ya Maf54: very nice Teen: lol Maf54: cute butt bouncing in the air Maf54: I want to see you Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner Maf54: and then what happens Teen: we eat...we drink...who knows...hang out...late into the night Maf54: and Teen: I dunno Maf54: dunno what Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here... im not sure what I would be comfortable with...well see Maf54: ok..i better go vote..did you know you would have this effect on me Teen: lol I guessed Teen: ya go vote…I don't want to keep you from doing our job Maf54: can I have a good kiss goodnight Teen: :-* Teen: <kiss> Maf54: we will be adjourned ny then Teen: oh good Maf54: by Maf54: then we can have a few drinks Maf54: lol Teen: yes yes ;-) Maf54: your not old enough to drink Teen: shhh… Maf54: ok Teen: that's not what my ID says Teen: lol Maf54: ok Teen: I probably shouldn't be telling you that huh Maf54: we may need to drink at my house so we don't get busted The above is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal' date=' which has plenty of other information as well. Also, Speaker Dennis Hastert said at first that he had only learned of the emails the week when the news broke.[45] By October 1, it became known that he had been informed of the situation no later than the spring of 2006. His own senior aides, and legal counsel, however, together with several other members of the top Republican leadership, are known to have been aware of the email allegations a full year before the public disclosure.
ParanoiA Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 If those messages are the real deal, then anyone who kept those messages any longer than a few minutes without acting on it ought to lose their jobs. No matter what, they should all feel ashamed. That is very explicit evidence and someone could have been sexually abused all of this time.
john5746 Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 The instant messages didn't crop up until this week. The tame by comparison emails were the ones originally discussed. I think they need to be discussing what should be done in the future for such actions, instead of trying to make this a witch hunt.
ParanoiA Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 The instant messages didn't crop up until this week. The tame by comparison emails were the ones originally discussed. I think they need to be discussing what should be done in the future for such actions, instead of trying to make this a witch hunt. 99% of the time I reject launching a witch hunt. This falls under that 1%, where there is no good reason at all for not acting on the information. That is extremely explicit. No ambiguity. Nothing tame at all. If the emails were all they had, then yes, I don't see any reason to burn anyone at the stake. But if these instant messages were in someone's possession for 3 years, then that is shameful and unexcusable.
john5746 Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 99% of the time I reject launching a witch hunt. This falls under that 1%, where there is no good reason at all for not acting on the information. That is extremely explicit. No ambiguity. Nothing tame at all. If the emails were all they had, then yes, I don't see any reason to burn anyone at the stake. But if these instant messages were in someone's possession for 3 years, then that is shameful and unexcusable. That is what I said, the instant messages were not known until recently. I think more action was needed based on the emails, but I don't know what the current protocol demands. That is what needs to be discussed and changed if needed, IMO. There will always be rumors and complaints swirling around. There should be guidelines as to the action required for certain offences. If it isn't followed, then you chop off heads, otherwise fix the guidelines. I agree with you that if it is something as obvious as the IM's, then that requires the obvious action - police. Anything less is a cover up or stupidity.
GutZ Posted October 6, 2006 Posted October 6, 2006 Oh God! that's disturbing....I feel sorry for the kid. *shudders*
ParanoiA Posted October 6, 2006 Posted October 6, 2006 Oh God! that's disturbing....I feel sorry for the kid. *shudders* Actually, that's what I found more disturbing than anything. It reads like a guy pursuing a girl. This kid seems to realize his power as the one being pursued and seems to somewhat enjoy the attention. I didn't read all of it, but I read enough to know Foley is a disturbing man.
aguy2 Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 Mind you,... ...doesn't sound terribly lurid. I hope they can do better than that. The level of 'luridness' isn't the big point. It was and is the depth and width of the coverup. aguy2
padren Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 I can't help but to bet that if when the Powers That Be found the little information they did, had it been the most prominent democrat who was responsible, it would have been looked into years ago and everything would have turned up. The real question is if the original warning signs would have been enough to look into someone whom they were totally indifferent to. From the sounds of it so far, it seems like the reason for not digging into it was in difference to Foley and the effects it would have on this party, but we'll have to see the evidence (I am not 100% up on it so far).
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now