USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[walker 0]

Hi all

The continuing rise in gas prices has as we know severly affected the US motor manufactureing industry.

Ford is now feeling the pinch.

Quote[/b] ]Ford Restructuring Slashes $5 Billion in Costs

By Sholnn Freeman and Debbi Wilgoren

Washington Post Staff Writers

Friday, September 15, 2006; 12:10 PM

Ford Motor Co. will offer its 75,000 hourly workers packages of incentives to leave the company, cut one-third of its white-collar jobs and sell or shut down its parts-making plants as part of a turnaround plan intended to slash annual operating costs by $5 billion.

Ford's stock plunged in the wake of this morning's announcement, as analysts grew cautious about the future performance of the company, the country's No. 2 automaker. Shares had dropped $1.28, more than 14 percent, to $7.81, by 11:30 a.m. Merrill Lynch changed its recommendation on Ford shares -- which until today had gained 18 percent this year, after a 48 percent decline in 2005 -- to "sell" from "neutral," the Associated Press reported. Stock values fell for other U.S. auto makers as well. Ford officials said the changes they are announcing will allow the company's North American operations to become profitable again in 2009. In the meantime, however, the board of directors plans to suspend payment of quarterly dividends on its common and Class B stock beginning in the fourth quarter of this year. The company reported losses of $1.44 billion in the first half of this year...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....68.html

Follow the link for the full article

The badly managed US economy has lead to massive Job losses at Ford. 10,000 salaried jobs will be slashed this year at Ford. Another 30,000 employees will loose their jobs and 14 plants will be closing by 2012. Since TBA and the NeoConMen took control of the US economy 250,000 Ford workers have lost their jobs.

I guess the question US voters must be asking themselves is:

"Can any one dare to vote for the NeoConMen when it is the Economy Stupid?"

Kind Regards walker

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]Since TBA and the NeoConMen took control of the US economy 250,000 Ford workers have lost their jobs.

So? As far as I can tell, that's coincidental, not causal. Ford has experienced problems with pensions, good competetion, excessive rebates/marketing gimmicks, and many other issues, but I've never seen evidence that a primary factor in its nonprofitability has to do with Evil Neocon Men. If anything, it has more to do with Evil Japanese Businessmen and their Annoyingly Good Cars.

[martinovic 0]

Depressing news about the oh so humanitarian United States of America...:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....16.html

The most interesting part is this:

Quote[/b] ]As with many phenomena of the Stalin period, it has the advantage that it could not easily be condemned by any simple principle.

I read a bunch of people write things that belittle these techniques and don't realise their inhumane nature.

I'm sure there were people like that during Stalin's reign and it just adds to the scary list of similarities between the current USA and Stalin's Soviet Russia.

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bush insists that these techniques are not torture -- after all, they don't involve pulling out fingernails or applying electric shocks.

Wish the chinese got their hands on Bush...then they could test some water toture on him...I mean, it wouldn't be torture...

[PainDealer 0]

looks like the US will poke their... arhm have a campaign in Thailand quite soon

[walker 0]

Hi all

I appears that the search for prominent Republicans involved in the Folley case is set to expand as the evidense points to a scandal so deeply rooted among the NeoConMen that it makes it clear why Folley got away with it for so long.

See the Discovery and Yorkshire Television documentry that the NeoConMan cancer in the Republican party does not want you to see:

Walker

[theavonlady 2]

I posted this on another forum, to someone who constantly concocts partisan rantings, like Walker's above, on such a tragic subject:

Have you forgotten this stench, pardoned by guess who? (Incidentally, Michelle Malkin speaks from personal experience).

This has nothing to do with one's party affiliation. This case and all known past incidents are indicative of an illness that doesn't discriminate according to one's politics or one's profession. This is another shame and disgrace on all of our government representatives.

Maybe it's time to flush out a whole nest of too cozy politicians, from both parties.

[walker 0]

Hi All

The documentry I linked to above speaks for it self.

Kind Regards Walker

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

i find it difficult to understand why congress has stopped UK gambling companys making money from US online gamblers.  Its reason was moral grounds but its dubious when US companys can are allowed to continue online horse & dog gambling.  To me it seems a clear attempt to block UK companys making money in the USA and to secure the market for US companys.  Unfair when you concider the expansion of companys like Coca Cola and Nike are able to make huge amounts of european companys bankrupt and revieve billions in sales.  Tesco is coming for you Walmart     (1.1 billion in profit from recent figures (remember the UK billion is 1000 million where as US billion is 100 million)

[mattxr 9]

Some1 should assasinate Mr Bush and his key Administrators... then all will be fine

[mattxr 9]

Tesco is coming for you Walmart (1.1 billion in profit from recent figures (remember the UK billion is 1000 million where as US billion is 100 million)

hahaha

[martinovic 0]

Quote[/b] ]This has nothing to do with one's party affiliation.

I'll second that! Both reps and dems have their fair share of skeletons tucked away under their homes.

I don't want to start busting out with the concpiracy theories but: any here heard of the Bohemian Grove? That's where US politicans (and a bunch of world leaders) from both sides come together to have lots of mansex under the redwoods (as confirmed by ex-workers of the grove). It's not surprising to find out that these same politicians can't keep their desires under check in their work envirioment either.

edit: OT about walmart, i recently heard they got spanked really badly in Germany. They had to pull out with a bunch of losses.

[walker 0]

Hi all

With more on the Foley case.

It apears that as well as senior NeoConMen members of the US Republican party; various NeoConMen leaning media including Fox News had both the Emails and direct accusations from the boys involved but sat on the story.

When caught with smoking gun NeoConMen leaning media then lied by ommision about the content of the emails

Quote[/b] ]Wed, Oct 4, 2006 12:05pm EST

Miami Herald news, editorial pages claimed Foley emails were "ambiguous" and "innocuous" but didn't note most suggestive content

Summary: Miami Herald executive editor Tom Fiedler stated that the newspaper didn't pursue a story on emails allegedly written by former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) to an underage male former page because they were "ambiguous" and "very innocuous" -- a claim similar to one made in a Miami Herald editorial. But in defending the decision not to report the alleged emails, neither Fiedler nor the Herald editorial gave readers the full information on their content.

In recent days, Miami Herald executive editor Tom Fiedler has stated that Herald editors had prior knowledge of emails allegedly written by former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) to an underage male former page but didn't pursue a story on the emails because they were "ambiguous" and "very innocuous." A Miami Herald editorial also made a similar claim. But in defending the Herald's decision not to report the alleged emails, neither Fiedler nor the Miami Herald editorial gave readers the full information on their content.

On October 2, The Miami Herald reported that although the paper had prior knowledge of Foley's alleged emails, Fiedler said the editors found the messages to be "ambiguous" and they "didn't feel there was sufficient clarity in the e-mails to warrant a story." Similarly, on the October 2 edition of CNN's Newsroom, Fiedler said the language of the emails was "ambiguous" and "very innocuous," and that he didn't assign reporters to the story because "we thought that this was an isolated incident." An October 3 Herald editorial echoed Fiedler's remarks about the decision not to investigate the story, asserting that the paper was aware of "concerns about ... 'over friendly' e-mails" but that it was not "worthy of a news story because it seemed innocuous." Both the article and the editorial purported to explain the paper's decision not to pursue the Foley story, but, while noting the alleged email in which Foley requested a "pic" of the page, neither mentioned an email in which Foley allegedly referred to another page as "in really great shape."

Because the Herald never specifically noted which emails it received -- while characterizing them as "innocuous" -- and sometimes referred to its evidence as simply an "email," it is unclear exactly what emails its editors saw. However, the October 3 editorial noted that Hastert was aware of "e-mails that Mr. Foley had sent to a 16-year-old page -- including one requesting a photo" and that the Herald "knew of this message." Further, in his interview with CNN, Fiedler was asked about the "emails that are now described as 'overly friendly,' " and Fiedler responded that "that's right." The October 2 article in the Herald refers to what the paper saw as "emails," and Fiedler's comment addressed the "emails," which he thought "didn't warrant a story."

The Herald's reason for not investigating the emails is similar to that given by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), who, as Media Matters for America noted, has claimed that the emails he saw were "over friendly" but not "sexually explicit." By contrast, the St. Petersburg Times, which also had prior knowledge of the email communications between Foley and the page from Louisiana, assigned two reporters to the story but reported on October 2 that the paper decided not to publish the story "because the Louisiana teenager's parents did not want to pursue the issue, and because, despite our best efforts, we weren't able to track down any pages who had received inappropriate e-mails from the congressman."

Moreover, the page involved purportedly had a different view of the emails than that expressed by the Herald. On September 30, Hastert released a statement explaining that Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) had first learned of the alleged email communications between Foley and the page in the fall of 2005, after the recipient forwarded the emails to an Alexander aide; in his correspondence with Alexander's office, the page described the alleged communications with Foley as "sick" 13 times. An October 2 Associated Press article quoted Fiedler as saying that the language of the email "was not sexually explicit and was subject to interpretation, from innocuous to 'sick,' as the page characterized it."...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610040003

Follow link for the full story

The rubishing of the boy involved's testimony by the NeoConMen leaning media smacks of the same tactics that were used by media in the Franklin scandal for which I provided the link to Documentry the Discovery Channel was prevented from airing.

Kind Regards Walker

[Sophion-Black 0]

See the Discovery and Yorkshire Television documentry that the NeoConMan cancer in the Republican party does not want you to see

I wonder... maybe because its called "slander". I didn't see any sources that could be remotely creditable.

man oh man.. where has this topic gone to? It looks like nothing more than a bunch of foreign people playing "lets bash the USA". You all think you're nations are high and mighty? GET SERIOUS!!! THIS ISN'T A PLACE FOR NAME CALLING! THIS ISN'T A PLACE TO BASH THE US! THIS ISN'T A PLACE TO POST ANY SLANDER! ALL OF YOU, STEP BACK AND RECOGNIZE THAT THIS TOPIC LOOKS LIKE A BAND A CROOKS GATHERING TO CURSE THE US!

I'll come back later in the year... after elections (but I'm sure it still won't change).

[theavonlady 2]

It apears that as well as senior NeoConMen members of the US Republican party; various NeoConMen leaning media including Fox News had both the Emails and direct accusations from the boys involved but sat on the story.

Once again, this is not limited to Republicans and conservatives.

Ho hum.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

See the Discovery and Yorkshire Television documentry that the NeoConMan cancer in the Republican party does not want you to see

I wonder... maybe because its called "slander". I didn't see any sources that could be remotely creditable.

man oh man.. where has this topic gone to? It looks like nothing more than a bunch of foreign people playing "lets bash the USA". You all think you're nations are high and mighty? GET SERIOUS!!! THIS ISN'T A PLACE FOR NAME CALLING! THIS ISN'T A PLACE TO BASH THE US! THIS ISN'T A PLACE TO POST ANY SLANDER! ALL OF YOU, STEP BACK AND RECOGNIZE THAT THIS TOPIC LOOKS LIKE A BAND A CROOKS GATHERING TO CURSE THE US!

I'll come back later in the year... after elections (but I'm sure it still won't change).

i tried to get it back to US economy. Also on ford, i think its more of a matter of the fact there loosing sales than the falt of Neo-Conmen. Thats a buisness perspective. If your not making profit you need to cut costs, and redundancies normally are near the top of costs that can be cut.

[walker 0]

See the Discovery and Yorkshire Television documentry that the NeoConMan cancer in the Republican party does not want you to see

I wonder... maybe because its called "slander". I didn't see any sources that could be remotely creditable.

man oh man.. where has this topic gone to? It looks like nothing more than a bunch of foreign people playing "lets bash the USA". You all think you're nations are high and mighty? GET SERIOUS!!! THIS ISN'T A PLACE FOR NAME CALLING! THIS ISN'T A PLACE TO BASH THE US! THIS ISN'T A PLACE TO POST ANY SLANDER! ALL OF YOU, STEP BACK AND RECOGNIZE THAT THIS TOPIC LOOKS LIKE A BAND A CROOKS GATHERING TO CURSE THE US!

I'll come back later in the year... after elections (but I'm sure it still won't change).

Hi all

To Sophion-Black

The Yorkshire Television documentary that was supposed to be aired on Discovery has never ever been accused of liable or slander. Nor has it been removed from the mass of sites who have now, and especially since the incident with Foley, started to host it.

I invite anyone who has not seen it to see it and judge for themselves:

Here is a better quality version of the doccumentry hosted by Google

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7394798266998491777&hl=en

Nope nobody suing them for liable or slander.

As to the children who gave evidence yes they were accused of perjury.

However I draw you attention to the following.

http://www.franklincase.org/summary.htm

Look in the section dealing with who the players are:

http://www.franklincase.org/keyplayers.htm

And to the fact that:

Quote[/b] ]Peter Citron

Arrested in 1965 For Sexual Child Abuse (charges were later dropped)

Omaha World Herald Entertainment Columnist in the 1980s'

Sentenced 3-8 years in June 1990 after pleading no contest to sexual assault. Citron Served three years, and was released in 1993. Citron died in June of 2003

Ibid my use of bold

So he was proven to be a sex offender so no one slandered him

The young man accused of perjury

Quote[/b] ]Paul Bonacci

Testified and named men in front of the Franklin Jury who sexually and physically abused him in the Omaha area and beyond

Charged with perjury after testifying before the Franklin Jury

in 1999 won a $1 million law-suit against Larry King with the help of John DeCamp.

Ibid Please note my use of bold

So he really was a victim and the courts have recognised it.

Also that the young girl accused of perjury

Quote[/b] ]Alisha Owen

Testified and named men in front of the Franklin Jury who sexually and physically abused her in the Omaha area and beyond.

Charged and Indicted on 8 counts of perjury after testifying before the Franklin Jury and jailed

Filed Suit for Paternity Tests on her baby, who she said was Robert Wadman's, later the suit was ruled not frivolous.

Ibid Please note my use of bold

So pretty clear she did not slander and really was a victim.

I will be generous to you and assume you are not accusing the young boy of being slanderous when he said to both Fox News and several other NeoConMen leaning media that Foley's messages to him were "sick" six months or more before this all came out. Although it would be of benefit to your own integrity to confirm that you are not accusing any boy in the Foley case of slander.

I question then are you accusing the journalist who wrote the article that pointed out these NeoConMen leaning media of sitting on the story is slanderous. Since this would also require you to call the young boy involved of slander I fail to see how then that one will float.

So just who are you accusing of being slanderous? The tooth fairy perhaps.

As to USA bashing sorry do not see that one. How is the USA being bashed? The only people that are being bashed here are a bunch of old paedophiles and the very strange actions of those who would hide them and they are most definitely not the USA!

Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Hi all

Walker is correct that a few news organizations, including Fox News, sat on a story. However, those news organizations only had the emails and not the chat logs that contained the graphic sexual language. It appears only ABC, not known to be apart of the "NeoConMen leaning media", had the chat logs and ABC obtained the logs on an unknown date. The FBI already saw the emails, and not chat logs, back in July or August and believed the emails were not enough to begin an investigation. In my opinion, the emails should have alone raised red flags but it did not because they can be viewed various ways and etc.

I linked the emails and chat logs at the bottom of this post so people can see them. In addition, I linked a note from the editors at the St. Petersburg Times so people can understand why that paper sat on the emails and to disprove Walker's theory of a conspiracy by the "NeoConMen leaning media."

http://stopsexpredators.blogspot.com/2006....16.html

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/story?id=2509586&page=1

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2006/09/a_note_from_the.html

Regards Billybob2002

Edit: According to Drudge, the IM exchanges took place before and after the teen's 18th birthday.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm

That blogspot seems fishy to me.

[walker 0]

Hi all

To billybob2002

Fox News and the other media I mentioned had a specific statement from the boy that the content of the messages was "sick" and as I reported those same media atempted to pull the wool over their readers eyes by using a lie of ommision to not report the most damaging content of the messages that the boy sent on to them.

Unless you are saying the boy lied?

You are aware that the boys say that Foley had been doing this for many years billybob2002?

The latest news is that a Republican Senator's aid had warned Hastert about Foley up to 3 years back but Hastert sat on it.

Quote[/b] ]Hastert clings to power as scandal swirls

Top Republicans question speaker’s inaction on Foley sex messages

NBC, MSNBC and news services

Updated: 9:09 p.m. ET Oct. 4, 2006

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - House Speaker Dennis Hastert was fighting for his political life Wednesday after new disclosures surfaced that his office knew that a Republican House member was sending sexually provocative messages to underage congressional pages as long as three years ago.

Hastert, R-Ill., already under fire from some conservative activists and fellow congressional Republicans — including members of his leadership team — remained largely out of sight Wednesday. He made no public appearances and did not call into a Chicago radio station for a scheduled on-air interview.

Pressure on Hastert has built since it was reported that an aide to Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., complained last year to Hastert’s office about an “overly friendly†e-mail message that Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., had sent to a teenage male page sponsored by Alexander. Alexander said he did not ask for any specific action at the request of the boy’s parents.

After Foley resigned last week amid the disclosure of more sexually explicit instant messages to at least one other male page, a member of Foley’s leadership team, Rep. Thomas Reynolds of New York, said he personally told Hastert about the initial message last spring. Hastert said he did not recall the conversation but did not challenge Reynolds’ account.

Reynolds has been vocal in trying to explain that the responsibility for responding to Foley’s behavior lay with Hastert, whom he called his “supervisor,†while Hastert’s No. 2, John Boehner of Ohio, said he also had spoken with Hastert about Foley...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15134923/

Follow link for the full story

This seems to indicate a patern of coverup and unwillingness to deal with Foley. It suggests that they are used to this kind of thing and do not consider it important or are activly engaged in hiding it and not concerned about preventing it.

Apparently GOP (What the hell does that stand for?) members want Hastert to say he will quit sometime after the election so that the voters think they are doing something and so that the voters do not think the GOP?? feels guilty.

My thoughts are that either Hastert did not know about Foley's actions in which case he has no need to resign. Or: Hastert new about Foley in which case he should not be allowed to resign instead he should be taken away in hand cuffs for child endangerment.

Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Hi all

To billybob2002

Fox News and the other media I mentioned had a specific statement from the boy that the content of the messages was "sick" and as I reported those same media atempted to pull the wool over their readers eyes by using a lie of ommision to not report the most damaging content of the messages that the boy sent on to them.

Unless you are saying the boy lied?

You are aware that the boys say that Foley had been doing this for many years billybob2002?

The latest news is that a Republican Senator's aid had warned Hastert about Foley up to 3 years back but Hastert sat on it.

Where did I say the teen lied? You do not want to accept that there is no conspiracy between the news organizations on this story. According to the the St. Petersburg Times, the boy told them the emails made him uncomfortable but he would not go on the record and his family did not want the investigation to continue. Suggestive emails are nothing without something to back it up.

If those news organization had the chat logs, I would agree with you that it might be a conspiracy. However, they didn't.

[walker 0]

Hi billybob2002

At no point have I said that Media conspired. I have merely pointed out that they:

1) Sat on the story

2) Made a lie of omission in not giving their readers the worst part of the messages they recieved from the boy on which to judge for themselves whether the story warranted publishing.

3) I also saw no attempt by them listed in their article excusing themselves to show they properly investigated the boys accusations; this despite the extreme seriousness of the boys accusation.

In turn that makes me think that this seems to indicate a pattern of cover up and unwillingness to deal with Foley. It suggests that they are used to this kind of thing and do not consider it important or are actively engaged in hiding it and not concerned about preventing it.

So perhaps you see a conspiracy of silence from your own perception of the actions of the GOP?? and NeoConMen leaning media.

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

Heheh! Ann Coulter escorts the Walkers of the world into the memory hole:

Quote[/b] ]Who Knew Mark Foley was a Closeted Democrat?

By Ann Coulter

FrontPageMagazine.com | October 5, 2006

At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.

The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.

Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)

In 1983, Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."

When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds – not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men – defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")

Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life."

Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.

No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.

But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaeda phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager – oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy – and a credit check, too!

When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.

But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.

The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaeda – solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.

On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"

Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."

We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:

<ul>Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.

<ul>Priests: No gays!

<ul>Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.

<ul>Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.

<ul>White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.

<ul>Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.

<ul>Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?

This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.

Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.

[walker 0]

Hi Avon

This is not an issue about being gay.

It is an issue of underage non gay boys being stalked by a predatory Foley.

If Ann Coulter can so readily hold her nose to defend Foley by trying to attack those who have done no wrong then she has to live with her statements. Ann Coulter can make up all the NeoConMen whiny drivel she wants. And you can hold your nose and agree to as much of the abuse as your morals or lack of the same will allow.

That Foley was Hypocritcal in being Gay and in the closet is a whiny NeoConMen problem. It ain't my fault, or the Democrats, or the Boys. If he was gay and had the courage to come out as Democrats do maybe he would not have been pestering young boys.

Closet sexuality and abuse seem in my opinion to go hand in hand. I suppose they associate sexuality with sin and get excited doing something wrong and mistake sexual feelings for doing evil. Like I say it is NeoConMen problem.

The plane fact is these boys were under the protection of the Senate and it appears that Foley misused his position of power to predatorial stalk them by text and email.

Just to make it clear this the kind of thing he was doing

Quote[/b] ]Lawmaker's Intentions Appear Clear In Exchanges

By Jonathan Weisman and Juliet Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Writers

Thursday, October 5, 2006; Page A01

The message exchanges included plenty of kid stuff -- talk of killer finals and botched SATs, cramming to learn the lines of a school play, picking up a sister at cheerleading practice. But when two former pages sat down at their computers to furtively chat with then-Rep. Mark Foley, they were also acting out a parent's nightmare with a man with clear designs.

"BRB [be right back] . . . my mom is yelling," one teenage boy wrote just after Foley coaxed him into discussing his anatomy with a lascivious "ummmmmmmmm . . . beautiful."

"back," the boy continued.

"cool hope s[h]e didnt see any thing," Foley responded.

"no no . . . she is computer dumb," the boy offered...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....08.html

Follow link for the full story

As to the cover up by NeoConMen in the US Republican party true Republicans are sick of it and comming out and saying so.

They are even willing to give up their Jobs to get rid of the NeoConMen cancer at the heart of the Republican party.

Quote[/b] ]Ex-Aide To Foley Cites '03 Warnings

Former Staffer Says He Alerted Hastert's Office

By Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington

Washington Post Staff Writers

Thursday, October 5, 2006; Page A01

A longtime chief of staff to disgraced former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) approached House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office three years ago, repeatedly imploring senior Republicans to help stop Foley's advances toward teenage male pages, the staff member said yesterday.

The account by Kirk Fordham, who resigned yesterday from his job with another senior lawmaker, pushed back to 2003 or earlier the time when Hastert's staff reportedly became aware of Foley's questionable behavior concerning teenagers working on Capitol Hill.

It raised new questions about Hastert's assertions that senior GOP leaders were aware only of "over-friendly" e-mails from 2005 that they say did not raise alarm bells when they came to light this year.

"The fact is, even prior to the existence of the Foley e-mail exchanges, I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest levels of the House of Representatives, asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley's inappropriate behavior," said Fordham, who was Foley's chief of staff for 10 years.

He left that post in January 2004 to join the campaign staff of Republican Mel Martinez, now a senator from Florida, and later worked for Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), whose staff Fordham left yesterday. He would not name the Hastert aides he spoke with...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....16.html

Follow link to get the full story

It breaks down into two types of people in the GOP?? True Republicans who will put all on the line for what they know is right and whiny NeoConMen like Ann Coulter who want keep it all swept under the carpet to fester and corrupt.

That is what Foley and his ilk rely on. Foley "says" he is; all defending kids and anti sexual perverts but at night and on the Internet he creeping up to the kiddies in their bedrooms. And no one will believe the Kids because he is a high and mighty NeoConMen Senator who "says" he defends kiddies.

I guess you as with any other Republican need to decide what side of the line you stand.

Are you with Foley and the NeoConMen whiners who would like it all swept under the carpet for the good of the party or against them?

You need to make decision do you want to defend kids or not?

Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

Hi Avon

This is not an issue about being gay.

It is an issue of underage non gay boys being stalked by a predatory Foley.

Correct.

Quote[/b] ]

If Ann Coulter can so readily hold her nose to defend Foley

She doesn't. Nobody does. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that. Nice attempt to distract.

Enjoy your witch hunt.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Hi Avon

This is not an issue about being gay.

It is an issue of underage non gay boys being stalked by a predatory Foley.

Correct.

Quote[/b] ]

If Ann Coulter can so readily hold her nose to defend Foley

She doesn't. Nobody does. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that. Nice attempt to distract.

Enjoy your witch hunt.

why does there always have to be a exterior motive? maybe walker has moral standards. somthing some members of the republican party lack.