USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[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.

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

Yes.

Of course.

The moral high ground.

Uniquely yours.

[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.

Yes.

Of course.

The moral high ground.

Uniquely yours.

dismissing pedophiliac acusations as a 'witch hunt' is a new moral low ground in my books.

inocent till proven guilty - yes, but not inocent by default.

[theavonlady 2]

dismissing pedophiliac acusations as a 'witch hunt' is a new moral low ground in my books.  

I never dismissed them. Try again.

Quote[/b] ]inocent till proven guilty - yes, but not inocent by default.

I have no idea what that means but I doubt it is relevant.

[billybob2002 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

Well, the news organizations are not NeoConMen leaning just because they did not publish the story. Anyway, I already provided a link that contains why the St. Petersburg Times did not publish a story about the emails. Those emails were not a slam dunk if they published them because the Times did not have other statements to support the accusation that Foley is a pervert. Foley could have easily defended himself because the emails were suggestive only and could be interpret in a couple of ways.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Those media did not even investigate the allegation.

Why?

ABC news at least took their watchdog role seriously and investigated the allegations and indeed broke the story in the mainstream media.

The NeoConMen media new about emails back in November 2005. All that time Fox News and the other NeoConMen leaning media mentioned in the article sat on the story doing nothing.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610030007

Why?

The watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington CREW obtained the emails in July 2006 and instantly thought them worthy of reporting to the FBI. Yet Fox News and the other NeoConMen leaning media had the same emails and accusations from the boy for a year and never reported them to FBI.

http://www.iht.com/article....gns.php

Why?

The NeoConMen leaning media claimed the emails it sat on were innocuous and not suggestive giving examples of the emails including the one about Foley requesting a picture of the boy but it failed to let its readers the see the most suggestive content that said another boy was looking in really great shape. And that another page had warned the boy about a senator that made it a habit to hit on pages. (lies by omission)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610040003

Why?

And anyway how the hell does Foley know what shape the boy is in? That is the question that came to me within 30 seconds of reading the emails. Any Journalist worth his salt who does not instantly start running through those questions and ramifications is not doing journalism; they are doing something else.

Why?

Regards Walker

[Blake 0]

I think there was good article on this on BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/

Quote[/b] ]

...Before the last presidential election I remember someone saying that by the time Karl Rove had done his work no-one would know who's side John Kerry fought on in the Vietnam war; at the time it seemed implausible but...

Well watch out for the same again - I predict that the Democrats will get the blame for this in the end and not quite know how to avoid it.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The latest information is that Foley was pestering congressional pages at least as far back as 1998 and had fantasies about the boys in their dorm and was encouraging boys in the dorms to feed his fantasies. Foley also aproached at least one high school boy.

Quote[/b] ]More pages recount 'sexual approaches' by Foley over Internet

By AMIE PARNES

parnesa@shns.com

October 6, 2006

WASHINGTON — The list of accusers keeps growing longer.

Four more former congressional pages brought forward their own lurid accounts of their dealings with former Rep. Mark Foley on Thursday, less than a week after the congressman resigned from office.

"I was seventeen years old and just returned to (my home state) when Foley began to e-mail me, asking if I had ever seen my page roommates naked ..." said one 2002 page, who did not want to be identified.

The former page said Foley had invited him to stay at his home near Capitol Hill if he would have sex with the congressman.

The page said he had been interviewed by the FBI.

Another former page revealed that Foley had visited the page dorms and asked pages if he could give them rides to events in his BMW.

But the solicitation reportedly didn't stop there. The page, part of the 2000 class, said Foley kept in touch with him with a steady stream of e-mails and arranged a sexual liaison after the page turned 18.

"His e-mails developed into sexually explicit conversations ..." the page said.

A third page, who was part of the 1998 class, said he began receiving instant messages from Foley when he was still a senior in high school.

"Foley would say he was sitting in his boxers and ask what I was wearing," the page said. "It became more weird, and I stopped responding."

http://www1.tcpalm.com/tcp....00.html

Follow the link for full story

Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

As expected the usual NeoConMen tricks of attack the innocent and the victim have emerged this week from NeoConMen Blogs and GOP?? Media.

The NeoConMen leadership have started attacking the democrats for not telling them about Foley? And GOP?? bloggers are attacking the the Republican pages involved for being traitorous to the party by speaking out about Foley actions.

Quote[/b] ]Speculation Centers on a Republican Former Page

By Elizabeth Williamson

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, October 7, 2006; Page A07

Likable and popular with female pages, a committed Republican who even as a teenager knew how to parlay chance meetings into political friendships, Jordan Edmund has emerged as a key figure in the Foley page scandal.

The former House page has been targeted by conservative blogs as the young man on the receiving end of former representative Mark Foley's sexually explicit online instant messages, which have engulfed the GOP in a scandal that could affect the outcome of the Nov. 7 congressional elections.

Edmund has hired a lawyer, Stephen Jones, who will not acknowledge whether his client was the one who corresponded extensively with Foley for nearly a year. Jones said he is going public with his client's name to help Edmund fend off conservative attacks and a barrage of media inquiries. He said he will represent Edmund when he is interviewed early next week by the FBI...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....87.html

Follow link for the full story

In my opinion the no doubt Rove inspired NeoConMen bloggers have even tried to say the pages were unsure if they were gay and initiated the posts or were doing it as a prank

Quote[/b] ] ...In recent days, some blogs have published reports that the exchanges were a prank and that the teen in the messages, who seems uncertain about his sexual orientation, was actually trying to solicit sexually suggestive messages from Foley...

Ibid

Those sick little NeoConMen F***ers need to get a life!

The pages did not make up the messages! They tried telling the NeoConMen GOP?? leadership but Hastert says he never new! The pages tried telling the NeoConMen leaning media but they sat on it. No If, Buts or Maybe 's Fox News and those other supposed guardians of the innocents would not touch the story with a barge poll. It was all Shush Shush keep it quiet. They waited and waited nothing was done. Now the NeoConMen tell them they should have not have done it around the time of the election.

Well News Up World!

The pages did not wait till the election they told the NeoConMen leaders of the GOP?? 3 years ago.

Nothing happened!

They told them 2 years ago!

Nothing happened!

They told them 1 year ago and they told the NeoConMen Media!

Nothing happened!

This year they stopped pissing about they told non NeoConMen Media and the independent Internet blogs too.

Now It happened!

Now It happened!

Now It Happened!

So what is the NeoConMen leadership and medias reaction.

Well Hastert's first reaction is lets investigate the pages. Get the FBI to give them all the third degree that will shut them up. Threaten them with perjury like they did the kids in the Franklin case.

Well the conservatives may not like Pelosi but she told Hastert he could go f**k himself on that one and I think every right minded true conservative republican who really wants to protect children agreed with her on that.

Then Hastert starts saying the democrats kept it back for the election. Even true conservative republicans think that for the NeoConMen leadership and media to try to blame the Democrats for the scandal coming out next to the election is a bit rich. It should have been dealt with 3 years ago.

And the Democrats just said "Put up or shut up" and Hastert was forced to apologise.

While the real source of the of the scandal coming out now at the election; Real, True, Honest, Conservative Republicans; pages and staffers, concerned for the youth in the page program, who are sick of the NeoConMen cancer corrupting the heart of the Republican party and America; put: their careers, their private lives and yes their parties success in the present elections at risk for the safety of those pages under the care of the US government.

I can only aplaud them.

And Hastert keeps saying we did not know. Yeah. Pull the other one mate, its got bells on it.

Quote[/b] ]Staffer Cites Earlier Role by Hastert's Office

Confrontation With Foley Detailed

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, October 7, 2006; Page A01

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his inappropriate social contact with male pages well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

The staff member said Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, met with the Florida Republican at the Capitol to discuss complaints about Foley's behavior toward pages. The alleged meeting occurred long before Hastert says aides in his office dispatched Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and the clerk of the House in November 2005 to confront Foley about troubling e-mails he had sent to a Louisiana boy...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....88.html

Follow link for the full story

I guess it is for every voter to weigh up the evidence and their conscience and ask them selves can an honest moral conservative vote for a party that will hide the actions of someone like Foley?

Regards Walker

[Stendac 0]

Um... Uh-oh.

"FOX news sued for the right to lie, and won"

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

The basic story goes like this:

Jane Akre and her husband are two ex-FOX investigators from Florida. They were following a story on Bovine Growth Hormones (BGH).

"According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)"

Of course, the couple sued and initially won. Akre recieved monetary compensation (although the Florida court decided that Wilson was not entitled to any).

FOX appeals and the court decides to overturn the original ruling.

"During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.â€

FOX also argued that the Akre and Wilson did not qualify for protection under state Whistleblower laws. And now they are filing motions to recover $1.7 million in trial fees and costs from the couple.

The scary part is that FOX news seems to be right! The First Amendment is a double edged sword, ain't it?

[walker 0]

Hi all

There is a simple solution to this when ever you see their stories quoted you can legaly say "Fox are probably lying."

After all they just admited it in court that they would lie in their stories.

Also you can confront any Fox News journalist phone in with.

"How do we know your not Lying"

After all they just admited it in court that they would lie in their stories.

You can object to any story on Fox News by saying they have history of Lying

After all they just admited it in court that they would lie in their stories.

And on and on Ad-infnitum

You can even use it on former Fox news people when they have to get laid off because no one will trust their news.

Kind Regards Walker

[HeyHiHello 0]

what dis got to do with OFP?!

anyway go reading lates

[ralphwiggum 6]

read the forum description.

[Nemesis6 0]

And let me guess, people should trust, say... CBS news?

[Bordoy 0]

Most newspapers/news channels will post lies in some stories.

The Nottingham Evening Post always mis-quotes whatever the manager of Nottm Forest says and whacking that mis-quote on the back page in big black letters.

But then again, thats quite far away from the world of US politics. lol

[theavonlady 2]

And let me guess, people should trust, say... CBS news?

No. The BBC.

[walker 0]

Hi All

People can only trust a Media outlet if it has not got a policy of lying. Fox has a policy of lying to its customers they even argued for it as their right to lie to their customers in a court of law.

If a media outlet has not argued for the right to lie to its customers it is obvious to even the thickest of individuals that it is more trustworthy than Fox.

Not many people trust Fox and it is loosing customers daily especialy due to its support of Mark Foley. I guess any one who still watches Fox is really a closet Foley supporter. You can quite easily say "Fox the media outlet for Mark Foley child stalker, supporters."

After all Fox sat on the story about Mark Foley for months.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Hi All

People can only trust a Media outlet if it has not got a policy of lying. Fox has a policy of lying to its customers they even argued for it as their right to lie to their customers in a court of law.

If a media outlet has not argued for the right to lie to its customers it is obvious to even the thickest of individuals that it is more trustworthy than Fox.

Not many people trust Fox and it is loosing customers daily especialy due to its support of Mark Foley. I guess any one who still watches Fox is really a closet Foley supporter. You can quite easily say "Fox the media outlet for Mark Foley child stalker, supporters."

After all Fox sat on the story about Mark Foley for months.

Kind Regards Walker

Hi Walker

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Fox News, the cable news channel, is not involoved in the BGH case. A local Fox affiflate is involved in the case.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/bgh2.htm

Very Shocked Billybob2002

[walker 0]

Fox News, the cable news channel, is not involoved the BGH case. A local Fox affiflate is involved in the case.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/bgh2.htm

Hi all

ROFL

@ billybob2002

"It was not me that hit him your honour. It was the knuckles on part of my hand! Hardly part of me at all."

"And the kicking he got was from the boots that happened to be wrapped round my feet! So nothing to do with me at all"

Keep stretching like that billybob2002 and you are likely to snap.

Walker

[Nemesis6 0]

Ok, Walker, I'll try this again - Which network is better than Fox?

[billybob2002 0]

Fox News, the cable news channel, is not involoved the BGH case. A local Fox affiflate is involved in the case.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/bgh2.htm

Hi all

ROFL

@ billybob2002

"It was not me that hit him your honour. It was the knuckles on part of my hand! Hardly part of me at all."

"And the kicking he got was from the boots that happened to be wrapped round my feet! So nothing to do with me at all"

Keep stretching like that billybob2002 and you are likely to snap.

Walker

I will never snap because of a post in a forum. I was trying to be dramatic in that post.

[walker 0]

Hi All

@ Nemesis6

Ok, Walker, I'll try this again - Which network is better than Fox?

The answer is already there:

People can only trust a Media outlet if it has not got a policy of lying. Fox has a policy of lying to its customers they even argued for it as their right to lie to their customers in a court of law.

If a media outlet has not argued for the right to lie to its customers it is obvious to even the thickest of individuals that it is more trustworthy than Fox.

So any media that has not argued for the right to lie to its customers is better than Fox.

Heck the only other networks I can remember that argued they had a legal right to lie to their viewers was the likes of TASS in Soviet Russia.

I guess it is no suprise that the NeoConMen's commie leanings are out there in the editorial policies of the Fox networks.

Still as I said fewer people watch Fox now it is in decline. I think only a few thickos trust Fox. It is reported this month it lost 8% of its total viewers. Its lost 22% of its core viewers in the 22-54 demographic but it was already in decline in the first quater of this year manly due to its support of the NeoConMen and people realising it was slanting the News on Iraq.

There is talk of sacking 2/3rds of its staff just to survive and Ailes has actualy put every single peron working at Fox on notice.

It is their editorial policy that is at fault Fox's getting caught sitting on the Foley story was bit like the kid who shouted look at the King. All of a sudden viewers started seeing it was naked along with the Fox's disasterous interview with President Clinton more and more people realised what Fox was realy like. That it was biased toward the commie NeoConMen. The fact that now more people know it actualy argued in court that it had right to lie to it viewers was the last nail in the coffin.

When a News media looses trust it has nothing. It is just the mouthpiece of a lieing state media. Arguing for the right to lie to its viewers in court as it did altered it from being a News Media outlet to being a mouthpiece for those in power. The corruption of the soul of the business became inevitable.

It had not just stepped on the slippery slope it was toboganing high speed down the cresta run as all pretence of being an honnest, profesional, unbiased, factual reporting was thrown out of its editorial policy.

There was then no moral or ethical compass on which to guide Fox's editorial policy. Fox no longer new what was right or wrong. Sitting on the Mark Folley story became inevitable for it. Just as it did for the NeoConMen who now run the Republican party. The Story had to be prevented from reaching the voters ear. So they pretended to investigate but they never called in the FBI as they should have.

The NeoConMen have no Moral compass. That is why NeoConMen find it so easy to con the Chritian right. Like I have said before there philosophy there is never give a sucker an even break.

Fox is just to symptom of the greater corruption that has become a Cancer at the heart of the US Republican party. The entry-est NeoConMen who now run it. Spinning stories that you want to hear but never actualy doing anything.

Big Governement curtesy of the NeoConMen

None of those promises to Christian Right delivered curtesy of the NeoConMen

A Nation in debt so far your Great Great Grand children will still be paying off your tax debt 120 years from now. Curtesy of the NeoConMen

A Housing bubble set to put everyone in negative equity curtesy of the NeoConMen

A senseless costly war in Iraq curtesy of the NeoConMen.

A more dangerous world with more threats curtesy of the NeoConMen

Enron curtesy of the NeoConMen

Delay curtesy of the NeoConMen

Abramof curtesy of the NeoConMen

When you add it all up there is not a good thing you can say about the NeoConMen. Can you think of anything?

Like I said Fox is a syptom of that corruption

Fox is loosing customers every day due to its support for Mark Foley. If you watch Fox I guess you must be a closet Foley supporter. It is quite easy to say "Fox the media outlet for Mark Foley child stalker, supporters."

After all Fox sat on the story about Mark Foley for months.

Regards Walker

[Nemesis6 0]

You say "NeoConMen" a lot.

So which news sources do you prefer instead of Fox? Specifics this time. No evading. Also, please, tell me why you call the "NeoConMen" commies. Of all the rhetoric you've spouted and combined in all this time, this is the thing that puzzles me as you yourself and the left in general is closer to communism than conservatives are for the most part.

[ralphwiggum 6]

nemsis6,

your previous bans happened snice you were more interested in discussing "media bias" than the USA politics. This is YOUR LAST WARNING. STOP GOING OFFTOPIC.

[walker 0]

Hi all

@ Nemesis6

I have already told you I am not left wing.

I am not evading by saying any media that has not argued in court for the right to lie to it viewers is better than Fox.

Me I watch a wide variety of news outlets with a range of different views. I do not just slavishly watch one Media outlet. I leave that to thikos that is after all what commies want us to do. That is why among other reasons I say NeoConMen are commies.

But a google search on the Neocon bolshevik roots will show where the NeoConMen actualy come from. You can also do a search on something called a "strausian text." We are talking about the corrupted philosophy that is the root of the NeoConMen.

The staussian text is the philosphy of lies of conning people to gain and maintain power. Just like its commie bolshevic roots.

Quote[/b] ]Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neocons, and Iraq

Danny Postel

16 - 10 - 2003

Are the ideas of the conservative political philosopher Leo Strauss a shaping influence on the Bush administration’s world outlook? Danny Postel interviews Shadia Drury – a leading scholarly critic of Strauss – and asks her about the connection between Plato’s dialogues, secrets and lies, and the United States-led war in Iraq.

What was initially an anti-war argument is now a matter of public record. It is widely recognised that the Bush administration was not honest about the reasons it gave for invading Iraq.

Paul Wolfowitz, the influential United States deputy secretary of defense, has acknowledged that the evidence used to justify the war was “murky†and now says that weapons of mass destruction weren’t the crucial issue anyway (see the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq (2003.)

By contrast, Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, argues that the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flow directly from the doctrines of the political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973). His disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration.

If Shadia Drury is right, then American policy-makers exercise deception with greater coherence than their British allies in Tony Blair’s 10 Downing Street. In the UK, a public inquiry is currently underway into the death of the biological weapons expert David Kelly. A central theme is also whether the government deceived the public, as a BBC reporter suggested.

The inquiry has documented at least some of the ways the prime minister’s entourage ‘sexed up’ the presentation of intelligence on the Iraqi threat. But few doubt that in terms of their philosophy, if they have one, members of Blair’s staff believe they must be trusted as honest. Any apparent deceptions they may be involved in are for them matters of presentation or ‘spin’: attempts to project an honest gloss when surrounded by a dishonest media.

The deep influence of Leo Strauss’s ideas on the current architects of US foreign policy has been referred to, if sporadically, in the press (hence an insider witticism about the influence of “Leo-consâ€). Christopher Hitchens, an ardent advocate of the war, wrote unashamedly in November 2002 (in an article felicitously titled Machiavelli in Mesopotamia) that:

“[p]art of the charm of the regime-change argument (from the point of view of its supporters) is that it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed. Since Paul Wolfowitz is from the intellectual school of Leo Strauss – and appears in fictional guise as such in Saul Bellow’s novel Ravelstein – one may even suppose that he enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate.â€

Perhaps no scholar has done as much to illuminate the Strauss phenomenon as Shadia Drury. For fifteen years she has been shining a heat lamp on the Straussians with such books as The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988) and Leo Strauss and the American Right (1997). She is also the author of Alexandre KojÄve: the Roots of Postmodern Politics (1994) and Terror and Civilization (forthcoming).

She argues that the central claims of Straussian thought wield a crucial influence on men of power in the contemporary United States. She elaborates her argument in this interview...

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-95-1542.jsp

Follow link for the full article

To sumarise the NeoConMen's philosophy is to con and lie your way to power.

To start wars on lies.

But obviously such a phlosophy corrupts. That is why Fox and the NeoConMen sat on the Mark Foley story.

That is why I say it is corrupting the US republican party.

It is simple really the NeoConMen do not believe in democracy, they only say they do. They are not for the Christian right they just con them. The NeoConMen had no intention of winning the Iraq war or in Afghanistan or the war on Terroism. They want it to go on forever so they can use it to maintain power.

They are not bothered how many of our troops lives they have wasted or the amount of civilians who are killed. Bush said he he thought the Johns Hopkins University figures for exess Iraqi deaths are wrong but what does he base his assertion on. The NeoConMen have never even attempted to keep proper death records in all these years of occupation.

Educate your self Nemesis6 or you will continue to be conned by them.

The NeoConMen are the commy reds in the white house bed.

Of course there is still the question of Jeff Gannon for the NeoConMen to deal with and that story is about to get a whole lot stranger and far more frightening than Mark Foley

Regards Walker

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

And let me guess, people should trust, say... CBS news?

No. The BBC.

i refuse to believe those websites, there more biast than the bbc could ever be.  they create make believe stories in order to back there pro western opinion, somthing which the BBC tries to confront, somtimes inaproprialy, it exagerates, it dosnt lye.  If you really want the truth about the BBC watch ITV and C4 news.  do you honestly think they would let a report like this go by and not say anything if it was true?  that just confirmes that these alleged "true reporting" sites are a bunch of bull.