Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061001/ap_on_go_co/foley_reynolds
Hastert's aides referred the matter to the Clerk of the House, and "mindful of the sensitivity of the parent's wishes to protect their child's privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities," they did not discuss it with others in Hastert's office including, apparently, their boss.
After the issue was referred to the clerk, it was passed along to the congressman who oversees the page program, Rep. John Shimkus (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill.
Shimkus has said he learned about the e-mail exchange in late 2005 and took immediate action to investigate.
He said Foley told him it was an innocent exchange. Shimkus said he warned Foley not to have any more contact with the teenager and to respect other pages.
Democrats charged Reynolds did far too little and said more digging should be done.
"Congressman Reynolds' inaction in the face of such a serious situation is very troubling, and raises important questions about whether there was an attempt to cover up criminal activity involving a minor to keep it from coming to light before Election Day," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney.
If he was a Democrat he would have just come out as gay and all would be forgiven. Then nobody would even be able to call him a pedophile./QUOTE]
Yeah, but the Republicans are the ones who are constantly running the anti gay hate propaganda. And they won the last election on it. So when one of their own shows such a hypocritical face they are only getting what they asked for. Live by the sword, die by the sword. They'll lose a seat because of it and that's probably just.
If he was a Democrat he would have just come out as gay and all would be forgiven. Then nobody would even be able to call him a pedophile./QUOTE]
Yeah, but the Republicans are the ones who are constantly running the anti gay hate propaganda. And they won the last election on it. So when one of their own shows such a hypocritical face they are only getting what they asked for. Live by the sword, die by the sword. They'll lose a seat because of it and that's probably just.
Is being against gay marriage hate ? Is being against gay adoption hate? What other issues do you think that the GOP has a whole endorsed represent gay hate?
If he was a Democrat he would have just come out as gay and all would be forgiven. Then nobody would even be able to call him a pedophile.
Barney Frank's boyfriend ran a gay prostitution ring out of his apartment. Barney Frank is still a Congressman. Bill Clinton got caught lying under oath and was impeached. Bill Clinton is considered an elder statesman. John Kerry admitted to committing treason on the floor of the Senate. John Kerry ran for, and almost won the 2004 presidential election.
This guy sent some emails he shouldn't have.
No.... going after children is not homosexuality. It's pedophilia. And if a Dem did it, you guys would be crowing on every major newschannel about the lack of morality in the Democratic party (cause y'all are so much more moral, ya know....) Either way, it wouldn't be acceptable.
Some emails he shouldn't? He told the kid, a Congressional Page, that he wanted to take off his clothes.... yeah... I'd say he shouldn't have said that.
But if you want to justify it so you make it seem somehow like dems get a free pass and you guys are oppressed, go right ahead. I think it's hysterical.
LOL!!!!!! I knew Clinton was gonna find it's way into this thread somehow.
FACT= LITTLE BOYSDOES NOT EQUAL ADULT MONICA.
Pretty accurate illustration of the left's double-standard. Was this a Dem Congressman the Dem's would be claiming it never happened or downplaying it as overreaction from the right.
This guy could represent little green men from Mars and my opinion of him and what needs to be done with him would be the same.
FACT: Abusing the power/position of public office attempting to gain sexual favors is abusing the power/position of public office attempting to gain sexual favors.
The only difference here being that one is clearly unlawful conduct besides being morally reprehensible while the other is just morally reprehensible.
October 01, 2006
I'm Late to this Story
The Mark Foley story, that is. Truthfully, this is the kind of story I don't take much interest in. The latest headline is that GOP leaders knew of Foley e-mail in '05. Some people I respect, like Captain Ed, have been harshly critical of Speaker Dennis Hastert for knowing of the Foley scandal and 1) not doing enough about it, and 2) allegedly lying about his knowledge of the Foley matter.
Well, maybe. But the starting point is to figure out what Foley did. As far as I can tell from the news stories I've read, there is no claim that Foley did anything with any House page. The claim is that he sent inappropriate emails to one or more pages. These emails were described to Hastert, apparently, as "over friendly," but he was also told that the family of the page in question "didn't want the matter pursued." I've never been Speaker of the House, but I can imagine that such a conversation would not be among the most significant Hastert has had in the last year, and would not necessarily make a deep impression. Foley was, I take it, generally assumed to be gay.
Our younger readers may not be aware that House pages have figured in several scandals over the years. Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA) had an affair with a teenage male page that, I believe, included sex within the precincts of the Capitol Building. Studds refused to admit that he had done anything wrong, and turned his back on the House when it censured him for this misconduct in 1983. The voters in Studds's district didn't seem to mind; they continued to re-elect him until he retired in 1996. He is remembered mainly as a pioneering crusader for gay rights.
Then there is Barney Frank, who was reprimanded by the House for using his Congressional office to intervene on behalf of his boyfriend, a homosexual prostitute, to dispose of at least 33 parking tickets. The boyfriend also ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's house. Today, Frank is one of the most powerful members of the Democrats' House caucus.
So I'm not particularly surprised that Foley wrote some "over-friendly"--I'm sure I would find them creepy--emails to one or more underage pages. He has resigned, which is appropriate. Studds and Franks should have resigned, too. But, in view of the history of far more egregious cases in the House, the idea of pursuing the House leadership on a "when did they find out that Foley sent a creepy email" basis seems ludicrous, and is understandable only in the context of two facts: Foley is a Republican, and there is an election in five weeks.
Posted by John at 12:03 AM
If he was a Democrat he would have just come out as gay and all would be forgiven. Then nobody would even be able to call him a pedophile./QUOTE]
Yeah, but the Republicans are the ones who are constantly running the anti gay hate propaganda. And they won the last election on it. So when one of their own shows such a hypocritical face they are only getting what they asked for. Live by the sword, die by the sword. They'll lose a seat because of it and that's probably just.
I hardly consider an unwillingness to cater to sexually aberrant behavior via special legislation as "hate." That's a bit extreme.
I'll say the same thing about this perv I said about Clinton: he abused the power of his position in an attempt to gain sexual favors. That, in and of itself is grounds to call for his resignation in my book. If his alleged misconduct violates criminal law, he should also be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
Which political party this perv belongs to is irrelevant to me. He's a child molestor, and if you want to see some REAL hate, put him in a room with me.
No.... going after children is not homosexuality. It's pedophilia. And if a Dem did it, you guys would be crowing on every major newschannel about the lack of morality in the Democratic party (cause y'all are so much more moral, ya know....) Either way, it wouldn't be acceptable.
You're proving someone else's point. The guy's a pedophile. If he likes little boys, then he is a homosexual pedophile. One perversion does not negate the other.
By your line of thinking, the statement that if he was a Dem all he would have to do is claim he was gay and all would be forgiven is true because it negates his being a pedophile as well.
Some emails he shouldn't? He told the kid, a Congressional Page, that he wanted to take off his clothes.... yeah... I'd say he shouldn't have said that.
You've read the e-mails, or are you perpetuating rumors?
But if you want to justify it so you make it seem somehow like dems get a free pass and you guys are oppressed, go right ahead. I think it's hysterical.
Is being against gay marriage hate ? Is being against gay adoption hate? What other issues do you think that the GOP has a whole endorsed represent gay hate?
Blowing issues like gay marriage and gay adoption way out of proportion to win elections exploits the hatred some people have for gays. Obviously the Republican politicians don't hate gays, with so many of them being gay or having gay family members. That's why it's cynical when they use it to dupe suckers.
Blowing issues like gay marriage and gay adoption way out of proportion to win elections exploits the hatred some people have for gays. Obviously the Republican politicians don't hate gays, with so many of them being gay or having gay family members. That's why it's cynical when they use it to dupe suckers.
How were those issues blown out of proportion? Do "we the people" not vote for representatives who best reflect our beliefs? And WHO exactly was it that brought those issues to Page One and kept them there?
Republicans being gay and especially just for having gay family members is irrelevant to whether or not they keep faith with their constuents on the issues that put them in office.
The double-standard exists. That in no way excuses this pervert's behavior. He's lost his position, and if they can prove he committed any crimes, he needs to hang for them as well.
Compare THAT to "it was just a BJ."
How were those issues blown out of proportion? Do "we the people" not vote for representatives who best reflect our beliefs? And WHO exactly was it that brought those issues to Page One and kept them there?
Republicans being gay and especially just for having gay family members is irrelevant to whether or not they keep faith with their constuents on the issues that put them in office.
The Republicans saw that the election was going to be close. They hadn't been saying much about gay marriage, but then they revved up the rhetoric so that people who care about such things got the impression we are living in Sodom and Gomorrah. They won by a slim margin and it's quite possible that the gay marriage wedge issue was the winner.
At the same time you see gay Republicans like Foley serving, Cheney's immediate family, Gingrich's immediate family. That's called hypocrisy.
The Republicans saw that the election was going to be close. They hadn't been saying much about gay marriage, but then they revved up the rhetoric so that people who care about such things got the impression we are living in Sodom and Gomorrah. They won by a slim margin and it's quite possible that the gay marriage wedge issue was the winner.
At the same time you see gay Republicans like Foley serving, Cheney's immediate family, Gingrich's immediate family. That's called hypocrisy.
I don't recall the Republicans "revving up" the issue. I recall the issue being "revved up" by homosexuals demanding marital rights, and Republicans taking a stance against it.
I'm having a hard time with your hypocrisy thing for a couple of reasons. How exactly does having a gay family member make a hypocrite of someone who is not gay, and has a political/moral ideology that believes it to be abnormal behavior and morally wrong?
Foley himself is a hypocrite. Obviously. Who's denying it? I don't see anyone defending his actions, nor his perversions.
I don't recall the Republicans "revving up" the issue. I recall the issue being "revved up" by homosexuals demanding marital rights, and Republicans taking a stance against it.
I'm having a hard time with your hypocrisy thing for a couple of reasons. How exactly does having a gay family member make a hypocrite of someone who is not gay, and has a political/moral ideology that believes it to be abnormal behavior and morally wrong?
Foley himself is a hypocrite. Obviously. Who's denying it? I don't see anyone defending his actions, nor his perversions.
Gays have been asking for marital rights for a long time and they will never stop. It seemed to me that the Republicans started hyping it, maybe your impression is different.
Regarding Foley, yes, he must be about the lonliest man in America right now. The only positive thing to say is (hopefully) his desires were not consummated.
Gays have been asking for marital rights for a long time and they will never stop. It seemed to me that the Republicans started hyping it, maybe your impression is different.
Regarding Foley, yes, he must be about the lonliest man in America right now. The only positive thing to say is (hopefully) his desires were not consummated.
I do not recall what exactly incited the latest go-round in regard to the gay marraige issue. I believe it was San Fran issuing marraige licenses to gay couples that sparked the fury that picked up speed and momentum as it ran downhill.
I will agree that once it got going, the Republicans captalized on the issue to their own political ends, but what politicians didn't or wouldn't?
In contrast, look at how the whole illegal immigration issue has been handled. Neither side wants to take a REAL stand and possibly alienate a minority vote, and both sides wish it would go away.
Yeah, the fence is a start, but it amounts to paying lip service to get past the mid-terms.
However, voters demanded to know what Bush was going to do about the gaymarriage thing just as they are demanding to know what he's going to do about illegal immigration, and why he's taking more het from his own constiuents on the latter issue than his political foes for doing basically nothing.
Blowing issues like gay marriage and gay adoption way out of proportion to win elections exploits the hatred some people have for gays. Obviously the Republican politicians don't hate gays, with so many of them being gay or having gay family members. That's why it's cynical when they use it to dupe suckers.
I am so sick and tired of this bull. We dont hate gays. it's just wrong. Why on earth do you people always assume people oppose gay marriage because they hate them?!
