RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events GOP Senator arrested in 'bathroom incident'

Back on topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eadl1kGLNls

Sen. Craig " thank you for coming out".

" I am not gay".

Welcome back whomod!

I don't know where he's been, but I'm guessing it wasn't anger management classes...

Boy, all that time away, and you still haven't learned any civility.

You're a partisan liar, Whomod, whose central tactic is selective omission.

There are financial scandals involving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
The sexual scandals I mention are clear enough, and a Wikipedia search on any of these Democrats quickly confirms what I've said.

I (and others here) listed multiple articles in the previous Mark Foley topic I linked, that Democrats knew about Foley's sexual affair, and overtures on male pages, for a year and never made any effort to expose him or stop him, until (opportunistically) right before the 2006 election, when it would do maximum damage, not just to Foley, but through smear and innuendo, the entire Republican party.

Your comments don't change that Democrats have had sexual affairs with underage interns, both male and female, and that Democrats supported their re-election, and in one case re-elected a known sex offender.

Yours is a liberal-partisan argument, that bypasses these facts.

Bathroom sex is stupid. I realize that their is a whole generation of married and even single gay men who do it, but sex in public bathrooms is gross.

Craig ( to his wife ) " I did NOT have sex in that fucking bathroom!"

Mrs. Craig : " I believe you,dear."

Craig : "Thank you,sweetie, I love you. "

He kisses his wife, who then goes out to her bridge club meeting.

Craig goes to the basement, gets online and heads for his favorite gay site to JO looking at pics of hot naked men.

I never would have guessed that a tale of attempted gay sex involving a 60 year old dude would have brought douchemod out of retirement.

(they like to rewrite facts too. Not only was he a closeted gay, he was also a closeted Democrat!)

You mean it was the responsibility of the minority party to take action against Foley, a Republican? And they opportunistically waited until the election to do anything bout it? Sort of like waiting until an election to force corruption investigations regarding Democrats, eh?

but I digress...... So Democrats knew and WAITED UNTIL THE ELECTION TO RELEASE THIS DAMNING INFO? Ok Liar Boy.... he who thinks so little of people that he can spin reality to suit him. Who the f**k released the revelAtion right before an election? A Democrat?? No dumbass. A REPUBLICAN!

here, take off the tinfoil hat and read this:



Ah Media Matters. Bullshits worst enemy.... So now it's your turn to attack that "partisan hate site" and ignore the fact that they provide real sources.

As for my tone, well... I'm not ray or Mem. I have a low tolerance for bullshit and people who try to run defense by trying to turn it into offense. It's not 2004 anymore guys, it doesn't work anymore. People caught on that the GOP is the prty of lies heaped upon lies. The credibility is gone. As a matter of fact, that's why I pass thru here when big scandals break. Not only to see how you and G-Man will try to spin reality but to read mem's and Ray's rebuttals. I admire the fact that Ray can read some of the crap you guys spew and still come up with something witty. As a matter of fact, I had his outsourcing CEO's quote as my sig a while back. But again, I'm not them and I'm not about to politely suffer you. The issue at hand is that an anti-gay crusader was caught being what Ann Coulter would call (a happily married heterosexual Democrat at least ) a "fag".

Now much like you do, he tried to turn his shame around and start attacking the local paper, (even though they didn't break the story), He blamed the cop, he blamed his pants riding too low. He blamed everyone and denied everything. *sigh* Do you guys go to school of bullshit or something?

You're foaming at the mouth with partisan hysteria, Whomod.
It really is pretty entertaining to watch.

I hardly need to say anything in response to what you allege, your objectivity is so thoroughly destroyed already by your own emotionalism and personal insults.

You quote Media Matters as if it were gospel truth. When anyone here who isn't a liberal partisan long ago recognized it as a liberal spin site.

How about the Washington Post, Whomod? Is that respectable and mainstream enough for you?

From one of my posts to the Foley topic:

yeah, I'm glad we have a politics forum now. Lets keep all this shit in one forum.







whomod, when wonder boy claims to be all biblical and moral he spams the womens forum with porn links under his holden mcgroin id. He gets really pissy when you call him out on it.

I don't get pissy about anything other than the fact you contribute nothing to these boards other than troll comments, rex.

I post here when I have something to say. You post here because you have no other life, and the only way you can feel better about yourself is by trying to drag someone else down.

um...you just got pissy.

I probably asked this before in the Foley thread when you posted that article from the Seatle Times WB but your complaint there seemed to be that the Dems knew about Foley & waited to get it out for an October surprise. This article says there were some Democrats trying to get the less damaging ones out long before the election. The one that did him in was from a Republican source.

If the Foley story had ran with just those earlier e-mails the RNC would have just countered that it was a Dem smear job. That had been the plan until the really damaging ones finished him off.

How could you have considered this an October surprise?

The story was out there for a year, and no one in the liberal media would report it, to the exasperation of those trying to expose Foley. As I recall, all the major elements were known. They had these sources to expose Foley for a whole year, and chose to run it just before the election.

The only element not available was the boy page that Foley had exchanged solicitous e-mails with, who later came forward and said that he'd had sex with Foley, but only after he was no longer an employee and page, and only after he was of legal consenting age (I beleive 21).

All the major elements were there, or would have been quickly exposed anyway, within hours of when the story broke.
Interesting how it follows the same pattern as the October 2004 Dan Rather 60 Minutes expose, of a story with-held until right before the November election, to blanket-smear the Republicans.

And again: while Republicans have certainly had their scandals too, isn't it interesting how Democrats clamor for their punishment and removal, while the Gerry Studds and the Bill Clintons and the Ted Kennedys have wide support of Democrats who excuse/rationalize their behavior, condemn their opponents as "mean-spirited" and "partisan" for exposing them, and go on supporting and re-electing these Democrat sex-offenders.

Oh kettle, thou art black.

seems to me that is the real part of the story that makes it "newsworthy." And his age at the time the story broke doesn't matter, his age at the time of the act is what matters.

But if the media had reported it with just the earlier e-mails Foley & the RNC would have just said it was the Dems trying to smear him. The tail part of your article even says that is what they were doing till the Republican source came out. I think basic journalist ethics prevented the story from breaking earlier. They couldn't comfirm anything other than overly friendly e-mails provided from a partisan source.

of course once the story broke fox news did their due dilligence and began putting a D instead of an R under Foley's name.

But there was no act (i.e., no sex) until years after the fact. There was just talk.

Amazing how when Clinton get fellated in the Oval Office (and then perjurs himself, lying about it), you don't count that as sex or criminal.

Or Gerry Studds, who was humping an under-age employee, not waiting till years later when the object of his affection would turn legal.

But when Mark Foley sends an explicitly flirtatious e-mail, you credit that as a worse crime.

Like the ethics of Dan Rather in the October 2004 forged National Guard letter about Bush?

Like 60 Minutes' lack of disclosure that Richard Clarke's book (accusing the Bush administration of allowing 9-11 to happen) was actually published by a subsidiary of CBS? Plus several other similar 60 Minutes book stories, where they later did at least acknowledge that conflict of interest, even as they infomercialed the books that conformed to their liberal agenda?

For all the barbs directed at the oh-so-hated FOX News, I've yet to see them taken down for such blatant distortion of the news.

Accidentally putting a "D" instead of an "R" is a pretty simple mistake, and I seriously doubt anyone watching didn't know Foley is a Republican, whether there's a D or an R next to his name on the screen.

I actually have to admit that Ray is right on one thing: that sending a flirtatious email to an underage boy is worse than getting a blowjob from a consenting adult female.

At the same time, however, Studds is obviously no better, and may be worse, than Foley.

We could go back to the ethics of the media during Clinton & find the same thing. Republican efforts & the media feeding frenzy is well documented,

In the Foley case how do you feel the media should have handled the story in a way that you would feel was fair?

I disagree. One is talk, and one is action. Especially since the action gave birth to Clinton perjuring himself to hide it.

One is a man in his 40's talking to and seducing a minor, the other is a legal act between two adults.
Whatever Clinton did afterwards is a separate act from the cheating itself.

Rationalization.

It was widely reported that Monica Lewinsky was led to believe she had more of a relationship with Clinton than she really had, and felt hurt and rejected (i.e., she was a young girl taken advantage of by an older man).

And Clinton was also cheating on his wife.

And he perjured himself, when he could have just as easily come clean.

"It all depends what the definition of is is."

A. Lots of men do that. Probably all men do it at least once.
B. "The President is going to leave his wife and run off with me!" If she believed that then she's retarded.
C. She was an ADULT, legal age, legally responsible for her actions and choices. Her heart being broken is not a legal matter.



not a crime. and really the adultry is a matter for Hillary and Chelsea to judge. It's a private matter. Foley's sexcapades involved a minor. It doesn't matter that the kid is now an adult.


"just as easily?" What? Admit in public court that he cheated on his wife? In a case that had been used by political hacks like your Cunt Queen Anne Coulter, who actually sabotaged the settlement talks so that it would get to trial. There was nothing easy about the matter. And whatever Clinton chose to do afterwards has nothing to do with the act, it's a whole other matter. The fact is he did nothing illegal with Monica. Foley seduced a teenage boy. Now take a step back and consider that you're about to add "pedophile supporter" to your resume right next to "racist."

Someday you'll look back and realize how naive and immature you are at 22, the same age Lewinsky was when she had an affair with a 50-year old Bill Clinton.



There was no sex when he was a minor, so there was no crime. Apparently you can't understand that concept.
What he did was unethical for a U.S. Congressman, but it wasn't a crime.



It would have been easier for Clinton to admit his affair two years before, instead of grinding Washington D.C. to a halt for a year, in the midst of a 40-million dollar special prosecutor investigation, and then end up revealing it later, in the shadow of a semen stained dress that proved he was lying.
Yes, that would have been easier. On both Clinton, and on the nation.

Coulter, whatever you think of her personally, is a very intelligent and accomplished lawyer, who worked on the Paula Jones case, and is a five-time bestselling author on her principled views of how liberals are crippling this country.
In her very informed involvement with the Paula Jones case, she advocated justice over easy cash.




You're such a scumbag weasel.
My above comments make clear I condemn Foley for his actions, and clearly don't endorse either his homosexuality or his pedophilism.
While condemning Foley, I've only simultaneously pointed out the hypocritical double-standard of yourself and so many other democrats.
(AGAIN: How can you hypocritically condemn Mark Foley, while giving a free pass to Gerry Studds and Bill Clinton?)

And I'm also clearly not a racist.
But I find it an ironic allegation from you of all people, whose posts here consistently bristle with contempt and prejudicial bias, toward anyone who doesn't believe what you believe. Prejudicial hate of Christians, of Conservatives...

Man.. that's the sort of nonsense that I simply cannot stand about our culture. We tend to extend adolescence into infinity.

I'm sorry, once you graduate High school, you're a fucking ADULT! We tend to coddle people to the point where we have people into their 30's talking about "when they grow up" *ugh!*

As an aside, when did fucking potty training an infant ASAP become "child abuse". I've heard that bit of horseshit bandied around as well.

I'm not 22. And if I did something at 22 or now that was a dumb decision, then that's life. Adults make bad choices, doesn't make them victims. Going after a minor is a whole other matter. Lewinsky was an adult, Clinton was an adult. Did he have more leverage as an older man who was president of the country? Yes. Does that mean it's the same as an old man seducing a boy, a child? No.
Are you a racist who apparently supports pedophiles? Yes.

With amusement, I saw this piece, where even members of the liberal media saw Clinton's administration as "more corrupt than Nixon, more corrupt than Reagan..."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1437




It would be interesting to see how these same pundits would rate the Bush administration.

Here's an early return from 2004, by John Dean, hyping one of his several books harping on Bush, Cheney and Rove:

• salon.com

Dean harps on executive privelege and secrecy of Bush officials, and predicts huge indictments, and even a staged terrorist incident to justify waiving all constitutional freedoms in the U.S., which, lo and behold, never came to pass.

Again, on immigration, free trade, offshoring jobs, and a number of other issues, I don't support Bush. But these Chicken Littles are so hysterical and vindictive in the way they go after him, that they come across as wack jobs with a petty vendetta.

If you stub your toe, is that also the liberal conspiracy?

Whatever it is its never his fault.

yeah

Anytime a dude calls another dude a naughty and or bad boy, he's a gay.

RAW
Well we now know that Craig is resigning because of pressure from his party. While I feel bad for his wife I don't think he should have been forced to resign.

RAW
...[/quote]
If there using their positions of power to be anti-gay I don't feel a bit sorry for them.

I saw this cartoon and remembered that I'd heard all these dumb rationalizations before..

Tom at the top of his satirical game.

Is that a ruby quartz visor that the penguin is wearing?

G-man seems to be having a bit of a melt down tonight.