Foley Quits Amid Allegations of Email Sex Scandal

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:

Hey, I thought personal lives were personal and should not matter? I agree he should be thrown out, but I am surprised at you libs getting all stirred up here about somebody's personal life???? I am really confused about you people now. I don't know where you stand on this issue. Please explain.

let it sufice to say that you are confused.

now now, we all know okie's hidden agenda, he fully supports 52 year old men having anal intercourse with underage boys. in fact it might well be one of his own hobbies, otherwise why would he defend as merely "personal" the actions of Foley?

its not that you're dumb, okie; that too, its that you are a gross hypocrite

kuvasz wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:

Hey, I thought personal lives were personal and should not matter? I agree he should be thrown out, but I am surprised at you libs getting all stirred up here about somebody's personal life???? I am really confused about you people now. I don't know where you stand on this issue. Please explain.

let it sufice to say that you are confused.

now now, we all know okie's hidden agenda, he fully supports 52 year old men having anal intercourse with underage boys. in fact it might well be one of his own hobbies, otherwise why would he defend as merely "personal" the actions of Foley?

its not that you're dumb, okie; that too, its that you are a gross hypocrite

Who said I supported anything? Those are your words in an attempt to miss the obvious point of my post. I said he should be thrown out, just like I thought a president should be thrown out for cavorting with an intern less than half his age in the White House instead of working, and for having credible accusations of rape by multiple women brought against him. I am totally consistent. I think Foley should be thrown out on his ear, and should have been long ago if something about this was known. I simply reminded you people of YOUR HYPOCRISY, and you don't like it.

Hey, I thought personal lives were personal and should not matter? I agree he should be thrown out, but I am surprised at you libs getting all stirred up here about somebody's personal life???? I am really confused about you people now. I don't know where you stand on this issue. Please explain.

Wow, I have never seen so many conclusions jumped to so hastily. Is it becuase Foley is a republican?

I haven't read any reports of Foley having "anal intercourse" with anyone and I haven't read any reports of him breaking the law. He made a stupid decision to write and hit on an intern, he didn't rape the kid.

Oh, wait, I bet you think I am now defending him and that I therefore approve of his actions. If you think that, you are a dumb-ass and your posts stating as much will prove that.

McGentrix wrote:

Wow, I have never seen so many conclusions jumped to so hastily. Is it becuase Foley is a republican?

I haven't read any reports of Foley having "anal intercourse" with anyone and I haven't read any reports of him breaking the law. He made a stupid decision to write and hit on an intern, he didn't rape the kid.

Oh, wait, I bet you think I am now defending him and that I therefore approve of his actions. If you think that, you are a dumb-ass and your posts stating as much will prove that.

It's a chance for partisonship.

Lest we not forget Barney Frank and his homosexual prostitution ring.

since you might well have been a part of it I thought you might remember that it was actually his roomate's

since you might well have been a part of it I thought you might remember that it was actually his roomate's

okie wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:

Hey, I thought personal lives were personal and should not matter? I agree he should be thrown out, but I am surprised at you libs getting all stirred up here about somebody's personal life???? I am really confused about you people now. I don't know where you stand on this issue. Please explain.

let it sufice to say that you are confused.

now now, we all know okie's hidden agenda, he fully supports 52 year old men having anal intercourse with underage boys. in fact it might well be one of his own hobbies, otherwise why would he defend as merely "personal" the actions of Foley?

its not that you're dumb, okie; that too, its that you are a gross hypocrite

Who said I supported anything? Those are your words in an attempt to miss the obvious point of my post. I said he should be thrown out, just like I thought a president should be thrown out for cavorting with an intern less than half his age in the White House instead of working, and for having credible accusations of rape by multiple women brought against him. I am totally consistent. I think Foley should be thrown out on his ear, and should have been long ago if something about this was known. I simply reminded you people of YOUR HYPOCRISY, and you don't like it.

The only obvious point in your post was your blatant excuse for a GOP pedophile, calling it a "personal" matter, unworthy of public reprobation, and one for whom you would not have defended in such a manner had the man been a democrat. That was the typical knee-jerk reaction one has come to expect from a right wing mouth-breather such as yourself.

That the GOP House leadership knew of this affair for nearly one year and did nothing to stop such predatory behavior from one of their own because of the potential political fall-out from it to the GOP shows that they placed party above decency and morality. That is the hypocrisy, especially when they cram their brand of morality down the throats of the American people.

If you miss the fact that Bill Clinton had never been prosecuted for rape and admits only to consentual sex with an adult while Foley was hitting on a 16 year old boy, then your remarks show you uncapable of the discernment normal adults exhibit.

What I don't like is continually having to point out your own very deep and shocking inability to think clearly in such matters. That I must do so whenever I log on to A2K proves my point about your underdeveloped mental capabilities.

I don't really care how stupid you are, really, I don't. I am used to it by now. But you shouldn't be so proud of it and raise what normal folk consider an unfortunate congenital flaw to a personal virtue.

I just hope to Christ you haven't bred and have foisted upon us all more people like youself. The world's in a big enough mess as it is without having more dead weight to carry.

Typical of the libs, Finn dAbuzz. I pointed out the hypocrisy and they don't like it. All the things kuvasz says only condemns his side. Just one example, he points out Clinton was not prosecuted for rape or sexual harassment. To my knowledge, Foley has not either. Talk about partisanship, if this had been a Democrat, they would not care or would not say a word about it. And the guy himself would not admit a thing, but instead start hiring lawyers. Another great example of this is remember when Barney Frank had a male prostitute running his services out of Barney's apartment. Well, old Barney is still in Congress, no contrition, no admission of doing anything wrong, no nothing. If Barney had been a Republican, he would be gone long ago and totally forgotten by now. He probably would have resigned immediately once found out.

All of this points out one thing. Apparently, I say apparently, Democrats don't care about personal morality and do not think it matters, but only use it on Republicans as a political weapon because most Republicans do believe in it. Anytime a Democrat is accused, they bristle at the suggestion that it even matters, but when a Republican is caught, they accuse the Republicans of being crooks and moral hypocrits. Its a little like a preacher doing something wrong. They claim to adhere to a higher standard, so they catch more grief when they don't. Meanwhile the town crime ring go about doing what they please and what they've always done without ever being accused of being hypocrits. If anyone points out the crimes by the crime ring, they simply reply that the preacher does it too so it doesn't matter, and besides its a personal matter what you do in your personal life.

Let me reinterate one thing clearly. I never defended Foley. My posts have been simply for the purpose of pointing out liberal hypocrisy and a liberal double standard. Morality and corruption should be a non-partisan issue. People that are found to be corrupt should be opposed by both parties in every case, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Once a party is more important than getting rid of corrupt politicians, we are in huge trouble, and that is why Clinton is constantly brought up as a reminder of this failure that needs to be corrected. The hatchet needs to swing both ways, not just as a political weapon to be used selectively whenever you think it might help your own party.

Typical of the libs, Finn dAbuzz. I pointed out the hypocrisy and they don't like it. All the things kuvasz says only condemns his side. Just one example, he points out Clinton was not prosecuted for rape or sexual harassment. To my knowledge, Foley has not either.

but he did resign. knowing what he did was shameful

Talk about partisanship, if this had been a Democrat, they would not care or would not say a word about it.

go buy a clue. I wanted Clinton to resign too for his own shameful behavior.

And the guy himself would not admit a thing, but instead start hiring lawyers. Another great example of this is remember when Barney Frank had a male prostitute running his services out of Barney's apartment.

Well you don't seem to read very well, it was not Barney Frank who was involved in prostitution but his partner. and if you have any proof of underage sex "bring it on".

Well, old Barney is still in Congress, no contrition, no admission of doing anything wrong, no nothing.

Actually he did apologise, so you are wrong again.

If Barney had been a Republican, he would be gone long ago and totally forgotten by now.

Doubtful, since Henry Hyde still remained in Congress for over a decade after his "youthful indescretion" of porking his mistress.

for a He probably would have resigned immediately once found out.

btw, Newt Ginrich didn't either when it was confirmed he was an adulterer. At least Bob Livingston did. bless the character of the man for that..... do you know who he is without having to google him?

All of this points out one thing. Apparently, I say apparently, Democrats don't care about personal morality and do not think it matters, but only use it on Republicans as a political weapon because most Republicans do believe in it.

BS, unlike the GOP responses to Clinton's sexual behavior? If Republicans cared about Foley, explain how they sat for a year and did nothing, and just stopped an investigation of it in the House.

Anytime a Democrat is accused, they bristle at the suggestion that it even matters, but when a Republican is caught,

Nope, I called for that thief Jefferson be hung by the neck until dead for graft.

they accuse the Republicans of being crooks and moral hypocrits.

Many are.

They claim to adhere to a higher standard, so they catch more grief when they don't.

Like Cunningham and Ney?

Meanwhile the town crime ring go about doing what they please and what they've always done without ever being accused of being hypocrits. If anyone points out the crimes by the crime ring, they simply reply that the preacher does it too so it doesn't matter, and besides its a personal matter what you do in your personal life.

Let me reinterate one thing clearly. I never defended Foley. My posts have been simply for the purpose of pointing out liberal hypocrisy and a liberal double standard. Morality and corruption should be a non-partisan issue.

Did you stand up when Bob Ney was found to be corrupt and have his votes bought? or Randy Cunningham? I don't think so.

People that are found to be corrupt should be opposed by both parties in every case, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans.

Then you should note that the House GOP leadership has blocked the ethics committee from being able to issue subpeonas and has eviscerated it, all to slow and stop investigations of ethical charges of GOP House members. The GOP leadership even replaced the GOP head of the ethics committee for saying that Tom Delay was corrupt, after the charges were substantiated.

Once a party is more important than getting rid of corrupt politicians, we are in huge trouble, and that is why Clinton is constantly brought up as a reminder of this failure that needs to be corrected. The hatchet needs to swing both ways, not just as a political weapon to be used selectively whenever you think it might help your own party.

that you are ignorant of many facts comes as no surprise around these parts. but you are like a man who gets caught driving drunk and now finds Jesus. It would be nice ro belive in the conversion, but it is just too self-serving to put much stock in it.

You're a right nasty ****, aren't you Kuvaz?