0
   

Hastert Lies Again, Gets Caught Again

 
 
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 09:15 am
The Nation -- This whole Denny Hastert scandal is moving beyond parody.

Apparently, the Speaker of the House thinks that no one who actually follows the news listens to conservative talk radio.

That's the only explanation for Hastert's claim, during a Tuesday attempt at face saving on Rush Limbaugh's show, that he and other GOP leaders had forced Florida Congressman Mark Foley to quit after it was revealed that the Republican representative had been sending "Do I make you horny?" emails to teenage Congressional pages.

"We took care of Mr. Foley," Hastert told Limbaugh. "We found out about it, asked him to resign. He did resign. He's gone."

Sounds good. There's only one problem.

Hastert was making the whole thing up.

Foley quit after the news of the emails was broken by ABC's Brian Ross. There has never been any indication that the congressman spoke with members of the Republican leadership. Indeed, by all accounts, including those of Hastert's office, Foley quit of his own accord before consulting in any way with the Speaker or any other Republican leader.

When ABC reporters contacted Hastert's office about the discrepancy, they were informed that the Speaker "misspoke."

Er, no, Hastert did not "misspeak." As he has several times since this scandal broke, Hastert lied. And, once again, he got caught.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,106 • Replies: 87
No top replies

 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 12:16 pm
Conservatives don't lie; they spin, they weave, they cloak, but they don't lie. Oh, and they're experts at Newspeak.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 12:25 pm
Conservative icon Richard Viguerie calls on House Republican leadership to resign
by John in DC - 10/04/2006 12:06:00 PM


Richard Viguerie is one of the founders of the conservative movement. It doesn't get any bigger than this, short of Ronald Reagan speaking out from the afterlife. I just received an email from Viguerie to his email list, to which I subscribe. The email is entitled:
"Viguerie Calls for Immediate Resignation of House GOP Leaders"
These are the high points.

1. Calls GOP leadership "enablers" to Foley's offense.
Viguerie stated that any public official who takes advantage of a page or intern - someone to whom they are "in loco parentis" (in the place of a parent) - should be treated the same as a teacher or member of the clergy who commits a similar act. "And anyone who covers up such behavior should have the full wraith of the authorities and of the public fall upon them, because they are the enablers who made it possible."
2. Calls Speaker Hastert's call for a Justice Dept investigation a possible "cover up."
He said that calls for a Justice Department investigation "could be part of an effort to cover this up until after the election. Once an investigation is under way, they may claim, falsely, that they can't comment on an ongoing investigation." He said House GOP leaders must "tell the American people the truth right now, not sweep it under the rug for the next six weeks."
3. House GOP leaders will do "whatever it takes to hold onto power," no matter how "despicable."
Said Viguerie: "This isn't an isolated situation. It is only the most recent example of Republican House leaders doing whatever it takes to hold onto power. If it means spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on questionable projects, they'll do it. If it means covering up the most despicable actions of a colleague, they'll do it."
4. House GOP leaders have "lost their moral rudder."
"They've lost their moral rudder," Viguerie said of any House leaders who tolerated Foley's behavior. http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/conservative-icon-richard-viguerie.html
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 12:54 pm
This hardly constitutes proof that Foley did not, in fact, resign at the behest of the Republican leadership. You are calling Hastert a liar without any real documentation showing that he is lying. I am not saying that such documentation would be easy to collect, but, be that as it may, you don't seem to have it. Anyone may claim anything, but you have shown nothing here to substantiate your claim that Hastert has lied. Don't ask me to show that he's telling the truth, because I'm not claiming that.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 01:03 pm
Doesn't Hastert have to provide documentation that he was telling the truth first? Anyone can accuse anyone of anything but they damn well better have evidence to back it up. Of course, this does not dismiss the fact that Foley is a scumbag...
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 01:20 pm
NickFun wrote:
Doesn't Hastert have to provide documentation that he was telling the truth first?...

No, he doesn't. Someone accusing someone of lying needs to be able to furnish some evidence to back it up. Up to this point, no such evidence has been presented in this thread.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 01:34 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Doesn't Hastert have to provide documentation that he was telling the truth first?...

No, he doesn't. Someone accusing someone of lying needs to be able to furnish some evidence to back it up. Up to this point, no such evidence has been presented in this thread.


Really Brandon? That is your standard now? No evidence seemed to be needed when you called me a liar on this board. But NOW you demand we provide more evidence than pointing out a factually ambiguous if not factually incorrect statement of Hastert's.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 01:36 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Doesn't Hastert have to provide documentation that he was telling the truth first?...

No, he doesn't. Someone accusing someone of lying needs to be able to furnish some evidence to back it up. Up to this point, no such evidence has been presented in this thread.

So when he "misspoke" we're to believe what?

That he believes that he asked Foley to resign when he really didn't ask Foley to resign?

Take your pick, either he lied or he has a serious cognitive disability.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 01:37 pm
Actually, if you are going to accuse someone of something you must have written, forensic or eyewitness verification to back up your claim. Otherwise it is heresay and you are inviting yourself open to a lawsuit. That's just the way it is. I could say "Brandon9000 blows little boys". If that was published you could and should sue me for not having verification. You don't have to prove I was lying.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 02:13 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Doesn't Hastert have to provide documentation that he was telling the truth first?...

No, he doesn't. Someone accusing someone of lying needs to be able to furnish some evidence to back it up. Up to this point, no such evidence has been presented in this thread.

So when he "misspoke" we're to believe what?

That he believes that he asked Foley to resign when he really didn't ask Foley to resign?

Take your pick, either he lied or he has a serious cognitive disability.

Who said Hastert misspoke, and under what circumstances? This needs to be stated, with, hopefully a link.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 02:17 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Doesn't Hastert have to provide documentation that he was telling the truth first?...

No, he doesn't. Someone accusing someone of lying needs to be able to furnish some evidence to back it up. Up to this point, no such evidence has been presented in this thread.

So when he "misspoke" we're to believe what?

That he believes that he asked Foley to resign when he really didn't ask Foley to resign?

Take your pick, either he lied or he has a serious cognitive disability.

Who said Hastert misspoke, and under what circumstances? This needs to be stated, with, hopefully a link.

Try Googling "Hastert" and "misspoke." It's the first fricking result.

And you still claim to be a scientist? Really?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 02:21 pm
parados wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Doesn't Hastert have to provide documentation that he was telling the truth first?...

No, he doesn't. Someone accusing someone of lying needs to be able to furnish some evidence to back it up. Up to this point, no such evidence has been presented in this thread.


Really Brandon? That is your standard now? No evidence seemed to be needed when you called me a liar on this board. But NOW you demand we provide more evidence than pointing out a factually ambiguous if not factually incorrect statement of Hastert's.

The idea that the accuser or poster is required to back up accusations is THE standard for debate, and I ought not to have to point it out. What I personally did or didn't do in the past, be it correct or incorrect, is irrelevant to the question of whether this is the correct standard. The only argument I can see here that Hastert lied is the line "There has never been any indication that the congressman spoke with members of the Republican leadership," which is an unsubstantiated assertion by the poster. There is no actual evidence so far in this thread that Hastert has lied about anything.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 02:24 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Doesn't Hastert have to provide documentation that he was telling the truth first?...

No, he doesn't. Someone accusing someone of lying needs to be able to furnish some evidence to back it up. Up to this point, no such evidence has been presented in this thread.

So when he "misspoke" we're to believe what?

That he believes that he asked Foley to resign when he really didn't ask Foley to resign?

Take your pick, either he lied or he has a serious cognitive disability.

Who said Hastert misspoke, and under what circumstances? This needs to be stated, with, hopefully a link.

Try Googling "Hastert" and "misspoke." It's the first fricking result.

And you still claim to be a scientist? Really?

It's a great pity that you can't debate without making disparaging references to the opposing poster. It is generally a characteristic of people who can't win with actual on-topic arguments. I am not responsible to Google anything. You seem to have no comprehension of the rules of debate. Someone making an assertion in a post, particularly when it's an accusation, is responsible for providing evidence that it's so, and even now, there is not one iota of evidence in any post in this thread that Hastert lied.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 02:30 pm
Quote:
You seem to have no comprehension of the rules of debate.


Who is debating?

A debate is a formalized argument with structure. This is a discussion forum. You can't seem to get this through your head no matter how hard I try to remind you...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 02:33 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
You seem to have no comprehension of the rules of debate.


Who is debating?

A debate is a formalized argument with structure. This is a discussion forum. You can't seem to get this through your head no matter how hard I try to remind you...

Cycloptichorn

The semantics is irrelevant. Anyone making an assertion about a matter of fact, and wishing others to accept it, is responsible for supporting it. In effect, you're defending the practice of accusing someone of lying with no evidence.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 03:14 pm
Well, in an internet forum, what does it matter?

If I accuse someone of lying, and I don't provide evidence of it, you are free to respond or not respond as you see fit. If you are not persuaded without evidence, don't be persuaded. If you are persuaded, then be persuaded. But to chide people for 'not following the rules of debate' merely changes the argument to an argument about the argument, a favorite tactic of yours.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 03:24 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
It's a great pity that you can't debate without making disparaging references to the opposing poster. It is generally a characteristic of people who can't win with actual on-topic arguments. I am not responsible to Google anything. You seem to have no comprehension of the rules of debate. Someone making an assertion in a post, particularly when it's an accusation, is responsible for providing evidence that it's so, and even now, there is not one iota of evidence in any post in this thread that Hastert lied.

It's a great pity that you can't have a conversation without trying to turn it into something to "win" or "lose."

Scientists exhibit curiosity, in my experience. You do not.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 03:25 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Doesn't Hastert have to provide documentation that he was telling the truth first?...

No, he doesn't. Someone accusing someone of lying needs to be able to furnish some evidence to back it up. Up to this point, no such evidence has been presented in this thread.

So when he "misspoke" we're to believe what?

That he believes that he asked Foley to resign when he really didn't ask Foley to resign?

Take your pick, either he lied or he has a serious cognitive disability.


Which leaves me at this point, once again.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 03:27 pm
Hastert denies he was warned of Foley

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday October 4, 2006

The office of Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) has denied reports that they were aware of emails sent by former Congressman Mark Foley two years ago, RAW STORY has learned.

Former Foley chief of staff Kirk Fordham told reporters after resigning as current chief of staff for Congressman Tom Reynolds (R-NY) that Hastert had been alerted of the Foley problem two years ago.

Developing...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 03:33 pm
Note the careful wording; they denied knowledge of the Emails. They didn't deny knowing that Foley was a problem.

Bastards

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Hastert Lies Again, Gets Caught Again
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2018 at 07:32:26