Why Are GOP Honchos Perverts?

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:23 pm

smackaholic wrote:is that fukker down is louisiana who kept his life savings in the freezer running? I wouldn't doubt it.

Neither would I, but you act as if Louisiana politics is the same as it is in the other states. They have a proud tradition of corruption, and Jefferson is merely doing his part to uphold it. Btw, I was present when he delivered a speech during the christening ceremony for the USS GREEN BAY in New Orleans a couple months ago. The program identified him as "The Honorable William Jefferson." I laughed.

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:29 pm

smackaholic wrote:He is not being defended by repubs.

He was being defended for two years by the Speaker of the House and the head of the NRCC, dumbshit.

Wake us up when you get past last Friday's news cycle.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:32 pm

Degenerate wrote:
smackaholic wrote:He is not being defended by repubs.
He was being defended for two years by the Speaker of the House and the head of the NRCC, dumbshit.

Yeah, but now that he's been caught, they've thrown him under the bus. That's all that really matters.

Haven't you read the rule book?

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:30 pm

mvscal wrote:
Degenerate wrote:He was being defended for two years by the Speaker of the House and the head of the NRCC, dumbshit.
You say that like weren't any Dems who knew he was a fag.

Knowing that he was gay is one thing. Knowing that he was making unwanted advances to numerous Congressional pages is quite another. And no, there's no proof that any Democrats knew the latter, at least not at this point.

Bones · Post by **Bones** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:01 pm

bray2 · Post by **bray2** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:04 pm

I just farted, and almost shit my pants.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:14 pm

mvscal wrote:
Sudden Sam wrote:Funny how the Repubs have always seemed to have more homos and pervs, isn't it?
They don't. They just get run from the party unlike Democrats who embrace the sick perverts in their party.

Gerry Studds didn't send dirty emails to his underage male page. He fucked him up the ass and was re-elected to five more terms. Barney Franks was and probably still is running a faggot whorehouse out of his apartment and fixing parking tickets for his boy toys. Then you've got the pervert in chief jamming cigars up the twats of interns and jacking off on their faces.

Oh yes....and then there's the Kennedys. Rapists, killers, drunks, druggies and perverts to a man.

Crypto Nazi Death Spiral Alert!

No surprise, but when the resident neocon canary-in-the-coal mine goes into a seething meltdown over a simple case of gross hypocrisy by the leadership of the GOP, I think we can all agree that the shit is hitting the fan.

Foley was not merely a poster child for the Family Values mask of the GOP, he was an attack dog, once declaring that Nancy Pelosi was so Liberal as to make Larry Flynt look like Charleton Heston. Yep, the same Pelosi who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, and who supports Israel with total loyalty.

So, does a housecleaning of the GOP swine really promise a bright new day for America? Of course not, but it does pave the way for impeachment proceedings against the Chimp.

WAR REOPENING SPANDAU PRISON (for Rummy, Cheney, Chimp, et al)

Rich Fader · Post by **Rich Fader** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:39 pm

Dude, there ain't no Spandau Prison anymore. The British tore that bitch down for a shopping mall almost the moment they cut Rudolf Hess off the power cord.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:41 pm

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:And no, there's no proof that any Democrats knew the latter, at least not at this point.
There's no proof that Republicans knew he was making unwanted advances either and it's quite clear that more than a few of these emails were far from unwanted.

In any event, you Dems have already established that you couldn't care less about this sort of behavior. Gerry Studds out front should have told you that.

Apparently, there is proof plenty of DemocRats knew ALL about it long before anybody in the Stupid Party knew ANYthing about it.

Apparently, a faggot, former democRat staffer gave an interview in a DC faggot newspaper quite some time ago saying that Foley would be outed, but not until close to the mid-term elections. In the last few days, the same faggot admitted to having shared the Foley IM's with the DemocRat congressional campaign committee several months ago.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:50 pm

Rich Fader wrote:Dude, there ain't no Spandau Prison anymore. The British tore that bitch down for a shopping mall almost the moment they cut Rudolf Hess off the power cord.

Oh, I know, but I was just hoping...you remember Hope, don't you?...that maybe they could collect a whole bunch of those collector-item original Spandau bricks and, you know, build a little mini-dungeon for the Cheny/Rummy cabal after their, you know, Nuremberg-like trial.

Like Hitler, they could dictate blathering tracts for their (babs) closet followers, and excercise daily under supervision. And when their appeals are exhausted they would be led out into the grey damp morning and methodically hung by the neck.

But first, let's roast that fat hog Hastert--on a Filipino box-spring if necessary.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:27 pm

Hope springs eternal.

I see great things ahead for the GOMBLP.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:46 pm

Cuda wrote:Apparently, a faggot, former democRat staffer gave an interview in a DC faggot newspaper quite some time ago saying that Foley would be outed, but not until close to the mid-term elections.

Why, those dirty libs! We all KNOW those sweet, play-by-the-rules Retardlicans would NEVER pull such a dastardly trick!

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:31 am

Drudge Report wrote:A posting of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has apparently exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser...

ABC RELEASED TRANSCRIPT OF ONE CHAT BETWEEN FOLEY AND A MAN WHO WAS 18 AT THE TIME OF THE INSTANT MESSAGE EXCHANGE.... NETWORK STATED THE MESSAGE WAS TO 'UNDER AGE' TEEN... DEVELOPING...

ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER;
FEATURED IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

Ooops... looks like Foley was just a regular old queer after all

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:55 am

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm

ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER

FEATURED IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

Wed Oct 04 2006 20:32:06 ET

A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.

The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.

ABCNEWS said in a statement: "We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately. It is possible that during that very brief interval a screen name could have been captured. Reviews of the site since then show no unredacted screen names."

SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."

ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"

But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.

A network source explains exchanges with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.

MORE...

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:26 am

Cuda wrote:
Drudge Report wrote:A posting of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has apparently exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser...

ABC RELEASED TRANSCRIPT OF ONE CHAT BETWEEN FOLEY AND A MAN WHO WAS 18 AT THE TIME OF THE INSTANT MESSAGE EXCHANGE.... NETWORK STATED THE MESSAGE WAS TO 'UNDER AGE' TEEN... DEVELOPING...

ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER;
FEATURED IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
Ooops... looks like Foley was just a regular old queer after all

All that means is the Dems have BODE. They got dude to fold when they weren't even holdin' a pair o' deuces.

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:48 am

Cuda wrote:
Apparently, there is proof plenty of DemocRats knew ALL about it long before anybody in the Stupid Party knew ANYthing about it.

Apparently, a faggot, former democRat staffer gave an interview in a DC faggot newspaper quite some time ago saying that Foley would be outed, but not until close to the mid-term elections. In the last few days, the same faggot admitted to having shared the Foley IM's with the DemocRat congressional campaign committee several months ago.

Apparently you enjoy pulling more shit out of your ass than Mark Foley after confessional.

Even Drudge admits Foley began im'ing the page in question when he was 16. But nice try bringing a fire extinguisher to a four-alarm fire.

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:08 am

mvscal wrote:
Degenerate wrote: We're pissed that he didn't hang around so we could make it a campaign issue.
FTFY

How's this working out for you, by the way?

Rep. Ron Lewis, R-Ky., abruptly canceled an invitation for Hastert to join him at a fund-raiser next week.

"I'm taking the speaker's words at face value," Lewis told The Associated Press. "I have no reason to doubt him. But until this is cleared up, I want to know the facts. If anyone in our leadership has done anything wrong, then I will be the first in line to condemn it."

http://www.alaskareport.com/wn10177.htm

Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., who is in one of the toughest races this year, postponed a fund-raiser with Boehner, according to Gerlach spokesman John Gentzel.

"There are a lot of unresolved issues about the Foley situation. It would have been inappropriate to move forward with the fundraiser last night," Gentzel said.

http://www.ksbitv.com/home/4304212.html

Why would they cut-and-run away from leadership so quickly? I mean, there's no "proof," right?

Props on continuing your stellar .000 batting average in this thread. You're as politically astute as Bill Frist.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:50 pm

This just in from Rochester, Tom Reynolds' chief of staff resigned.

Of course he's blaming the DEMOCRATS.

http://www.rochesterdandc.com/apps/pbcs ... /610050359

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:19 pm

mvscal wrote: Sorry, but the entire Republican leadership of Congress will not be resigning to placate your hysterical and comically asinine demands.

Oh, spot-on turning this nugget into shit, too, Midas. You're on a serious roll here.

NYT, 10/4, reprinted from CQpolitics.com wrote:Hastert Tells Conservative He’ll Resign If It Helps GOP
By Alan K. Ota

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., told a leading conservative Wednesday that he would resign as the top congressional leader if it would help the Republican Party stave off defeat in November.

But conservative activist Paul Weyrich said Hastert has rejected calls for his resignation because he believes it would prompt “a feeding frenzy” that ultimately would lead to the downfall of other GOP leaders as well.

“He said if he thought that resigning would be helpful to the Republicans maintaining the majority, he would do it. But he did not think it would be helpful for Republicans,” Weyrich said in an interview after holding what he described as an emotional telephone conversation with Hastert, who is home in Illinois campaigning and trying to deal with the fallout from the Mark Foley scandal.

“He said he thought his resignation would just lead to a feeding frenzy where they would go after (Majority Leader John A.) Boehner, then (Rep. Thomas M.) Reynolds, then (Rep. John) Shimkus," Weyrich added. "And he said we would have the story running right up to the election.”

Weyrich, who was one of the first to publicly call for the Speaker’s head, said the conversation has led him to retract his day-old demand that Hastert resign.

“I changed my mind after talking to the Speaker,” Weyrich said. “I feel now that he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. He has never, ever lied to me or dissembled. I regard him as one of the good people up there.”

Weyrich, a bridge to conservative constituents, said Hastert expressed anger at Boehner, R-Ohio, who has maintained that he warned the Speaker about Foley last spring.

“The Speaker was ticked by that one involving Boehner,” Weyrich said. “Boehner threw it in his lap, and said he warned him. The Speaker said no such warning ever came from Boehner.”

The conversation with Weyrich appeared to be part of a Hastert offensive aimed putting an end to calls for an immediate resignation over his handling of the scandal. But there is still increasing talk of Republican leadership challenges after the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

Such a shake-up is virtually assured if Democrats gain control of the House, but Hastert could step down even if Republicans hang on.

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/10/04/cq_1566.html

Yeah, they're eating their own, but it's all good.

I mean, there's no "proof," right?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:23 pm

What kind of House Speaker says he'll resign "if it will help the Republican Party stave off defeat in November"? What kind of bullshit is that?

Does he have confidence in his ability to lead his party to greatness, or does he not?

A sexual predator of a congressman gets ferreted out from chasing underage male pages around...and this has the power to unseat the leaders of the GOP?

Confidence in your platform and integrity and abilities, much?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:31 pm

This is the mvscal who assured us that there had been nothing untoward happening at ENRON., and that Jack Abramoff and DeLay were blameless. Are we to be shocked at his efforts to obscure the issue here?

Step back for a second...here is a US Congressman chasing around underage male pages, and doing so for years, while his colleagues express their unease at the spectacle...then the pervert blames it on the fact that a Priest fondled him when he was a kid. Rather than joining the many voices that have stood up against predatory clergy, he just joins their ranks?

mvscal seeks to defend this? Good luck with that one...

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:42 pm

It doesn't matter how you want to spin this. If your point is that there are scum in both parties, then I totally agree. I just don't see the value in defending them simply by pointing the finger at the other guy, as you apparently do. Where is your denunciation of the individual who is being discussed?

As for ENRON...I clearly remember you spinning on that one, as well...that the workers who were invested in their company were to blame, not the criminal douchebags that conducted the misdeeds.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:58 pm

mvscal wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:As for ENRON...I clearly remember you spinning on that one, as well...that the workers who were invested in their company were to blame, not the criminal douchebags that conducted the misdeeds.
You clearly remember shit. I did not ever at any point in time defend the criminal scum at Enron. They're thieves. No different to me than any liquor store robbing n..igger

Nope, he forgets about shit too- at least when it's in his drawers

Oh, I suppose you think that should just go away too, PUS?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:58 pm

Both men did exactly the same thing save for the fact that Studds actually did have sex with his underage male page.

Studds was relected five times afterwards. Foley resigned in disgrace and now, for some inexplicable reason, the Republican House leadership is supposed to resign with him.

Fuck you. Not going to happen.

If you read more closely, I'm making the same point above...that if the GOP leadership were principled, they would not be offering resignations up. You'd like to see that they were also in the game of denouncing the wrongdoing, though...if they are indeed principled and all.

Just saying, "Dems are pervert scum too, so we're not resigning"...well, that's not going to fly with the Silent Majority.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:13 pm

You wytched that one, cuddles. I guess the original wasn't good enough for you?

A few guffaws about posting that might be warranted...but wytching it up, that's kinda...creepy...

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:14 pm

PSUFAN wrote:Just saying, "Dems are pervert scum too, so we're not resigning"...well, that's not going to fly with the Silent Majority.

It has got to really suck being a Republican voter this week. Nothing like finding out the entire GOP House leadership was enabling a pedophille Congressman simply because they saw him as a political asset. Not sayin it's over the line or anything, but the Catholic Church called and said that was some sick shit.

But hey, is it better to support a party of perverts and enablers or to vote Democrat?

I suspect many of them will just stay home.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:30 pm

PSUFAN wrote:You wytched that one, cuddles. I guess the original wasn't good enough for you?

A few guffaws about posting that might be warranted...but wytching it up, that's kinda...creepy...

That pic is straight out of the smack-off thread- you posted it. Considering the beatdown Euro gave you over it, you probably ought to remember it.

So now its " you wytched it"? You really didn't think that through before you posted it, did you?

And now it's a toss-up as to which you're more proficient at: Being a bitch, or being a dumbfuck.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:36 pm

That pic is straight out of the smack-off thread- you posted it.

I posted the original...that's not the original.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:44 pm

Sure you did, PUS-

Nice try, cunty- well, actually it was a pretty pathetic try, but fully up to your standards

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:58 pm

mvscal wrote:Foley is a faggot not a pedophile.

You missed this part of the Drudge story?

A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.

Never mind all the other pages be tried to or might have actualy molested.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:07 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:Foley is a faggot not a pedophile.
You missed this part of the Drudge story?

A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.
That is exactly what I said. He is a faggot and a rather bland and ordinary one at that.

So how would you feel if he was sending these messages to your 17 year old son? Messages that could have been stopped had the House GOP leadership just done their job.

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:28 pm

mvscal wrote: Foley was told to stop and as far as I know he did. Aren't all of these emails like two and three years old?

Yeah he asked the kid two or three years ago if he made it through Hurricane Katrina okay.

Keep swinging away, Corky.

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:31 pm

CBS' Borger: "Fordham was once a top aide to Mark Foley and is known to be gay. CBS News has learned that several other top Republican staffers who handled the Foley matter are also gay. Their role in this controversy has caused a firestorm among Republican conservatives who charge that a group of high-level gay Republican staffers were protecting a gay Republican congressman" ("Evening News," 10/4).

Family Research Council's Tony Perkins: "There's some concern, a lot of the speculation and some strong suggestions that there's a kind of network of gay staffers and Congressmen that protected Foley, some of those even reaching into the speaker's office" ("Big Story," FNC, 10/4).

MSNBC's Scarborough: "We won't name any names, but there are gay members of the Republican Party in Congress right now that hold pretty powerful positions, that have not come out of the closet and that vote in a way that could be termed anti-gay" ("Scarborough Country," 10/4).

No wonder they're leaving the Gerry Studds references to Fox News droolers and message board lifers.

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:47 pm

When/Why did dems start hating gays?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:50 pm

mvscal wrote:He is a faggot and a rather bland and ordinary one at that.

And you prefer yours to be a little more exotic and flamboyant.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:06 pm

Degenerate wrote:
mvscal wrote: Foley was told to stop and as far as I know he did. Aren't all of these emails like two and three years old?
Yeah he asked the kid two or three years ago if he made it through Hurricane Katrina okay.

Keep swinging away, Corky.

... and he's 21 now so that would have made him how old a year ago? (hint: not 16)

Like mvscal said- just a run of the mill faggot; no different from Gerry Studds, or Barney Frank, or Lindsay Graham, or Tom Osborne

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:07 pm

mvscal wrote:Actually I prefer them dead

Lucky you. Necrophilia is legal in 32 states.

Rich Fader · Post by **Rich Fader** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:08 pm

mvscal wrote:Actually I prefer them dead, but I embrace the true spirit of tolerance and refrain from killing people I don't like.

Which is probably a good thing, or otherwise this board really would be dead.

:twisted:

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:17 pm

Looks like Hastert is getting ready for a last ditch defense. Apparently he thinks "taking responsibility" is enough and that actual consequences for his actions are unnecessary.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/05/D8KIK9SG0.html

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:25 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Apparently he thinks "taking responsibility" is enough
It is, in fact, too much.

He knew about Foley years ago and did nothing. At a bare minimum, Foley's actions constituted sexual harassment. Were this any privately held corporation in America, Foley would have been shown the door. Yet Hastert stood by and did nothing.

He's toast.