mnealtx 0 #276 October 5, 2006 *yawn* If that was the case, then Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter would've been "disappeared" already... along with Michael Moore and his ilk.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,155 #277 October 5, 2006 QuoteIf that was the case, then Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter would've been "disappeared" already... along with Michael Moore and his ilk. The bill hasn't been signed into law yet. Though Bush has indicated he will sign it. The bill has some pretty strong wording. Are you in agreement with it, or against it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #278 October 5, 2006 QuotePretty sad that this issue gets much more attention than a bill that allows the government to suspend habeas corpus on everybody, including american citizens. Woaw, I didn't hear that. What a Nazi POS country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #279 October 5, 2006 Quote>He's been taking notes from the Party of Victimology.. There's a new party of victimology in town, boys! Remember when it was the democrats who were the party of massive government spending, sex scandals, victimhood and ineffectiveness? Times change. Remember when the Republicans were pro-minority? (1863) We could go on and on, but the Repubs are hanging on to this antiquated, "Tax-n-spend" image like a 50yo woman undergoing several cosmetic surgeries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #280 October 5, 2006 >but the Repubs are hanging on to this antiquated, "Tax-n-spend" image . . . It's not the republicans, it's the party in power. The democrats will be just as bad in another 5 years. As someone else mentioned, it's all cyclical. The reason the republicans can't seem to do anything right is because they're currently the ones making all the decisions, and all the mistakes we've made in the last 5 years (and there have been a LOT of them) are coming back to haunt them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #281 October 5, 2006 Quote*yawn* If that was the case, then Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter would've been "disappeared" already... along with Michael Moore and his ilk. No, no, classism trumps all that. The revocation of Habeus Corpus, which is used primarily by prisoners as a non-stop appeals platform, would simply make the poor who have been railroaded disappear, not the rich, elite who dissent. Habeus Corpus = bring forward the body. It is even used in child custody matters. It is widely used and is VERY important so that people can be produced if need be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #282 October 5, 2006 Quote>but the Repubs are hanging on to this antiquated, "Tax-n-spend" image . . . It's not the republicans, it's the party in power. The democrats will be just as bad in another 5 years. As someone else mentioned, it's all cyclical. The reason the republicans can't seem to do anything right is because they're currently the ones making all the decisions, and all the mistakes we've made in the last 5 years (and there have been a LOT of them) are coming back to haunt them. Well, sure, but the transition process makes the other side do right. Look at Clinton's time with the fiscal responsibility, but he was the party of the black sheep, so he had to stay legit. So maybe 5 years is a bit soon, but as soon as they get in and establish a better country, then they will be prone to corrupt since they have wiggle room. But at first they will have to establish gains and a voting platform since they will be under scrutiny. So when either side digs in too long, it can become a monarchy and we have what we now have. So progressive societies are best is what I guess the truth is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #283 October 5, 2006 On Drudge ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER FAMOUS IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD **UPDATE Thu Oct 05 2006 11:54:13 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. MORE The PASSIONATE AMERICA webmaster tells the OKLAHOMAN that "he stumbled onto the former page's AOL screen name when looking at transcripts of the instant messages on ABC's Web site on Saturday. He said he typed a slightly-different Web address into his browser and found a version of the transcript with the screen name. The AOL name of the young man was kept unredacted and housed on ABCNEWS.COM servers for 5 days! The information could be publicly accessed. ABC explains in a statement: "On Friday, ABC News published instant messages between a former page and Congressman Foley with the IM screen name of the teenage victim redacted. Immediately, we discovered that in one instance, the screen name of the teen on one IM exchange had not been properly redacted. ABC News immediately took down the posting [version 1], redacted the screen name and re-published the posting [version 2]. We certainly believed that we had taken care of the issue quickly. Last evening, after an inquiry from Matt Drudge, it came to our attention that a blogger was able to access our deleted file [version 1] by typing in a slightly modified web address. To be clear, no one visiting our website would have simply stumbled on the old version." 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, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday. Developing..."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #284 October 5, 2006 No shit! He was 18!People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,155 #285 October 5, 2006 QuoteNo shit! He was 18! If the quote below is true, then it is true that it continued until after his 18th birthday, which also means it started before his 18th. QuoteA network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #286 October 5, 2006 >That judge can easily be deemed a terrorist supporter (cause >he doesn't agree with Bush et al) and be taken into custody . . . Well, heck, a guy on the street could disagree with Cheney and get arrested nowadays. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #287 October 5, 2006 QuoteWell, heck, a guy on the street could disagree with Cheney and get arrested nowadays. Hell even his "friends" that pour money into his pockets.. can get shot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,155 #288 October 5, 2006 And pretty soon you will have a law that will make that all much easier. But, you are right, a gay congressman talking dirty to a page is much more important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #289 October 5, 2006 QuoteBut, you are right, a gay congressman talking dirty to a page is much more important. In the party that tried to put homophobia into our constitution it sure as hell is an issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #290 October 5, 2006 QuoteIf the quote below is true, then it is true that it continued until after his 18th birthday, which also means it started before his 18th. wow then it depends on WHEN the really racy IM's were sent. If they were not wrong before he was 18, then turned bad porno....then its not illegal. Interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,155 #291 October 5, 2006 There appears to be much more to this than meets the eye....it will be interesting to watch it play out. Will also be interesting to see what is being done while everybody looks the other way.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #292 October 5, 2006 QuoteQuoteWell, heck, a guy on the street could disagree with Cheney and get arrested nowadays. Hell even his "friends" that pour money into his pockets.. can get shot Regardless of our differences this IS A GREAT POST!!!! "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #293 October 6, 2006 not a single reply"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #294 October 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteBut, you are right, a gay congressman talking dirty to a page is much more important. In the party that tried to put homophobia into our constitution it sure as hell is an issue. ATTENTION: ALL CONSERVATIVES READ - THIS IS THE CENTRAL THEME HERE. If Clinton were to overenforce sexual indecency laws, it would be as hypocritical as Foley pushing the homophobia amendment. This is the key to this entire, arduous issue; glass house. Let's say Clinton were to push for gays in the military, such as he did, and then he was secretly homophobic and signed into law legislation outlawing certain homosexual activity. <---- this is the theme kids, wake up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #295 October 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteBut, you are right, a gay congressman talking dirty to a page is much more important. In the party that tried to put homophobia into our constitution it sure as hell is an issue. ATTENTION: ALL CONSERVATIVES READ - THIS IS THE CENTRAL THEME HERE. If Clinton were to overenforce sexual indecency laws, it would be as hypocritical as Foley pushing the homophobia amendment. This is the key to this entire, arduous issue; glass house. Let's say Clinton were to push for gays in the military, such as he did, and then he was secretly homophobic and signed into law legislation outlawing certain homosexual activity. <---- this is the theme kids, wake up. Well, maybe not Clinton, but apparently Gore is homophobic. Here he is hanging out with his Hommies at the Westboro Baptist Church. http://www.lcrga.com/archive/200010251159.shtml Is this a good example of what you are talking about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #296 October 6, 2006 QuoteWell, maybe not Clinton, but apparently Gore is homophobic. Here he is hanging out with his Hommies at the Westboro Baptist Church. http://www.lcrga.com/archive/200010251159.shtml Is this a good example of what you are talking about? HOLY COW BATMAN! Was this stuff used against him in 2000? How did Gore spin this away? Maybe it is all part of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy, they are a republican gay advocacy group making these charges. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #297 October 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteWell, maybe not Clinton, but apparently Gore is homophobic. Here he is hanging out with his Hommies at the Westboro Baptist Church. http://www.lcrga.com/archive/200010251159.shtml Is this a good example of what you are talking about? HOLY COW BATMAN! Was this stuff used against him in 2000? How did Gore spin this away? Maybe it is all part of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy, they are a republican gay advocacy group making these charges. It justt goes to prove what a bunch of lying hypocrits the left really is. This is worse than Robt. Byrds KKK past, yet you will never hear condemnation of our extreme homophobic ex-Vice President from the Democrats. I wonder how much influence Gore had on the Clinton "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the Military. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #298 October 6, 2006 Not to mention being the "Black party", then throwing comments like "Aunt Jemima" (Rice) and "Uncle Tom" (Powell) or putting a Black Senate candidate in vaudeville blackface (Steele)... but look at the furor over Allen's remarks. Pelosi and Emanuel are screaming for investigations of the Republican leadership, but refuse to take a polygraph to prove that they knew nothing about the Foley issue before it broke. *edit to add* And, the same Democrats that were up in arms over the NSA tapping Al Quaeda phone calls are up in arms that the Republican leadership wasn't tapping a Congressmember's emails and IMs. Nevermind the fact that they about shit themselves when the memos about scuttling Estrada's appointment were aired. Normal hypocricy from the Left...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #299 October 6, 2006 QuoteNot to mention being the "Black party", then throwing comments like "Aunt Jemima" (Rice) and "Uncle Tom" (Powell) or putting a Black Senate candidate in vaudeville blackface (Steele)... but look at the furor over Allen's remarks. Now, Pelosi and Emanuel are screaming for investigations of the Republican leadership, but refuse to take a polygraph to prove that they knew nothing about the Foley issue before it broke. Normal hypocricy from the Left... I agree. Then they yammer on about what a bunch of gay hating homophobes Republican are and how they are the party of inclusivness while at the same time we have a MAJOR leader in the Democratic Party who seems to have no problem bashing gays at fundraisers and associating himself with one of the most vile and hate-filled groups out there. Not a peep from the Lefties!! UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE!!! But not unexpected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #300 October 6, 2006 Evidently, Rogers (the guy who the pages supposedly contacted in July) has been sitting on this stuff for a while.... From another blog of his... Quote Monday, January 30, 2006 Mister Senator... This post will be read by thousands and thousands of people... It's directed at ONE person. Mr. Senator: Tomorrow you will be faced with a vote that may have the longest aftereffects of any other you have cast in your Senate career. Tomorrow you will decide if your political position is worth more than doing what is right for others like you. For others like you, Mr. Senator, who engage in oral sex with other men. (Although, Mr. Senator, most of us don't do in the bathrooms of Union Station!) Your fake marriage, by the way, will NOT protect you from the truth being told on this blog. How does this blog decide who to report on? It's simple. We report on hypocrites. In this case, hypocrites who vote against the gay and lesbian community while engaging in gay sex themselves*. When you cast that vote, Mr. Senator, represent your own...it's the least you could do. Michael Rogers blogACTIVE.com *While votes on many matters are considered, votes "FOR" either the Alito nomination and the Federal Marriage Amendment are enough to qualify legislators for reporting on this site. Ladies and Gentlemen.... if they want a cultural war, I'll give them a fucking cultural war. Fasten your seatbelts, it's gonna be a bumpy 2006." UPDATE: Some of you have asked if he will be outed tomorrow. No. The blog will report on this closeted Republican Senator between tomorrow and a time when it may most impact the reelection effort of the Senator. Just because the Democratic establishment has given up the fight for our Nation, doesn't mean this site will...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
