Comments Posted By Richard Bottoms
Displaying 311 To 320 Of 362 Comments
FOLEY MATTER PROVES REPUBLICANS SUPPORT PERVERTS
He’s gay and preying on children left in his care.
His sexual orientation is irelevant. It's the age of the other party that matters.
Republicans and Democrats should demand new leadership.
Horse Hockey. The Republicans own this one.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 30.09.2006 @ 15:42
Far from “standing behind†Studds, the Democratic-led House actually censured him in 1983 for the consensual relationship he’d had with a 17-year-old page (which had occurred 10 years prior).
So by the time the scanal broke, almost a quarter century ago, the young man in question was 27.
Well I can see how a conseual, albeit icky affair a decade old might not generate the heights of outrage you'd expect.
Foley on the other hand is a closet queen right now and the kid is still 16. Maybe still legal, but super icky. And still nothe point at all.
This congressman headed the committee charged with going after peoplel who prey on kids. O the irony.
Dennis Hastert better wear his asbestos underwear next week.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 30.09.2006 @ 15:07
>Remember Democrat Gary Studds
Who?
Sorry, bringing up some relic from 23 years ago isn't going to save you this time.
That's right, the bogeyman you are attempting to use was censured almost a quarter century ago. And the Barney Frank defense? Well that little scandle happened in 1987. Michael Keaton hadn't even made Batman yet.
People have entered Congress, served twenty years and since retired since the Studds affair broke. You might as well be pushing the Teapot Dome scandal.
Go sell crazy someplace else.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 30.09.2006 @ 14:53
But there is not one shred of evidence that they knew – and the fact that the parents of the other child wanted the matter dropped would seem to indicate most everyone thought that there was nothing dangerous there.
I doubt you are intentionally being naive. What it says to me is they didn't want their son tangled up in a Michael Jackson sized scandal.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 30.09.2006 @ 14:20
Sorry, not buying it.
As someone who was pursued by men just like Foley as a teen it was immediately appearant he was cruising this kid. They didn't know because they didn't want to know.
Let's hear Hastert swear under oath he knew of no further information about Foley and his hunger for young pages.
Oh and a politically motived leak? Yeah, so what. And I'm not sure how effective the Barney defense is going to be with the faith & values crowd. Maybe try the old standby that it's all Clinton's fault.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 30.09.2006 @ 11:38
GOSSIP AS POLITICS: WOODWARD'S WHITE HOUSE HIT JOB
If the roles were reversed and the Democrats controlled more seats in the House and Senate and it was a Democrat being accused and this was just now coming forward, I would ask the same questions.
Who gives a damn if it's poltics, your guys are toast. Your Jedi mind tricks won't work any more.
Hastert is going to spend the next month explaining why he allowed this to happen, and just maybe why he should remain as Speaker of the House.
Please pass the popcorn.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 30.09.2006 @ 03:46
Why was this not stopped? Thats a very good question. If these activities were known about for months by Republican leaders before they went public, they would have also been known about for months by Democratic party leaders.
Umm not so much.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 30.09.2006 @ 00:03Pelosi, furious that the Democratic leadership were not informed of the situation for nearly an entire year after the emails were discovered, has already demanded and gotten a House Ethics investigation -- her resolution passed the House 410 to zero. The House committee on Official Conduct now has ten days to issue a preliminary report on what the Republican leadership knew, when they knew it, and what they did or didn't do about it.
More likely, it will stall the Republican comeback and cost some GOP representatives their seats.
Well if that doesn't do the trick, this should:
Why Wasn't Foley Stopped?
By Justin Rood - September 29, 2006, 9:12 PMAs the icky-email scandal broke wide open, Mark Foley quickly resigned his House seat. But he's left some big questions behind. Foremost among them: It looks like his activities were known by others, including leaders in his party, for months before they became public --so why didn't they do anything?
The AP brings new details about how senior Republicans received the news months ago that one of their own appeared to be soliciting a minor, and apparently did little to intervene.
Say goodnight Gracie.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 29.09.2006 @ 22:22
I WOULDN'T WISH IT ON MY WORST ENEMY
I still hope every Republican in America loses November 7th, but never let it be said that I don't offer praise when it is due. Nice post.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 28.09.2006 @ 00:21
APPALLING DISHONESTY FROM OLBERMAN
>GOD BLESS AMERICA AND OUR TROOPS in the forest.
Umm you seem to be missing the point.
If your son was one of those troops being trained in the forest instead of in the Mojave where they get to experience realistic conditions he would be more likely to be killed in Iraq.
The reason they are training in the forest is because George Bush is mismanaging the military, shortening the time between deployments, hampering realistic training and wait for it... getting more troops killed.
Is there some part of the fact that the military is not adequetly served by its civilian leaders that is not sinking in?
If our troops don'thave tanks or bullets to train with they die in battle.
BTW, best of luck to your son.
Seems like he'll need it.
Comment Posted By Richard Bottoms On 26.09.2006 @ 22:49
