Comments Posted By Merovign
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 12 Comments
OY WHAT A MESS! FOLEY COVERUP AND THE GAMBIT THAT EXPOSED IT
Well, its good to see that the left still can't tell the difference between the e-mails and the IMs.
Too bad that behavior is rampant in the Big Room as well. I guess that's one way to drag it out until the election.
Comment Posted By Merovign On 2.10.2006 @ 14:45
THE WEBSITE THAT STARTED IT ALL - STRANGE BUT TRUE
"Reality"Check:
I have no doubt that your lies, false accusations, and baseless personal attacks are a signifier to your personality and your ideology.
You have baselessly accused me of being a child molester, based on the equally false charge that I am "defending Foley," which I am not.
I think that speaks volumes as to your trustworthiness, which is nonexistent.
Go ahead and have the last word, because your word is meaningless.
Comment Posted By Merovign On 3.10.2006 @ 16:22
"Reality"Check:
I think the problem may be we have different definitions of the word "fact." Mine reads something like "objectively testable proposition that multiple observers can test and confirm."
Yours reads closer to "the way I want things to be."
Your definitions of "excusing" and "condemn" are also suspect, since no one on any side of the political debate is anything but condemning Foley.
The problem is, the right is refusing to accept your proposition that somehow they're ALL responsible and should turn over the keys.
As to your party affiliation, I once knew someone who claimed to be a Republican, but, like you, echoed all Democratic talking points, voted Democrat... so, do you think I honored their desire to be referred to as a "Republican?"
The "I used to vote R but now I'll vote D!" talking point is also legendary for how often it turns out to be a lie, not to mention the tens of thousands of times the statement has been made.
I think the instant revulsion you express for "the Republican party," with really skimpy evidence, speaks more to your affiliation than your claims.
One would think that someone "independent" and "conservative" would spend less time leaping to conclusions and more time seeking facts.
But instead of coming out and saying "Hey, we need more information, we should find out who had this information before last week and what they did about it," you come out and, either through deliberate ignorance or mendacity, claim that Republicans aren't condemning Foley (false), and asserting that "the GOP covered for" his crimes (unproven).
In other words, you're following the talking points to a "T", whether just because you want to believe it or because you're following a script.
I don't know or care which one it is, because both are dishonest, the first to yourself and the second to everyone else.
What I do want to know is, did the GOP in the House know about the IMs (you know, the actual explicit material) before last week, and since the IMs are from 2003, who else knew and why did the information come out now?
The D talking points scream the former and abuse anyone who expresses the latter as "excusing" Foley, which is the kind of thing that only comes from people who have gotten away with lies for far too much of their lives.
The root cause of lies, like crime and terrorism, are their success.
Our ADD press corps are just enablers.
Comment Posted By Merovign On 2.10.2006 @ 22:09
RealityCheck:
Boy, I hate how you democrats support Hussein putting those people in wood chippers!
You didn't say that? Well, look what happens when I hold myself to YOUR standard of behavior!
No one on the "right" is excusing Foley, and YOU are the one trying to confuse the issue by false attribution.
Lefties call themselves "reality-based" in the same way that North Korea calls itself "democratic."
Comment Posted By Merovign On 2.10.2006 @ 14:30
Flounder:
The only thing I've heard about 2001 is from ABC:
"Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office.
Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."
Which, frankly, is a far cry from massive evidence of predatory behavior. That evidence may exist somewhere, I'm just not seeing it presented. Do you have it?
There are lots of conflicting reports now, and probably were then. No doubt someone in a position of power looked at the conflicting reports, had a word with someone, then filed it as "rumor and innuendo." At least one supervising clerk is reported to have given warnings about Foley's "friendliness." Others have reported that they received no such warning (maybe the supervisor didn't like them).
So, given the quote above and the e-mails (not the IMs) in question, what do you think the House should have done? And what do you think they would have accomplished, apart from being accused of a homophobic witch hunt?
There is a natural tendency to judge past actions by what we know today. It would be nice if people could look back and ask themselves, honestly, what they would have done in that situation, not knowing what they know now, but knowing only what that other person knew then.
I would be curious to know whether anyone else knew about this 2001 warning, whether it had any official backing, and what, if any response the House Reps had at the time, if it was just considered rumormongering, whether the supervising clerk had a personal axe to grind, or personal experience with Foley, and whether anything else was documented in the four intervening years between the warning and the e-mails.
Unfortunately, apart from internet rumors, I don't have any of that information. So it's a little hard for me to get all excited about attacking Hastert at this point, seeing as how, other than rumors that rumors were widespread, I don't have any evidence that he had anything like complaints on file or a record of disciplinary action against Foley.
And most of the discussion I'm seeing is typical ignorant J. Random Poster blather. The left has a habit of getting in front of the story, which has bitten them several times in the last decade. Maybe it's time to take a breath and stop hyperventilating, as a community.
Out of curiousity, apart from the suggestime instant messages, are there any credible allegations of any actual "relationships" with any pages?
Oh, and as long as you keep mixing things up and misinterpreting what people say, no one can really communicate with you. It's sad, but there you are.
Comment Posted By Merovign On 2.10.2006 @ 01:11
Flounder:
Since when does "warned to back off" equal "ignored?" What penalties do you think would be appropriate for asking someone for a picture? Maybe you can point me to some case law on Lexis.
And maybe the House Republicans were reluctant to drive a member out of the house when their evidence, at the time, consisted of a mildly creepy e-mail and widespread rumor. Hell, maybe there is more to it than that, but I haven't seen any actual evidence that there is more to the "coverup" accusation than that, please let us know if you have.
I'm going to respond to your post on the "old thread" here, as it was mostly the same as this one... the difference being where you say:
"Should the e-mails have been passed off this way? And since it is obvious that somebody has been shopping these around for at least a few months (and CREW was trying to get the FBI involved before it could/and so it would verify auhenticity)"
Are you referring to the "send me a pic" e-mails or the "masturbation" IMs? Because if it's the former, what did you expect people to do with only that information, and if it's the latter, why do you expect the House Reps to have acted a year ago on information they got last week?
Do you begin to see why I keep saying you're conflating the two? The IMs were not released publicly until last week. If CREW had them for months, why didn't they tell the House leaders so something could be done?
You said they were waiting for FBI authentication. If they were successful, why haven't we heard that they've been authenticated? If they haven't, why release them now?
Revelations at election-time are always (properly) greeted with suspicion. Especially when accompanied by hyperbole.
Comment Posted By Merovign On 1.10.2006 @ 22:51
Flounder: No, I haven't watched that Dateline show.
As I said before, the left can't distinguish between dissimilar things.
Is your contention that expressing sympathy for danger from a natural disaster and requesting a picture of someone you used to work with "of a sexual nature?"
If there is no difference between being "overly friendly" (I think a better term for Hastert would have been "excessively familiar") and "of a sexual nature," then you can but either abolish all harassment law or, alternatively, be mean to everyone to avoid harassment charges.
If you think that the emails that triggered last year's "chat" were "of a sexual nature," then either we have been looking at vastly different messages or you've made a set of unshakeable assumptions that the contents of the messages have been unable to drive you away from.
It may be that your experiences have made you very sensitive to a particular kind of harassment, just as mine have made me sensitive to false or mistaken accusations.
Are you asserting that the contents of the e-mails that triggered the House "warning" and were unproductively promulgated to the press are "of a sexual nature" and were sufficient to warrant charges or an investigation?
Or are you really saying you don't know, after looking at them if they are "sexual" or not?
Or are we down, again, to words that don't mean anything?
Comment Posted By Merovign On 1.10.2006 @ 21:44
Flounder: You responded to my 7pm message at 8:05, but evidently you didn't read it.
You're still conflating the 2005 e-mails and the 2003 IMs. The controversial timing is the release of the IMs, not the e-mails. The e-mails are not sexual in nature, the IMs are. The IMs were released more recently, caused the ouster, and this is the release that is triggering questions of motivation.
Please try to grasp the chain of events, the difference should immediately become clear. Diagram it if you have to, this isn't rocket science.
Comment Posted By Merovign On 1.10.2006 @ 21:13
FOLEY MATTER PROVES REPUBLICANS SUPPORT PERVERTS
Officious Pedant:
We obviously live on two different planets. I can only hope that trend is a historical curiousity and not a tragedy as we try to move forward.
I could drown you in documents and links, but like I said, I've done that before (way too many times) and it was a complete waste. You're impervious, and that will cost everyone, not just me.
Been down this road before, it goes nowhere. Don't really know why I keep trying, maybe because I know people don't learn from their mistakes.
Feel free to misinterpret that any way you like, not that you won't anyway.
Comment Posted By Merovign On 2.10.2006 @ 21:48
Officious Pedant:
Irony is just something that happens to other people, isn't it?
I did indeed go through those arguments with Republicans. But instead of invective and smug certitude, I got evidence. Did they convince me of everything? No. But the "other side" has convinced me of nothing.
WMDs?
The Repubs told me that Saddam had them in the past, used them, had the stated intent of getting more, had not cooperated with inspectors, had lied repeatedly, and presented intelligence reports from our allies about his efforts - which they still stand by.
Democrats claimed that a hearsay report by a British bureaucrat about his opinions of what the intentions of the Americans might be was more authoritative than British, French and Italian intelligence reports. They claimed that the US "supplied Saddam with his arsenal" and some of the claimants even said we were his largest supplier (11th largest, actually). After the chain of events was laid out, it's harder to imagine a less credible witness against the Administration than Joe Wilson, and it keeps getting worse every time he opens his mouth.
I had similar experiences with just about every issue I examined, though admittedly by the time Katrina hit I was expecting the left to simply Blame Bush First, ignore any successes, play race and poverty cards, not do a hell of a lot to help, and basically carry on like hungry, angry babies.
Not that Republicans are perfect, far from it. Like I said, they're not worth much. But at least they're worth something.
I'm not comfortable on the right, especially since the Bush administration shares a major trait with the Democratic party - spending like it was going out of style (not even counting the war effort). Neither major party has a very strong grasp of economics, though at least on taxation, the last forty years have shown that the Repubs are about a hundred times better than the democrats.
But I've become so disgusted with the hysteria, bloody-mindedness and power madness of the left, and their willingness to seek new heights in the already feotid swamps of DC dishonesty, that I can't honestly think of more than a couple of Democratic politicians that I'd consider voting for.
Y'all should have read the contract before you sold out to Soros (through the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill, which shut out a lot of "old" funding and left Soros' 501s funding a LOT of your publicity efforts). Maybe if he's serious about quitting, the actual grassroots can get hold of the Democrat party and actually stage a principled foil to the Repubs, as opposed to just opposing them on principle.
Best of luck with the election, especially now.
Comment Posted By Merovign On 2.10.2006 @ 03:47
