|
|
 |
|
#21
10-05-2006, 05:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I don't watch a ton of news shows and prefer Lehrer/PBS. The news is the news. The difference between networks is the "analysis" portion of their shows. This is where CNN will put on any former Bush Administration staffer who will say anything to sell a book. This is also where Fox will put on any old Republican who will, apparently, say anything for the sake of airtime (Am I wrong or have I actually seen Alexander Haig on Fox recently?). The worst way I could imagine spending my time would be to watch any of the "News Analysis" shows like OReilly, Hannity, LArry King, etc... 
|
|
#22
10-05-2006, 05:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
My point is that there is a lot of hypocrisy out there. I don't defend Foley or Studds.
|
|
#23
10-05-2006, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
With regard to O'Reilly, he is certainly conseravtive on most issues. But at least he gives the other side a fair voice. With regard to the recent Clinton controversy, O'Reilly had Paul Begala and James Carville on the show.
|
|
#24
10-05-2006, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#25
10-05-2006, 05:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.facebook.com/cajungator26
|
|
#26
10-05-2006, 05:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
By the way, you are a guy that claims you belive that people are innocent until proven guilty. Coincidentally, you only believe in this concept if you like the person who is accused. If you don't, then you throw the concept out the window. You say that Foley gave Reynolds $100k in hush money? Has that been proven in a court of law? What happened to your belief in the innocent until proven guilty concept?
|
|
#27
10-05-2006, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I didn't resign and hide in a rehab so my lawyer could make excuses for me. I didn't make a 100K "contribution" to the Repub party fund boss. I didn't script any "news" stories for Fox. I'm totally innocent. Nor am I responsible or accountable. Though, I'm guessing that with all the spinning that's going on, somebody is. Maybe more. So, is the issue "age of consent"? That's avoidance. Blaming the "media" for reporting? That's more avoidance. Will answers be presented to the "real" questions be presented before the November elections? I sure hope so, because I've always thought that the Republicans stood on "truth". err...uh... How did we get into Iraq? Oh! WMD, Regime change, democracy and "stable government"... Keep believing. (notice the middle syllable).
|
|
#28
10-05-2006, 05:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There is a possibility that both Republicans and Democrats knew of Foley's problems with young pages. ANd part of the problem is that he is a boss of sorts. When one "harasses" pages that are underlings... thats not good. Position of power, taking advantage, thats a problem.
Nancy Pellosi(D) might be in trouble because she might have known about this a good deal earlier and held off closer to election time. Republicans might have a problem because of trying to cover it up, or not addressing an obvious problem. Should be interesting. The sex and age thing is a side point at this moment. The position of power thing is clearly the First problem. Maybe more will come, maybe not. In any event, not good timing for Republicans. Oh yes. It becomes MORE of a Republican problem because of the stand against same sex advances. Last edited by pgardn : 10-05-2006 at 05:41 PM.
|
|
#29
10-05-2006, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
the reason why i asked if laws were broken....the only law i've seen that they could say he broke is if he actually solicited sex from a minor. not sure at this point from all i've seen (and i don't know that i've seen all the email and im exchanges) that he actually solicited sex from a minor. if he did, obviously he should be prosecuted to the full extent, regardless of his former place of employment.
however, the others involved such as hastert are facing serious inquiries into ethics violations, as they should. the cover up i feel will end up the much larger story due to the thought at THIS POINT that actual solicitation may not have occurred. nasty, disgusting and nauseating emails, yes....but being disgusting isn't illegal. if he crossed the line, he should be prosecuted. i have to say, had my child been propositioned, i'd have called the police immediately. why did this never happen?? why did not one page or his family make that call?
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#30
10-05-2006, 05:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#31
10-05-2006, 05:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
No technicality here. He broke the law and Hastert covered it up. Unless of course, you find it okay that a 16 year old boy is getting asked by his boss to measure his penis for him.
|
|
#32
10-05-2006, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I never thought of that! You really think "outside the box"!!!! It's the parents' fault. They should be made to answer. I can't wait until they're cross examined. "Why didn't you call the police?" "It's all your fault for not doing so!" "You parents don't care about your children, now, do you?" So creative!
|
|
#33
10-05-2006, 06:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
There is NO WAY the Foley stuff was not common knowledge in DC. No way. Congress, especially the House, is a lot like a small college town. It's just not possible this wasn't commonly known. Surely the timing is politically motivated. Why wouldn't it be? And I do not care what the legal age of consent is. 16, 17, whatever. These pages are still children and they are faced with incredible pressure to impress and many would find it difficult to rebuke inappropriate advances. Not all 16-17 year olds are incapable of handling themselves, but surely many of them are.
|
|
#34
10-05-2006, 06:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#35
10-05-2006, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'll give you that. He's totally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That's the American way. This comes from someone that can be locked up as an "enemy combatant" if decreed so by the law that was signed this week by our beloved president. Will I be locked up while awaiting trial? Heck, I haven't even left the country. So, am I innocent until I can prove so? Or is there a burden of proof to find my guilt? We live in a topsie turvey world, up is down, truth is a lie, the media is to blame for the actions of leaders, and parents are to blame for the im's of a pedophile. Who'd a thunk it? Orwell?
|
|
#36
10-05-2006, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I know some here hate it any time I post something from this site.
Read it first, bash me later. You might learn something in between. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1005-34.htm
|
|
#37
10-05-2006, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's be clear.......
Wrong is wrong! No matter what political party you care to associate with, any adult who preys on a child to get his or her rocks off, should be stuffed under the jail!
|
|
#38
10-05-2006, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There's a whole lot more wrong than most would even consider. Our Constitution has been gutted. Yes, gutted! American citizens can now be held, for an unlimited time period. It is now the "law". The consolidation of power is now held by the one that accuses others of being "fascists". Read it. Cry later. http://balkin.blogspot.com/Bush.Mili...sions%20act%22
|
|
#39
10-05-2006, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#40
10-05-2006, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
So, answer this...if you're accused (see above), and you're not really an "enemy combatant"...do you still have to sit in a cell if you can't raise bond?
|
Linear Mode
