NY Times:Repub Leaders Hastert & Boehner Cover Up Closeted Foley's emails to boys. - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 10-15-2006, 09:51 AM

fta: the quote you bit was in reference to the kuo book--it is a little summary of his argument about the administration's use of the evangelicals. the argument i am making myself in the posts above is not so far from yours.

NCB · 10-18-2006, 06:13 AM

Foley just chose the wrong party to be pulling this shit with. If he were a Dem, he's get a standing O from his ilk in the Congress. Plus a book deal of course

filtherton · 10-18-2006, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Foley just chose the wrong party to be pulling this shit with. If he were a Dem, he's get a standing O from his ilk in the Congress. Plus a book deal of course

Yeah, you're right. The dems are all about fucking children and covering it up. How could i have missed it when it was the lynchpin of kerry's campaign. He was all like "I will provide an america where we can freely fuck children and then systematically cover it up because i am a democrat and we are the party of immorality, unlike the republicans whom shit solid gold that smells of potpourri."

xxSquirtxx · 10-18-2006, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Yeah, you're right. The dems are all about fucking children and covering it up. How could i have missed it when it was the lynchpin of kerry's campaign. He was all like "I will provide an america where we can freely fuck children and then systematically cover it up because i am a democrat and we are the party of immorality, unlike the republicans whom shit solid gold that smells of potpourri."

Fucking children is only ok when they give consent.

How nice.

And, duhhh, Foley didn't "fuck" anyone, unlike Studds.

hiredgun · 10-18-2006, 07:59 AM

Oh my god. Why are we talking about Studds from 23 years ago?

ratbastid · 10-18-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Oh my god. Why are we talking about Studds from 23 years ago?

Because the only way Republicans can defend themselves on this one is to dredge up ancient history. Rather than standing up and admitting a huge mistake, which would solve the whole thing.

Say what you want about Clinton: when the man came clean, he came clean. He did it out loud on national television. Compare this behavior with that of Dennis "If it would help my party, I would resign, but it won't, so I won't" Hastert. (EDIT: Or, for that matter, Mark "Oops! I have a drinking problem!" Foley!) The WHOLE GAME these last few weeks has been to pass the buck. Nobody in the GOP is willing to behave responsibly. That's why they're about to lose the election.

I now remember why I had NCB on my blacklist. A few weeks ago I saw him there (the lone member of it, too), and thought "gee, I wonder why I did that", and took him off. Heh. Welcome back to the bottomless pit, buddy.

roachboy · 10-18-2006, 08:19 AM

i dont see any reason to take the little wave of far right bottomfeeder posts that has turned up overnight at all seriously--there is nothing to them--not in this thread, not in any of the others---nothing worth thinking about, nothing worth commenting on, nothing interesting or even provocative.
they aren't even well written.
back in the olden days when ultra-reactionaries at least had some style, you might disagree with everything that was being said, but at least the writing was amusing.
now there's nothing.

xxSquirtxx · 10-18-2006, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Oh my god. Why are we talking about Studds from 23 years ago?

Oh my god......because some people can't pull their heads out of their ass and put things in historical perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i dont see any reason to take the little wave of far right bottomfeeder posts that has turned up overnight at all seriously--there is nothing to them--not in this thread, not in any of the others---nothing worth thinking about, nothing worth commenting on, nothing interesting or even provocative.
they aren't even well written.
back in the olden days when ultra-reactionaries at least had some style, you might disagree with everything that was being said, but at least the writing was amusing.
now there's nothing.

**unnecessary insults removed**

roachboy · 10-18-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

**unnecessary insults removed**

well, since nothing is being advanced
and you aren't even good at being snippy
i'll just do this:

Quote:

i dont see any reason to take the little wave of far right bottomfeeder posts that has turned up overnight at all seriously--there is nothing to them--not in this thread, not in any of the others---nothing worth thinking about, nothing worth commenting on, nothing interesting or even provocative.

q.e.d.

Rekna · 10-18-2006, 09:10 AM

I hear Bush is going to give Foley the congressional medal of protecting little boys.

xxSquirtxx · 10-18-2006, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

well, since nothing is being advanced
and you aren't even good at being snippy
i'll just do this:

q.e.d.

**unnecessary insults removed**

Ustwo · 10-18-2006, 10:13 AM

Naughty IM's are the ulimate evil.

Pounding a boy in the ass, not so evil.

Got it.

I'm not sure how 23 years ago is ancient history. I'm not one of the young pups that post here, and neither are you Ratbastid. Is the Rumsfield photo shaking Saddam's hand 'ancient history' too?

xxSquirtxx · 10-18-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Naughty IM's are the ulimate evil.

Pounding a boy in the ass, not so evil.

Got it.

I'm not sure how 23 years ago is ancient history. I'm not one of the young pups that post here, and neither are you Ratbastid. Is the Rumsfield photo shaking Saddam's hand 'ancient history' too?

Heh. Yeah, they loooove to pull that one out, don't they?

filtherton · 10-18-2006, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxSquirtxx

Fucking children is only ok when they give consent.

How nice.

And, duhhh, Foley didn't "fuck" anyone, unlike Studds.

There was another thread where i told you to let me know when you had something substantive to say? This ain't it.

And as far as "historical perspective" goes, it seems odd that it would be brought up by folks who support an invasion that would never have happened if certain leaders had any amount of historical perspective.

xxSquirtxx · 10-18-2006, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

There was another thread where i told you to let me know when you had something substantive to say? This ain't it.

And as far as "historical perspective" goes, it seems odd that it would be brought up by folks who support an invasion that would never have happened if certain leaders had any amount of historical perspective.

Oh my - the broad brush strokes. Where do I begin........

filtherton · 10-18-2006, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxSquirtxx

Oh my - the broad brush strokes. Where do I begin........

I imagine you'll begin and end with a quasi-insulting one line dismissal of whatever was said. No surprise there.

xxSquirtxx · 10-18-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I imagine you'll begin and end with a quasi-insulting one line dismissal of whatever was said. No surprise there.

Which are so unlike yours, correct?

filtherton · 10-18-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxSquirtxx

Which are so unlike yours, correct?

Like i said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I imagine you'll begin and end with a quasi-insulting one line dismissal of whatever was said. No surprise there.

Rekna · 10-18-2006, 08:22 PM

I expect the next post in this thread to be a moderator.....

filtherton · 10-18-2006, 08:54 PM

I expected that a while ago. Maybe they're just trying to give us enough rope.

host · 10-19-2006, 12:11 AM

The following is an appeal from the author of this thread:
Let us return to a discussion of the poltical implications of "Foleygate". As the premier thread for the subject of the Foley scandal, this is as good a space as any, IMO, to post this article. IMO, republican prospects of holding a house majority are now desperate enough to "trigger" an October "surprise", and a Bin Laden video....especially with "talk" that Nancy Pelosi is only one landslide election and two impeachments away from being POTUS. She will have to emerge after an election that will surely involve manipulation of electronic voting equipment, and whatever media "production" that "bogeyman" Bin Laden's "handlers" are up to producing and distributing, designed by the RNC to scare the shit out of potential "swing" voters. One more week of bad poll numbers will coincide with the timely arrival, in the Persian gulf of a second, US Navy aircraft carrier task force, the USS Eisenhower (CVN 69)......

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15319792/
Big Democratic wins likely on Election Day
NBC/WSJ poll: Public's opinion of GOP hits record low
By Mark Murray
Political reporter
NBC News

WASHINGTON - Just 20 days until Election Day, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds approval of the GOP-held Congress is at its lowest mark in 14 years, the Republican Party's favorability rating is at an all-time low and President George W. Bush's approval rating remains mired in the 30s -- all ominous signs for a party trying to maintain control of Congress.

In fact, according to the poll, Republicans are in worse shape on some key measures than Democrats were in 1994, when they lost their congressional majorities.

"There is not a single number in here that would suggest the Democrats will not have their best showing in a decade -- and maybe two decades," says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican Bill McInturff.

Landslide of bad GOP news
The poll, which was taken of 1,006 registered voters from Oct. 13-16 and has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points, comes a few weeks after Republicans encountered a series of setbacks, including the release of an intelligence estimate calling the Iraq war a "cause célèbre" for Islamic militants, journalist Bob Woodward's unfavorable portrayal of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, and the news that former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., had inappropriate correspondence with teenage congressional pages.

In the survey, Bush's approval rating is at 38 percent, a one-point decline from a previous NBC/Journal poll released earlier this month after the Foley news first broke. Perhaps more revealing, only 16 percent now approve of the job Congress is doing -- its lowest mark since 1992.

Both sets of numbers suggest that the Republican Party is on more unstable ground than Democrats were in 1994, when they lost 52 House and 8 Senate seats. In October of that year, President Bill Clinton's approval rating among registered voters was at 46 percent, and 24 percent approved of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress was doing.

Dems a 'marginally accepted alternative'
What's more, in this latest poll, just 32 percent of respondents see the Republican Party in a positive light, while 49 percent view it negatively. Those are the party's worst marks in the history of the poll. In contrast, voters -- by a 37-35 percent margin -- view the Democratic Party positively.

McInturff, the GOP pollster, observes that after several months when both parties have had net-negative ratings on this question, this is second-straight NBC/Journal survey in which a plurality of voters see Democrats in a positive light. Hart adds that Democrats have become a "marginally accepted alternative."

"It might be grudging admiration," he says, "but it is enough admiration to make it through."

Moreover, 52 percent say they prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress, compared with 37 percent who want Republicans to maintain power. It is the first time ever in this poll when a majority has sided with one party on this particular question. Earlier this month, Democrats held a nine-point advantage (48-39 percent).

The final GOP straw
Indeed, the poll finds that the events of the last few weeks -- such as the Foley scandal, the Woodward book, and the intelligence estimate -- have taken a toll on the GOP. Forty-seven percent say that these events have given them a less favorable impression of Republicans maintaining their majorities in Congress. Only 14 percent say they've given them a more favorable impression.

While Republicans were already in a precarious position before the Foley scandal, Hart explains, it has become a final straw of sorts that might have sealed their fate. "It is the event that allowed certain voters to say, 'Enough.'"

McInturff adds that the scandal took Republicans by surprise, and he expects them to be able to regroup and spend the next three weeks trying to disqualify Democrats on taxes and social issues.

The war in Iraq also continues to be a drag on Republicans and the White House. In the poll, a whopping 68 percent say they feel less optimistic about how things are going there, compared with only 20 percent who feel more optimistic. That's a significant shift from June, when voters were evenly split on this question.

Control of Congress
All of these numbers seem to suggest that Democrats are poised to pick up a sizable number of seats in November, and maybe even regain control of Congress. Hart says it's been clear for the last several months that an electoral hurricane would be arriving on Election Day. The only question was how big it was going to be.

This new poll, he observes, signals that it will be a Category 4 or Category 5 storm. "Simply put, the low lying areas are [going to be] under water."

Mark Murray covers politics for NBC News.

10-15-2006, 09:51 AM	#81 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	fta: the quote you bit was in reference to the kuo book--it is a little summary of his argument about the administration's use of the evangelicals. the argument i am making myself in the posts above is not so far from yours. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-18-2006, 08:19 AM	#87 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont see any reason to take the little wave of far right bottomfeeder posts that has turned up overnight at all seriously--there is nothing to them--not in this thread, not in any of the others---nothing worth thinking about, nothing worth commenting on, nothing interesting or even provocative. they aren't even well written. back in the olden days when ultra-reactionaries at least had some style, you might disagree with everything that was being said, but at least the writing was amusing. now there's nothing. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-18-2006, 10:13 AM	#92 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Naughty IM's are the ulimate evil. Pounding a boy in the ass, not so evil. Got it. I'm not sure how 23 years ago is ancient history. I'm not one of the young pups that post here, and neither are you Ratbastid. Is the Rumsfield photo shaking Saddam's hand 'ancient history' too? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-18-2006, 07:59 AM	#85 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Oh my god. Why are we talking about Studds from 23 years ago?

10-18-2006, 09:10 AM	#90 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I hear Bush is going to give Foley the congressional medal of protecting little boys.

10-18-2006, 08:22 PM	#99 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I expect the next post in this thread to be a moderator.....

10-18-2006, 08:54 PM	#100 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I expected that a while ago. Maybe they're just trying to give us enough rope.