Patterico's Pontifications

10/4/2006

Steve Lopez: Keeping the Foley Meme Alive

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:23 am



The L.A. Times‘s Steve Lopez compares Hastert to Roger Mahony, and uses an expert to suggest that the disgusting IM’s were known to Hastert:

“First there’s the minimizing,” says David Clohessy, another victims advocate who was struck by the similarities between church and state. “By that I mean defining sexual messages as ‘overly friendly.’

But no such thing has happened.

To repeat: there were “overly friendly” e-mails, and instant messages with sexual filth. Hastert and Co. knew about the former, which arguably should have triggered a better investigation — but not the latter, which would have been sufficient to get rid of the guy instantly.

Yet Lopez has his expert equate the two, even though another article in the same paper says the e-mails were not “sexual”:

He charged that the speaker and others were not aggressive enough late last year in the pursuing a complaint about the e-mails Foley sent a former male page, which the leaders recently characterized as “overly friendly.”

The e-mails were not sexually suggestive . . .

This is at least the second time that the paper has quoted someone who conflates the explicit instant messages with the less disturbing e-mails.

But Lopez didn’t say it — an expert did. That makes it okay, right?

94 Responses to “Steve Lopez: Keeping the Foley Meme Alive”

  1. You can find an “expert” who will say anything. But it is the outright lying about sources that is even worse. My first hand experience: I did a TV commodities show for about ten years. The LAT ran a piece on energy that quoted two people: one the owner of a oil equipment company in Bakersfield and the other a woman inside a brokerage firm in Philadelphia who was named and called an expert. I check out both: the one in the brokerage firm was a secretary who when I spoke to her started crying because she thought she might be arrested; the guy in the oil equipment firm told me that he told the Times writer the exact opposite he was quoted as saying. He was pissed but there was nothing he could do about it.

    That paper has never had integrity. Never.

    Howard Veit (28df94)

  2. – Along with this effort to mine the Folley affair for political benefit, also ment to deflect voters attention from the total lack of any Democratic party platform or idea’s, FOX is reporting there’s a plan in the works for protesters to try to use the funeral of the little girls killed by the nutcase in the Penn. schoolhouse attack. Although they’re saying it’s a Baptist group, I’m suspicious since it’s also an anti-war bunch.

    – At some point I’m hoping all of this lust for power that drives these idiots severely backfires on them. The best way to stop all the anti-American craziness, either from the Left or Right extremists, is to body slam them at the ballot box. If they keep losing in elections eventually the press and money sources will lose interest, and dry up.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  3. Howard’s right. Who needs a sock puppet with a phone book full of experts? Especially when you can hide the name of the “expert.”

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  4. I find all the speculation as to Hastert’s or any other top Republican’s knowledge of the behavior to be slightly suspect. That being said, I’ve read numerous articles that indicate EVERYONE knew the guy was a creep, and that former pages and cloakroom employees warned new pages as early as 1995 to watch out for the guy. This tells me the entire culture of Congress has an unofficial “hush-hush” mentality that’s sickening.

    mmm...lemonheads (a960c9)

  5. This was a well planned attack by the ‘Homosexual’ wing of the democratic party. It was launched as revenge due to Foley’s refusal to vote for Homosexual marriage even though he was a homosexual. Now you talk about low ball ‘blackmail’ which throughout history has been a democratic trait, this one is low. Does that mean that the democratic party has been taken over by sexual perverts, seems so. Any homosexual that supports the democrats can stand by for their attack, given any excuse they will burn you. A vote outweigh’s human life in the democratic party.
    Panic has set in. No plan to protect the country or further progress for the American people. The fact that the economy is roaring, unemployment at historical lows, tax rates on working people at historical lows, Percent of working people that bought their own homes in the past 5 years at historical highs. Democrats can’t stand this progress, they have plans to put us back into slavery with high taxes and high unemployment. Listen close to their campaign.

    Scrapiron (71415b)

  6. This is classic Steve Lopez.

    He has always played fast and loose with facts, logic, and truth.

    Desert Rat (ee9fe2)

  7. Hey Steve, Compare and contrast the reaction of the House Democrat leadership and the msm to the Gerry Studds (D-MA) scandal with that of the current GOP leadership and the msm to the Foley scandal.

    Stu707 (5b299c)

  8. Patterico: I agree that it is unfair to attack Hastert with the allegation that he knew something he did not know. That said, I also think there is a fair space for questions along the lines of Why didn’t they do a full investigation and find this out?; although it is not necessarily clear that the emails warranted a full investigation. At which point the question is: what information was available, and would that have warranted an investigation?

    Scrapiron: Foley was sexually harassing teenage pages via instant messaging. I find it very hard to swallow this scandal as an attack by the ‘homosexual wing of the democratic party’ as punishment for Foley’s lack of support for gay m arriage and/or as blackmail. Foley’s behavior was simply indefensible, and he deserves zero sympathy.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  9. It’s probably a good defense strategy to argue that Hastert only knew about the emails, which arguably don’t cross the line.

    But while you vehemently assert this defense – dammit, why won’t the MSM acknowledge that Hastert only knew about the emails – you have failed to remind Hastert to admit that yes, in fact, he knew about the emails. Because he says he didn’t.

    If Hastert gets nailed on this issue (and it’s not looking great for him, with three Republican congressmen saying he knew), then it’s going to be a lot harder for him to push the line that “ok, maybe I knew about the emails after all – but I sure didn’t know about the IMs!”

    It’s a shame to see a viable defense theory go down the tubes because the defendant insists on going farther than the facts permit.

    Steve (43f553)

  10. LA Times Spin Machine — Economy Bad – Foley Bad – GOP Really, Really Bad!…

    When I saw yesterday’s news that the Dow had finally broken its previous all-time high, I thought to myself, “Self — Just how do ya think that our local rag-of-unreason, the Los Angeles Times, is gonna spin this to be a bad thing?” Well, maybe not …

    "Okie" on the Lam (e2cef7)

  11. Oh snap!

    This article came out of the AP half an hour ago and claims a staffer told Hastert about this stuff 2 years ago: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/04/D8KI176G1.html

    It’s a bit lacking in details.. it doesn’t differentiate between the weird e-mails and the gross IMs..

    Andrew (c37ea2)

  12. Maybe it depends on what the definition of “e-mail” is. Or is is.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  13. I supported Hastert until Kirk Fordham’s resignation and accompanying information. I think Hastert has to resign as Speaker.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  14. aphrael–

    Agreed that Foley is a creep. But this has moved far beyond that. What bothers me, and makes it look more like a planned oepration than an “oh, crap”, is that the Democrats knew longer than the Republicans about the full nature of these contacts.

    Yet the Republicans are being blamed for not acting on skimpy evidence, due to political considerations, and the Democrats are getting a pass for not acting on full information, also for political reasons.

    Worse is the co-ordinated attack on gay Republican staffers, which the tacit (and sometimes active) encouragement of the gay lobby. Not only does it smack of McCartyism, but it will make it impossible for gays to work for, or even associate with, Republican congressfolks in the future.

    Talk about a hate crime.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  15. is that the Democrats knew longer than the Republicans about the full nature of these contacts.

    What?

    actus (10527e)

  16. Hastert should’ve stepped down as Speaker by now. Not because his negligence is some kind of major crime (I can see how he probably feels it’s a bit unfair), but simply for the greater good of his party in the weeks before an important election. He’s causing massive distraction from the real issues, killing momentum on those issues, and, as a result, harming his country by not doing so. And for what? Because he can’t let go of power?

    That’s my take. The longer this scandal goes on, the longer I have to hear and think about these disgusting, creepy things, the more I will grow angry at the GOP. Resolve this sickening scandal NOW. I had never even heard of Foley before, but there were red flags about him a long time ago, and Hastert is causing this filthy perverted predator to dominate the media right before an election in the middle of a war. The new Iraqi government is hanging in the balance, Hastert. Lives are at stake. Step aside and make the sacrifice rather than digging a bigger hole.

    LoafingOaf (a90377)

  17. Kevin: i’m with actus on this. What’s your evidence for the startling claim that “the Democrats knew longer than the Republicans about the full nature of these contacts.”?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  18. Now for the rest of the story (go read the Drudge Report). The fact is that the underaged ‘boy’ hyped by Brian Ross was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the instant mails. That means Ross is a liar of a fool.

    Scrapiron (a90377)

  19. Kevin; like actus and aphrael, I too would really appreciate you sharing with us how you came to the conclusion that “the Democrats knew longer than the Republicans about the full nature of these contacts.” Thanks.

    Rick (ea2ac3)

  20. Just go read the Drudge report for breaking news on the ‘instant mails’. Add the fact the Brian Ross appeared on Bill O’Reilly tonight and stated that no one had seen the instant mails prior to his release of the story.
    The fact that the ‘boy’ he hyped as underage was in fact over the age of 18 wasn’t mentioned but he was as nervous and a long tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs. He knows he’s been caught in a ‘big’ lie. He was partially correct, the democratic operatives in the homosexual organization that were out for revenge on Foley due to his ‘no’ vote on homosexual marriage knew so the democratic leadership knew. Too many almost to the word same statements by the democrats show this was planned and they were prepared in advance. Some thing just show as truth and the democrats always show as lies.

    Scrapiron (a90377)

  21. The fact that the ‘boy’ he hyped as underage was in fact over the age of 18 wasn’t mentioned but he was as nervous and a long tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

    He wasn’t over 18. The guy outing the kid is wrong.

    actus (10527e)

  22. Wrong again Actus. Get up to date. The now 21 year old man has been interviewed….You can deny and deny but his own admission will just make you a liar in the end. You got suckered along with a lot of other democrats, nothing unusual about that. Go read he Drudge report, get the link and read the entire investagive report from the bloggers that found the ‘truth’.

    Scrapiron (9f37aa)

  23. Wrong again Actus. Get up to date

    In one of the IMs the kid says his 18th birthday is in the future.

    Go read he Drudge report, get the link and read the entire investagive report from the bloggers that found the ‘truth’.

    I read his “report” before it was on drudge.

    What do you think of this kid being outed? What did the kid? Who interviewed him?

    actus (10527e)

  24. I think the ‘Man’ being outed is a result of the lies told by Ross and ABC and the instant mail “used by Ross” was after the guy was 18. I love to watch you liberals when you get caught with your pants down, pun intended. They’re already waffling with the excuse, but there were others. Why didn’t they use one of the others? I just love watching the democrat monkey see, monkey do routine over and over.

    Ever seen a crawdad fly through the water backwards. Just watch the next couple of days and you’ll get a good domonstration of the technique by the democrats. The major excese will be, oh well, we thought.

    Scrapiron (9f37aa)

  25. I think the ‘Man’ being outed is a result of the lies told by Ross and ABC and the instant mail “used by Ross” was after the guy was 18.

    Hi. Some of the conversation where from before he was 18. “im not 18 till feb 23.”

    Why didn’t they use one of the others?

    Because they don’t have those. But i’m unclear on what you’re trying to say. Do you think foley did nothing that deserved resignation?

    actus (10527e)

  26. [Idiot comment removed. — P]

    JD (a07dcd)

  27. Is it a fact that the page in question was in the house in 2001-2002 and the IM’s are dated 2003? No supervisory influence here. I smell some more dead, rotten jackasses.
    ABC is (now or has been)scrubbing their site, but they forgot about screen shot. Never let anything get away when you have screen shot. And here I thought I was the only one using it on a regular basis. Office Depot was wondering why I used so much paper on a home computer.
    By the way, ABC is also the one who “outed” the page by leaving his name/identification, (they say it was a mistake), on the IM’s on their site for public use. There went another liberal scream. Your buddies did it to the former page. Everyone should just stand down and let it die. Foley is gone, his life ruined, as it should be for any homosexual that hits on anyone that doesn’t invite the hit.

    Scrapiron (9f37aa)

  28. By the way, ABC is also the one who “outed” the page by leaving his name/identification, (they say it was a mistake), on the IM’s on their site for public use.

    Yes. They made a mistake. And someone else made a decision. Do you understand the difference?

    What do you think of outing this guy?

    actus (10527e)

  29. “And someone else made a decision.”

    Which someone? The one who gave the e-mails to the reporter in August? Or the reporter who just couldn’t get around to doing the story until a month before the election?

    Or are you talking about Foley, the man who resigned in shame and is still getting blasted on TV, radio, and the internet?

    Obviously, they all made decisions. All bad.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  30. Which someone?

    The dude who wrote the big long blog post with the Kid’s name, and picture and myspace page. What do you think of the kid being outed? You saw that we’re having a conversation about the outing, right?

    But i’m really not following the entire point here. Is the entire point that Foley actually didn’t do something that merited resignation?

    actus (10527e)

  31. hastert lied about what he knew. hastert is toast.
    one good thing: repubs won’t be able to use nancy-pelosi-as-bogeywoman in the campaign anymore. you got your own bogeyman, deal with him.

    assistant devil's advocate (ff810b)

  32. “The dude who wrote the big long blog post with the Kid’s name, and picture and myspace page. What do you think of the kid being outed? You saw that we’re having a conversation about the outing, right?”

    Umm, the post was about the LAT lumping e-mails and IMs together as though they were the same thing. If you’re going to snark, stick to the subject matter, ok, snarky?

    “But i’m really not following the entire point here. Is the entire point that Foley actually didn’t do something that merited resignation?”

    Did someone say that? Where did they say that?

    sharon (dfeb10)

  33. So, if Foley toed the Rogers/Aravosis line, none of his reprehensible behavior would have ever gotten out to the public and he would most certainly be elected to another term. Interesting.

    All about protecting the children, heh.

    This meme should be spread further.

    doug deeper (3875b9)

  34. Sharon: I agree that the reporter sitting on the story for two months made a bad decision. But if it’s true that the leadership wasn’t doing anything about it, it’s hard for me to believe that the person who gave the story to the reporter made a bad decision.

    If he hadn’t done so, would we know today about Foley’s abuse of power? ISTM that the person who gave the story to the press is the only person who comes out looking good. 🙂

    aphrael (e7c761)

  35. Isn’t the age of consent in Washington 16?

    Doesn’t that mean that The People have decided that a 16-year-old can make informed and responsible decisions about sex?

    So, isn’t this really just an “omigawd, he’s GAY!” thing?

    More importantly, can you imagine the outrage if Hastert had made any move to stop a legal, consensual GAY relationship? We’d never hear the end of the accusations of homophobia.

    .

    bobby_b (28ea38)

  36. bobby_b: no, it isn’t just an “omigawd, he’s GAY” thing. it’s an “omigawd, he’s abusing his power” thing.

    16-year-olds may be capable of consent under DC law, but that doesn’t mean that it’s ok for a congressman to sexually harass a page.

    the fact that something is legal does not automatically make it ethical or right.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  37. “Sharon: I agree that the reporter sitting on the story for two months made a bad decision. But if it’s true that the leadership wasn’t doing anything about it, it’s hard for me to believe that the person who gave the story to the reporter made a bad decision.”

    Actually, I’ve been thinking about the whole “who sat on the story angle” a lot today. And one thing keeps bugging me: why didn’t the parents want to prosecute Foley? If it were my kid (I have a 14 yr old, so not that much different in ages), I would want the guy’s balls nailed to the wall. The only thing I could think of was that maybe they didn’t know until very recently.

    I think what bothers me about whoever decided to leak this story was the timing, and the motivation for that could never be known. If I were the one who had the info 3 yrs ago, I think I would have done what I could to have Foley kicked out, prosecuted, whatever, 3 yrs ago. Not wait until now. That’s the only thing about it that smells to me. It makes it look like this is all for political gain, not to get rid of a predator.

    And bobby_b, my understanding is that the age of consent in D.C. is 16, but that’s only for someone under 24, which Foley is far from. Frankly, I think 8 yrs is a lot of difference in ages, but I must be old-fashioned. The main point isn’t just whether the kid was underage, but the abusiveness of a middle-aged Congressman hitting on young kids. It really turns my stomach.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  38. Sharon: it may be that there was no way to prosecute Foley without dragging their kid’s name into the public eye, which I could imagine wanting.

    Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if the pages in question didn’t tell their parents.

    Certainly when I was that age it would never have occurred to me to tell my parents about people coming on to me sexually.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  39. That’s the only explanation I can come up with for why the parents didn’t act. I also wonder if it wasn’t a situation where a kid didn’t realize what he was getting himself into until it got explicit. In no way am I blaming the page, but I seem to recall how children just don’t always “get it” until things are pretty far afield. Foley obviously knew what he was doing and must have felt comfortable getting more and more explicit. It’s mind-boggling to me how a middle-aged man could be so morally bankrupt.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  40. but I seem to recall how children just don’t always “get it” until things are pretty far afield

    Which is one of the reasons we expect adults to act protective towards children and not play these kinds of games with them.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  41. Mr. Lopez and the L.A. Times are doing only what comes natural to the “liberal biased media.”

    News outlets other than Fox are bolstering the Democrats so blatantly in their biased reportages, criticizing the President, disparaging the Administration, questioning the war in Iraq with plenty of footage of bomb-blasts and bloody carnage, always citing polls with Republicans trailing behind, and now making all this fuss about the Foley scandal. It’s just business as usual with them!

    It is ironic all the fuss been made “throwing stones” at the “roof” of Republicans over the Foley affair, when Democrats have a far more scandalous “glass roof” record of Presidents, Senators, and Representatives, who have engaged in all sorts of sexual harassment, oral sex in the Oval Office, inappropriate sexual conduct, deviant sexual behavior, homosexual intercourse with minors, statutory rapes, pedophilia, and “Congressional prostitution rings” (not to mention “necrophilia” every time Clinton made love to Hilary), many of them far worse than Foley’s silly “love-struck-14-year-old-girl-passing-down-salacious-paper-notes-down-to-the-boy-she-likes” styled e-mails and IMs, however reprehensible they may be.

    In a recent study it turns out that on an average day there will be 80 reportages in the media, heavily critical, condemning, or showing the President, the Administration, its policies, and Republicans in general in a bad light, while only 15 reportages being favorable! Now, you do the math!

    We have to accept as a sad fact of life that our liberal secular media is heavily “biased” in favor of the Democrats, and are actively “aiding and abetting them” with their reportages! Talk about a “stacked deck of cards” as we approach the elections!

    But what is really surprising is that the Democrats would feign having so much “moral outrage” about the Foley incident now, when they traditionally are the Party of “All Things Immoral”!

    I suppose that aside from their wishful thinking that perhaps artificially “conflagrating” the scandal may force even more Republicans to step down and leave “Seats” open – fifteen of them would be the perfect number in their view in the House – I guess Democrats are trying to capitalize on the moral outrage of conservatives at the “Foley’s Follies.” To goad them, hoping what??? That in their “moral outrage” conservatives would vote for them, the Party of “All Things Immoral”?!?! What a twisted bit of political irony that would be!

    One has to hope that even though as P.T. Barnum said: “There is a sucker born every minute”, and that it is true that “you can fool some of the people some of the time”, that the adverse is also true, and ” you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”, and thus conservatives and moderates all over the nation will wise-up to the Democrat’s “gimmicks” and catch-on to their new found “morality” when it comes to “gay issues and sexual immorality” on the Republican side of the aisle, while they themselves have such a long and far worse “Pedigreed” history of their own! Hypocrites!

    I hope voters will see through the Democrat’s “facade”, to their core of moral bankruptcy, non existent values, and irresponsible cut-and-run defeatism, only hell-bent on shoving down our collective throats once again their failed, godless, secular progressive, leftist agendas, and “milk” us all once again with their abusive taxes to pay their secularist, far-left, socialist “pet projects.”

    But imagine, if Democrats are so “shrill” and “paranoiac” now, when they consider themselves as winning, I fear that if the Republicans hold on to both Houses in November, it may tragically push many of them over the edge, and there will be a great tragedy, when despondent Democrats, not been able to cope with loosing another nationa election, like lemmings, attempt to commit mass suicide: By laying face down in the knee-deep reflective pool of the Lincoln Monument…’a la’ South Park!!!

    Think I’m kidding??? Anyone remember the “Post Election Trauma Disorder” after Bush won in 2000 ?!?!

    Alas! It would be such a loss!

    “Boo Hoo”!!!

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  42. In a recent study it turns out that on an average day there will be 80 reportages in the media, heavily critical, condemning, or showing the President, the Administration, its policies, and Republicans in general in a bad light, while only 15 reportages being favorable! Now, you do the math!

    Got a link to that study?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  43. If you’re going to snark, stick to the subject matter, ok, snarky?

    You saw what i was replying to. Someone talking about ABC.

    Did someone say that?

    Nobody is saying much. Thats why I’m asking. I don’t understand what this revelation is about. Or even the latest one about the prank? Whats the meaning of that? Whats its importance?

    actus (10527e)

  44. “Which is one of the reasons we expect adults to act protective towards children and not play these kinds of games with them.”

    Exactly. Foley’s behavior was completely unacceptable and should be condemned as should anyone doing or attempting to do similar things to children, regardless of party affiliation.

    “You saw what i was replying to. Someone talking about ABC.”

    I saw that the thread was about the misrepresentation of facts in the Foley case. Then I saw you give a wiseass answer when I asked who made which decision. As I pointed out, there were lots of decisions made, most of which were not good.

    “Nobody is saying much. Thats why I’m asking. I don’t understand what this revelation is about. Or even the latest one about the prank? Whats the meaning of that? Whats its importance?”

    It would be refreshing if you tried using a little honesty when you post. This, for example, is a baldfaced lie. You know exactly what people are saying and no one on this blog is excusing Foley’s behavior.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  45. Malkin has a new post up. Wonder if the democrats on here will defend the employee of the democratic party in Florida. Once a school teacher, no more. Go read.

    Scrapiron (a90377)

  46. Then I saw you give a wiseass answer when I asked who made which decision

    Aw jeezus. Did you not see that we were talking about the outing? I’m sorry.

    You know exactly what people are saying and no one on this blog is excusing Foley’s behavior.

    So whats the importance of this here revelation?

    actus (10527e)

  47. – Actually according to a PEW poll, they project little if any effect on the close races. The ABC poll is straight partisan bunk, taken just during the past three days at the height of the scandal. PEW’s was taken over a two week period, both before and after the scandal broke. Additionally, some of the more experienced Capital hill Democratic advisors are starting to try to soft pedal the frantic words and actions of the Dhimmidorks, afraid it could all backfire from an angry electorate that doesn’t like to be treated like idiots. Nancy Pelosi should definately put a sock in it, before someone remembers how she openly supported Condit, post sexual charges.

    – Gay bashing in Congress. Maybe the Democrats are finally onto something.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  48. “Aw jeezus. Did you not see that we were talking about the outing? I’m sorry.”

    I think I explained what I was talking about. Without snarking.

    “So whats the importance of this here revelation?”

    Which revelation? There have been many over the last 3 days.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  49. I think I explained what I was talking about.

    Ya. But i’m curious why you were talking about that, when we were sitting here talking about the outing.

    Which revelation? There have been many over the last 3 days.

    The outing. Someone exposing this guy in order to show that he was 17 and 18 at the time he received the IMs.

    What do you think of this young man’s outing?

    actus (10527e)

  50. “Ya. But i’m curious why you were talking about that, when we were sitting here talking about the outing.”

    I think you are lying again. You aren’t “curious” about anything. I told you why I said what I said. That you continue to discuss it points to an ulterior motive. If you don’t accept my explanation of what I said and why I said it, that’s your problem. But continuing to discuss something I already answered is pointless. But we can continue, like we usually do.

    “The outing. Someone exposing this guy in order to show that he was 17 and 18 at the time he received the IMs.

    What do you think of this young man’s outing?”

    I think it’s predictable and should have been counted on the moment this story broke. And I think it’s highly relevant that the person receiving the IMs was not as young as we have been lead to believe and was much savvier (or had help) to keep the messages. In short, the whole thing stinks.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  51. – Maybe we could all save a lot of time and trouble by just “redeploying” the Democrats in congress to Iran.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  52. QUOTE: Maybe we could all save a lot of time and trouble by just “redeploying” the Democrats in congress to Iran.

    Comment by Big Bang Hunter — 10/6/2006 @ 8:07 am

    That is such a highly appropriate and great idea!

    Aren’t Democrats harping all the time that they would handle Iraq better??? Well, let them do it “hands-on”!!!

    That way you could really say we would be killing two birds with one stone: The Jihadists and the Democrats! But Alas! That is like the Walgreen commercial: “It only would happen in a perfect world”! LOL!

    Althor 😀

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  53. And I think it’s highly relevant that the person receiving the IMs was not as young as we have been lead to believe and was much savvier (or had help) to keep the messages.

    Why is it savvy to log messages? Have you ever used IM? Its just a menu setting. I think it might even do it by default.

    But it sure does stink.

    actus (10527e)

  54. “Why is it savvy to log messages? Have you ever used IM? Its just a menu setting. I think it might even do it by default.

    But it sure does stink.”

    But most people wouldn’t know how to get the messages, cut and paste them into a word processor, and send them to a news organization. Unless that was their intention. You’re right. It certainly does stink.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  55. But most people wouldn’t know how to get the messages, cut and paste them into a word processor, and send them to a news organization

    What? Its a logfile. Most people who use computers know about cut and paste. And if the messages are saved, its a simple matter of looking for documentation to find out where. Have you ever used a help function to figure out how to do something that you had never done before? Think yourself ‘savvy’ for doing that?

    actus (10527e)

  56. “What? Its a logfile. Most people who use computers know about cut and paste. And if the messages are saved, its a simple matter of looking for documentation to find out where. Have you ever used a help function to figure out how to do something that you had never done before? Think yourself ’savvy’ for doing that?”

    I would say that the average person using a cell phone wouldn’t know that it was a “logfile” any more than I would expect the average person (particularly a teenager) to know about software that logs I.D.s and passwords.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  57. I would say that the average person using a cell phone wouldn’t know that it was a “logfile” any more than I would expect the average person (particularly a teenager) to know about software that logs I.D.s and passwords.

    You’d be surprised how ‘savvy’ teenagers are. All you need to know is in the help of most of this software.

    actus (10527e)

  58. “You’d be surprised how ’savvy’ teenagers are. All you need to know is in the help of most of this software.”

    I wouldn’t be surprised. I’d be surprised that a teenager would have these types of conversations, save them, then produce them years after the fact when it could be most damaging, and then be angry when his name is released.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  59. I’d be surprised that a teenager would have these types of conversations, save them, then produce them years after the fact when it could be most damaging, and then be angry when his name is released.

    Are you sure its the teenager that produced them? I haven’t seen that reported anywhere.

    actus (10527e)

  60. “Are you sure its the teenager that produced them? I haven’t seen that reported anywhere.”

    Are you sure it wasn’t the teenager that produced them? If not, then who?

    sharon (dfeb10)

  61. Are you sure it wasn’t the teenager that produced them?

    I’m not. I don’t know who did it. It could be anyone with access to Foley or the teens computer. It could even have been the teen sending them to friends long ago, not the press recently. IIRC, ABC said it got the transcripts and then found the kid and confirmed, so it looks like it didn’t come from the kid, at least not directly so.

    But savvy? not so much. Just use a help file.

    actus (10527e)

  62. Is Althor for real?

    He/she sounds like a little kid.

    “Yayy, let’s redeploy those butthead democrats to Iraq, since they whine so much!!!!!!! Checks and Balances are for Girly-Men, LOL!!!!!!!”

    Geez…

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  63. “I’m not.”

    Then why continue arguing about it?

    sharon (dfeb10)

  64. Then why continue arguing about it?

    I’m not arguing about the provenance of the IM transcript. In fact I asked because I don’t know. I want to know, thats why I shared with you what i know and asked how sure you were.

    actus (10527e)

  65. “I’m not arguing about the provenance of the IM transcript. In fact I asked because I don’t know. I want to know, thats why I shared with you what i know and asked how sure you were.”

    I don’t have any inside knowledge but if the IMs came from a different source, it would be logical for that knowledge to have come out by now.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  66. it would be logical for that knowledge to have come out by now.

    Right. IIRC, whats come out so far is ABC said they got the transcripts, then looked up the boy. So it seems like they got it from a different source than the boy. But more info on the provenance? that I haven’t seen.

    actus (10527e)

  67. “Right. IIRC, whats come out so far is ABC said they got the transcripts, then looked up the boy. So it seems like they got it from a different source than the boy. But more info on the provenance? that I haven’t seen.”

    It’s doubtful that the transcripts didn’t come from the man at some point. I realize your intent in sticking with where ABC got them, though.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  68. It’s doubtful that the transcripts didn’t come from the man at some point.

    If you say so — they might also be on Foley’s computer. But now its not so politically savyy — part of your savvyness argument was the timing. But now its ‘at some point.’

    actus (10527e)

  69. “If you say so — they might also be on Foley’s computer. But now its not so politically savyy — part of your savvyness argument was the timing. But now its ‘at some point.’”

    Actually, my argument was based on the fact that the messages were between Foley and the man and an assumption that it would be one of the 2 of them who would release them. It’s unlikely that Foley would do so, which would leave the other man to do it. Nothing about savvy at all.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  70. It’s unlikely that Foley would do so, which would leave the other man to do it. Nothing about savvy at all.

    But other people can have them too: anyone with access to foley’s or hte kid’s computer, for instance.

    actus (10527e)

  71. Hey!

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  72. Er…I mean

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  73. Sorry. Republicans arent all bad of course, but ones in power sure seem to be.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  74. You have a real sick website there, blubonnet. The picture at the bottom describes your state of mind clearly enough.

    Sometimes Republicans do wrong, duh. And they tend to be asked to step down/aside/get investigated by their fellow Republicans unless it truly is private behavior and not criminal.

    Your party tends to support its members in their sexual escapades.

    Anyway, look at the picture (Adolf Hitler and George Bush with the oh-so-inaccurate caption, “Same shit, different asshole”) at the bottom of the website you linked to.

    You remove yourself from being taken seriously with stuff like that.

    Bill Clinton, for example, was an adulterer and perjurer as well as by many an alleged fraudster and suspected rapist… but he wasn’t Stalin and I don’t know anyone who compares him to that.

    George W. Bush is an especially disciplined man, a teetotaler, top 1% of fitness for men his age, the most formerly educated President in U.S. history and the first one with a post graduate degree who is a good father, loving husband, and leader of your country… so of course you compare him to Adolf Hitler and with a profanity as well.

    The same Adolf Hitler who used to defecate on his niece and who used his country’s largely conscripted at gunpoint military to attempt to kill all members on the planet of an entire people and religion — while George W. Bush uses the great volunteer United States military to protect the freedom loving Muslim people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    There is no comparison. You’re a nut.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  75. “But other people can have them too: anyone with access to foley’s or hte kid’s computer, for instance.”

    I know you want to absolve the man who received the e-mails from any culpability in their release, but it is highly unlikely. Other people in my household also have access to my computer, but the likelihood that anyone other than me posts here is very small. The same is true of the e-mails and IMs sent to this man.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  76. I know you want to absolve the man

    Actually I really want to find out their provenance. This could have been a job inside Foley’s apparatus. Or it could have been someone that had been blackmailing Foley for years. Absolve him? I don’t see why thats necessary. Are people blaming him?

    actus (10527e)

  77. “Actually I really want to find out their provenance. This could have been a job inside Foley’s apparatus. Or it could have been someone that had been blackmailing Foley for years. Absolve him? I don’t see why thats necessary. Are people blaming him?”

    Everything you’ve posted for the last 10 posts has been geared to shifting the blame to someone other than the man who received the e-mails. And “blame” is such a hateful word.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  78. Before I begin, let me say that the website linked to by blubonnet is indeed a P.O.S., and it makes democrats in general look like a bunch of idiots.
    That said…

    “George W. Bush is an especially disciplined man, a teetotaler, top 1% of fitness for men his age, the most formerly educated President in U.S. history and the first one with a post graduate degree who is a good father, loving husband, and leader of your country…”

    -Christoph

    Look, Christoph:

    None of the things that you mention here have anything to do with Bush being a good president. “Top 1% of fitness for men his age”? WHO CARES? The only reason he’s in such good shape is that he spends all of his time biking around like a jackass and clearing brush out at his ranch. Maybe if spent some time working instead of excercising our country would be in better shape.

    “The most formerly educated president in U.S. history…” (I’ll assume you mean “Formally” here)

    It is so hard for me, as a student, to swallow this. Bush got into Yale off a fucking alumni admission. His daddy got him in, then he fucked around and got shitty grades. WHO CARES? My SAT scores were a hell of a lot better than Bush’s, without any expensive tutors, and I don’t hear you clambering that I’d be a great president.

    As to the comments about “loving father/husband”, I’m sure that he is. WHO CARES? Tell that to the other loving fathers/husbands whose sons are never going to walk in the fucking door again.

    Finally…he may be the president, but my people didn’t want it that way. So, we’ll give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we will sure as hell hold him accountable for his actions.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  79. “It is so hard for me, as a student, to swallow this. Bush got into Yale off a fucking alumni admission. His daddy got him in, then he fucked around and got shitty grades. WHO CARES? My SAT scores were a hell of a lot better than Bush’s, without any expensive tutors, and I don’t hear you clambering that I’d be a great president.”

    You know, I always like this argument. Bush got better grades than Gore, but Gore was supposedly so much smarter. Yet Gore dropped out of law school, something *I* finished and had 2 children during law school to boot. Therefore, I must be way, way, way smarter than that Einstein Al Gore. So, please, stop with the petty bullshit whining about Bush getting into Yale on an alumni admission. He’s still smarter than Al “inventer of the Internet” Gore. And I am, too, for that matter.

    “Finally…he may be the president, but my people didn’t want it that way. So, we’ll give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we will sure as hell hold him accountable for his actions.”

    So what if you didn’t want it that way? I didn’t want Bill Clinton to be president either but I got stuck with him for 8 years. And in those 8 years I didn’t whine and cry that my people didn’t want it that way. Grow up.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  80. Okay, Bush is a fine fella? Please discount this. I’d rather not believe that this is true:

    http://www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  81. When you attempt to discount the above, remember that the media is the biggest contributor to the Presidency, and the BIG media sources are boot-lickers of Bu$hco. So, sources like FOX have been documented as liars, as is the many many GE owned war profiteering networks (most all MSM)

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  82. I apparently typed one of the sites wrong above. If you merely google up “Bush/Hitler parallels” you will see the abundance of the realty.

    blubonnet (8d9f79)

  83. Well, sharon, the way I see it, a hell of a lot of Republicans DID whine about Clinton when he was in office (either that or they saved it all up to post on this blog)

    And, for the record…

    I NEVER FUCKING MENTIONED GORE. If I saw some idiot slap up a post praising his mediocre ass as “the most formerly [sic] educated wannabe president in U.S. history” I’d call him on it in exactly the same way.

    You make the assumption that because I think Bush is a spoon-fed retard I think Gore is anything more. I don’t.

    I have respect for the rationality of your arguments, so I will take the last part of your post at face value and assume that you never whined about Clinton during or after his presidency. I, however, am not the Voltairean stoic that you claim to be. I have valid complaints against Bush, so, being the lesser lifeform that I am, I will voice them.

    Leviticus (1daf74)

  84. Everything you’ve posted for the last 10 posts has been geared to shifting the blame to someone other than the man who received the e-mails.

    Geared towards finding out who did it. I agree that if you’ve decided its the guy then it sounds like an absolution.

    actus (10527e)

  85. Geared towards finding out who did it.

    Who did what?

    lmnopen (e60151)

  86. Who did what?

    Took the IM’s all the way from that conversation and into the media.

    actus (10527e)

  87. “Geared towards finding out who did it. I agree that if you’ve decided its the guy then it sounds like an absolution.”

    If you’re really “geared towards finding out who did it” you might want to hire a detective. Splitting hairs and insulting people on a blog isn’t going to find out anything other than how ignorant you are.

    BTW, Leviticus, I brought up Gore because the “Bush is a moron and got handed everything” meme is usually closely followed with the “Al Gore was so much smarter” meme. It’s really too bad if you have “legitimate” complaints about President Bush because any legitimate complaints get lost in the complete lack of sanity from the left about anything to do with George Bush (witness blubonnet’s tirade).

    sharon (dfeb10)

  88. If you’re really “geared towards finding out who did it” you might want to hire a detective.

    That’s incredibly ridiculous.

    actus (10527e)

  89. “That’s incredibly ridiculous.”

    No less so than your arguments over 3 threads for the last week.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  90. No less so than your arguments over 3 threads for the last week

    Do you really think I have to hire a private investigator if I’m asking you for details on why you’re so sure the kid is savvy for keeping messages?

    actus (10527e)

  91. The “kid” was 18 years old. He’s now 21.

    What now, Actus?

    Jeff Bargholz (62d4dd)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1911 secs.