Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Oct 4, 2006.
Apparently they did it three times during the bill O'reilly show last night, talk about bs... first he was hidden by the republican hierarchy, initially it was the booze that made him do it, then he was molested by the clergy and now Faux is affiliating him with the Dems. BUnch of bs here folks, trying to think of a clever Harryboy response, but too early to be innovative.
This might explain how Fox can do such things:
...the court declared that FCC policy against falsification that FOX violated was just a policy and not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle blower law did not apply.
FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports.
It helps even out the "innocent" mistakes of the liberal media, like CNN's "accidental" X through Cheney a while ago.
You mean news channels actually distort the truth and practice biased reporting? No way! OMG, how is this possible?
I have no idea of the case in the link you provided, but one thing that stood out is that it was Fox 13, the local affiliate in Tampa, and not exactly the O'Rielly Factor or something.
I actually saw parts of the O'Reilly rerun last night, so I didn't have the occasion to see if the Foley graphic ran as shown. However half to show was about Foley and if HAstert should resign, will the pubbies lose because of him ect.
If they are trying to fool people that he is a dem they have a funny way of doing it based on the Fox news coverage. H&C had D Morris as their cheif gueest talking about Foley impact on the midterm election.
Well I hope so NEM because he felt the Foley smear would help the dems win the House. Hope he is wring as usual.
Ny point of course was that Fox was talking about the Foley issue and it's efffect on the pubbies, not pretending he was a demmie.
You cannot make it up.
Make what up?
The incriminating docs are emails they were the IM's (Wonder who saves them?). There is a left wing gay activist blogger named Mike Rogers, he had the IM's (which date from 2003, before the 2005 email HAstert was aware of). HE calimed in March of this year he was going to get a Gay pubbie congressman, he also bragged about passing the info along to the DNCC BEFORE he gave the information to ABC news.
So the question becomes, it appears that this LWG blogger had the damning info months before it was in the press (the first time Hastert saw the damning IM's) and that he had forwarded the info to the DNCC so they would be in a position to take advantage of his dirty tricks operation.
The question them becomes. When did the DNCC become aware of the Foley IM's and why didn't they tell Hastert sooner and get Foley away from any pages sooner?
The cover up may have been by the dems to hold the info till the most politically advantageous time.
Should they have held the info and possibly endanger more pages?
patsfan13, what's your source for saying that Mike Rogers had the emails and IMDs, and couldn't find anything about it. I found his website, and this is what he posted about Foley:
That said, I never until you mentioned him, heard of Mike Rogers, and did read that the ABC reporter said that to the best of his knowledge his source was a Republican.
He is being investigated by RW bloggers as the source of the information on Foley.
The story is ongoing. There are 2 sets of documents, the emails to the page from LA they were written after the page had left to go back home to LA. They emails from Foley were written inquiring about the kid after Katrina. They were described as being 'overly' friendly whatever that mean, but were not sexual in nature. These were brought to the attention of Hastert. The parents didn't want the matter persued. The email got into the hands of the press but weren't felt to be worth persuing. Hastert told Foley to stay away from the kid.
The sexual stuff apparently were IM's from the 2003 timeframe. This is odd since IM's typically stored on a server, they are very different from email, which are archived on a server. Someone had to go out of their way to archive these (disgusting) IM's. Why were these IM's (with the explicit sexual talk) from 2003 not brought to the attention of the House leadership over the past 3 years?
My inderstanding is that Rogers called out Foley in 2004 over a vote for the defense of marrage act.
Perhaps due to the attention Rogers is getting from RW bloggers over his claims of contacting the DNCC about this matter his site has been sanitized. If someone has saved the original version of the pages and I can provide a link I will.
BTW Rogers is promising outher outings of Gay pubbies before the election.
LOL,do you Neo Libs really believe that Hastert knew something that Auntie Pelosi didn't know, the Democrats waited to drop the bomb, the Page agreed, now in the next few weeks it will all blow up their face, the "Desperate Dingobats" jumped the gun, they will be the ones accused of "cover up" for their own political gain.
Has Fang Face and her husband Billy Blue Dress had anything to say about all this "sex sh!t" :singing:
Exhume Kathleen Wileys Cat And Perform An Autopsy.
CASTRATE ALL PEDOPHILES BEFORE XMAS
Here is a quote from blogactive.com where Rogers is taking bows for his outing of Foley and tipping off the DNCC:
Look under his Oct 1 entry where he shows copies of posts to the DNCC (and complains about the DNCC deleting them after the Foley strory broke, wonder why they'd do that????)
Here is another note from Foley where he is promising to out a pubbie sSenator "at the right time' for voting for Alito. Apparently Mr Rogers neighborhood includes blackmail.
It's my impression that Rogers outs various politicians and others on his website. If you visit his website, you'll see a list of names on the left who I presume are gay. He outs self-loathing gays, like Foley. Outing in itself is very controversial; after all, Foley has every right to be a right-wing Republican gay. I don't think that is an issue for any of us, at least I hope not. The issue of IMs and emails is another matter, since that issue pertains to possible child abuse. Again, I don't see anything on Roger's website to suggest he had that information.
Patters, we have talked about this a lot and you know damn well it's an issue for a good number of people. I have explained my somewhat unusual view of it several times and don't feel like doing so again. But I would prefer not to vote for a gay Repubican - although I'd vote for one over a straight Democrat
Well Patters perhaps you miss this:
So he did contact the DCCC, and post a victory lap message to the DCCC which htye then delete. what are they hiding? When were they made aware of the sexually explicit IM's?
Foley is gone and was ousted as soon as the exokicit IM's became public? This raises the question of why these IM's from 2003 weren't brought to the attention of congressional leaders for 3 YEARS!
Especially given the attempt to smear congressional leader by impling (dishonestly), that they were aware of the explicit IM's
But, you're not against gays being Republican and conservative are you?
By the way, I'd vote for a straight Democrat over a gay Republican, too!
If that's what you were saying then, no, I do agree with that. Although my guess is not too many gays are conservative.
BF, Bush got over 20% of the gay vote according to exit polls.
Separate names with a comma.