<p>
</p>
<p>Really? This liberal can’t believe the slap on the wrist punishment so many of these female teachers have gotten. I think their behavior is just as reprehensible as men hitting on young girls or boys. Congressmen shouldn’t be trying to seduce their pages, whatever the sex of either the page or the Congressperson.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stick11, you are presupposing guilt and acting like Democrats owe you a apology for being guilty in your hysterical conspiracies where you convict them on imaginary evidence and pure delusion. I choose reality over hypothetical insanity.</p>
<p>It is obvious you care far more about the GOP electoral success than whatever abuse the pages suffer because Hastert and people like you can’t get their priorities straight. The election is the only thing you really care about.</p>
<p>Strick, as best I can tell that “organization” is a guy named Mike Rogers with a website who is on a campaign of “outing” prominent gays. He’s desperately trying to take credit for all this - but admits that the Dem. Campaign Committee wouldn’t even return his calls. Just a pathetic wannabe.</p>
<p>Sorry, mathmom. I should have said male liberals. My bad. :lol</p>
<p>We agree on the basics. </p>
<p>And anyone who knows a Congressperson is trying to seduce underage pages should do something about it immediately.</p>
<p>"Zoosermom’s posts highlighted above where they calmly accuse democrats of knowing all about it and deliberately concealing it until now - "</p>
<p>More twisting. I have said repeatedly that I want to know where those IMs were. We do know that CREW had some and I would like to know to whom they were given in the two-plus months since the creation of that website. It’s a mark of your partisanship that you don’t want to know.</p>
<p>Alexander did do something, he reported it to the head of the Republican campaign committee.
CREW reported it to the FBI.
Perhaps we should jail pages who received the IM’s. They didn’t turn them in right away.</p>
<p>
Calmom makes a good point. I can’t believe that if the GOP leadership knew just how far Foley had gone with the IM’s, that they would not have dealt with it sooner. They are not stupid, despite what some here may think. If any Republican, including Hastert, had known they would have taken steps to make sure this didn’t come up right before the election.</p>
<p>Zoos:
How do we know that CREW had the IM’s?</p>
<p>I want to know which Clueless pages were not warned in 2001 about the PFV perv, as their PFV colleagues were by the PFV Clerk, and may have been victimized as a result.</p>
<p>“Zoos:
How do we know that CREW had the IM’s”</p>
<p>The website.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but I understand that ABC’s story was all lined up to hit well before any other news agency could react and contained elements that were contradicted by later stories in the NY Times, etc. I’m perfectly willing to believe ABC was used. You know, like about 9/11.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s no more presupposing than the way the original question was posed given how little we know of what the House leadership knew or when. Lots of nonsense being published people are taking as fact. Hold everyone who might have known equally responsible. Given the way this was disclosed, surely suspecting a political motivation and asking that the rumors that this was common knowledge, which implies both sides of the House knew seems reasonable.</p>
<p>kluge, the Democrats would be stupid to take this guy’s phone calls no matter what the truth was. Either he didn’t have anything to do with it or he’s already served his purpose and would be a liability after the deed is done. Even in an atmosphere of dueling conspiracy theories, that much should be obvious.</p>
<p>Pathetic wannabe? OK, I’ll accept that. Will you accept his post in March supports the notion Foley’s actions were common knowlege?</p>
<p>Zoos:
The CREW website says they had the IM’s? Sorry, can you link to it. I visited their site and can’t find that claim.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CREW ** did not have the IM messages ** - you’re mangling the most basic facts of the case, oh so conveniently I might add. CREW had the same emails which Republican leadership sat on for years, and CREW was the only one who did anything about it. Damn them to hell I suppose - careers come first.</p>
<p>Making up stories does not make find your argument more persuasive, but it does clue in your level of honesty.</p>
<p>
What elements were contradicted.</p>
<p>Are you surprised that ABC tried to scoop other news outlets? what are we to make of that!</p>
<p>They should have waited two more weeks so they could be accused of mucking with the election. ;)</p>
<p>
This is the kind of disingenuous misdirection by which Bush supporters lie. The newspapers never “decided that it didn’t amount to much.”</p>
<p>From the St. Petersburg Times: “…our policy is that we don’t make accusations against people using unnamed sources. And given the seriousness of what would be implied in a story, it was critical that we have complete confidence in our sourcing.”</p>
<p>I think the other paper was a Tampa Bay newspaper which ran into a similar stone wall.</p>
<p>The page in question did not wish to be identified. Understandable. It’s not that they decided the story didn’t amount to much. Though some folks very very very much want to peddle that line and hope it’s accepted.</p>
<p>Stick11, what evidence do you have for your conspiracy, other than that the ** Republican ** pages themselves came forward at inconvenient time for GOP’s designs, and everyone knows Foley was gay ( and gay is not synonymous with pedophile, despite its treatment by some rather bigoted people). It’s false equivocation to blame one side on hypothetical, nonexistent evidence, while excusing the others who quite clearly did sit on some disturbing emails - for 5 years!</p>
<p>So TheDad, take what the papers really did say. They found they didn’t have adequate grounds to run the story given the seriousness of the charges. That fair? </p>
<p>Exactly how does that change the point?</p>
<p>I’m not surprised that ABC got a scoop. gla. The thing is, to arrange a scoop takes planning and knowlege of the effect the story’s going to have. If CREW were just reacting to the IMs they received, how is it they had time or presense of mind to give ABC a scoop? Odd, isn’t it?</p>
<p>GLA, I wasn’t talking about the CREW website, but the Stopsexualpredators.com website which is the core of my question. That is where the information initially came to light and it has been extremely mysterious since July. I can’t link it right now because it’s been up and down, in and out since this all broke. The reason any conspiracy theory exists is specifically because of that particular website and the strange behavior and timing associated with it.</p>
<p>“CREW did not have the IM messages - you’re mangling the most basic facts of the case, oh so conveniently I might add. CREW had the same emails which Republican leadership sat on for years, and CREW was the only one who did anything about it. Damn them to hell I suppose - careers come first.” </p>
<p>No you’re right. I mistyped (as someone else did vis a vis email and IM). It wasn’t the CREW website I meant, it was stopsexualpredators.com.
Why is it necessary to attack like that? I don’t recall every having a conversation with you.</p>