Growing GOP Pedophile List

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Floortom wrote:
Is anyone surprised by this?? It’s always the moral crusaders who turn out to be the most perverted. They channel all of their self-hatred into these horrible acts.

I’m not surprised. I actually find it pretty funny considering the moral high horse the entire party was initially on. Some people build their houses on sand…but sandcastles sure are pretty.

Riiiiight!

And just a few people represent the entire conservative party? Sounds like you need to revisit that statistics textbook again!

[/quote]

Well, if Terry Schiavo can represent “liberals”, why not?

22

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Well, if Terry Schiavo can represent “liberals”, why not?[/quote]

Riposte!

Been waiting to use that one.

23

Holy shit, ANOTHER ONE…

The Sexually Explicit Internet Messages That Led to Fla. Rep. Foley’s Resignation
September 29, 2006

Florida Rep. Mark Foley’s resignation came just hours after ABC News questioned the congressman about a series of sexually explicit instant messages involving congressional pages, high school students who are under 18 years of age.

[b]In Congress, Rep. Foley (R-FL) was part of the Republican leadership and the chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children.

He crusaded for tough laws against those who used the Internet for sexual exploitation of children.[/b]

But, according to several former congressional pages, the congressman used the Internet to engage in sexually explicit exchanges.

They say he used the screen name Maf54 on these messages provided to ABC News.

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

Another message:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

And this one:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex.

Federal authorities say such messages could result in Foley’s prosecution, under some of the same laws he helped to enact.

“Adds up to soliciting underage children for sex,” said Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent and now an ABC News consultant. “And what it amounts to is serious both state and federal violations that could potentially get you a number of years.”

Foley’s resignation letter was submitted late this afternoon, and he left Capitol Hill without speaking to reporters.

In a statement, he said he was “deeply sorry” and apologized for letting down his family and the people of Florida.

But he made no mention of the Internet messages or the pages.

One former page tells ABC News that his class was warned about Foley by people involved in the program.

Other pages told ABC News they were hesitant to report Foley because of his power in Congress.

This all came to a head in the last 24 hours. Yesterday, we asked the congressman about some much tamer e-mails from one page, and he said he was just being overly friendly. After we posted that story online, we began to hear from a number of other pages who sent these much more explicit, instant messages. When the congressman realized we had them, he resigned.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/exclusive_the_s.html

24

Some of you folks lose all reason when trying to vilify the other party. Can’t you people just disagree?

25

Even better,
Republican leadership knew they had a possible pedophile in their midst since spring!

House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some “contact” between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him “we’re taking care of it.”

Oh the values!

26

I can’t believe you are all missing the real problem here.

People don’t send sexually explicit emails to children, COMPUTERS DO!!!

So, logically, we should follow standard liberal dogma, and excuse the individuals for their state in life, and take away these evil (spoken with Dr. Evil enunciation) computers and keyboards and make the country safer for all Americans, especially children.

27

Seriously, childmolesters should be hanged. (Regardless of political affiliation.)

28

[quote]100meters wrote:
Even better,
Republican leadership knew they had a possible pedophile in their midst since spring!

House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some “contact” between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him “we’re taking care of it.”

Oh the values![/quote]

Oops, did I say I talked with Hastert? What I meant to say was, I don’t remember…

Washington Post Changes Boehner Quote on Foley
Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.

Direct from the Ministry of Truth.

29

The Christian Right – NAMBLA with a Jesus twist…

New molestation allegation dogs arrested conservative activist
OC Weekly
September 28, 2006

Things have been looking up for accused child molester Jeffrey Ray Nielsen, the 36-year-old Christian conservative activist and lawyer with close ties to Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Scott Baugh, head of the Orange County Republican Party. Police say Nielsen took a 14-year-old Westminster boy as his sex partner in 2003 and maintained a huge cache of man-boy pornography.

But prosecutors have allowed their case against Nielsen, once an intern in the district attorney’s office, to stall for 40 months…

The Virginia man, who asked to remain anonymous, said Nielsen worked in his church’s youth ministry and that his parents rented Nielsen a basement room in their home sometime in 1994 or 1995…

He says Nielsen orchestrated a “boyfriend-girlfriend type” relationship that included occasional public kissing, hand holding and sex.

“Jeff called it ‘our thing,’ and one time we were near Tyson’s Corner [Virginia], he stopped at a gas station so we could have sex in the bathroom,” the man said. “A guy walked in and caught me with my pants down and Jeff on his knees. We made some excuse about an injured knee or something. The guy said, ‘Oh!’ and quickly left.”…
http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/our-thing/25902/

30

I’m confused. I thought pedophila was a sexual perversion regardless of political affiliation. Seriously, why is political party even part of the discussion?

31

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m confused. I thought pedophila was a sexual perversion regardless of political affiliation. Seriously, why is political party even part of the discussion?[/quote]

That’s the million dollar question.

As near as I can tell, rather than a direct party affiliation it has more to do with the religious aspect, hence making them more likely to be Republican?

http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

32

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

That’s the million dollar question.

As near as I can tell, rather than a direct party affiliation it has more to do with the religious aspect, hence making them more likely to be Republican?

[/quote]

Why are you assuming that religion makes one more likely to be a pediophile? Do you have some kind of academic research to back this up?

33

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
If you’ve ever wondered why the GOP logo has three pentagrams on it…

I thought this deserved it’s own thread in light of the most recent addition to a very long and consistently growing list of Republican pedophiles and degenerates. It would seem the louder one yells about God, abortion, or gays - the more likely they probably screwed a mule or a child…

[/quote]

I know you’re serious here but this paragraph is genuinely funny. I’m not flaming btw, your posts are cool and informative.

It does seem wierd how people who shout about that shit seem to be guilty of same. It makes those of us who vocally hate that stuff keep quiet, since there is some kind of correlation.

So, how DO we protest vile crap, without being put in with such creatures?

34

I think that if someone had the time and energy a long list of Dems. can also be compiled.

In reference to Hasert ‘knowing’ about this , it has been somewhat logically explained. They didn’t know this guy was doing what he did. The previous knowledge came from an email that was labelled a misunderstanding. In that email, a pic was requested but there wasn’t anything explict like the recent ones.

Also, check out this

as a possible answer.

35

[quote]100meters wrote:
Even better,
Republican leadership knew they had a possible pedophile in their midst since spring!

…[/quote]

It is quite likely the Democrats also knew and chose this moment to leak the news.

36

And now Folley conveniently checks into rehab…

Step one: “It wasn’t me, it was the alcohol.”

Step Two: Publicly have Christ save you. Even if you’ve already been “saved”.

Step Three: Go on talk shows and talk radio and talk about your struggles with your demons. Cry on the air for extra points.

Step Four: Profit

Only in America (I hope, for everyone else’s sake).

Wash, rinse, repeat.

37

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Even better,
Republican leadership knew they had a possible pedophile in their midst since spring!

…

It is quite likely the Democrats also knew and chose this moment to leak the news.

[/quote]
Try something even stupider like “the pages were setting him up”

…jeebus.

38

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Even better,
Republican leadership knew they had a possible pedophile in their midst since spring!

…

It is quite likely the Democrats also knew and chose this moment to leak the news.

Try something even stupider like “the pages were setting him up”

…jeebus.

[/quote]

Seems like a valid question. The timing is rather advantageous. I think the question of who had knowledge of the IM’s, and when, is valid. Foley should be punished to the greatest extent of the law. However, I’m curious to find out if someone was sitting on the IM’s (proof of criminal activity) to use at a more oppurtune time. If so, that person should be called out for not coming foward immediately.

It’s important because the FBI apparently did look at the E-mails in July and found nothing criminal about them. However, they didn’t know about the IM’s. And, that’s what alot us want to know about. Where were they? Why did they just now get released?

39

[quote]Seems like a valid question. The timing is rather advantageous. I think the question of who had knowledge of the IM’s, and when, is valid. Foley should be punished to the greatest extent of the law. However, I’m curious to find out if someone was sitting on the IM’s (proof of criminal activity) to use at a more oppurtune time. If so, that person should be called out for not coming foward immediately.

It’s important because the FBI apparently did look at the E-mails in July and found nothing criminal about them. However, they didn’t know about the IM’s. And, that’s what alot us want to know about. Where were they? Why did they just now get released?
[/quote]

You want your scandals when you want them, do you?

Initially, the group of people “sitting on” the IMs necessarily included just Foley and one or more of the pages. Then, as kids will talk to each other, probably further pages or their friends got added to the group of the knowledgeable, and maybe the IMs got forwarded among this group. Eventually perhaps one or more parents finds out. Maybe after being mystified by a call from the media.

These are the people you’re accusing of complicity in a scheme to keep the IMs secret until just the right moment. Their situation fully considered, do you really want to be accusing them of collusion in some political scheme? If any of them had vengeance as a motive in the timing, I’d say more power to them.

Imagine that some time after your son has returned home from his stint as a Congressional Page (there to absorb the values of a great democracy - ha ha) the phone rings and its the Miami Herald and they ask you some pretty strange questions. You decline to be interviewed, but then you go and ask your kid some questions, and he shows you some forwarded IM. Gasp.

This Foley thing has clearly gone on long enough. But your kid is getting ready to go off to college, do you want an FBI investigation in your lap and the press parked on your front lawn? Is this how you want your son to start his career? You may take a while figuring out what to do. Then you publish the stuff anonymously.

As for this being exactly the right time for this story to influence the elections, no I think it is clearly emerging a bit too early in the cycle for maximum negative impact. But the negative impact is still going to be plenty, especially on the so-called “values voters.”

You can say whatever you want about whether the emails were clearly outrageous or just “overfriendly,” and when exactly it was that the party leadership found out about the IM: they damn well knew about Foley’s inappropriate behavior and his sexual orientation for a long time. Yet they put this guy on a committee to do with child exploitation. That’s the part the religious right is not going to forgive. After all, by their lights homosexuals can’t be relied upon for anything where protection of children is concerned.

40

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:

You want your scandals when you want them, do you?

Initially, the group of people “sitting on” the IMs necessarily included just Foley and one or more of the pages. Then, as kids will talk to each other, probably further pages or their friends got added to the group of the knowledgeable, and maybe the IMs got forwarded among this group. Eventually perhaps one or more parents finds out. Maybe after being mystified by a call from the media.

These are the people you’re accusing of complicity in a scheme to keep the IMs secret until just the right moment. Their situation fully considered, do you really want to be accusing them of collusion in some political scheme? [/quote]

Thanks for speculating. However, I don’t want speculations. I want to know if someone kept this evidence hidden till a more oppurtune time. I want to know if someone had evidence and didn’t divulge immediately to authorities for political pursposes. Whichever side that may be. Again, I don’t want speculation. I want the truth. Is there a problem with that?

By the way, your scenario sounds wrong. Why would they release it to media? Why not take the IM’s to the FBI for a proper investigation? Why do this in a way that plasters this kid and his family all over the media? Why not send the IM’s anon to the authorities?