Saturday, October 07, 2006
Final Word on Foley (promise)
The facts aren't clear on the Foley case. There are things we know, or think we know, and there are things we don't know. That is why I am staying neutral on this Foley scandal until the FBI investigation is over. I'm tired of commenting on rumors and speculation. Right now this is a non-story. Let's step back and let our system fix itself.
Besides, I'd much rather be talking about Halo 3 right now. Haha. New stuff tomorrow.
Besides, I'd much rather be talking about Halo 3 right now. Haha. New stuff tomorrow.
# posted by Cody O'Connor @ 10/07/2006 05:58:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Ahh video games. Speaking of which, AoEIII expansion ships to my house on Tuesday. Oh yes...
# posted by 
: 10/07/2006 8:52 PM
: 10/07/2006 8:52 PM
Well, it may not be clear to you, but it is fairly clear to me. Randi Rhodes has been talking about this for several days. Apparently it has been going on for years, and to date 6 pages have come forward with allegations that they received UNWANTED attention from Mr. Foley. For years it has been common knowledge amongst the pages to stay away from Mr. Foley.
Also, several Republicans in leadership positions, including Denny Hastert, have know about this for quite awhile and have been covering it up.
I recorded it -- and am willing to email the audio files to anyone who is interested.
Thanks for the link BTW.
Also, several Republicans in leadership positions, including Denny Hastert, have know about this for quite awhile and have been covering it up.
I recorded it -- and am willing to email the audio files to anyone who is interested.
Thanks for the link BTW.
Good for Randi Rhodes. Unlike you I make my own opinions, and right now I say we let the FBI find out what laws have been broken and take neccessary actions.
you are really have some kind of nerve dismissing Cody's thing from the Drudge report as a Republican distraction and then turning around and usuing some liberal talk show as evidence. You can't have it both ways.
# posted by : 10/08/2006 5:24 PM
: 10/08/2006 5:24 PM
I'm not having it "both ways". One source is reporting the truth and another is reporting lies. Which will be proven. As I pointed out, the Drudge Report has a reputation for reporting rumors and gossip. Randi Rhodes does not. And she also noted all her sources for what she was reporting.
You have some nerve blowing off my source out of hand. Maybe you're just a paranoid nutcase.
Cody O. Said... Unlike you I make my own opinions.
I let Randi Rhodes think for me, is that the implication? You're not letting the Drudge Report do yours? Yes, you claim that we don't have all the facts -- and you're going to wait until we do until you make up your mind -- but I'm telling you that there are enough facts to reach some conclusions. But you don't want to hear them.
It's easy to say, "this thing is getting less and less like a scandal and more and more like a smear" when you only listen to people who are saying what you want to hear.
You have some nerve blowing off my source out of hand. Maybe you're just a paranoid nutcase.
Cody O. Said... Unlike you I make my own opinions.
I let Randi Rhodes think for me, is that the implication? You're not letting the Drudge Report do yours? Yes, you claim that we don't have all the facts -- and you're going to wait until we do until you make up your mind -- but I'm telling you that there are enough facts to reach some conclusions. But you don't want to hear them.
It's easy to say, "this thing is getting less and less like a scandal and more and more like a smear" when you only listen to people who are saying what you want to hear.
Dervish, both sources are biased. You know this. Why do you persist and say that your little liberal show host isn't? You cannot say that one source is biased then turn around and use a biased source. Actually you can, but it makes your party look foolish, so actually keep it up.
# posted by : 10/08/2006 8:32 PM
: 10/08/2006 8:32 PM
"but I'm telling you that there are enough facts to reach some conclusions. But you don't want to hear them."
So you may think. For all we know, everything we believe to be the truth could be a load of crap. Most of the stories about this scandal are just rumors and partisan talk. Do what you want but I'm waiting for the FBI to come to a conclusion. End of story.
So you may think. For all we know, everything we believe to be the truth could be a load of crap. Most of the stories about this scandal are just rumors and partisan talk. Do what you want but I'm waiting for the FBI to come to a conclusion. End of story.
I didn't say the Drudge Report was biased. I said they were LYING. You can believe the Drudge Report if you like, but it makes your party look foolish to give credence to "news" from these bottom feeders.
Cody O. Said... So you may think.
That's exactly what I think. You said yourself that this was your last post on this subject. Why? So when the whole truth comes out you can ignore it? That is IF the truth comes out. From what I can see the Republicans are doing everthing in their power to continue covering this up. Blaming the Democrats (unbelievable!), blaming each other and lying about who knew what when.
Cody O. Said... For all we know, everything we believe to be the truth could be a load of crap.
Yes, everything you believe is. I can agree with that.
Cody O. Said... So you may think.
That's exactly what I think. You said yourself that this was your last post on this subject. Why? So when the whole truth comes out you can ignore it? That is IF the truth comes out. From what I can see the Republicans are doing everthing in their power to continue covering this up. Blaming the Democrats (unbelievable!), blaming each other and lying about who knew what when.
Cody O. Said... For all we know, everything we believe to be the truth could be a load of crap.
Yes, everything you believe is. I can agree with that.
Boy dervish is paranoid isn't he? And his response is pretty immature too. In it's basic essence it's, "no, you are!" He twists the words of others, he trusts biased sources ONLY if they are liberal, and accuses Cody of wanting not to find the truth simply because Cody stated that he didn't KNOW the truth yet. Why should we even care anymore about this craziness? I don't know about you people, but I don't do well around paranoids.
# posted by : 10/08/2006 10:47 PM
: 10/08/2006 10:47 PM
I twist the words of others?! Right. Not believing the Drudge Report is "paranoid"?? Why should anyone care about YOUR craziness?
Well no offense or anything but it would appear that my craziness is more closely followed than yours which anyone can see by taking a quick trawl through our respective blogs.
But this is a stupid arguement so just forget it. My point wasn't that anyway, it was that you're accusing Cody of something he didn't do. He wants to wait on a story and you are accusing him of not wanting to tell the story. Well there's no story to tell right now, so what's the issue?
But this is a stupid arguement so just forget it. My point wasn't that anyway, it was that you're accusing Cody of something he didn't do. He wants to wait on a story and you are accusing him of not wanting to tell the story. Well there's no story to tell right now, so what's the issue?
# posted by : 10/09/2006 8:42 AM
: 10/09/2006 8:42 AM
I have failed to understand how staying neutral on something still being investigated is somehow believing in lies, but then again I fail to understand a lot of what you say, Dervish.
Robert M. Said... Well no offense or anything but it would appear that my craziness is more closely followed than yours which anyone can see by taking a quick trawl through our respective blogs.
What are you saying? Your blog can beat up my blog? Is that the essence of it? How immature. How old are you, three? Sounds like a schoolyard taunt! Seriously though, we've been over this before. But I'll say it again -- what does this prove? Your blog has a few more readers than mine and that means what? You're right and I'm wrong? Conservatives are right and Liberals are wrong? I don't think it means anything to compare individual blogs. If you really think that traffic is an indication that your conservative views are more popular then I have some bad news for you. Turns out your theory is wrong. I did a post on this over at my blog titled, "Are Liberal Blogs More Popular than Conservative Blogs?". The conclusion? Yes, they are more popular.
Robert M. Said... it was that you're accusing Cody of something he didn't do. He wants to wait on a story and you are accusing him of not wanting to tell the story.
Why post three times and then say that the third post is the "final word"? Does this mean that once the investigations conclude and he is proved wrong (which I predict will be the result), there won't be a fourth post in which he sets the record straight?
Cody O. Said... I have failed to understand how staying neutral on something still being investigated is somehow believing in lies...
This is "staying neutral"?
"He broke no law, he posed no threat, and there was no victim".
"this thing is getting less and less like a scandal and more and more like a smear".
You posted a story from the "Drudge Report" which suggests this is all a "prank", and that the emails were disclosed due to actions of "political operatives favorable to Democrats". Yet you have the nerve to also say, "Now if your response to my opinion here is that "He's just standing up for him because he's a Republican. Just shut up. Please"?
Yes. That all sounds "neutral" to me.
Here's some of that information which you are claiming we can't know until the investigation is complete...
House pages were warning each other about Foley in 1995 (excerpt) In 1995, male House pages were warned to steer clear of a freshman Republican from Florida, who was already learning the names of the teens, dashing off notes, letters and e-mail to them and asking them to join him for ice cream, according to a former page. Mark Beck-Heyman, now a graduate student in clinical psychology at George Washington University, and more than a dozen other former House pages said in interviews and via e-mail that Rep. Mark Foley was known to be extraordinarily friendly in a way that made some of them uncomfortable. (10/4/2006. James V. Grimaldi, Juliet Eilperin, Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post)
As for your claim that he "broke no law", see below for the law he could be charged under. As for the page being 18 when the Instant Messaging took place... Your source is, again, the Drudge Report. Unless you can verify this with another, more reputable source, I will assume this claim is false.
GOP House leadership and Mark Foley (excerpt) Under the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any "minor" under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense (see Adam Walsh Act, Sec. 111(14) (MINOR.--The term "minor" means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256 (1) ("minor" means any person under the age of eighteen years"). (9/30/2006. Glenn Greenwald)
What are you saying? Your blog can beat up my blog? Is that the essence of it? How immature. How old are you, three? Sounds like a schoolyard taunt! Seriously though, we've been over this before. But I'll say it again -- what does this prove? Your blog has a few more readers than mine and that means what? You're right and I'm wrong? Conservatives are right and Liberals are wrong? I don't think it means anything to compare individual blogs. If you really think that traffic is an indication that your conservative views are more popular then I have some bad news for you. Turns out your theory is wrong. I did a post on this over at my blog titled, "Are Liberal Blogs More Popular than Conservative Blogs?". The conclusion? Yes, they are more popular.
Robert M. Said... it was that you're accusing Cody of something he didn't do. He wants to wait on a story and you are accusing him of not wanting to tell the story.
Why post three times and then say that the third post is the "final word"? Does this mean that once the investigations conclude and he is proved wrong (which I predict will be the result), there won't be a fourth post in which he sets the record straight?
Cody O. Said... I have failed to understand how staying neutral on something still being investigated is somehow believing in lies...
This is "staying neutral"?
"He broke no law, he posed no threat, and there was no victim".
"this thing is getting less and less like a scandal and more and more like a smear".
You posted a story from the "Drudge Report" which suggests this is all a "prank", and that the emails were disclosed due to actions of "political operatives favorable to Democrats". Yet you have the nerve to also say, "Now if your response to my opinion here is that "He's just standing up for him because he's a Republican. Just shut up. Please"?
Yes. That all sounds "neutral" to me.
Here's some of that information which you are claiming we can't know until the investigation is complete...
House pages were warning each other about Foley in 1995 (excerpt) In 1995, male House pages were warned to steer clear of a freshman Republican from Florida, who was already learning the names of the teens, dashing off notes, letters and e-mail to them and asking them to join him for ice cream, according to a former page. Mark Beck-Heyman, now a graduate student in clinical psychology at George Washington University, and more than a dozen other former House pages said in interviews and via e-mail that Rep. Mark Foley was known to be extraordinarily friendly in a way that made some of them uncomfortable. (10/4/2006. James V. Grimaldi, Juliet Eilperin, Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post)
As for your claim that he "broke no law", see below for the law he could be charged under. As for the page being 18 when the Instant Messaging took place... Your source is, again, the Drudge Report. Unless you can verify this with another, more reputable source, I will assume this claim is false.
GOP House leadership and Mark Foley (excerpt) Under the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any "minor" under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense (see Adam Walsh Act, Sec. 111(14) (MINOR.--The term "minor" means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256 (1) ("minor" means any person under the age of eighteen years"). (9/30/2006. Glenn Greenwald)
What are you saying? Your blog can beat up my blog? Is that the essence of it? How immature. How old are you, three? Sounds like a schoolyard taunt! Seriously though, we've been over this before. But I'll say it again -- what does this prove? Your blog has a few more readers than mine and that means what? You're right and I'm wrong? Conservatives are right and Liberals are wrong? I don't think it means anything to compare individual blogs. If you really think that traffic is an indication that your conservative views are more popular then I have some bad news for you. Turns out your theory is wrong. I did a post on this over at my blog titled, "Are Liberal Blogs More Popular than Conservative Blogs?". The conclusion? Yes, they are more popular.
Well that's a very well thought out arguement, only... that wasn't in fact my point at all. You asked who would care about my craziness, so I answered that more people than cared about yours. HIncidentally how much time did you waste refutting a claim I never made?
Well that's a very well thought out arguement, only... that wasn't in fact my point at all. You asked who would care about my craziness, so I answered that more people than cared about yours. HIncidentally how much time did you waste refutting a claim I never made?
# posted by : 10/15/2006 8:41 PM
: 10/15/2006 8:41 PM
Robert M. Said... Well that's a very well thought out arguement,
Thank you. I thought so too.
Robert M. Said... only... that wasn't in fact my point at all.
You know what? I don't care. You FREQUENTLY write arguments against points I never make... and ignore other points I do make but which you don't have an answer for.
Robert M. Said... You asked who would care about my craziness, so I answered that more people than cared about yours.
Most of those people are idiots. So, I really don't care what they think.
Robert M. Said... Incidentally how much time did you waste refutting a claim I never made?
It's only a paragraph, so not very long. Anyway, I recycled the jist of it from a post over on your blog which you apparently never read.
Thank you. I thought so too.
Robert M. Said... only... that wasn't in fact my point at all.
You know what? I don't care. You FREQUENTLY write arguments against points I never make... and ignore other points I do make but which you don't have an answer for.
Robert M. Said... You asked who would care about my craziness, so I answered that more people than cared about yours.
Most of those people are idiots. So, I really don't care what they think.
Robert M. Said... Incidentally how much time did you waste refutting a claim I never made?
It's only a paragraph, so not very long. Anyway, I recycled the jist of it from a post over on your blog which you apparently never read.
Cody O. said... Obviously I changed my mind dumbass.
Right, you "changed your mind" after 2 other posts where you claimed that we had been "fooled" by ABC news, that this was all a "prank", and that Democrats were somehow involved.
If it was so obvious then where's the post where you said that you spoke too soon and everything you said earlier should be ignored as idle gossip? I must have missed it.
Right, you "changed your mind" after 2 other posts where you claimed that we had been "fooled" by ABC news, that this was all a "prank", and that Democrats were somehow involved.
If it was so obvious then where's the post where you said that you spoke too soon and everything you said earlier should be ignored as idle gossip? I must have missed it.
Psst, dervish. We're all at the newer posts. Calling us idiots here isn't going to work. You have to use irrelevent rage as arguements on the other posts.
# posted by : 10/17/2006 5:18 PM
: 10/17/2006 5:18 PM
"irrelevent rage"? Why would I bother becoming enraged with someone I don't know and will never meet? I didn't use any exclamation points, so I'm not sure how, exactly, you'd know if I was filled with rage. Do you think you're clairvoyant?
Also, seeing as "irrelevant" seems to be your new favorite word, maybe you should consider learing how to spell it?
BTW, you didn't address a single point I made. In fact, your post had nothing to do with the topic at all. If anyone's post is "irrelevant", it would be yours.
Post a Comment
Also, seeing as "irrelevant" seems to be your new favorite word, maybe you should consider learing how to spell it?
BTW, you didn't address a single point I made. In fact, your post had nothing to do with the topic at all. If anyone's post is "irrelevant", it would be yours.
<< Home
