Foley Flasely Accused!
 

Revealed on Drudge!

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Intern was 18 at time of email!

Democrat dirty tricks!!!!!

Foley vindicated!!!!!

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

Gilligan wrote:
Revealed on Drudge!

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Intern was 18 at time of email!

Democrat dirty tricks!!!!!

Foley vindicated!!!!!

So he want's to suck off 18 Y.O. vs 17 Y.O. boys.

Next you will be telling us he did not swallow.

I'm voting straight Dem party...vote for gridlock!

And Vote Kinky for Gov of Texas!
http://www.kinkyfriedman.com

Joe

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

I really, really want Friedman to win. I would almost consider moving to
Texas... well, on second thought... :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gilligan wrote:
Revealed on Drudge!

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Intern was 18 at time of email!

Democrat dirty tricks!!!!!

Foley vindicated!!!!!

So he want's to suck off 18 Y.O. vs 17 Y.O. boys.

Next you will be telling us he did not swallow.

I'm voting straight Dem party...vote for gridlock!

And Vote Kinky for Gov of Texas!
http://www.kinkyfriedman.com

Joe

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:24:22 -0600, Gilligan wrote:

Revealed on Drudge!

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Intern was 18 at time of email!

Democrat dirty tricks!!!!!

Foley vindicated!!!!!

Sure, that's why Foley resigned so quickly. Frankly, it doesn't matter if
the page was 16 or 18. It's still sexual harassment, and there are laws
against it. Oh, and let's not forget all the lies from Hastert. Must
make you proud.

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

This whole thing depends on your definition of the word "is"

Gilligan wrote:
Revealed on Drudge!

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Intern was 18 at time of email!

Democrat dirty tricks!!!!!

Foley vindicated!!!!!

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

in my view, but that's because I
regard homosexual acts even between consenting adults as immoral.



Truly sad.
Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.


RB
35s5
NY

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gilligan wrote:
Revealed on Drudge!

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Intern was 18 at time of email!

Democrat dirty tricks!!!!!

Foley vindicated!!!!!

So he want's to suck off 18 Y.O. vs 17 Y.O. boys.

Next you will be telling us he did not swallow.


He did not swallow!

I'm voting straight Dem party...vote for gridlock!

I'm voting for gridlock too.



And Vote Kinky for Gov of Texas!
http://www.kinkyfriedman.com

Joe

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

Gilligan wrote:
Revealed on Drudge!

http://www.drudge.com/

Whatever.

You can smell the desperation all the way from flyover country.

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

"Swab Rob" wrote in message
oups.com..
..

in my view, but that's because I
regard homosexual acts even between consenting adults as
immoral.



Truly sad.
Happy to report that Thomas is gay .


Already?

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...


Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.


I thought you had some long term dispute with Ganz. Did you guys finally
reconcile?

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:23:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:31:38 -0000, "thunder" said:

Frankly, it doesn't matter if
the page was 16 or 18. It's still sexual harassment, and there are laws
against it.

Wrong. We're talking about a former page. A former supervisor (which in this
case he wasn't, BTW) making a pass at a former employee over the age of
consent isn't sexual harassment for legal purposes.

Part of the problem is putting much faith in Drudge. We are not talking
about one page, but several, and some of the emails were sent while the
recipients were pages.


While it was wrong in my view, the law says otherwise.

It's too early to say, what, if any, laws were broken. If I were to
guess, I would say that unless there was inappropriate physical contact,
Foley probably won't face charges.

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

Dave wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:33:56 -0700, "Capt. Rob" said:

Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.

Why am I not surprised?

Why does it matter?

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

Capt. Rob wrote:
in my view, but that's because I
regard homosexual acts even between consenting adults as immoral.



Truly sad.
Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.

Two girls I hope..could be fun for him when they baby sit.

Joe


RB
35s5
NY

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

Joe wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
in my view, but that's because I
regard homosexual acts even between consenting adults as immoral.



Truly sad.
Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.

Two girls I hope..could be fun for him when they baby sit.

Joe

RB
35s5
NY

You're sick, Joe....

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:26:31 -0400, katy said:

Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.
Why am I not surprised?
Why does it matter?

Hey, if BS in banging 10 other nurses at his wife's hospital I suppose it
doesn't matter. But don't expect me to be a cheer leader for him in those
endeavors.
I don't expect that at all...I think he posts that stuff as his
justification for other things he says so he can go back later and say
"hey..."
His comment makes no sense to the discussion about whether Foley is
right or wrong or otherwise. Since it bears no weight in the discussion,
we should just ignore it.

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
in my view, but that's because I
regard homosexual acts even between consenting adults as immoral.



Truly sad.
Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.

Two girls I hope..could be fun for him when they baby sit.

Joe

RB
35s5
NY

You're sick, Joe....

What?

If it's two guys...now thats sick.

Joe

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:49:22 -0400, katy said:

Hey, if BS in banging 10 other nurses at his wife's hospital I suppose it
doesn't matter. But don't expect me to be a cheer leader for him in those
endeavors.
I don't expect that at all...I think he posts that stuff as his
justification for other things he says so he can go back later and say
"hey..."
His comment makes no sense to the discussion about whether Foley is
right or wrong or otherwise.

Actually, his comment was relevant in context. I suggested that whether or
not the page was over the age of consent, and even if the guy was no longer
a page, Foley's conduct was wrong, because I viewed homosexual conduct even
between consenting adults as morally wrong. BS's comment was intended to say
he disagrees with the moral judgment I make, and approves of homosexual
conduct between consenting adults, as evidenced by his making them
godparents of his child.

ok..I buy that...it is still an obfuscation though since he uses the gay
thing against others in a titally different context....
You know, Dave...you sound just like a lawyer!

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

Dave wrote:


a page, Foley's conduct was wrong, because I viewed homosexual conduct even
between consenting adults as morally wrong.

Certainly doesn't make any sense from an evolutionary viewpoint does it?

Cheers
Marty

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

Martin Baxter wrote:
Dave wrote:


... Foley's conduct was wrong, because I viewed homosexual conduct even
between consenting adults as morally wrong.


Certainly doesn't make any sense from an evolutionary viewpoint does it?

Neither does celibacy, but I don't see anybody condemning it on moral
grounds.

//Walt

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

Dave wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:20:29 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

a page, Foley's conduct was wrong, because I viewed homosexual conduct even
between consenting adults as morally wrong.

Certainly doesn't make any sense from an evolutionary viewpoint does it?

I suppose that's the politically correct justification for the
position--that is, measure the morality of conduct based solely on its
effect on others. But I'm of an older school of thought that says some
conduct is right, and some conduct is wrong, without regard to whether that
conduct injures anyone else.

I think you misunderstood me, I was not attempting to justify such
activity.

Cheers
Marty

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:20:29 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

a page, Foley's conduct was wrong, because I viewed homosexual conduct
even
between consenting adults as morally wrong.

Certainly doesn't make any sense from an evolutionary viewpoint does it?

I suppose that's the politically correct justification for the
position--that is, measure the morality of conduct based solely on its
effect on others. But I'm of an older school of thought that says some
conduct is right, and some conduct is wrong, without regard to whether
that
conduct injures anyone else.

Oh my God!

Someone who believes in absolute right or wrong!

Is your standard of conduct then based on injury to the self?

Or it based upon man as a rational animal with his life as the standard?

Please take a big dump into the shopping cart of moral relativism!!

Should morality be legislated? Or should the legislation be limited to
protection of the most essential elements of morality?

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

Walt wrote:

Martin Baxter wrote:
Dave wrote:


... Foley's conduct was wrong, because I viewed homosexual conduct even
between consenting adults as morally wrong.


Certainly doesn't make any sense from an evolutionary viewpoint does it?

Neither does celibacy, but I don't see anybody condemning it on moral
grounds.

True enough, although I believe that there are significantly greater
quantities of people practicing homosexuality than celibacy.

A great deal of "morality" has been defined out of what is good for the
survival of the species.

Cheers
Marty

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

"Joe" wrote in message
ps.com...

katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
in my view, but that's because I
regard homosexual acts even between consenting adults as immoral.



Truly sad.
Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.

Two girls I hope..could be fun for him when they baby sit.

Joe

RB
35s5
NY

You're sick, Joe....

What?

If it's two guys...now thats sick.

Joe


Could be a man and a woman. RB didn't say there are a couple.

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

"Gilligan" wrote in
message . ..

"Joe" wrote in message

ps.com...

katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
in my view, but that's because I
regard homosexual acts even between consenting
adults as immoral.



Truly sad.
Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.

Two girls I hope..could be fun for him when they baby
sit.

Joe

RB
35s5
NY

You're sick, Joe....

What?

If it's two guys...now thats sick.

Joe


Could be a man and a woman. RB didn't say there are a
couple.


could be 3 chicks and a donkey.....

Foley Flasely Accused!
 

Well, maybe we are being too hard on him. - After all, he apologized if
his actions had offended anyone, and he also promised to turn over a new
page.

Jim



Gilligan wrote:

Revealed on Drudge!

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Intern was 18 at time of email!

Democrat dirty tricks!!!!!

Foley vindicated!!!!!

Foley Falsely Accused!
 

Firstly; No one has "Flasely Accused" any one.
Secondly; If Foley has been Falsely Accused, then what other reason was
there that justified his Resignation?
Thirdly; It wasn't the Democrat that tried to hide Foley's " Dirty
Secret" it was the GOP's in power (Drudge be damned)
Fourthly; It is a rather good political move to force it out at this
time.!