Crap Throwing Monkey
-
Posts
9,499 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Crap Throwing Monkey
-
-
-
Can someone give me some definitions to what the responsibilities are for local, state and federal politicians?
Town Clerk
Town Council
County Legislature
State Legislature
State Assembly
State Senate
US Senate
US House
I know they are responsible for writing and passing laws, but what else?
Is there anyway to hold the people that hold these positions accountible other than waiting for an election?
Look in the respective constitutions or whatever. Of course, no one ever follows them anymore, anyway...but that'll tell you what their responsibilities should be.
And I personally think that the way to hold these idiots accountable is by voting them out. I think that's part and parcel of a democratic system. I also think one of the benefits of a parlimentary system is not having to wait for an election; you can just call for a vote of no confidence and throw the !@#$ers out whenever. But in the American system...technically, you're stuck with who you're stuck with until you stick yourself with someone else, unless they break the law and get impeached. Accountability for job performance, though...strictly through the electoral process.
-
-
Those in the leadership all state that they knew nothing about it until recently, which is quickly starting to look like lies.
Fordham was aware of Foley's proclivities when he was Foleys's chief of staff and has been Reynold's Chief of staff. Are you suggesting that Fordham never told Reynolds what he had heard about Foley?
Fordham also told Hastert's chief of staff about it a long time ago. Hastert shares a house with his chief of staff in DC and commutes with him to Chicago on weekends. Do you honestly believe that this never came up between them??
Had they handled it when they first knew about it, it wouldn't be blowing up in their faces now.
No, Fordham was aware that Foley was overly friendly with the pages. He specifically said that he had no indication of any emails or IMs of a sexual nature when he went to Hastert. This is according to the New York Times on October 5th::
The accounts did not include accusations of overtly sexual advances and did not involve e-mail or instant messages of the sort that surfaced last week, Mr. Fordham said. Instead, they encompassed reports that Mr. Foley had been “way too friendly” toward the pages, he said.Furthermore, the reports say that Palmer (Hastert's chief of staff) and Jeff Trandahl (Clerk of the House) counseled Foley on his "overly friendly" (Palmer's and Fordham's words) behavior towards the pages, and that Hastert got involved directly when it became known only a year ago that some of his communication with the pages was sexual, and that the "coverup" a year ago was at the behest of the page's parents, who wished the issue to be kept private (to the point of not providing the complete text of the emails to Palmer, merely excerpts).
And, in case you're wondering, this isn't FoxSnooze's propaganda spin. This is as reported in the NY Times and Washington Post...two papers with a decidedly liberal editorial bent that are no doubt salivating at the thought of roasting Hastert on a spit.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I was going to post this under the Foley thread that had already been started, but I didn't want this to get lost among the other posts.
Apparently Mark Foley would send Brady Quinn e-mails wishing him luck before games. The e-mails then became more suggestive in content and with the ongoing investigation into Foley's relationships with pages, Quinn was forced to surrender the e-mails that Foley sent him to authorities.
This is a pretty bizarre twist is an already sensational investigation.
That's a joke, right?
Because it reads like a joke. Even for Foley, that's just weird...
-
-
I !@#$ing hate it when I agree with you. But I agree with you. "Army of One" was misguided as sh--. Right up there with Shinseki's "everyone gets to wear a Special Forces beret, because we're ALL special" nonsense.
-
Great day yesterday,I bet on the on the bears , went golfing from 12:00 -4:00,hit a 79 come home and I`m now 800 bucks richer! Its great to no your team and what their capable of,easy money baby...........Hey, if your teams horrible take advantage of it!..I no my Bills on the road........I think I`ll buy me a brand new pair of shoes this week!!..................... WOOOHOOOO!
bull sh--. Absolute, utter, unmitigated bull sh--. No way in hell you golfed a 79.
-
-
-
-
Because they're still investigating, and the applicable federal law is FUBAR.
Of course, now that ABC broke the story, the investigation's FUBAR as well. Personally, I think the producers of the story ABC should be charged with hindering an investigation...
-
-
The Tao Te Ching: Ruling the universe is like cooking a small fish.
I thought today's game was a prime example of this philosophy. The Bears are most definately NOT 33 points better than the Bills.
-
-
For goodness sakes. Yes they look very good, and yes we are a huge underdog, but for goodness sakes ... we are FANS ... were suppose to be talking about our team winning. I dont think anyone thought (including Las Vegas odssmakers) that the Jets could beat Indi and by goodness if they didnt leave Peyton 2:00 minutes to drive then they would have beaten Indi. The Chicago Bears are playing inspired football. They are also starting a QB who has only started 5 games in the past two years. They are good and they are 4-0 ... but lets face it. We should be ATLEAST 3-1 and possibly 4-0 if we could just score against the Jets when we should have (3 attempts from the 2 yard line - bootleg), fake field goal ...etc
Now instead of kissing their butt for the stuff they are good at lets look at a few things:
They have played Greenbay, Detroit, Minnesota (who nearly won it), and Seattle* A combined record of 6-10 ...
** Seattle was playing without their MVP
Note: Minnesota gave them a wild game and was leading with about a minute left if I remember right.
They are ranked 21st in rushing offense (thats good considering our run defense usually is not good)
The next coming of Jim Kelly, AKA, Rex Grossman actually has 4 TD's and 3 INT's, for 772 yards when taking away a cake walk of a game against Detroit at the Bears home opener. Looks like Losman numbers dont they?
NOTE: He has yet to throw for over 300 yards even though he has faced Detroit, Greenbay, and Minnesota. Oh yeah - Losman also has a better completion percentage.
Chicago is 4th in the league in penalty yards giving up 260 yards of Penalties. An everage of 65 a game.
Anyway ... I just figured I would give a positive post out of all the negativity floating around.
Hey, dax...this is why.
-
Uhhh...yeah.
I'm not defending Foley, I'm criticizing the idiots who are referencing laws they haven't even read. What Foley did is, as far as I can tell, not illegal under federal law (or at worst it's very arguable, given the screwed-up legislation). Should it be? Absolutely. As should a sexual harrassment policy be written into the House Ethics manual (yes, believe it or not, although every company in America with more than 20 employees has a written sexual harrassment policy that clearly defines what is and is not sexual harrassment and outlines the punishments for such...the House's "ethics" don't include one.
) Too bad most of the ass holes on the Hill are too busy playing partisan politics and chasing the issue du jour to be bothered to actually do their !@#$ing jobs. But then...ultimately, that's our fault. We elected these incompetent pricks.
-
IM falls under interstate commerce, being as it's over the internet. That's the gist of 4472...and for interstate commerce (i.e. as defined in 4472) purposes, "minor" is defined as "under 18".
109A, however, is the federal statutes dealing with sexual abuse...which sets the age of consent at 16 and over.
So under federal law, you can - with consent - !@#$ a 16 year old Congressional page up the ass if you want, but you can't send dirty emails.
It is a truly stupid set of laws, made all the worse by the simplicity of writing them correctly. All they had to do was write in to 4472 wording akin to "Section blah-blah-blah of 109A is amended as follows: change "16" to "18". They do that in plenty of other places (raising the penalty for abusing a child from 10 to 15 or 20 years, for example). They just never bothered to make sure the definition of "minor" is consistent throughout the law. Divining the reasons why the law is so screwed up is left as an exercise to the reader...but here's a hint: consider which people wrote the !@#$ing law and why. But, as KTFABD said, Foley sent some of the IMs from Pensacola. And Florida law is clear: "minor" is "under 18". THAT makes at least some of them cut-and-dried illegal.
Hey CTM...
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted
Well...you left me no recourse. If I've asked you once, I've asked you a thousand times: stop sending me this perverted sh--, Mr. Foley.
(And you're the one that filled it anyway, numbnuts.
)