Rex Kickass

He's been doing this since 1997 at least apparently. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/ap_on_...mhuBHNlYwNtdHM-

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Oct 5, 2006 -> 08:44 AM) When the small percentage numbers a billion, you talk about it. I didn't realize that there were suddenly tens of billions of people on the planet.

No, but I wonder how some people here would react if I made a reference to putting a buddy jesus in a noose and hang it from my windshield mirror here. Something tells me it wouldn't be with laughter.

Before 1983 a page could be under the age of 16. When the program started in the 1800s, the first pages were under 10.

And now allegations that he showed up to the Page Dorm drunk at least once. http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...NGNEWS/61004028

You can be against the Patriot Act and for tougher measures to fight terrorism. There are few people in the Congress and Senate who oppose NSA surveillance programs as long as they act within the law which would require getting a FISA warrant 72 hours after you actually start the surveillance. Opposing torture is not the same thing as opposing interrogation. And locking someone up forever isn't a problem as long as they are granted due process and the ability to have justice fairly and transparently imposed upon them. The fact that the debate has even been framed between "you either torture terrorists or you coddle them" is everything that's wrong with our political world today IMHO.

The answer would be Henry Hyde, who is retiring at the end of the session. This would make him a lame duck speaker, over a Congress whose business is basically over anyway and would allow the GOP to elect fresh leadership. Kap, I'm not responding to what you think Clinton did or didn't commit in 1998 because the two situations are not comparable in any way shape or form. We have Chiefs of Staff who are being forced out and to save their name are telling an interesting story. That the Congressional Leadership, including the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, knew about these issues and didn't so much as launch an investigation. Over and over. If its true, its damning for the entire Republican leadership. In a sense, it is in any case. If the leadership wasn't aware of this situation despite what appears to be a steady stream of warnings, they clearly aren't capable of leading the nation's business. They can't even keep their own house in order. And the worst part about that is that its the best case scenario. A Speaker of the House made ineffectual because the people below him in the leadership have decided that matters deserving of serious investigation involving sexually predatory behavior on the floor of the House don't need to inform the Speaker of the House, or even the full panel of House Page advisors. The worst case scenario is that the Congressional leadership knew about this, decided not to investigate it because the maintenance of partisan power and its current structure is more important to those making the laws of this land than doing the right thing and allowing behavior like this to happen right under their nose. People who talk about suspicious timing should know that it seems pretty clear that the person in charge of House Republican re-electing strategy seems to have been in the know at the time. If that's the case, the GOP not the Democrats controlled the timing. If the allegations are true that the GOP leadership knew about this months, if not years ago shouldn't shout anything about timing unless they're frantically looking for someone else to blame. That seems to be the case here.

Except it's not.

I'm closing this thread. Because nobody has anything new to say. It's a conspiracy, it's not. It's a conspiracy, it's not. This got talked out a month ago and its boring.

Simple. It's one poll. It's an outlier. So was the 13 point lead for the Dem. Most of the polls are showing a 1-9 point lead for the Dem candidate at this point that I've seen (and I've glanced across like five lately.)

Reynolds' Chief of Staff first victim of Foley Fallout. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/1...op_staffer.html QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 4, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) Um... So a guy heard this second hand, and its reported in the NY Post... I'm not sure I find that very credible. It does cite Robert Novak's column which I believe is subscription only.

Bob Novak is reporting today that the head of the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) knew of all the emails last year - and rather than demand an investigation, or even encourage him to retire (as he was considering) - he encouraged Foley to run again. That person? Congressman Tom Reynolds. http://www.nypost.com/seven/10042006/news/...rrespondent.htm

First of all, there is no proof that he's actually molested anyone. Although I wouldn't be surprised if that's proven eventually, I'm not comfortable making that leap... yet. And I don't think he made up being molested by a priest either. SS2k, I don't compare scandals involving sex with legally consenting adults to be on pair with child predator behavior. So IMHO the Frank scandal, the Studds controversy and the Clinton controversy are different animals entirely. Mel Reynolds is a scumbag, and I am pissed that he got pardoned. And seriously, with those mossy teeth, why would anyone want that?

Removing him from the caucus? Sure, but the reasons why don't need to be disclosed. That's often private. QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 3, 2006 -> 02:23 PM) Why? Because the Speaker has (or at least should have) better things to do then follow up on a dirty email sent by one of 200+ Republican members of the House? I think the right thing would be to punish this guy, not because he's Republican, but because he's a perve. The fact that's he's Republican has nothing to do with the situation. If it was just the Speaker, if it was just one email, if it was just one report to his office - you might have a point. But it appears to be a lot of people covering it often.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) An interesting point that I haven't seen brought out yet, is that the boys family wanted this kept quiet when it initially happened. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...1,3559588.story They did take some action Without a family willing to cooperate, you really can't do much to the offender unfortunately. It becomes like a domestic abuse case where you know the scumbag husband just kicked the crap out of his wife, but you can't do a damned thing about it, until she agrees to testify/give a statement. Personally I don't like it, these kind of people should be taken down in a heartbeat, but the flipside is if you don't respect the wishes of the victims, you won't get victims to come forward. You can remove him from the chairmanship of the caucus on missing and exploited children. Could have even made it look like it was a restructuring or something. You can ask for a formal investigation and censure. QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 3, 2006 -> 12:15 PM) I have to call a b.s. on you my friend. You wouldn't and here's why. Which is easier to give up? A. Your values B. Dem leadership IMHO, the leaders come and go, the values should stay somewhat consistent. So the GOP leadership may, and probably did, fall down on this one. I wouldn't expect a dyed in the wool conservative to suddenly abandon pro-life, pro-death(if the government decides the person should die), freedom to own and use guns, run up huge debts to "stimulate the economy", positions to embrace Democratic ideals. So you soldier on, perhaps right letters, or move to elect better candidates from your party. But you wouldn't suddenly stop thinking and start chanting ditto Rush and pushing for a ban on gay marriage. Go ahead and call it. My Democratic Senator is in a tight battle that may cause the balance of power in the Senate to tip to the Dems if he wins. But last week he voted for torture. I may vote for him, but I'm sure not helping him.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Oct 3, 2006 -> 08:34 AM) You know Tex, I think that this statement fits alot of the posters here at Soxtalk in the Filibuster. I know I have found myself on occasion wanting to defend something a dumbass conservative did just because somehow I think it makes me look bad by comparison. This guy is a creep, and just because he shared some of my political values doesn't make me a bad guy. I may be an Evil Monkey, but I am not a bad guy. All of us here should stop taking personal offense when someone from a party that we belong to or identify with does something bad. Probably not gonna happen, but I try. In cases like this, I just try to bring the rhetoric down to something reasonable. I can see a few on here ready to lynch the whole Republican partyfor this, and being so close to elections, there are some people just soiling themselves over the possible political ramifications. This is a sad situation for all involved, but is more an inditement of Congress and the political climate as a whole than any one party. I hate politics. Here's the thing, if the Dems were in this situation, I'd tear up my nonexistent Democrat card. What it appears the leadership did - protect one of their own who is a sexual predator rather than even so much as investigate it when they knew something was up in 2001 - this is the whole party. And I wish it wasn't.

Newt's new excuse for the GOP to try. They didn't want to be seen as "gaybashers." http://mediamatters.org/items/200610010003 So, banning gay marriage isn't gaybashing but outing a sexual predator is. Note taken!

You beat me to it. He appears to be a sexual predator, and definitely one that uses his power and influence for sexual favors which is really despicable. But he doesn't appear to be a pedophile.

The official White House reaction from Spokesman Tony Snow.

Turns out the GOP leadership may have known about this since the spring, 2005, 2001. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/1...taff_warne.html

QUOTE(bmags @ Sep 24, 2006 -> 09:11 PM) pan's labyrinth is gonna kick asss........ Only if David Bowie stars in it.

They repeat episodes on Bravo the night after I think.

Well, here's the thing. If the insurgency is indeed fueled by our presence, reducing our visible presence should weaken the insurgency. If it's a civil war, it's a civil war. And our presence will ultimately make no difference.

I thought it already started. I'm kinda diggin Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip - but I love a lot of shows about media.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 29, 2006 -> 09:04 AM) My college radio show was call the "Weird Al Wanna Be's" I did an ska show weekday AMs called Morning Sickness for ten weeks on college radio.