CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the Bush campaign treatment of McCain in the South Caroline primary was the most despicable campaign smear tactic ever -- so you know, let's cut the partisan morale high ground -- and that is what they did to someone in their own party.

If on November 7 Nancy Pelosi is made Speaker of the House, collective heads (Hannity/O'Reilly/Limbaugh) are going to explode -- and it will be fun to watch.

[Carol&Marc 0]

I think the Bush campaign treatment of McCain in the South Caroline primary was the most despicable campaign smear tactic ever -- so you know, let's cut the partisan morale high ground -- and that is what they did to someone in their own party.

If on November 7 Nancy Pelosi is made Speaker of the House, collective heads (Hannity/O'Reilly/Limbaugh) are going to explode -- and it will be fun to watch.

Can anyone tell me what the democrats have planned for our country?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Can anyone tell me what the democrats have planned for our country?

Not exactly, but I CAN tell you roughly what BillyBubba's original plan was--to make the US a colony of PRC.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Can anyone tell me what the democrats have planned for our country?

Not exactly, but I CAN tell you roughly what BillyBubba's original plan was--to make the US a colony of PRC.

your crackin me up!

[ieldanth 0]

It is sad that most people are reduced to voting for Candidate A because he isn't as bad as Candidate B. Why is government the way it is? Because people consistently are given a choice of bad candidates and told to pick the lesser of two evils. Rarely and quite accidentally does there come a true statesman to the arena.

I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary because of South Carolina. A person who stoops to those kinds of dirty tricks has no business governing me.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I voted for McCain too in the 2000 primary - I always admired his nonpartisanship and common sense approach. I remember there used to be a lot of Republicans like him - moderate fiscal conservatives - but they are increasingly marginalized by the Bushbot wing of the party

Now I'm not sure the Democrats are currently offering much of a great alternative in their plans-- I don't think the status quo is anything too wonderful either.

I just think it's funny the right wing handwringing about a potential Democrat majority in the House.

[rclouse 0]

I have developed my own theory of what is going on here.

First, the Dems looked at the polls and decided that they were not going to get the house or senate back. So they needed a scandal to break things loose.

Being good little dems the reached into their sleazy closet to see what they could find. They saw they had a Republican congressman who was gay and had some dealings with a page. So they leaked some of the less lurid emails to Hastert so they could say he was informed. Then they waited. One month before the election they set off their sh!t bomb.

How does that Koolaid taste?

/yes, I know it's an Ad Hominem

//still feels good tho

[ieldanth 0]

Kick em out. Maybe that will wake them up. It isn't like the Democrats would get a veto-proof majority if they did get the House and Senate. From a historical standpoint, America seemed to do best when the Administrative and Legislative branches were controlled by opposing parties.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Kick em out. Maybe that will wake them up. It isn't like the Democrats would get a veto-proof majority if they did get the House and Senate. From a historical standpoint, America seemed to do best when the Administrative and Legislative branches were controlled by opposing parties.

Right on the money!

[almaty 19]

Kick em out. Maybe that will wake them up. It isn't like the Democrats would get a veto-proof majority if they did get the House and Senate. From a historical standpoint, America seemed to do best when the Administrative and Legislative branches were controlled by opposing parties.

Right on the money!

i agree with that too

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Kick em out. Maybe that will wake them up. It isn't like the Democrats would get a veto-proof majority if they did get the House and Senate. From a historical standpoint, America seemed to do best when the Administrative and Legislative branches were controlled by opposing parties.

Right on the money!

Also, is not America the ONLY country where this CAN occur?

(having been born in one country and raised in another, both where majority in parliament makes party leader PM)

Edited October 6, 2006 by CherryXS

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Kick em out. Maybe that will wake them up. It isn't like the Democrats would get a veto-proof majority if they did get the House and Senate. From a historical standpoint, America seemed to do best when the Administrative and Legislative branches were controlled by opposing parties.

Right on the money!

Also, is not America the ONLY country where this CAN occur?

(having been born in one country and raised in another, both where majority in parliament makes party leader PM)

Some truth to that - also the likes of Maggie Thatcher would have been out on her ####### long before she was forced to quit if the UK had strict term limits on sitting PM's. Blair too.

At least the US doesn't have to deal with "indefinite Bush"

Edited October 6, 2006 by erekose

[Mirorgate 0]

Kick em out. Maybe that will wake them up. It isn't like the Democrats would get a veto-proof majority if they did get the House and Senate. From a historical standpoint, America seemed to do best when the Administrative and Legislative branches were controlled by opposing parties.

Right on the money!

i agree with that too

I agree with your agreeance

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Transcript of CNN's Wolf Blitzer speaking with CNN's Brian Todd about a conversation Brian had with the lawyer of one of Foley's victims:

BLITZER: He will join us live in the next hour. What are you hearing, Brian, about some of these internet suggestions, some Republicans suggesting this whole thing is a prank, a hoax and there is no there, there.

TODD: We asked him about that item in the report. He said very clearly he cannot rule that in, he cannot rule that out. He says he is not saying it was not a prank but later in the interview, CNN pressed him on that. He said that he — he does not read the Drudge Report not part of his regular reading and, quote, it sounds like a piece of fiction. It is similar to a comment he made yesterday on that. Also important to note that ABC news says its sources indicate the Drudge Report that their report this is a hoax is not true.

BLITZER: He says the Drudge Report item sounds like a piece of fiction?

TODD: He did say that, but important to note he says he is not ruling it in or out.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/06/vide...-claim-fiction/

[ieldanth 0]

Transcript of CNN's Wolf Blitzer speaking with CNN's Brian Todd about a conversation Brian had with the lawyer of one of Foley's victims:

BLITZER: He will join us live in the next hour. What are you hearing, Brian, about some of these internet suggestions, some Republicans suggesting this whole thing is a prank, a hoax and there is no there, there.

TODD: We asked him about that item in the report. He said very clearly he cannot rule that in, he cannot rule that out. He says he is not saying it was not a prank but later in the interview, CNN pressed him on that. He said that he — he does not read the Drudge Report not part of his regular reading and, quote, it sounds like a piece of fiction. It is similar to a comment he made yesterday on that. Also important to note that ABC news says its sources indicate the Drudge Report that their report this is a hoax is not true.

BLITZER: He says the Drudge Report item sounds like a piece of fiction?

TODD: He did say that, but important to note he says he is not ruling it in or out.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/06/vide...-claim-fiction/

So what we have is a hoax hoax?