Voice of the White House on Foley

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Voice of the White House on Foley

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:09 am

I know, I know, the bigoted Voice of the White House does not represent the best of the best, but I check in there now and then. As usual, I keep wondering if the voice speaks a word of truth, since it's inside stories seem rarely to be verified by outside, credible sources later. So, consider the source. Nevertheless, this is interesting. See link for entire article.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=5274">www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/...sp?ID=5274</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>...It seems that many of the pages, lusted after by an uncontrollable and arrogant Foley, were very unhappy with his unwanted and often repulsive advances. Many of his intended victims expressed their anger to others, and in the page corps, most young men went out of their way to avoid his lewd and sexually suggestive remarks and furtive gropings. <br><br>Eventually, several of the intended victims got together and determined to expose the Florida right wing Republican. They were well aware that Foley’s behavior was a disgrace, and illegal, and believed, in error, that if those in power became aware of this predatory behavior, Foley would at the least be ordered to stop or at the greatest, forced out of office. They collected horror stories from their friends and finally, achieved a great coup. <br><br>One of their number. A fifteen year old, admitted to having extensive and ongoing sexual acts with Foley. They all knew Foley was sending lewd, suggestive and completely illegal messages to numerous pages and they became determined to get their hands on the evidence. Finally, the designated page agreed to help them when they pointed out they would tell his parents and on one occasion when the 15 year old page was having a sexual encounter with the 50 year old Congressman, he had occasion, while Foley was taking a shower after an evening of mutual masturbation and oral sex, to access Foley’s laptop computer, with the permission of Foley himself, and to quickly download a disk full of text messages that Foley kept as “trophy talks,” as he called them. <br><br>The disgusting conversations were all printed out, in gross detail, and copies were made by the rebels. <br><br>The first set of documents were sent out to key Republicans in the House. These pages were all devoted young Republicans and were merely bent on removing a vicious predator and preventing his assaults on them, not promoting anti-Republican sentiments. <br><br>They sent out a total of twenty envelopes. <br><br>Quite naturally, they expected some kind of result. <br><br>There was dead silence, even weeks later. <br><br>They then sent out more envelopes to lesser Republicans in the House and again, not a word of response was heard anywhere. Angry and bewildered at the total lack of results, they began to send out more envelopes, this time to the American media. <br><br>Eventually, they sent out packets to: The New York Times, the New York Post, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, Time Magazine, U.S. News and World Report, Newsweek, CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS., and even the Washington, D.C. office of the FBI and various persons inside the Department of Justice. <br><br>(Whatever its motives for exposing this evil man might be, we all owe a very large debt to CBS News for having the moral courage, and the exquisite timing, for exposing Foley, and eventually, Hastert and the rest of his willing co-conspirators.) <br><br>Also, they sent at least a dozen copies to various high level persons inside the Bush White House. <br><br>As before, total silence reigned. <br><br>These mailings had been in progress for six months and I have seen an example. There is no question about the contents and equally, no question that Foley was in direct violation of many existing laws ironically, to include laws he himself has sponsored. <br><br>From my own personal investigations I have heard repeatedly that “no one wanted to touch this one” and that the White House was “very displeased” with the entire issue. The President liked Foley and is known to be “extremely tolerant and even very friendly,” with the numerous practicing homosexuals on the White House staff. This means that no Republican would dare to discuss it in public. In private a great deal was said and a significant number of Republicans went to Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, to lodge complaints. There were at least sixteen such specific complaints made to Hastert over a five month period. Hastert did nothing at all other than to vaguely tell Foley “straighten up his act....”<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Voice of the White House on Foley

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:12 am

First a reminder that the truthseeker website has anti-semitic material and links.<br><br>But if this is true that the Operation Mockingbird media sat on this information then this indicates to me they were waiting for signals on what the game plan for (s)election 2006 would be.<br><br>Once they got the word to roll back the Republicans by a few seats, then they were off to the races.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>(Whatever its motives for exposing this evil man might be, we all owe a very large debt to CBS News for having the moral courage, and the exquisite timing, for exposing Foley, and eventually, Hastert and the rest of his willing co-conspirators.)<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>CBS, media spook central. They led the pack when the game plan was in place.<br><br>Like the deliberate campaign building up to the Zarqawi capture wargasm to counter dead US soldier number 2500, I consider it a possibility that the Johnny Gosch, Jon Benet Ramsey, Karr busted-unbusted-busted-unbusted stories may have been laying the 'moral anxiety' groundwork for unleashing an <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>underwear coup </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->against the Republicans by bowling for Foley as the lead pin and taking down some kingpins.<br><br>Just maybe. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Voice of the White House on Foley

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:21 am

Well, actually, wasn't it ABC, not CBS? <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Voice of the White House on Foley

Postby postrchild » Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:12 pm

Agian I ask, as I frequently do, about topics like this.....So what? Who cares who broke the freakin story! It is just more batting for the bed they are making themselves to lie down in for the big ol' Dirt Nap. But, in my ever optimistic way, what good will it do? Maybe lose a few seats for the Rugs (repub thugs)? Probably not since diebold is in the hizzouse. <br><br>Q: When will America wake up to the RAMPANT CORRUPTION<br> indigenous to American Politics?<br><br>A: Never. They dont care. <br><br>"I want my MTV...money for nothin and the chicks, (oops I mean boys) for free" <p></p><i></i>
postrchild
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Voice of the White House on Foley

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:28 pm

Well, I suspect that Diebold is effective only in close elections. With Bush/Cheney being lame fucks, I mean ducks, the media isn't leaning quite so much to the right, as evidenced by ABC's outing of Foleygate (it continues to amaze me that it was ABC, though). As the media begins to move ever-so-slightly towards the middle and the public becomes even slightly more informed, the result may be a riptide. You have to keep in mind that Bush didn't really win the election in 2000, not in numbers, anyway. And his win in 2004 was not spectacular. But, small thefts were easy in those times. It was quite brilliant really, how they figured out ahead of time which places were the strategic states to focus on. While the Dems were focused on Florida being the location once again in 2004, the Pubs were working away in Ohio. While the Dems were focused on the old reality, the Pubs were making a new reality.<br><br>Those times, the media had a lot to lose, as in four more years, eight in the case of the 2000 election, of possibly being cut off from access to the White House. Now? Well, now there's only two years to possibly lose if access is cut off to the White House, and loads of dirt surfacing to be reported, which would make up for any loss of access. <br><br>So, if the vote does swing heavily to the left, it will be obvious to the average voter what has happened when the theft goes down. And this time the media may be more professional about reporting irregularities. Actually, if I were in a decision-making role in one of the big ones, I would start running some shows right now about all those irregularities from the last two elections, in preparation for this election's funny stuff, kind of pre-educating the public as to what to expect this time. You know the type, "In 2000 it was Florida, in 2004, it was Ohio, so which state's votes are going to be rigged this election?" Heehee, I can dream, can't I? <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Voice of the White House on Foley

Postby pepsified thinker » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:18 pm

Um, I'm often looking back and saying, 'Guess I overreacted--that wasn't quite the world-flipping event that I thought it was.'<br><br>BUT if there were waves of emails about Foley to anyone and everyone, and if that can be substantiated--that would seem worth a little further public outcry. <br><br>BUT THEN AGAIN, if they went out to everyone, and everyone ignored them, that would make 'us' all to blame--which means no one is to blame. <br><br>SO (a) why aren't the Repbulicans bringing that up? <br> <p></p><i></i>
pepsified thinker
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Voice of the White House on Foley

Postby pepsified thinker » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:20 pm

(sorry-hit the 'send' button before I was through) <br><br>and (b) why are we slowly picking our way through the history of such alerts--seems like that info would gush out more readily. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
pepsified thinker
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Voice of the White House on Foley

Postby rrapt » Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:20 pm

Chig, you are giving ABC and the rest way too much credit. Since they (the networks) are part & parcel of the regime now - look at the ownership - it follows that whatever they focus on is part of the plan. Maybe not for bushco and not necessarily for the repugs either. I don't pretend to know what the plan is, or what purpose this outing is to serve in its execution, but I am quite certain that ABC is working directly on orders, and not because something is "newsworthy." <p></p><i></i>
rrapt
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:27 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Voice of the White House on Foley

Postby MASONIC PLOT » Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:11 pm

ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN or mickey mouse, whatever the case NONE of them are doing anything noble, if they do something its because they are told to do it. if they leak something its because it was meant to be leaked for a PURPOSE. What the purpose is may not be easy to understand, that is where 'conspiracy theory' comes into play, but we can be certain it has a purpose and those who are busy building the empire/4th reich police state are behind it one way or another. <p></p><i></i>
MASONIC PLOT
 

Re: Voice of the White House on Foley

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:17 pm

Sorry, I don't buy the "all part of one big conspiracy" plan. True, they are all horribly dollar-driven today, have totally disassociated themselves from professional journalism because of the chase of the dollar. Fox's success shocked the rest. Now they try to copy-cat Fox. Pitiful performance, though. As the tide turns, they will chase the new reality. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Voice of the White House on Foley

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:26 pm

The only "grand conspiracy" that I see is the one the Republuicans embarked on very deliberately back after Watergate, to take back the media, step by step, right in front of our eyes. Robert Parry had a good piece on that. I'll try to remember to look it up later. The Dems still don't see what happened, or have a clue how to counter it. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Voice of the White House on Foley

Postby MASONIC PLOT » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:02 pm

They Foleygate scandal has been designed specifically by rove to get the reich wing hard core fundamentalist christian voter base into a frothy frenzy so that they will all go out and vote, purging their party of the perverts and replacing them with hard line nazi devil's footsoldiers.<br><br>In any case it doesnt matter WHICH party wins. The democrats are GUILTY as charged for voting in lockstep with the fascists on the patriot act, the illegal iraq invasion, the wiretapping legislation and the new draconain torture bill. Regardless of what anyone says it is very clear that THEY ARE ALL IN IT TOGETHER and this, my friend, by definition, is a GRAND CONSPIRACY. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=masonicplot>MASONIC PLOT</A> at: 10/9/06 4:05 pm<br></i>
MASONIC PLOT
 

"the media" and Foley

Postby robertdreed » Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:00 pm

I'm with the viewpoint that says it ISN'T one grand unified pre-designed plot.<br><br>Yes, I know about Operation Mockingbird. But some of you are projecting a news media that's even more controlled than Pravda and TASS were during the Soviet era. And the Soviets only had one newspaper and one broadcast network to worry about, and they could carry out their manipulation more or less overtly. <br><br>It's vulgar, oversimplified Marxism to imagine that all rich people have an identical agenda. Common interests, and to some extent a common perspective, arguably so. But it's wide of the mark to imagine that ABC = CBS = NBC = CNN = Fox = PBS. There's no evidence for a direct mechanism of editorial control that crafts the content of every newscast on every major national television outlet in order to shift the public mind wherever they desire it to turn. And it's patently absurd to imagine that some monolithic entity known as "the news media" had the power to somehow bury the bury the Foley story, and that they're only running it to provide the Democrats with an edge in November in order to provide Americans with the illusion of electoral democracy. <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Mutatis mutandis</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, that view isn't much different than Laura Ingraham yesterday on the "Fox News Sunday" program broadcast by C-SPAN. She also was railing about some imaginary monolithic entity called "the media", and how they're only running the Foley story in order to provide the Democrats with an edge in November, too. The only difference was that she left out the resigned, bitter, cynical, pre-emptively defeated, cognitively depressed Left analysis tagged on at the end, in favor of keeping a partisan Republican game face on.<br><br>( I can't stand politics when it turns into a dom-sub Punch and Judy show, but I'll tell you this much- it's a whole lot more politically effective to present the public countenance of a "top" dismissing any challenge to power as illusory and illegitimate- no matter how threadbare the act- than it is to assume the role of a defeatist, whiny, passive-aggressive "bottom"- no matter how many plausible reasons one can marshal to support that position. But really, either game...if those are the only two options, I'm out of here. Maybe there's a fishing lodge in New Zealand that needs a dishwasher. ) <br><br>The indictment of "the media" by Ingraham was, of course, absurd. She has her own radio talk show. She's one of Fox News' most featured guest commentators. <br><br> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://lauraingraham.com/">lauraingraham.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>( Oh yeah, just like with Rush Limbaugh, Laura's fellow valiant defenders of Republican-style Free Speech get to post comments on her message board, but it costs $6.95 a month. <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://lauraingraham.com/membership.">lauraingraham.com/membership.</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> And I'll bet you a year's membership- $49.95- that it's still possible to be banned from posting- simply for getting, shall we say, overly contentious. Even if I keep it clean. )<br><br>Not only that, but the day before the aforesaid appearance on Fox New Sunday to explain how "the media" is in cahoots with the "extreme far Left San Francisco Democrats of Nancy Pelosi", Laura Ingraham, radio talk show host and one of the best-known pundits on American television, was one of the guest stars at a guest appearance on behalf of Republican Senator George Allen. <br><br>But the Republicans push the myth of a monolithic "media" in league with the Democratic Party at every turn. After Ingraham's appearance on Fox News Sunday ( as broadcast by C-Span) there was a panel featuring Mara Liasson and Juan Williams of NPR/PBS along with some Republican media spin doctor, and the guy did the same thing- basically asserting that the entire Foley imbroglio was due to "the media" being in league with the Democratic Party...actually, the "Democrat Party"- ever notice how the Repubs always leave off the final syllable? I think that's one of the things they learn in the workshops that Newt Gingrich and his pals set up, back in the '90s. And another is perpetuating the myth that the monolithic "media" is a Liberal Conspiracy expressly set up to attack Republicans.<br><br>And Mara Liasson and Juan Williams of NPR/PBS both had the chance to break set and call the guy on that phony horseshit, and they didn't do it. <br><br>But that lapse wasn't due to the NPR/PBS journalists following orders handed down from the puppetmaster bosses at PBS. I think Mara and Juan are simply unschooled at the educational, informational, and entertainment value of busting a Dominator who's looking to Top them, by hurling his own phony horseshit back in his face instead of putting up with it for a millisecond longer than it takes to leave his pie-hole. <br><br>It would be great if they learned how to do that. <br><br>Anyway, back to the Foley story- please, let's be clear about this much. Whether or not you agree with my view that there's more to the American news media than simply one big propaganda apparatus following orders from on high to actively orchestrate every event in the news cycle for the benefit of some ultimate agenda of control, know this-<br><br>This story could not be buried. It wasn't invented, nor has it been exaggerated. The news media had to report on it. <br><br>Interesting to think that back in the pre-Internet days, it could possibly have been minimized, and put away very discreetly...but not any more. The Internet of today is an ombudsman and check on having a totally controlled press. A hell of an ombudsman. <br><br>And I recommend that everyone who's sick to death of the smarmy moral hypocrisy of the Republican Party maximize their enjoyment of the spectacle of the Ripugs hamming up their Phony Game Face act to the max in laughable attempts to disguise their discomfiture at the exposure of their utter fraudulence, rather than brooding over whether the Foley story merely signifies yet another pre-planned incremental step toward the triumph of some diabolically contrived juggernaut of totalitarianism. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/9/06 7:32 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Whilst I love your prose, Robert,

Postby slimmouse » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:48 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>and I recommend that everyone who's sick to death of the smarmy moral hypocrisy of the Republican Party maximize their enjoyment of the spectacle of the Ripugs hamming up their Phony Game Face act to the max in laughable attempts to disguise their discomfiture at the exposure of their utter fraudulence, rather than brooding over whether the Foley story merely signifies yet another pre-planned incremental step toward the triumph of some diabolically contrived juggernaut of totalitarianism.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Whilst I love the writing style, I do have a problem with the content.<br><br> <br><br> Perhaps I wouldnt if you were to explain in anything approaching logical language the essential difference between Clinton and Bush, then I might have more sympathy for the above quote from your good self , albeit beautifully styled.<br><br>Okay, Okay, you might well argue that this (foleygate ) isnt actually a mere distraction, and in itself has nothing whatsoever to do with the march towards a "diabollically contrived juggernaut of fascism"<br><br> In which case Im sure you will have no problem whatsoever explaining exactly why Bush 43 has just effectively revoked Habeas Corpus ?<br><br> The threat of Terrorism ? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br> <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 10/9/06 7:54 pm<br></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Whilst I love your prose, Robert,

Postby MASONIC PLOT » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:52 pm

There is NO difference between Clinton and Bush. They are tweedledee and tweedledum. As I have stated countless times, you get criminal thug A as one choice on your ballot and criminal scumbag B as the other. Oh, they might throw in a couple of mickey mouse no name third party blowhards just to keep some of us thinking we have a real choice, but, please, do not be fooled or hoodwinked into thinking the third parties are really any different than the other two. American politics regardless of party affiliation or who is running, is controlled by CORPORATE MONEY. Those corporations FUND those on the national ticket and when the election is over they call in their favors, demanding their money reap rewards. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=masonicplot>MASONIC PLOT</A> at: 10/9/06 7:52 pm<br></i>
MASONIC PLOT
 

Next

Return to Paedophilia and Fascist Sexuality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest