Republicans Are Apparently Claiming Foley Promised Not to Do it Again!!

Damocles said:
Bush had a far higher approval rating among all of the nation as well as among his party during the election cycle for his second term. Ignoring this and pretending that all Rs are on this guy's bandwagon when it is clearly not true is still more pretense. It isn't going to convince anybody that all Rs follow Bush or that all Ds will follow Carter. However there was a significant percentage that will vote D or R regardless of who the person running is.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying there isn't a certain % that will only vote for dems. I'm saying the number is bigger on the con side and the liberal constituency is more likely to react to leaders that go astray. Other than indicted republican's, I haven't seen the con's constituency react much at all. The "far-left" as I would be deemed, is moving away from Hillary and Lieberman lost his primary.
 
LadyT said:
No he didn't. Can you tell me where he got 33% from?

I'll tell you my guess:

Given the fact that the pres and his admin currently seem to have a steady 33% foothold on approval ratings that doesn't seem to ever really budge below that number NO MATTER what he or his administration does he seems to be transferring that rate on to the dems, which I believe to not be case. He hasn't really substantiated anything that would elude to the fact that that number is derived from anything other than a guess. Hell, I gave Nixon's approval rating. He pulled that 33% out of his @$$.
Click to expand...

I didn't see it either. I do however love it when people say so and so already said this numerous times and chastise me for not seeing it but still don't tell me where the information actually came from should be pretty easy but instead they don't tell me. I always suspect that they either don't have the information or forgot it, or only think the person said it. Then I read something like this and I say "Ok I'm not the only one that missed his numerous tellings and re-tellngs." And I feel much better.

I would like to mention one other topic broached by Damocles. Bush didn't really have that such support during the last election cycle. And if you subtract all the fraudulent votes he didn't even win the election. :mad:
 
He didn't explain any derivation. He just said, "he was working off mine" and then dropped a few points to put it closer to the figure I gave with respect to Nixon. That's not a derivation. If its not based on any study or poll or combination of polls, he should simply say, "I pulled it out of my $$". Which, as I stated earlier is fine. Just say so.
 
LadyT said:
Right, because I've never disagreed with democrats.

Here lets see if you can understand the challenge this time. And try an actual answer to the question this time, 'kay? Thanks.

Long-winded diatribes on what you feel my loyalty to the democrats don't count.

You stated:

"Correct.. and their would be 33% of Dems that would do the same on behalf of the Democrat Party... "

Where did YOU get that number from?
Click to expand...
Where did he state the 33% thing, it isn't in this thread...
 
Damo, if you tell me 10% of people are allergic to bee pollen, and I tell you 10% are allergic to fish "based off your" number, I think its reasonable to ask exactly how you came to that assertion. Simply saying, "based off your number" isn't an answer.
 
Damocles said:
He made, as he explained, a generalized statement based on the number she gave. Then he later expanded and deepened the conversation past that point. Pretending he didn't explain that is deliberate disingenuous because you want to pretend the explanation wasn't forthcoming. However, we all saw that it was well-explained as well as expanded upon in later posts.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. I just never saw it, there is nothing disingenuous about it. I never saw it. I don't read the whole damn thread before i respond, If I did as I noted many times before I wouldn't be doing any responding at all, but just reading, and believe me as interesting as you all are if I only want to read, I have plenty of really good books just sitting all around me begging me to read them. So when I come here I generally just lightly and quickly skim things before jumping in. Sorry!!!!!!
 
he just applied the same number to Dems. I for one don't think that's reasonable. Mine was based off bush's lows and particularly around the time where his administration was getting bad press for seemingly conservative issues like port security and immigration.

When I mentioned the fact that cons can put aside partisan bickering and come together I based it on his high of ~90% was what I read his approval rating was immediately following the attacks on 9/11.

You see how that works. My number came from somewhere. His didn't. And I'm trying to get clarity on how he came up with that number.
 
Prakosh said:
Why are you suddenly so insistent on Democratic involvement when even the House leadership according to your own post:

:

acted responsibily in all of this. How could the Democrats have been more to blame for this than the Republicans who sloughed off an investigation a year ago on the guy. Why are you calling for an investigation of the Democrats instead of an investigation of the people responsible for sloughing off the investigation in the first place? That is the leadership of the Republican Party, or do you suddenly think that the Democrats have more power here than the Republicans who kept the Demecrats out of the loop. It looks to me like you just want an investigation of who leaked these emails. That is all you want. At least be honest enough to own up to what you are asking for.

Since you are interested in the "whole truth" and all.
Click to expand...
I am not insistent on democrat involvement, you misread me. I'm just not willing to rule it out in the face of an allegation. I want ALL the allegations given respect. I don't want partisnaship to steer this toward or away from a particular conclusion. Let the facts lead the way. E-mail leakers are irrlelavant to this right now, (but to be consistent with Plamr, we should look at these at some point. That however is completely different argument, and I'll discuss it no more)

I equate this to a case of child abuse. I have no tolerance for anyone connected with it. Perhaps I m not clear in that I am assuming you understand that I want (and expect) a full investigation of the reps. But if the dems knew and delayed (for whatever reason), in my mind, they are no better than the wife who knows the old man is molesting the kids and does nothing. I want anyone who, once it became clear that this was beyond the realm of 'over-friendly,' didn't work to do right, to get hammered. That is non-partisan.
 
Which thread? I remember reading his explanation that he applied your number generally and reading his elabortions in the thread.
 
LadyT said:
he just applied the same number to Dems. I for one don't think that's reasonable. Mine was based off bush's lows and particularly around the time where his administration was getting bad press for seemingly conservative issues like port security and immigration.

When I mentioned the fact that cons can put aside partisan bickering and come together I based it on his high of ~90% was what I read his approval rating was immediately following the attacks on 9/11.

You see how that works. My number came from somewhere. His didn't. And I'm trying to get clarity on how he came up with that number.
Click to expand...
Right, but he elaborated later actually stating that he used that number generally as you had used it in the previous post.
 
Prakosh said:
No it isn't. I just never saw it, there is nothing disingenuous about it. I never saw it. I don't read the whole damn thread before i respond, If I did as I noted many times before I wouldn't be doing any responding at all, but just reading, and believe me as interesting as you all are if I only want to read, I have plenty of really good books just sitting all around me begging me to read them. So when I come here I generally just lightly and quickly skim things before jumping in. Sorry!!!!!!
Click to expand...
I see, so where did you get the information to make your assumption about trog's posts if you hadn't read them then?

I'll bet we can make some sort of statement about bending over, reaching into some sort of orifice and carefully extracting them... I bet I could!
 
LadyT said:
Damo, if you tell me 10% of people are allergic to bee pollen, and I tell you 10% are allergic to fish "based off your" number, I think its reasonable to ask exactly how you came to that assertion. Simply saying, "based off your number" isn't an answer.
Click to expand...
No, he basically stated (paraphrasing here) that he had just used your number generally. He also later elaborated using a "plus or minus" figure...
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Now, now, Cypress. Foey has always been non-commital when asked if he was gay. Shame on you for suggesting that the R's not vote for a gay guy!
Click to expand...

I don't think they should vote for gay guys, nor do I believe they should allow them to represent their party. Just how many closeted homosexuals are there in the Republican party? Ken Melham is so obvious it makes me laugh.

This is a party that uses homosexuals as a wedge issue in order to win elections. So, the ugly truth is that they don't give a crap about homosexuality but just use it in order to get their hateful base to the polls.

Well, I say, put your money where your mouth is. You use bigotry and hatred to win elections and then privately embrace homosexuals as long as they are prominent members of your own party? That's BS.
 
I see that we are trying very hard to drag the dems into this. You'll only do that one way; find evidence that the one democrat on the ethics committee was notified. This should not be difficult. Surely these committees keep records.

Otherwise, all of the right wing blogs and right wing media are dead in the water.

I understand their desperation though. This will keep the base HOME.

And that kills them in this election. They're dead.
 
Darla said:
And that kills them in this election. They're dead.
Click to expand...

No. They are not dead at all. The republican base will blow this one under rug like they do any other explosive issue. I think you are underestimating how far they will sink to be apologists.
 
Damocles said:
No, he basically stated (paraphrasing here) that he had just used your number generally. He also later elaborated using a "plus or minus" figure...
Click to expand...

based on what???????????? Damo, face it, he pulled it out of thin air. That's my only point.
 
I understand their desperation though. This will keep the base HOME.

I don't think so, Darla. I agree with Tiana.

The last two Republican House leaders had to resign because of sexual depravity and serial adultery: Gingrich and Livington. Didn't cause the "values voters" one bit of heartburn.

Foley was in a leadership position: deputy whip.

The alleged christian "values voters" won't be detered from voting GOP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top