Posted on 10/04/2006 5:12:16 PM PDT by jrooney
"If the guy was 18 then this story is dead."
Not if the biased mainstream media has its way.
Well, I just can hardly believe that they got their facts wrong.
I thought they said he was 16. Maybe it was the benign emails that went to the 16 year old.
Yes and O'Reilly just had the POS Brain Ross on, and they were talking about how this Foley thing was bringing the roof down on Hastert! Ross is the king of dirt bags!
It's not about facts, it's about the seriousness of the charge.
IF true, this will not be the big story that it was when he was supposed to be 16.
O'Reilly was just busy interviewing Brian Ross. ;o)
The exchange occured in the Fall during an election (you don't have elections in the early Spring.)
Where did you get the idea he was 18 at the time of the exchange. Look again.
"Other than Drudge saying it, where is the proof he was 18?"
You can find out who he is here:
San Diego HS gradute in 2003
http://www.floppingaces.net/
Yes, and another notch in the belt of the pajamahaden (not sure I spelled that right).
The issue here is the fact that ABC, the MSM and the dems lied and called this person "under age." The MSM gets busted again courtesy of the internet.
Weren't ALL the IM's dated April 2003?
I know who he is. Prove to me he was older than 18.
Posted by MOgirl to acsrp38
On News/Activism 10/04/2006 4:39:07 PM PDT · 285 of 377
Hello,
This is just about (24-48 hours out) to turn into the Wellstone Memorial/Political Rally meets the Rather Forged Documents event. And I, for one, can't wait for it to blow up. These silly, silly Libs do not YET get that what they pulled for decades doesn't work anymore. The new media will cream these idiots, and that leaves me with a huge smile on my face....
Glad to be here, MOgirl
(I'm not right often, so I enjoy it when I can...MOgirl)
Looks like they threw the baby out with the bathwater a little too quickly this time. Makes me wonder if their whole 'independent conservative' thing is just a schtick. Folks hate being played for suckers.
Yeah, the e-mails were for the 16-year-old, so no crime there (although they still were a little creepy). Even if the IM guy wasn't 18, it was not a sure thing that the content was illegal, but if in fact the kid's legal age, then there is no story other than Foley's own sad world.
They will still whine that Hastert didn't "do enough", or that there are other victims, or that there was still a coverup, etc.
So does this mean this whole thing was not about "protecting the children" but was just about outing a gay Republican? If so, the dems are self-destructing - gays are their biggest fans.
Head swimming, but I think I got that right. i'm going to PPB to check it out. Ping me if any more info
K4
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.