Posted on 05/29/2015 7:06:44 PM PDT by bimboeruption
The guy, Hastert, is clearly in deep here.
If he was diddling high school boys, he’s a homo. If he was doing it while their coach, he should be in prison.
Do try to defend what he did. I am willing to wait for the whole story to come out. But it doesn’t look good.
Does 34 years make what he did less creepy and disgusting?
Oh come on! No Conservative who held their nose and voted for Romney as the lesser of two evils is going to defend a pedophile, even a Republican one.
What's your solution? Refuse to vote for any Republican who doesn't meet our Conservative standards 100% because they might also be pedophiles?
Those of us Conservatives who held our noses and voted for Romney will not cover for this. The perv has to pay for what he did, and our side shown it will take out the trash when we find them, even our own. It's bad enough to have to put up with this kind of slant from the left, without using it against each other.
Since we have Freepers who have said as much, I take them at their word.
Refuse to vote for politicians who personally have records of advocating putting homosexuals with kids, or lowering the age of consent laws.
That would be Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney Both of whom were well known to people to whom shielding kids from gay predators long before their presidential campaigns.
That is not some “100 percent” agree with everything standard.
It is, however, making children safe a non negotiable issue.
One hundred percent of Freepers who went beyond holding their nose and voting for Romney...and proceeded to insist that people who voted third party or write in because of the gays in the boy scouts thing have been advocating for pedophilia outright.
There is no way to dodge what they are doing.
You might put forth quibbles about what their motives might be, but their motives are irrelevant.
You have my attention. Do you have anything on this?
I checked around, and some homosexual activist sites were not impressed with Romney's record on homosexual rights. What do you have?
Let's see some samples.
While on camera, a reporter ambushed Romney and asked which side he supported. Romney response was that if the homosexuals could get a bill on the matter through the legislature that he would sign it. You can still find the clip of this exchange on YouTube.
Romney later went on to institute homosexual marriage in Massachusetts by executive order.
And if you look at the department of education in Massachusetts, you find that it is the source for a lot of homosexual advocacy posing as education. A lot of the people who are creating this curriculum were appointed by ... wait for it ... Mitt Romney.
I didn’t defend if and you know it. I am just not willing to lie about it either. Nor will I make things up. Nor will I defend blackmail as those this was services rendered.
Not saying you defended him. It is indefensible. I am not condoning blackmail either.
But, don’t think his security clearance background did not uncover this? People knew, and he was corrupted because of it. One has got to wonder if his taste for boys was satisfied as a young man...or if he just got smarter about getting them.
I am so tired of our politicians being perverts and corrupt pigs. They are ALL sullied by this.
No
I don't see why I have to prove your point, but I searched anyway. All I found was a clip of him waffling on the issue here. He supported the right of the Boy Scouts to choose their policy, but thought all should be welcome.
Romney later went on to institute homosexual marriage in Massachusetts by executive order.
As governor, Romney faced challenge on gay marriage
And if you look at the department of education in Massachusetts, you find that it is the source for a lot of homosexual advocacy posing as education. A lot of the people who are creating this curriculum were appointed by ... wait for it ... Mitt Romney.
On this, I am going to call on you to prove your point. Who were they, and what did they push for?
“He is also charged with ‘structuring’ the withdrawals to avoid reporting requirements under federal law.”
I have a big problem with that law. I can “structure” perfectly legal withdrawals so that I don’t have to do Federal paperwork. If the Feds see the transactions and come asking me what I am doing, I should not have to tell them anything I have broken no laws. I have simply avoided the $10,000 transaction limit and eliminated extra paperwork.
If the Feds ask me why, I should have no obligation to tell them anything. It is none of their business. For them to be able to charge me with “structuring” and “obstruction of justice” is ludicrous.
Why not? They threw other supposedly ironclad beliefs out the door to vote for a liberal that has a record documentably more liberal than Barry did as a Senator. So considering they thoroughly compromised such strongly keld beliefs, lying to themselves in the process, why is it so hard to think that people that screamed ‘no matter what’ couldn’t do it again?
Don’t get mad at me for pointing out that simple truth folks. The moral relativism of phrase ‘no matter what’ means exactly that. So either they were lying about that too, or they were not. It is what it is. If they didn’t mean ‘no matter what’ then they shouldn’t have spent 2 election cycles reinforcing moral relativism and to this very day, calling people traitors to America, haters of their country, Obama supporters and the rest of the crap we had to listen to for the hideous crime of refusing to help them inject more liberals into governmental power with a magical “R” attached.
Are you accusing those who voted for the perv (assuming he's guilty) did so knowing about this?
If they didn’t mean ‘no matter what’ then they shouldn’t have spent 2 election cycles reinforcing moral relativism and to this very day, calling people traitors to America, haters of their country, Obama supporters and the rest of the crap we had to listen to for the hideous crime of refusing to help them inject more liberals into governmental power with a magical “R” attached.
And what solution did any of you offer that wouldn't result in another four years of Obama? Although I asked many times, your side never offered an option that didn't make it easier for Obama to win.
It’s a legacy from the drug war. Hastert was a big time supporter. No sympathy at all.
I fail to see the connection. At all.
Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, and file reports of cash purchases of these negotiable instruments of more than $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act
______________________________________________________________________
Hastart was a big time supporter of the drug war, and the BSA of 1970 is part of that. It's called being hoist on his own petard.
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.