It must be horrible to always be played for saps and fools by the media. Always falling right into their hands and dancing as they pull your strings. Simply horrible.
I mean, that is your stock excuse, right?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Four and a half weeks and counting
Four and a half weeks and countingFollow
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji said
An old cnut, who gets his jollies by secretly fantasizing about young boys, while publicly championing legislation designed to protect them. And all the while drawing a healthy salary from the citizens who he has promised to represent.
Why are you defending him again?
Oh yeah, I remember, its 'cos he's a Republican.
If you could pull your puckered lips away from the collective (R)**** just for a moment, perhaps you would be able to see why he not only needs to have resigned, he needs locking up.
Why? For having abused the trust given by the people who voted for him. Thats why.
Who gives a flying fart wether he's gay or not.
You Tit.
Quote:
"hmmm... that's a bit inappropriate, but we're not sure if he's violated any laws",
An old cnut, who gets his jollies by secretly fantasizing about young boys, while publicly championing legislation designed to protect them. And all the while drawing a healthy salary from the citizens who he has promised to represent.
Why are you defending him again?
Oh yeah, I remember, its 'cos he's a Republican.
If you could pull your puckered lips away from the collective (R)**** just for a moment, perhaps you would be able to see why he not only needs to have resigned, he needs locking up.
Why? For having abused the trust given by the people who voted for him. Thats why.
Who gives a flying fart wether he's gay or not.
You Tit.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Jophiel wrote:
It must be horrible to always be played for saps and fools by the media. Always falling right into their hands and dancing as they pull your strings. Simply horrible.
I mean, that is your stock excuse, right?
I mean, that is your stock excuse, right?
Eh? I'm not making any excuses at all. I'm simply pointing out a fact. When the media jumps on an issue and take a position on it, politicians are typically forced to follow suit, at least publically. No one's going to be the one guy standing up to media hype on an issue like this. Heck. I've been bashed in this thread for suggesting that Foley's actions aren't nearly as bad as they've been reported. You actually expect a politician to take that kind of heat?
It's not like I've seen any Dems standing up and saying "Well hold on there! Foley didn't really break any laws that we know of yet, and he's not a pedophile, and if he were straight, we'd not see this much condemnation of his actions!". The fact is that Republicans have to make public statements because it's a member of their party and they are being attacked by association. The Dems are laying low. But if the media was demanding a response from Dems, you can bet they'd be saying the exact same things as the Republicans.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Gbaji is the only person here that seems to have a problem with Foley being gay. Probably latent self-hatred of his own gayness projected outward...
Edited, Oct 9th 2006 at 11:16pm PDT by trickybeck
Edited, Oct 9th 2006 at 11:16pm PDT by trickybeck
gbaji wrote:
Eh? I'm not making any excuses at all. I'm simply pointing out a fact.
No, you're not. Your interpretation of why politicians react in a certain way is not a "fact". It's your interpretation.
And it's bullcrap.
Quote:
When the media jumps on an issue and take a position on it, politicians are typically forced to follow suit, at least publically
Well if that was teh case, then why have politicans? Just let the media take a position, and since everyone just follows it, we can sack those useless politicians and save tons of money.
Quote:
It's not like I've seen any Dems standing up and saying "Well hold on there! Foley didn't really break any laws that we know of yet, and he's not a pedophile, and if he were straight, we'd not see this much condemnation of his actions!"
And that's not because fo teh media. On this board, which is relatively free of media "heat", you're the only one saying that. It's not a coincidence.
And if a 50-something (Democrat) Senator was abusing his position of power by sending sexually explicit emails and text messages to 16 year old girls that work for him, you can be sure the Republican media would be up in arms about it. They would be outraged. They would call him a "sexual predator" who abuses his position of pwer, blablabla. Anyone can see what the reaction from the moralistic puritanist Reps would be.
It has nothing to do with being gay, or the media. Take the blinkers from your eyes, seriously.
Getting back to the story at hand...I know there are those who will vote along their party lines regardless of anything that comes from this. For those who are potentially swayed by this story however, I don't think that Hastert saying "I take responsibility" & "The buck stops here" and then throwing his staff under the bus while he says "I didn't do anything wrong, obviously" is going to win him the hearts and minds of the voting public.
CNN wrote:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Tuesday he'll dismiss anyone on his staff found to have covered up concerns about ex-Rep. Mark Foley's approaches to former pages.
Hastert, R-Illinois, said he huddled with his staff last week and in that, in hindsight, the situation could have been better handled.
But he added, "If they did cover something up, then they should not continue to have their jobs."
Hastert, R-Illinois, said he huddled with his staff last week and in that, in hindsight, the situation could have been better handled.
But he added, "If they did cover something up, then they should not continue to have their jobs."
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Gosh, that has a familiar ring to it. Where have we heard a statement like that before?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
And, swinging back to gay Washington, there was an interesting column written in the Trib's News blog regarding Christian Right groups agitating for a purge of these gays in Congress who are holding back their agenda.
No doubt they were swayed by the evil media reports
No doubt they were swayed by the evil media reports
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
After reading that, my interest was piqued, so I thought I'd go see what the Washington Times's righthanded slant was saying.
Apparently, he doesn't include himself in that statement, but he DOES find a way to bring it back to the dems! 
How amoral!
Quote:
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said today he will dismiss anyone on his staff found to have covered up concerns about ex-Rep. Mark Foley's approaches to former pages.
Mr. Hastert said he met with his staff last week and in that, in hindsight, the situation could have been better handled. But he added that "if there is a problem, if there was a cover-up, then we should find that out through the investigation process. They'll be under oath, and we'll find out.
"If they did cover something up, then they should not continue to have their jobs. But I didn't think anybody at any time in my office did anything wrong," Mr. Hastert said at a press conference in Aurora, Ill.
Mr. Hastert said he met with his staff last week and in that, in hindsight, the situation could have been better handled. But he added that "if there is a problem, if there was a cover-up, then we should find that out through the investigation process. They'll be under oath, and we'll find out.
"If they did cover something up, then they should not continue to have their jobs. But I didn't think anybody at any time in my office did anything wrong," Mr. Hastert said at a press conference in Aurora, Ill.
Quote:
In Illinois, Mr. Hastert confirmed reports from last week that he initially had suggested having former FBI Director Louis Freeh head up a Capitol Hill inquiry on the page program, but that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California objected.
Well, an evangelist who is himself under a cloud of suspicion due to fiscal irregularities has met with Hastert....
...And urged him to step down. Yay, I guess.
...And urged him to step down. Yay, I guess.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Four and a half weeks and counting
only a couple o weeks to go......we gettin' excited yet?
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
One of the dogs I'm taking care of has loose stools. He's the biggest animal here, roughly three feet tall at the shoulder and maybe one hundred-forty pounds. Probably one the biggest german shephards alive; he's the size of a great dane.
So anyway, he has loose stools, putrid puddles of ****. The problem is, he eats his own Shit, then craps it out, and quickly gobbles it up again. Each incarnation of his **** become more and more fluid, watered down, if you will. He's the living embodiment of the phrase: same Shit, different day.
His name is Rex, but I've taken to calling him Gbaji.
Edited, Oct 10th 2006 at 6:33pm PDT by Barkingturtle
So anyway, he has loose stools, putrid puddles of ****. The problem is, he eats his own Shit, then craps it out, and quickly gobbles it up again. Each incarnation of his **** become more and more fluid, watered down, if you will. He's the living embodiment of the phrase: same Shit, different day.
His name is Rex, but I've taken to calling him Gbaji.
Edited, Oct 10th 2006 at 6:33pm PDT by Barkingturtle
Quote:
Getting back to the story at hand...
like a soap opera
Last week, America got mad because Foley hit on this Page who told Renyolds who told Shimkus to tell Hastert but only told his staff before Boehner told Alexander who told HIS staff who told Hastert who was mad because Clinton told Soros to tell CREW to tell the Page to seduce Foley so America would get mad!
Confused? You won't be after this thread!
Edited, Oct 10th 2006 at 10:35pm PDT by Jophiel
Confused? You won't be after this thread!
Edited, Oct 10th 2006 at 10:35pm PDT by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Boehner
Hehe. fnaar, fnaar,
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
Quote:
It's not like I've seen any Dems standing up and saying "Well hold on there! Foley didn't really break any laws that we know of yet, and he's not a pephile, and if he were straight, we'd not see this much condemnation of his actions!"
And that's not because fo teh media. On this board, which is relatively free of media "heat", you're the only one saying that. It's not a coincidence.
*cough*. You're right. I'm the only one saying "Well hold on there! Foley didn't really break any laws that we know of yet, and he's not a pephile, and if he were straight, we'd not see this much condemnation of his actions!".
Yet look how much "heat" I'm getting just from the people on this board. Are you seriously trying to argue that if a politician stood up and said that publically, that they *wouldn't* get smeared in the media for it?
I guess I'm just not following the point of the argument (other then general contrariness). First, Republican's aren't just saying condemn Foley because they know if they don't they'll get a media backlash, but because of some inherent puritanical "hatred" (or fear or whatever) of the gays. But if they are just saying it, then they're somehow saps for being manipulated by the media into concemning someone in a situation they might otherwise not.
The problem is that this does not say anything about Republican's exclusively. As I've already pointed out, it's not like any Dems have made the arguments I've made about Foley's actions. Not one Dem politician. Zero. Zip. Nada. And they have a lot less "heat" on them over this issue. The Dems are simply in a position to not have to publically take a position. Those that have, however, have said essentially the same condemning statements you've heard from Republicans.
So, aren't you holding the two parties to different standards? Every single thing that's been said about Republican's applies equally to Dems. I could look at their actions and statements and also conclude that they're either puritanical gay-haters, or they're media saps. It's meaningless to point only at one side on this...
Quote:
And if a 50-something (Democrat) Senator was abusing his position of power by sending sexually explicit emails and text messages to 16 year old girls that work for him, you can be sure the Republican media would be up in arms about it. They would be outraged. They would call him a "sexual predator" who abuses his position of pwer, blablabla. Anyone can see what the reaction from the moralistic puritanist Reps would be.
It's already happened. Multiple times. Read this article for a bit of an edumacation...
Democrats have, not just exchanged sexually explicit emails and IMs with teens, but had sex with them, and were not only not forced from office, but continued to be re-elected and supported by their party. How big was the media coverage? Apparently, not nearly that big. Can you even imagine the screaming that would be occuring right now if Foley had not resigned?
You really asked the wrong question here. Because I don't have to guess what the media or Democrat party response would be in such a case. We already know. And it's no-where near the 4 alarm fire that's going on over Foley...
Quote:
It has nothing to do with being gay, or the media. Take the blinkers from your eyes, seriously.
Wrong. It has everything to do with those two things *and* with the fact that he's a Republican. Because when you change any of those things (especially the Republican part), it magically isn't treated as a huge deal. At least not historically.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
It's already happened. Multiple times. Read this article for a bit of an edumacation...
The three pointer at the buzzer...it's up...and it's good! Gbaji's win! Gbaji's win!
From the letter Gbaji links toNot to dispute the facts in any of the cases but (and this was a letter from some reader, not a product of the newspaper) the author isn't really on track with much of this.
(a) The "Democrats" didn't re-elect Mills, Studds and potentially Franks, the people of their states and districts did.
(b) The stripper thing has nothing to do with anything when discussing Foley. The Franks/prostitution one even less so unless it's been proven that there was a knowing connection between Franks and what his boyfriend was up to. Given that the letter trying to rake the Democrats over the coals failed to provide a connection, I'm guessing none existed and the author was relying on his own conjecture.
(c) Clinton did not commute Reynolds' sentence for the involvement with the 16 year old. Reynolds had already served his prison sentence for that when Clinton left office. Per the United States Department of Justice, the sentence commuted by Clinton was for "Bank fraud; wire fraud; making false statements to a financial institution; conspiracy to defraud the Federal Election Commission; false statements to a federal official". I bring this up because lately the Right has loved to make it sound as if Clinton commuted the sex offence as their defense in the Foley case. As evidenced by this letter.
The Studds thing is the strongest case but I'm still not moved by it. It proves what? That twenty-three years ago, the Democrats failed to respond as they did now? Isn't that an improvement to demand more accountability? Is there supposed to be some quid pro quo where the Republicans get a pass now because of what Studds did in 1983?
The letter wrote:
In 1974, Rep. Wilbur D. Mills, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee was involved in a drunken escapade with a stripper, but the Democrats re-elected him in 1976.
In 1983 Democrat Gary Studds molested a 17-year-old male page. He did not resign form Congress and was re-elected by the Democrats five more times
In 1990 Barney Frank's live-in boyfriend ran a male prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank refused to resign and is still in Congress. If the Democrats win in November, Franks will be head of the Financial Services Committee.
In 1994 Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds was indicted and later convicted of having sex with a 16-year-old female subordinate, but he was re-elected in 1994. President Clinton (who had sex with a 21-year-old female subordinate) commuted his sentence, and Jesse Jackson (who had sex with a female) rewarded Reynolds by adding him to the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's payroll.
In 1983 Democrat Gary Studds molested a 17-year-old male page. He did not resign form Congress and was re-elected by the Democrats five more times
In 1990 Barney Frank's live-in boyfriend ran a male prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank refused to resign and is still in Congress. If the Democrats win in November, Franks will be head of the Financial Services Committee.
In 1994 Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds was indicted and later convicted of having sex with a 16-year-old female subordinate, but he was re-elected in 1994. President Clinton (who had sex with a 21-year-old female subordinate) commuted his sentence, and Jesse Jackson (who had sex with a female) rewarded Reynolds by adding him to the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's payroll.
(a) The "Democrats" didn't re-elect Mills, Studds and potentially Franks, the people of their states and districts did.
(b) The stripper thing has nothing to do with anything when discussing Foley. The Franks/prostitution one even less so unless it's been proven that there was a knowing connection between Franks and what his boyfriend was up to. Given that the letter trying to rake the Democrats over the coals failed to provide a connection, I'm guessing none existed and the author was relying on his own conjecture.
(c) Clinton did not commute Reynolds' sentence for the involvement with the 16 year old. Reynolds had already served his prison sentence for that when Clinton left office. Per the United States Department of Justice, the sentence commuted by Clinton was for "Bank fraud; wire fraud; making false statements to a financial institution; conspiracy to defraud the Federal Election Commission; false statements to a federal official". I bring this up because lately the Right has loved to make it sound as if Clinton commuted the sex offence as their defense in the Foley case. As evidenced by this letter.
The Studds thing is the strongest case but I'm still not moved by it. It proves what? That twenty-three years ago, the Democrats failed to respond as they did now? Isn't that an improvement to demand more accountability? Is there supposed to be some quid pro quo where the Republicans get a pass now because of what Studds did in 1983?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
So is the first time that a Pubbie has done anything like this? Speaking as a non-American
Nah, back on page 2, Paulsol copy 'n pasted some giant litany of sex crimes committed by Republicans from various levels of government.
Edit: And special thanks to Christopher Shays for putting the Foley scandal back onto the front page after N. Korea and New York plane crashes had threatened to bury it for now.
Edited, Oct 11th 2006 at 10:47pm PDT by Jophiel
Edit: And special thanks to Christopher Shays for putting the Foley scandal back onto the front page after N. Korea and New York plane crashes had threatened to bury it for now.
Edited, Oct 11th 2006 at 10:47pm PDT by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
The Studds thing is the strongest case but I'm still not moved by it. It proves what? That twenty-three years ago, the Democrats failed to respond as they did now? Isn't that an improvement to demand more accountability? Is there supposed to be some quid pro quo where the Republicans get a pass now because of what Studds did in 1983?
Actually when Studds slept with the 17-year-old page, 17 was the age of legal consent at the time.
Edit: Appears that 16 is the current D.C. age of consent anyway.
Edited, Oct 11th 2006 at 11:19pm PDT by trickybeck
Quote:
Nah, back on page 2, Paulsol copy 'n pasted some giant litany of sex crimes committed by Republicans from various levels of government.
Someone noticed! I have this vision sometimes of me, with my head down a well yelling away, and no-one listening, and sometimes a very faint echo comes back, and I can just make out the words ....'GFY'....
I feel all warm now....
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Jophiel wrote:
The Studds thing is the strongest case but I'm still not moved by it. It proves what? That twenty-three years ago, the Democrats failed to respond as they did now? Isn't that an improvement to demand more accountability? Is there supposed to be some quid pro quo where the Republicans get a pass now because of what Studds did in 1983?
I was specifically looking at that case as well, since it's virtually identical to the Foley case (except that Studds actually did have sex with the page, wheras Foley insists he hasn't). That there were others listed on that pages was not my argument, so let's set them aside.
Let me also add that the argument is not some kind of "well the Dems got away with X, so we should get away with it too!". That's *really* not the issue. The issue is about how the media has reacted to the two cases, and how that has driven the public to demand action in one case where it did not in the other. More to the point, as I've been arguing for months (years now actually), there's a common tactic of left wing political groups to deliberately exagerate any issue they can if it can be used to attack the Republicans. They do this by simply repeating their allegations over and over to any media outlet that'll listen, assuming (unfortunately correctly) that mere repetition via a public forum will convince many people that what they say has merit.
Ask yourself this question Joph. Where did the argument that Hastert should resign as a result of all of this come from? I'm serious. You didn't come up with it yourself, right? You heard it somewhere. Where did that person get that idea (likely a media source or commentator, right)? Trace that back Joph. At the end of that trail is going to be someone (or multiple someone's) in the employ of groups like moveon.org specifically to get the "message" out there. It's not Republican's demanding that Hastert resign before anyone know's what actually happened. It's not even Democrats (I'm talking about politicians). It's coming from Liberal political groups who are making the demand in front of any media source they can find. Those sources then "report" on the demand, which in turn forms public opinion on the issue.
You can disbelieve this all you want, but how many times do we have to have a sudden single argument appear literally from no-where, with no historical reason for it. Where did the call for Hastert to resign come from Joph? It didn't just appear by itself. Certainly, dozens of news sources didn't all suddenly come to the same conclusion that he should resign based purely on the actual known facts of this case! Not to mention that news sources don't do that. They *report* about things like that (in theory anyway).
So which is more believable Joph? That dozens of news agencies all independantly covered stories about different people and groups who all spontaneously came to the same conclusion that Hastert should resign? Or that maybe there was a deliberate move to put those stories in the media all saying the same thing at the same time? You tell me Joph? I think it's kinda obvious, and you've got to be incredibly naive about how our media works to think otherwise.
Kinda like the unlikelyhood that ABC just suddenly stumbled upon this story 4.5 weeks before a major mid-term election...
Sure. I've got a bridge to sell ya if you believe that one.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
trickybeck wrote:
Quote:
The Studds thing is the strongest case but I'm still not moved by it. It proves what? That twenty-three years ago, the Democrats failed to respond as they did now? Isn't that an improvement to demand more accountability? Is there supposed to be some quid pro quo where the Republicans get a pass now because of what Studds did in 1983?
Actually when Studds slept with the 17-year-old page, 17 was the age of legal consent at the time.
Edit: Appears that 16 is the current D.C. age of consent anyway.
Ding ding ding!!!
Here's the thing. We don't even have any evidence that Foley had sex with any 16 year olds. But even if he did, it's not illegal in DC...
The point I'm really making here is that I've never in my life heard of a sex scandal in DC where anyone other then the actual politician involved was the target of the scandal (unless someone else was involved in the sex itself of course!). Yet here we have a very straightforward scandal. Actually quite tame by comparison to many that have happened in the past. Yet for some bizaare reason, everyone's somehow concluded that it makes sense to demand the resignation of the Speaker of the House and a complete investigation of all the Republican leadership, not because there's evidence that they knew something, but purely to find out if they did.
Am I really the only person who sees this for what it so obviously is? Election year dirt flinging brought to a whole new low.
The folks behind those demands dont care about protecting kids. They don't care about punishing predators. They care only about one thing: Getting a big scandal and keeping it in the media for as long as they possibly can. It's purely about getting enough people to *think* that something wrong is being done. Don't have to prove it. Just get lots of people talking about the possiblity and you're golden. I find that reprehsenible politics, regardless of who's doing it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Am I really the only person who sees this for what it so obviously is?
Yup.
But you have got to be the most paranoid person I have ever come across.
Honestly fella, listen to yourself.
Everyone is out to get you. (or your heroes)
Everyone is ganging up on you.
Everyone is conspiring against you.
You make these people look like a bunch of lightweights when it comes to conspiracy theories!
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Recent Visitors: 274
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (274)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Four and a half weeks and counting
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC