The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) [Archive] - Page 6

Alex

10-02-2006, 02:37 PM

Not if fit boys is what you're into and are hoping the other kid is, too.

Obviously. But we're not talking about a situation where it is known that the guy is into young boys. Foley knows it is an attempt at building a relationship out of sexual desire. Hastert has no way of knowing that and these emails are hardly strong evidence that it is true.

But you're right, it is sad to always have that stuff in the air. I coach a kid's soccer team, and one of the key pieces of advice at the orientation was never be alone with someone else's kid without another adult present.

But how do we know we can trust you to be alone with your kid? Incestuous child molestation is more common than all the other kinds.

You say this is sad but at the same time apparently feel that it should be assumed by Hastert, a presumably trusted colleague, is depraved on the basis on these emails.

Does not compute.

It doesn't compute that an adult can express interest in a young person without it being sexual? As I said, these emails aren't all that different from dozens I've seen written (and written myself on a few occasions) and yet there was no sexual interest. I will stand by my statement that if you put these emails among those emails you wouldn't be about to pick them out.

This isn't some kid with undeveloped impulse control who never learned appropriate boundaries. Like all the scandalous priests, he destroyed his own career.

Yes, he did. That's the point. He destroyed his career. Those emails would have been a pretty flimsy basis for another to destroy his career. And can you think of anything more damaging to a Congressman's career than the speaker of the house issuing a press release that he has asked the police to investigate you because you sent one former employee an email asking for a picture and said another former employee was fit?

Yes, in this case it would have turned out to be right, but it would have been an overreaction reminiscent of the trumped up child abuse cases of the late '80s.

Only in hindsight of the later letters are these emails obviously insidious.

I want to be really clear that I am in no way defending Foley, just the idea that Hastert should have called out all the dogs a year ago.

Strangler Lewis

10-02-2006, 02:47 PM

I want to be really clear that I am in no way defending Foley, just the idea that Hastert should have called out all the dogs a year ago.

Well, if he could put the same laser-like focus on this issue as the media has, then yes. However, he has 434 other scoundrels to worry about, plus himself, and he has a country to ruin, so I imagine he spends a lot of time wishing/hoping/assuming that a lot of s*** will just goes away.

scaeagles

10-02-2006, 09:12 PM

Alex

10-02-2006, 09:39 PM

Assuming Hastert did what you accuse him of earlier in this thread, do you really find using political dirt at a politically opportune time to equally as bad as protecting the career of a politician making inappropriate advances on children to avoid scandal?

The left wouldn't have a political football if Foley weren't a scumbag and either side would have used it if it dropped in their lap.

scaeagles

10-03-2006, 05:30 AM

No, I'm saying if they knew 6 months ago they had a responsibility to disclose it at that time, the same as Hastert had the responsibility to disclose it. Hastert didn't want it to come out prior to the election. If the theories I have heard regarding the dems knowing as well are true, they should not have waited until now.

Anyone who knew this was going on and did not do anything about it in order to maximize political advantage in terms of timing is despicable, whether it was to protect a seat or damage a party. There was a something sick going on that needed to be stopped immediately.

The left has a political football, and in this case I really don't mind if they use it. A predator and the leadership protecting him deserve all they get. I just hope the dems weren't sitting on it for months the same as Hastert (allegedly - I could be wrong). Politics is politics, but this goes beyond some fund raising scandal or some other such thing.

It is always possible I am jumping to conclusions about Hastert.

Moonliner

10-03-2006, 07:30 AM

The left has a political football, and in this case I really don't mind if they use it. A predator and the leadership protecting him deserve all they get.

From the reports I'm seeing, it looks like a lot of people share your thoughts Leo. I really think this points to a disconnect between the republican leadership, their promotion of family values, and the people. I really feel like it's coming as a shock to some of these politicians that good people like you really believe in the message and not in the politicians who are just giving it lip service.

JWBear

10-03-2006, 08:36 AM

I just heard this on the radio this morning and I haven’t had time to verify it… Apparently Foley's "interests" have been common knowledge on Capitol Hill for the last 5 years, and some staffers have been warning pages to avoid him. If this is true, so much for the “Haslert didn’t know the emails were sexual” defense.

Alex

10-03-2006, 08:42 AM

According to this timeline (http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/oct/01/timeline_of_foley_email_scandal), from a right-leaning source, the story was first given to the press in November 2005 but the St. Petersburg Times did nothing with it (presumably because they felt those early emails weren't sufficient or perhaps they were protecting a local politician). It also has the emails being provided to the FBI (though it isn't clear on which ones) in June of this year.

So it sounds like there were attempts and opportunities for this to hit the press much earlier than now.

Alex

10-03-2006, 08:46 AM

The source on the pages having been warned about Foley is Matthew Loraditch, current president of the page alumni association. He says he was warned that Foley was gay and not to get too involved with him.

Loraditch has also, on some blog of his said that the Associated Press overstated his quote into a bigger warning than it was.

I wonder what we would think if presented with a warning from a Republican staffer to avoid someone because they were gay.

Nephythys

10-03-2006, 09:03 AM

I'm mad. Like majorly pissed off mad.

The republicans have a pedofile predator in their leadership in Congress.

Granted no one is responsible for their behavior except themselves. But it looks like it was known for a year. And no one did a damn thing about it. He had a reputation among the pages as someone to stay away from.

Every person in the republican leadership who knew about this prior to it breaking should be kicked out of office. Hastert, whomever. And now Foley has the audacity to blame it on alcoholism? Hastert, who apparently knew about it, now has the chutzpah to say that there should be a criminal investigation.

I can't say I think Hastert is guilty of a crime. But he is guilty of the worst kind of politics, as it looks as if he was simply interested in protecting the seat. I am amazed that some people are crying politics at the timing of the release of this. What? That makes me sick. The politics were being played by republican house leaderhship.

Scum.

ah but what about this stuff? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs_ibd_ibd/2006102issues01)

-Foley is scum- but the Dems faked outrage is an insult.

Politics in general are making me sick right now- bleaugh!

Strangler Lewis

10-03-2006, 09:07 AM

Both parties show a base contempt for the voters.

Nephythys

10-03-2006, 09:09 AM

Both parties show a base contempt for the voters.

No kidding. But I am commenting on this case-

wendybeth

10-03-2006, 11:37 AM

Wow. Didn't take long for this to be the Dems problem, did it?

Just blame it all on Clinton and get it over with.:rolleyes:

Scrooge McSam

10-03-2006, 11:51 AM

Wow. Didn't take long for this to be the Dems problem, did it?

Just blame it all on Clinton and get it over with.:rolleyes:

LOL Don't you know it all comes back to the Clenis?!?!?!?

wendybeth

10-03-2006, 11:59 AM

I think deflecting the blame is just reflex by now.

Nephythys

10-03-2006, 12:04 PM

Do you actually think this crap happens in a republican vacuum?

Good lord- that takes a naive view and some serious blinders.

Swear to God- you guys drag Clinton up more than anyone else here does- and HEAVEN for freaking forbid that that article has a good point. :rolleyes: <----indeed.

wendybeth

10-03-2006, 12:08 PM

Oh, stop this nonsense. I am not going to get into a silly-assed blaming match yet again. He did what he did, and that's that. Here's some more of what Foley did, fresh from CNN:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/ceiling/bnb/breaking_news.gif Former Rep. Mark Foley allegedly interrupted a vote on the House floor in 2003 to engage in cyber-sex with a former page, ABC News reports.
cnnPreloadImages('http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.5/ceiling/nav.rt.end.bg_over.gif');

Not Afraid

10-03-2006, 02:09 PM

I hearby announce that the 2 party system has been changed. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are no more. Instead, politicians will be placed in 2 new parties.......The Corrupt Party and The Evil Party. It just makes more sense this way.

Moonliner

10-03-2006, 02:11 PM

placed in 2 new parties.......The Corrupt Party and The Evil Party.

Wouldn't that be more of a one party system?

Not Afraid

10-03-2006, 02:25 PM

Well, you can come up with better party names. ;)

Nephythys

10-03-2006, 03:52 PM

Dems-
The Cut & Run Party
The "It's America's Fault" Party
The Doom & Gloom Party
The Class Warfare Party
The Race Card Party
The Dead Voter Party

Repubs-
The Head in the Sand Party (especially on illegal immigration)
The Coward Party (for never standing up for their beliefs)
The Turn-Coat Party (for running as conservatives and changing stripes in office)
The Big Gov't Party (wait- that would be both parties)
The Big Spending Party (yea, that is both too)
The Wilting Party (because they always lose steam when you want more from them)

Meh!

Gemini Cricket

10-03-2006, 04:32 PM

No one's asked the most important question of all:
Will Mark Foley be at Gay Days at Disneyland or not?

:evil: :D

wendybeth

10-03-2006, 07:22 PM

Probably not- he's too busy figuring out who else to blame. (Right now it's Alcohol and Catholics, but I'm sure there will be yet another excuse shortly).

What ever happened to personal accountability? :rolleyes:

innerSpaceman

10-03-2006, 07:35 PM

In truth, this is an inappropriate-acts-with-minors incident, but I can't help feeling there would not be as much gut-level outrage if Foley had been flinging the innuendo and sexual come-ons to teenage girls.

Alex

10-03-2006, 07:42 PM

I agree with that. The opening line in today's San Francisco Chronicle article today was (approximately) "the last thing the Republican Party needs right now is a homosexual pedophilia scandal."

My first thought was "is the homosexual part really all that relevant?" Would it be less of a problem if it had been a heterosexual pedophila scandal. I'll leave to others to argue whether sexual interest in 16/17 year olds is really pedophilia (I know clinicly it isn't, but most people don't use the word clinicly).

I also caught The Daily Show last night and while it was pretty funny, I thought it was also unfair in its deregarding of Studds as a relevant precedent (where a 37 year old Rep actually had sex with a page and ultimately nobody really that it that big a deal).

Having now seen some of the explicit stuff I was also surprised to learn that the boy seemed to be at least somewhat participating in the banter (not that this makes it any more appropriate).

Prudence

10-03-2006, 08:34 PM

Actually, I would personally be more outraged if it were teenage girls, but that comes from my own experience of having been a teenage girl and being aware that sex was a particularly potent (har) way for girls to gain or lose power.

And I assume the homosexual part is relevant because it's a hot political issue. It's hard to argue that it's true love and pure and you'll get married and live together 'til death do you part when you're advocating legislation prohibiting that marriage because such relationships are unnatural and leading to the destruction of society.

innerSpaceman

10-03-2006, 09:00 PM

Also, there's the delicious irony of his co-chairmanship of the exploited childrens' caucus. It's the salaciousness of it that is fueling the story, and I think if he were on the fishing license caucus sending messages to girls about their bra-cup size, this would be accepted as the usual Congressman philandering.

But, hey, I'm all for this blowing up in the Republican Party's collective face just before Election Day, and hopefully being the 88th monkey of criminal scandal this season that will tip the voting scales against them.

To me, yes, it's simply a political issue ... and I really don't have much concern for those 16 and 17 year-old boys who - oh, the horrors - had to deal with emails about their dick size. While it was absolutely wrong and innappropriate, I don't think any children were actually harmed.

I'm hoping Foley's antics bring a zillion times more harm to his party than they ever did to ex-pageboys.

Alex

10-03-2006, 09:09 PM

advocating legislation prohibiting that marriage because such relationships are unnatural and leading to the destruction of society.

Foley apparently voted against the gay marriage ban and was generally considered one of the more pro-gay members of congress.

Just a month ago, writers at the Daily Kos were defending Foley against charges that he was too liberal on the issue.

scaeagles

10-03-2006, 09:24 PM

While it was absolutely wrong and innappropriate, I don't think any children were actually harmed.

If no children were harmed, why was it wrong and inappropriate?

Alex

10-03-2006, 09:41 PM

Does everything inappropriate cause harm?

To clarify my last post after a bit more poking around. Foley did vote for the Defense of Marriage Act (but so did a lot of people who were supposedly "pro-gay") but has voted against the various constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage.

Prudence

10-03-2006, 10:20 PM

Foley apparently voted against the gay marriage ban and was generally considered one of the more pro-gay members of congress.

Most people don't attention to individual votes - he's associated with the DOMA party and guilty by association, so to speak.

Although I think that taking a noticeable stand on an issue opens one up further. Maybe it's because he's not "our" congressman, but up here the mayor of Spokane got way more vile than Foley's getting because the mayor had such a public anti-gay stance.

Alex

10-03-2006, 10:46 PM

Most people don't attention to individual votes - he's associated with the DOMA party and guilty by association, so to speak.

There is not "DOMA party." It was introduced with sponsorship from both Republicans and Democrats, passed with broad bipartisan support in both houses of congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-64 in the House), and was then signed by a Democrat president.

Prudence

10-03-2006, 10:59 PM

I should have said the constitutional amendment and not DOMA. (I think I was thinking of the state version.) Or am I totally out of touch and the dems starting supporting the amendment while I wasn't looking?

Alex

10-03-2006, 11:10 PM

No, the Republicans are mostly responsible for that, though four Democratic senators did vote for it and six Republicans voted against it.

scaeagles

10-04-2006, 05:34 AM

Does everything inappropriate cause harm?

Of course not. It was more a sort of philosophical question for ISM. Let's focus more on wrong than inappropriate. I realize ISM wants harm done to the republican party, and I'm OK with that (I'm all for harm done to the dem party myself). I am wondering, though, if no harm was done, does ISM think a crime was committed worthy of prosecution?

ISM has long been someone who disagrees with victimless crime, as do a lot of people. So if he thinks no one was harmed, was a crime really committed? Let's say the guy was an independent rather than a republican....should he be prosecuted for anything?

Please understand I do think there was a crime committed. I regard the man as a predator.

I would actually be more offended if it were a female page rather than a male page, to refer to something earlier in the thread. Not exactly sure how to express why. Probably some chauvinistic view of the male being more able to protect himself, but that's not always the case necessarily.

Strangler Lewis

10-04-2006, 06:32 AM

signed by a Democrat president.

Not one of his shining moments. I wrote Clinton as this was taking shape, and his letter back was cynical fence sitting; basically, I hate discrimination, but I will sign the bill. I had written him several years earlier to tell him to stop his cynical pandering (Christian benediction at the 1992 Democratic convention), but I guess the first letter didn't take.

When I wrote Dianne Feinstein about her support for the flag protection amendment, she wrote back forthrightly that we would have to agree to disagree. She's still obviously full of S***, but it was a better letter.

innerSpaceman

10-04-2006, 08:03 AM

I would actually be more offended if it were a female page rather than a male page ... Not exactly sure how to express why.
Yep, that's why I feel there's no harm in this case. Totally mysogenistic of me ... but I think most teen boys can handle the emotional trauma of being asked to measure their dick size.

And I don't see anything wrong (or rationally criminal) in dirty internet talk with teenagers of either gender. But where to you draw the age line? 15? 11? 9? At some point, and I don't know where, it becomes much more wrong to me. So, I guess the arbitrary "adult" line of 18 makes some sense.

Besides, the criminal element is, I believe, trying to set up meetings for sexual purposes ... which I feel is wrong with anyone lacking full maturity and judgment skills. That would make the age limit 25, by the way. So I actually agree with the criminal statue that outlaws luring teens via the internet to sexual rendez vous in the real world. Of course, I'd rather it only be a crime if the meeting takes place, but I understand it's the luring itself that is criminal. (However, can luring take place if no one is actually lured? Is that like a tree falling in the woods?)

I haven't read the emails myself ... so I can't form a coherent opinion on how much luring there was vs. how much gayspeak.

* * * * *

Oh, and to counter something posted earlier ... at least according to various reports I've heard, incoming pages were warned to stay away from Foley because he got a little too friendly, not because he was simply homosexual. I don't find it credible that pages are warned about every gay member of the House.

Alex

10-04-2006, 08:40 AM

Other pages may have come forward with other warnings by now, I didn't watch or read the news at all yesterday. But when I posted it, the source of that story was one specific page who was reported to have said one thing but in his own writing space claimed the warning he had received was informal, from one Republican staffer and simply said "he's gay, don't get too involved with him."

Definitely not any kind of official warning, which is what the initial reports suggested, more like backroom gosisp. But maybe that story has changed again.

Not Afraid

10-04-2006, 09:06 AM

"he's gay, don't get too involved with him."

How about "He likes underage boys" Or "he's been known to be inappropriately forward" or how about "he's a lecherous old man, watch out".

Gay or straight isn't really the issue other than it was the male pages who were the desired as opposed to female pages that are the desired the other 90% of the time.

Alex

10-04-2006, 09:12 AM

How about them? Have other pages said that they were given those warnings? Who were they warned by? Staffers or other pages? In high school we all had several teachers that we warned each other were lecherous or gay or taught P.E. so he could watch the girls run in sweaty t-shirts. Not quite the same thing as if the principal had come to us and said "stay away from Mr. Belding, he'll be thinking about your crotch."

All I was commenting on was the state of things yesterday morning when all the stories about pages being warned were from one specific source (whom I detailed) and that source said it wasn't really the warning that the news was making it out to be.

Not Afraid

10-04-2006, 09:21 AM

I realize that was not yur personal comment, but a quote of a warning given to a page.

Gemini Cricket

10-04-2006, 10:00 AM

This just in!

Paris Hilton Gets Punched in the Face (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061004/ap_en_mu/people_hilton_moakler_2)

"Haw haw!" ~ Nelson Muntz

:D

Ghoulish Delight

10-04-2006, 10:03 AM

The California Attorney General race is shaping up to be one of the ugliest in recent memory. I was in the other room, so I don't have full context, but I heard a TV ad for Poochigian that said, more or less, "There's good and evil in the world. Jerry Brown support evil." I'll have to scour You Tube later to see if I can find it.

Alex

10-04-2006, 10:10 AM

Ghoulish Delight

10-04-2006, 10:22 AM

Every single ad for Poochigian has been "Jerry Brown opposes the death penalty and doesn't want killers to die. Isn't that eeeevil?" or "There have been [some number] of murders in Oakland since Jerry Brown became mayor. Can you believe he's killed that many people?!"

Not Afraid

10-04-2006, 10:28 AM

This just in!

Paris Hilton Gets Punched in the Face (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061004/ap_en_mu/people_hilton_moakler_2)

"Haw haw!" ~ Nelson Muntz

:D

She also got a DUI last week. She's so cool!

Strangler Lewis

10-04-2006, 11:01 AM

Attorney General is one race where I am completely comfortable with my choice. Jerry Brown has matured in many good ways since he was governor and I thought he did a very fine job as Oakland mayor so I have no qualms in voting for him.

So far the only ad I've seen, though, has been for Brown and it was utterly forgettable.

As a yellow dog Democrat, I will probably vote for him. However, like Arnold, Jerry Brown ran scary and inaccurate ads opposing the Three Strikes reform initiative that initially had strong public support.

I also have the nagging but unconfirmable suspicion that the federal judge who rejected the lethal injection challenge I handled did so in part out of loyalty to Brown the AG candidate who first appointed him to the municipal court.

scaeagles

10-04-2006, 05:46 PM

Interesting....I have now read reports (on the Drudge Report, unconfirmed elsewhere) that the only published exchanges between Foley and the page were when he was over 18. ABC says they happened before and after, but the only ones that have been made public were when he was over 18.

And ABC gacked. They accidentally released the kids idenity on their website. Oops.

€uroMeinke

10-04-2006, 08:27 PM

Jerry Brown's running? He's the only candidate I ever felt comfortable voting for.

Scrooge McSam

10-05-2006, 05:41 AM

(on the Drudge Report, unconfirmed elsewhere)

There's a reason for that.

scaeagles

10-05-2006, 06:38 AM

I think that's what everyone was saying about Monica when he broke the story about that, too.

Have I ever told you that you remind me of Drudge?;)

Scrooge McSam

10-05-2006, 07:01 AM

Yes... way too many times. But you seem to enjoy it, so carry on.

How do you feel about Drudge publicizing the name of the young man allegedly involved in the first reported IM session with Foley?

Do you consider that honorable behavior?

SacTown Chronic

10-05-2006, 07:05 AM

The party of 9/11 is upset that the Dems are trying to make political hay with the Foley situation. Maybe Rove's October surprise will cheer them up.

(Or are we in the middle of the October surprise right now but we don't know it yet? I, for one, have forgotten all about the occupation of Iraq.)

Oh, and Drudge felches young boyz*.

*According to unnamed sources.

Gemini Cricket

10-05-2006, 07:47 AM

There is buzz that Hasert will resign this week. Interesting...

Ghoulish Delight

10-05-2006, 08:37 AM

And the award for biggest over reaction to a statistically insignificant threat goes to....Frank Lasee (http://www.nbc4.tv/education/10007586/detail.html) of the Wisconsin state legislature! Yes, there are hundreds of thousands of schools in this country with millions of students. 2 or 3 schools have shootings. The obvious next step is to start arming teachers! Hooray!

Nephythys

10-05-2006, 08:54 AM

"Underage" page was 18 (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm)

Huh- sounds more and more like a dirty October surprise to me.

Gee- I wonder what party to blame for that? :rolleyes:

Alex

10-05-2006, 09:05 AM

Unless the initial reporting has been wrong and these explicit emails and IMs are over three years old then this (if true) has to be a different page than the one over which the story broke.

Motorboat Cruiser

10-05-2006, 01:01 PM

"Underage" page was 18 (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm)

Huh- sounds more and more like a dirty October surprise to me.

Gee- I wonder what party to blame for that? :rolleyes:

That's certainly the spin Rush and Drudge are putting on it. It's complete garbage but I guess they will just keep throwing stuff at the wall and hope something sticks.

First, he's an alcoholic, then he's a victim of molestation, then he's gay, then, according to Fox, he's a democrat, then it's an evil democratic ploy, then it was just a prank, then he wasn't really underage. Not to mention, first Hastert remembers hearing about this, then he doesn't, then he does.

C'mon, you guys can't even get your story straight. The republicans own this problem and they can try to push it off on the dems but I don't think people are going to be so gullible this time. I could be wrong, of course.

Thank god y'all signed that "Contract with America" to bring ethics back to washington. With 4. soon to be 5 indicted representatives of your party, it's obviously going quite well.

Nephythys

10-05-2006, 01:10 PM

That's certainly the spin Rush and Drudge are putting on it. It's complete garbage but I guess they will just keep throwing stuff at the wall and hope something sticks.

Spin?

So, if it turns out the page (not another one- but the one everyone has been talking about-but nice try Alex)was 18 or over- we are supposed to call that spin?

Sorry- but it is the dems who are throwing shyt until something sticks. The party of "it's just sex, it's private" expects to destroy the republican party with this increasingly fabricated story about what else? Sex.

pathetic....but typical of a political party with NOTHING to offer.

The dem party doesn't know diddly about ethics- :rolleyes:

Alex

10-05-2006, 01:15 PM

That's certainly the spin Rush and Drudge are putting on it.

It was definitely a timed October surprise. A blog is created out of whole cloth, posts a few plagiarized items, gets this material, posts it, spams all the news channels, and hasn't been updated since.

But then, there is nothing wrong with October surprises, really. That's the game they're all playing and there is a wonderful defense against them:

Don't do stupid ****ing ****!

That's the response to all the politicians who do some stupid ****, have it used against them to their opponents advantage and then tries to call shenanigans. I may not like the people who pulled the trigger but that doesn't get the politican off the hook.

Not Afraid

10-05-2006, 01:17 PM

You know, if BOTH rebublicans AND democrats would stop spending so much time trying to concoct stories that make them look good maybe we'd actually have politicians who have time to THINK about getting us out of the current mess we're in. But, no, it's more productive to spend 90% of the time pointing fingers at the "enemy" and trying to b lame someone else.

WHO CARES whose fault it was, just get on with it and deal with the actual PRESSING issues. IDIOTS!

Nephythys

10-05-2006, 01:46 PM

Not Afraid

10-05-2006, 01:47 PM

Hell no!I shoot myself before I'd get into politics.

Nephythys

10-05-2006, 01:58 PM

Hell no!I shoot myself before I'd get into politics.

so- not running on a gun control platform then ;)

JWBear

10-05-2006, 02:36 PM

so- not running on a gun control platform then ;)
No, the "A Cat in Every Home" platform... ;)

Nephythys

10-05-2006, 03:01 PM

No, the "A Cat in Every Home" platform... ;)

LOL :D

back on another note- Claim that IM's were prank (http://www.drudgereport.com/page.htm)

Curiouser and curiouser- this is going to unravel in big ways.

Alex

10-05-2006, 03:33 PM

Don't see how that unravels it if Foley still thought he was having a real conversation. Sounds like it could be the kid wants to stay in the closet or he really did goof it so that all his friends could laugh at Foley. Either way, Foley still looks bad.

Nephythys

10-05-2006, 03:45 PM

No doubt- but I don't think this is the huge OMG scandal that was originally thought.

Bad yes- criminal? Maybe not. Worth the cries for the entire republican leadership to resign? That was ridiculous.

It's as if the dems thought they could throw this out there- the media ran with it- and they seemed to think the entire leadership on the other side would just say "oh gee, we quit" and roll out of town.

It's laughable.

We'll see where all the trails go. I find it almost amusing to see ABC scramble- they were all on the front of this- then the news comes out that the guy was 18, now they have screaming headlines "3 MORE Pages come forward" blah blah blah....but NOTHING seems to be what they say it is anymore.

Meh- I'll just be interested in the end result- what actually comes out when the hysterical shrilling is done.

Alex

10-05-2006, 04:19 PM

Well, at least ABC gets the comfort of knowing that within one month they were condemned as shills for both the Republicans and Democrats.

Nephythys

10-05-2006, 04:42 PM

*snort* fair's fair?

Scrooge McSam

10-05-2006, 04:59 PM

Damn... you're right!

three more pages come forward, one from the 1998 page class (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html)

These rotten dems have been setting this up for 8 years!

Bastards!

Alex

10-05-2006, 05:11 PM

Considering that some of them aren't even clear on what the internet is, I'm going to take it as a sign of enlightenment that Foley was using AIM or ICQ easly as 1998.

Motorboat Cruiser

10-06-2006, 01:40 AM

It's as if the dems thought they could throw this out there- the media ran with it- and they seemed to think the entire leadership on the other side would just say "oh gee, we quit" and roll out of town.

It's laughable.

So, which democrat was it that "threw this out there"? And the media ran with it so quickly that the Miami Herald and St Petersburg Times (?) sat on the story for a year?

No matter how you slice it, this particular man engaged in inappropriate conversations with minors. Foley did that. Not the democrats. To blame them for the current problems is ridiculous. Are the democrats saints? Of course not. Are they just as bad? Probably. But, even if there is any merit to this being an October surprise, and I have yet to see any piece of evidence that is convincing, so what? Nothing wrong at all with the republicans getting a taste of the same medicine that Karl Rove has made a career out of dishing out.

scaeagles

10-06-2006, 05:32 AM

Here's my disconnect with what you're saying, MBC.

Foley deserves to be gone. He may deserve to be prosecuted.

If republicans were hiding this to protect a seat, the leadership deserves to be gone.

If dems were sitting on it to use at a poilitically opportune time, their leadership is just as guilty of a coverup as are the republican leadership.

October surprises are October surprises. The drunk driving thing was an October surprise, and there was no problem sitting on that to use. The Geaorge Bush senior flying to Iran to tell them to wait to release hostages was an October surprise (though somewhat stupid if you ask me). Politics. But this needed to rise above politics on both sides. I am assuming, of course, that these were minors. If they weren't, what I'm sayong about the leadership on both sides and using this as an October surprise changes.

Gemini Cricket

10-06-2006, 05:53 AM

All they have to do is hire ugly pages and interns. Then there'd be no problems.

scaeagles

10-06-2006, 06:37 AM

Your theory is disproven with the whole Bill and Monica thing.:)

That was really mean of me.:D

Gemini Cricket

10-06-2006, 06:43 AM

That was really mean of me.:D
lol! :D :evil:

Nephythys

10-06-2006, 07:56 AM

So, which democrat was it that "threw this out there"? And the media ran with it so quickly that the Miami Herald and St Petersburg Times (?) sat on the story for a year?

No matter how you slice it, this particular man engaged in inappropriate conversations with minors. Foley did that. Not the democrats. To blame them for the current problems is ridiculous. Are the democrats saints? Of course not. Are they just as bad? Probably. But, even if there is any merit to this being an October surprise, and I have yet to see any piece of evidence that is convincing, so what? Nothing wrong at all with the republicans getting a taste of the same medicine that Karl Rove has made a career out of dishing out.

I am not blaming them for Foley's behavior. I am blaming them for blatant hypocrisy. I am blaming them for their obvious double standards. I am blaming them for their over reaching attempts to take out more people than just Foley. I am blaming them for being who they are- and frankly I am not going to pretend to respect any of them.

No matter how you slice it? The guy they made a huge deal of- with the nasty IM's- was over 18. I don't know other ages. So no, I don't know that slice.

innerSpaceman

10-06-2006, 08:14 AM

As I've said before, I'm not much for the arbitrary age-line of 18, but I suppose it has to be somewhere.

But the link Neph has to the Drudge Report's take on the former page's age says, and I quote ...
A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.

So, um, I don't see how Foley squirms out of it. Perhaps that really bad incident of I.M sex during a house vote was post-18 (so sinfully remincent of the under-desk BJs of one former PotUS) ... but there were plenty more emails and IMs and other pages. And a reputation for years. And warnings given by Foley's chief of staff to Hastert's chief of staff over 2 years ago, and warnings from other Congressmen directly to Hastert over a year ago.

What's your problem Neph? Are you purposefully wearing blinders?

oh. yeah.

sometimes i forget.

JWBear

10-06-2006, 08:18 AM

I am not blaming them for Foley's behavior. I am blaming them for blatant hypocrisy. I am blaming them for their obvious double standards... I am blaming them for being who they are- and frankly I am not going to pretend to respect any of them....
Interesting... That's exactly how I feel about the Rebublicans in Congress! :rolleyes:

Gemini Cricket

10-06-2006, 08:19 AM

This is a Republican problem, this is a Republican issue. They should own up to it. They're in control of everything. How can it be anyone else's prob?

Gemini Cricket

10-06-2006, 08:19 AM

Double post... uh... go NE Patriots?!
:D

Nephythys

10-06-2006, 08:24 AM

:rolleyes:

There's that republican vacuum again.

Suuurre.....Dems did not have anything to do with it. Is that naive or what?

String up the guy who did it, sure- if he is truly guilty of anything criminal (btw- innocent until proven guilty DOES still exist in this country)- but the head in the sand act about the part Dems have played is just......well, willfully blind.

Nephythys

10-06-2006, 08:25 AM

Interesting... That's exactly how I feel about the Rebublicans in Congress! :rolleyes:

WTH are you rolling your eyes. I don't give a shyt if you respect them- just like I will not apologize for loathing the dems.

So what? You act like I said a bad thing.

innerSpaceman

10-06-2006, 08:27 AM

Nephythys

10-06-2006, 08:29 AM

As I've said before, I'm not much for the arbitrary age-line of 18, but I suppose it has to be somewhere.

But the link Neph has to the Drudge Report's take on the former page's age says, and I quote ...

So, um, I don't see how Foley squirms out of it. Perhaps that really bad incident of I.M sex during a house vote was post-18 (so sinfully remincent of the under-desk BJs of one former PotUS) ... but there were plenty more emails and IMs and other pages. And a reputation for years. And warnings given by Foley's chief of staff to Hastert's chief of staff over 2 years ago, and warnings from other Congressmen directly to Hastert over a year ago.

What's your problem Neph? Are you purposefully wearing blinders?

oh. yeah.

sometimes i forget.

Nope just missed the line....

Take the blinders off your own party side before launching at me...thanks :rolleyes:

I have said he should be held responsible for anything he did wrong-never said he would SQUIRM out of anything- but this attitude that says the Dems knew nothing is the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la- I can't hear you!"

Sad.

innerSpaceman

10-06-2006, 08:31 AM

But where are the reports of Dems knowing and holding on to it? Assumptions are useless. To be frank, I assume the worst of everyone in Congress. But where's the actual news of specific events and individuals?

Nephythys

10-06-2006, 08:33 AM

I'm listening, Nehp. Plus reading everything about it in four newspapers. Sorry if I'm not up on internet news and bloggers. Please, by all means, point me to some legitimate news about Democrats' involvement.

Oh, and I have zero problem attributing sleaze and slimy motives to the Democrats, so it won't take much to convince me. Show me any legitimate reporting on the subject.

Define legitmate for me. I refuse to waste my time looking for diddly knowing you will toss it out at will if it doesn't suit your parameters.

I suspect what you call legitimate and what I call legit are too far opposite to ever met.

Though this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501657.html) is interesting.

Nephythys

10-06-2006, 08:33 AM

wendybeth

10-06-2006, 08:41 AM

This is a Republican problem, this is a Republican issue. They should own up to it. They're in control of everything. How can it be anyone else's prob?

It's always the Dems fault, GC- you know that!

Oh, and innocent until proven guilty? That's news to a few hundred detainees!

Again, this is Foley's mess- he created it and he owns it. Who gives a flying **** if the Dems had the info? I hope they did. I'd like to see them get off their asses and start fighting fire with fire.

Gemini Cricket

10-06-2006, 08:45 AM

On the Daily Show, the other day, when Stewart was talking about Foley, a picture of Foley came up with the caption "Foley Erect". That was pretty dang funny. :D

€uroMeinke

10-06-2006, 09:18 AM

I'm always amused when people try to put on party as being somewhat morally superior to the other. The sad fact is political parties are made up of politicians.

Motorboat Cruiser

10-06-2006, 09:28 AM

(btw- innocent until proven guilty DOES still exist in this country)

Unless it is the democrats that you all are trying to blame this on. I agree with iSm. Sway me, I'm listening. Where is your evidence that the democrats sat on this? Where is your evidence that they had anything whatsoever to do with the release of this information? Show me anything remotely compelling and I just might change my mind.

The credible information out there is that it was a house republican aide that provided Foley's emails to the media. This was confirmed by The Hill newspaper, The NY Times, and by Brian Ross of ABC.

I have no real interest in protecting democrats but I'm certainly not going to believe something just because Rush and Drudge say it is true. Drudge's track record is by no means pristine when it comes to accuracy and Rush will lie through his teeth if there is any chance that it will keep his boys in power.

So, again, I'm listening. Show me this compelling information.

Strangler Lewis

10-06-2006, 09:41 AM

btw- innocent until proven guilty DOES still exist in this country

Absolutely. Just as a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.

Gemini Cricket

10-06-2006, 09:50 AM

I love Clinton and I miss Bubba a great deal. But this is the shape of his library:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/clinton.jpg
:D
I find that to be hysterical.

Motorboat Cruiser

10-06-2006, 11:41 AM

I love Clinton and I miss Bubba a great deal. But this is the shape of his library:

:D
I find that to be hysterical.

Shouldn't it have a slight curve to it? ;)

Not Afraid

10-06-2006, 01:31 PM

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. ;)

Nephythys

10-06-2006, 02:29 PM

CNN: PAGE LAWYER DOES NOT RULE 'IN OR OUT' PRANK CLAIM... DEVELOPING... Former congressional page Jordan Edmund's lawyer Stephen Jones... BLITZER: He will join us live in the next hour. What are you hearing, Brian, about some of these Internet suggestions, some Republicans suggesting this whole thing is a prank, a hoax and there is no there, there.

CNN REPORTER: "We asked him about that item in the DRUDGE REPORT. He said very clearly he cannot rule that in, he cannot rule that out. He says he is not saying it was not a prank but later in the interview, CNN pressed him on that. He said that he -- he does not read the DRUDGE REPORT, not part of his regular reading and, quote, it sounds like a piece of fiction...

BLITZER: He says the DRUDE REPORT item sounds like a piece of fiction?

CNN REPORTER: He did say that, but important to note he says he is not ruling it in or out.

meh-

I still have not gotten a voter booklet- hmmm, I wonder what actual issues there are to vote on?

Nephythys

10-06-2006, 02:31 PM

More stuff (http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6298)

Using the term unraveling and connnecting to dems.....hmmmm

Motorboat Cruiser

10-06-2006, 02:59 PM

meh-

I still have not gotten a voter booklet- hmmm, I wonder what actual issues there are to vote on?

Well, there is the Iraq war, which is going splendid. :)

Motorboat Cruiser

10-06-2006, 02:59 PM

More stuff (http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6298)

Using the term unraveling and connnecting to dems.....hmmmm

Well, I'm convinced.

Nephythys

10-06-2006, 03:02 PM

There is zero need to be so damn snarky. I am not on some massive quest here- I just posted a couple things as I found them.

The side comment was just that- an aside....nothing more.

Nephythys

10-06-2006, 04:06 PM

FYI-This is not a battle I have with anyone here. I am frankly finding politics and pols in general to be repellant these days. Not the norm for me- I usually enjoy this stuff.

Bleaugh-sorry I snapped at ya MBC.

JWBear

10-06-2006, 04:42 PM

There is zero need to be so damn snarky. I am not on some massive quest here- I just posted a couple things as I found them.

The side comment was just that- an aside....nothing more.
If you want to convince us, you need to do better than the American Thinker...

Motorboat Cruiser

10-07-2006, 01:05 AM

Found this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600965_2.html) to be interesting. Of course, it was released on late Friday afternoon, when hopefully the least amount of people would be paying attention.

A top aide to White House strategist Karl Rove resigned yesterday after disclosures that she accepted gifts from and passed information to now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, becoming the first official in the West Wing to lose a job in the influence-peddling scandal.

-snip-

As a former Abramoff assistant, Ralston played intermediary between the lobbyist and Rove. The congressional report found 66 Abramoff contacts with the White House, more than half of them with Ralston. In addition, Abramoff's lobbying colleagues contacted Ralston 69 times.

wendybeth

10-07-2006, 09:06 AM

JWBear

10-07-2006, 07:08 PM

Yeah, I saw that too. It'll be interesting to see how the 'Six Degrees of Clinton/Democrat' blame game gets applied to this one.
They'll find a way... Afterall, Republicans are never responsible for their own mistakes!

scaeagles

10-07-2006, 08:10 PM

A trait not unique to republicans, I might add. There has been the cry of "the vast right wing conspiracy" for some time now.

wendybeth

10-07-2006, 11:56 PM

A trait not unique to republicans, I might add. There has been the cry of "the vast right wing conspiracy" for some time now.

The results of which we have been living with these past six years.

scaeagles

10-08-2006, 07:40 AM

So, WB, you accept the cries of the vast right wing conspiracy creating problems for the dems, but deny that the left would have done anything such as sit on the Foley story to use it at a more politically opportune time (understanding that as a whole I do not object to that in the world of politics, but some things should be above politics).

innerSpaceman

10-08-2006, 07:55 AM

Not to speak for Wendybeth, but I don't think anyone's denying the Dems would be above such a thing, merely that there's zero reporting or evidence that such a thing happened. It's all been about ridiculously changing the subject ... when ALL the reporting has been about a Republican perve/idiot Congressman and warnings by his Republican staff to the staff of the Republican leadership, and warnings by his Republican colleagues directly to the Republican leadership.

I have asked for any legitimate news source of any Democratic involvement in this particular incident and have as yet seen none. Don't take that to mean a claim that Democrats are rosy-cheeked innocents.

But if you're going to completely change the subject so that we can talk about Democrat malfeasance ... then, yes, we will discuss the vast rightwing conspiracy that has used the 9/11 attacks on our country to attack and damage America far more dangerously and tangibly than a million such terrorist strikes could ever hope to do.

JWBear

10-08-2006, 09:20 AM

wendybeth

10-08-2006, 11:17 AM

iSm, with posts like that, you can speak for me anytime!:snap:

Scaeagles, show me where I said the Dems are above this sort of thing. I said I hope they did sit on it and waited for a politically opportune time to release it, as I am resigned to the fact that we have to fight fire with fire if we want to get these assholes out of office. Which is worse- the Repubs trying to cover it up, or the Dems waiting for the best time to attack? (Something that is mere speculation and has yet to be substantiated, either here or in the press). Until there is proof that they did, I am going resist my attention being diverted by such a non-issue.

scaeagles

10-08-2006, 11:29 AM

I don't see where I've changed the subject in the least. I'm the one who started this particluar point in this thread because I believe there was a republican cover up. All I did was say that if the dems knew and covered it as well to use politically then they are as despicable in this instance as the republicans hiding it to protect a seat. Honestly, I think they are equivalent because we are talking about holding onto info about a predator in their midst. Playing politics with it is playing politics with it regardless of the motive.

I don't think anyone should sit on info like this. For whatever reason. It's beyond sickening.

From what you are saying, WB, you support the dirtiest of dirty politics if the dirty politics are on your side. You would want to allow a predator to stay in office to use that info at a more opportune time rather than exposing the predator when you learned of it? That's something I can't subscribe to.

sleepyjeff

10-08-2006, 01:16 PM

... then, yes, we will discuss the vast rightwing conspiracy that has used the 9/11 attacks on our country to attack and damage America far more dangerously and tangibly than a million such terrorist strikes could ever hope to do.

1,000,000 X 3,000 = 3,000,000,000(or half the population of the entire Planet)

Is the murder of half the population of the Planet(and since the US is target 1, I guess the entire pop. of America) really "tangibly" better than the Presidents efforts to avoid such attacks:confused:

I am very confused by this commet.

innerSpaceman

10-08-2006, 01:54 PM

At this rate, elimination of half the population of the planet is exactly what the aim of the War on Terror aka War on Islam is. Just what is the ratio of the muslim population to the entire population?

In any event, the random number "million" was a hyperbolic expression, and not meant for numerical accuracy. But if we're speaking numbers in relation to the number killed on 9/11, why don't you perform the ratio math with a comparison to civilian deaths in Iraq, and see who comes out ahead as most murderous terrorist?

sleepyjeff

10-08-2006, 02:26 PM

^Fair enough.

Alex

10-08-2006, 02:33 PM

Just what is the ratio of the muslim population to the entire population?

About 20% (1.2 billion). Not taking any kind of position on what has recently been said, just answering the question.

Motorboat Cruiser

10-08-2006, 05:02 PM

I don't see where I've changed the subject in the least. I'm the one who started this particluar point in this thread because I believe there was a republican cover up. All I did was say that if the dems knew and covered it as well to use politically then they are as despicable in this instance as the republicans hiding it to protect a seat. Honestly, I think they are equivalent because we are talking about holding onto info about a predator in their midst. Playing politics with it is playing politics with it regardless of the motive.

I don't think anyone should sit on info like this. For whatever reason. It's beyond sickening.

I don't really have a problem with what you are saying here. BUT, you are the one that suggested that the democrats might have been involved. Right now, all evidence suggests a republican cover-up. There is nothing remotely fact-based that supports the idea of an "October Surprise" and the only reason it is even a part of the discussion is because of a lame attempt by some on the right recently to muddy the waters with baseless speculation for the purposes of taking the focus off the real issue.

So, I suppose it is ok, for discussion purposes, to consider the hypothetical, as long as we remember that it is only hypothetical, and has no basis in fact, whatsoever.

scaeagles

10-08-2006, 06:08 PM

That's cool, MBC. But a question....if this was common knowledge among the pages, then how would the republican leadership have known if the democrat leadership did not?

Foley deserves to be gone. I was originally pissed at Hastert, but not so much anymore. Really, I don't think the dems knew. I am upset with a few media outlets (a couple papers I think) that had the storey months ago and did nothing with it.

wendybeth

10-08-2006, 06:37 PM

Scaeagles, I would think you knew me well enough to not have to ask the question whether I support dirty politics or not. I am really just tired of the usual Repub response to any trouble they get into, which is "Oh, looky at what the Dems are/aren't doing!" Right now Cheney is going around delivering the same old 'Dems are evil and we are doomed if they get into office!' speech that would be laughable if there weren't so many people buying into it. Dems turn the other cheek and get sucker-punched, and it is getting very old. Truly, if the Dems did sit on this one I wouldn't be happy with them, but we already KNOW that the Repubs have, so that's where I'm going to direct my ire.
So, you don't have a problem with Hastert- will that hold even if he is found to be culpible in this?

scaeagles

10-08-2006, 06:54 PM

Dems turn the other cheek and get sucker-punched, and it is getting very old.

So, you don't have a problem with Hastert- will that hold even if he is found to be culpible in this?

They turned the other cheek? How? Not trying to be rhetorical or snarky....

I currently have no problem with Hastert. I did at the start (obviously), but I really am not sure of his knowledge. Granted, I am way out of touch currently and don't know a whole lot about it. If it's found that he had full knowledge of predatory behavior (and not all of the IMs or emails publiches in volve predatory behavior) then that of course goes back to my original outrage. Someone, though, knew. Probably a lot of people. I just don't understand how something this continues.

I have never been a Hastert fan. He's the Speaker of the House, where all spending bills originate, and there is way too much money spent.

wendybeth

10-08-2006, 07:08 PM

Maybe you should learn more about the subject before you start making accusations and deciding where you stand. I don't know much about it, but I do know that no one has yet to produce any proof regarding the Dems and whether or not they knew beforehand. I think the FBI should be allowed to conduct their investigation before we all get our panties in a twist about who knew what and where and .....bleh.

We're still dealing from the fallout from our ex-mayor and that whole scandal. People knew about his activities for years, yet no one did anything until our newspaper got aggressive and went after him. Of course, they endorsed him during the election, even while they were investigating him. I think they set the whole damned situation up to get a good story. Is that wrong? Hell, yes. But it couldn't have happened if Mayor West hadn't committed the misdeeds.

scaeagles

10-08-2006, 07:13 PM

Exactly, WB. And Foley is thie one ultimately responsible.

To quote your first sentence and the start of the next....

Maybe you should learn more about the subject before you start making accusations and deciding where you stand. I don't know much about it

You are making accusations without knowing much about it. The only accusation I have made was in my first post when I was so ticked at Hastert. I have stepped back because it is unknown exactly what his knowledge was. Yet you now portray that as a bad thing?

Motorboat Cruiser

10-08-2006, 08:34 PM

I am upset with a few media outlets (a couple papers I think) that had the storey months ago and did nothing with it.

Just for the record, the papers that apparently sat on this were the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg...Times (I think it is the Times, St Petersburg something or another).

The liberal media once again protects the republicans. ;)

wendybeth

10-08-2006, 08:41 PM

There is another angle I've heard to this as well now, being that the dems have known about this for months as well and wished to have it times for release closer to the election. If so, that is as despicable as what I believe Hastert is possibly guilty of.

It is all conjecture, of course, except for the Foley part. I would not put it past republican leadership to try to hold the story until after the elections and the dems to try to hold the story until weeks before them.

And to finish the part of my quote that you left out..."I don't know much about it, but I do know that no one has yet to produce any proof regarding the Dems and whether or not they knew beforehand."

Again, all I am saying is that I don't know enough about this (I am a Dem, after all) to really say how I feel about Hastert, etc. By your own admission, neither do you. So, wtf are we arguing about here?

Motorboat Cruiser

10-08-2006, 08:50 PM

Scaeagles, it would appear that the good Senator in your home state has know about this for about 5 years.

From the Washington Post:

A Republican congressman knew of disgraced former representative Mark Foley's inappropriate Internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about his communications.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. Last week, when the Foley matter erupted, a Kolbe staff member suggested to the former page that he take the matter to the clerk of the House, Karen Haas, said Kolbe's press secretary, Korenna Cline.

The revelation pushes back by at least five years the date when a member of Congress has acknowledged learning of Foley's behavior with former pages. A timeline issued by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) suggested that the first lawmakers to know, Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), the chairman of the House Page Board, and Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), became aware of "over-friendly" e-mails only last fall. It also expands the universe of players in the drama beyond members, either in leadership or on the page board.

scaeagles

10-08-2006, 09:10 PM

Kolbe is a Representative, not a Senator. Our Senators are McCain and Kyl. When I read your opening, I was hoping it was McCain that had known. Kolbe is actually retiring after...18 years, I think?....and his seat is open this election.

scaeagles

10-08-2006, 09:10 PM

So, wtf are we arguing about here?

Because you're a freakin' lib and therefore must be up to no good!:p

wendybeth

10-08-2006, 10:15 PM

At least our pervs are loud and proud, baby! ;)

Motorboat Cruiser

10-09-2006, 01:23 AM

Kolbe is a Representative, not a Senator.

Well, if you're going to get all technical about it...

I should have just used the more generic, "right wing fascist scum", moniker. :)

scaeagles

10-09-2006, 05:22 AM

At least our pervs are loud and proud, baby! ;)

Hey - If Barney Frank didn't know his boyfriend was running a male prostitution ring out of his house, I can believe Hastert didn't know about this.:)

scaeagles

10-09-2006, 05:22 AM

Well, if you're going to get all technical about it...

I should have just used the more generic, "right wing fascist scum", moniker. :)

Just another example of a lib who doesn't know what he's talking about and can't get his facts straight.:)

Motorboat Cruiser

10-09-2006, 08:41 AM

Just another example of a lib who doesn't know what he's talking about and can't get his facts straight.:)

Says the guy whose trusted news source keeps labeling Foley as a Democrat.

Motorboat Cruiser

10-09-2006, 10:36 AM

It's too late to edit my last post but here is a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9mNmZ9JpG8&mode=related&search=) if you want to see for yourself.

wendybeth

10-09-2006, 01:14 PM

Lol- now, that's what I'm on about! They'll do anything to blame this on the Dems!;)

Nephythys

10-09-2006, 01:19 PM

Hey- when something is that easy (and likely correct) why not ;)

besides that- the dems have their own sexual predators they do nothing but protect. I guess it's ok if you are a predator of women- at least if they are over 18. (and no- I am NOT just talking about Clinton)

wendybeth

10-09-2006, 01:32 PM

No denial there. Not even an attempt to blame the Repubs. It is amusing to watch everyone scurrying around trying to sever ties and send money back to Foley's office. Rats deserting the ship.

Nephythys

10-09-2006, 01:43 PM

No doubt-

Frankly I am sick of the double standard they all seem to hold. Their moral outrage is a joke.

sleepyjeff

10-09-2006, 01:48 PM

Says the guy whose trusted news source keeps labeling Foley as a Democrat.

Foley is a democrat. He used to represent a district in Spokane, WA. Just ask WB;)

wendybeth

10-09-2006, 02:23 PM

Yup- he was House Speaker for a number of years. Worst thing he did was some stupid post office scandal that involved his wife. Actually, he is a family friend- my mom worked for him and Scoop Jackson in the Sixties and Seventies.

Prudence

10-09-2006, 06:12 PM

Really, WB? We must talk more...

sleepyjeff

10-09-2006, 09:59 PM

Yup- he was House Speaker for a number of years. Worst thing he did was some stupid post office scandal that involved his wife.

Foley was the last Democratic Speaker of the House; it would be quite ironic if another Foley contributed to the return of a Democrat as Speaker:eek:

CoasterMatt

10-09-2006, 10:42 PM

NSFW, so I'll put it in spoiler tags

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/coastermatt/images/bush_cheney_nakedAA.jpg
:evil:

innerSpaceman

10-10-2006, 08:51 AM

Now that time has allowed for more comprehensive reporting on the Foley scandal, let me reiterate that the Republicans own this one and the Democrats had absolutely nothing to do with it.

The House response was political from the start. Last November, Jeff Trandahl, then clerk of the House, told John Shimkus, the Republican head of the board that oversees the page program, about the less incriminating e-mails. But nobody bothered to inform the board's lone Democrat. Shimkus and Trandahl appear to have done nothing more than give Foley a private warning. When Alexander expanded the circle of those aware of the e-mails the following spring, one of the two people he chose to loop in was Reynolds, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, whose job is managing the election. Foley wasn't even stripped of his co-chairmanship of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.

And about the canard of shifting blame to the Dems ...
G.O.P. leaders are so desperate to find someone else to blame that they have been reduced--with no indication that they see the irony--to blaming a vast left-wing conspiracy. "The people who want to see this thing blow up," Hastert told the Chicago Tribune, "are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros," the liberal financier who has become a bogeyman of the right. Hastert went on to say, without producing any proof, that the revelation was the work of Bill Clinton's operatives. But that line of argument, of course, suggests that Republicans would have preferred to keep Foley's secrets locked away, presumably at the pages' peril. And the Democrats for once are showing the good sense to stay out of the way when the other side is self-destructing. Sighed one of the younger House Republican aides who sits in on key meetings: "Foul play on the Democrats' side? If that is the only card left to play, then we are in serious trouble."

Can the Republicans among us please just man-up and stop casting blame where none lies?

Nephythys

10-10-2006, 09:01 AM

Remove the plank from your own eye before complaining about the splinter in your brothers eye. ;)

If the dems had ever been a party who owned up to things- I might be willing to take this castigation seriously. But come on- they are as inclined to blame anyone but themselves for their failings and scandals.

"It's a right wing conspiracy"

"it was a stolen election" (the dem answer when they lose)

etc etc.....

Might not be dirty tricks- but I don't believe for a MOMENT that ranking dems did not know. It's ridiculous to think that they were clueless-

Strangler Lewis

10-10-2006, 09:09 AM

"it was a stolen election" (the dem answer when they lose)

But . . . but . . . but it was a stolen election. They both were. Of course, if Ohio had somehow been given to Kerry, it would have been worse than 2000 in terms of the popular vote winner losing the electoral college.

And the Democrats probably stole 1960.

Election day is coming up. Vote early and often.

Motorboat Cruiser

10-10-2006, 10:01 AM

Might not be dirty tricks- but I don't believe for a MOMENT that ranking dems did not know. It's ridiculous to think that they were clueless-

I'm surprised that you would find it ridiculous to think that the dems were clueless. Isn't that a standard talking point? ;)

Alex

10-10-2006, 10:05 AM

The great thing about the political game is that both sides label the other as hypocrites. Then use that hypocrisy in the other side as excuse for their own hypocrisy. And then when power flips between parties on many issues both sides simultaneously flip positions while calling the other side hypocrites for doing so.

It's the way the game is played. It, to a large extent, is the way the game has always been played. I suspect that in five thousand years, assuming republican democtratic (small r, small d, not the parties) politics still exists it will be much the same.

I have no idea who was behind it, but the blog that sparked this whole thing was obviously an attempt to get this story broken. Whether that was an angry page, a disgruntled Republican, or a Georg Soros lackey, I have no idea.

Nor is it important. Don't do stupid ****, and you won't get in trouble for it.

wendybeth

10-10-2006, 10:05 AM

I'm surprised that you would find it ridiculous to think that the dems were clueless. Isn't that a standard talking point? ;)

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Motorboat Cruiser again.
:cheers:

scaeagles

10-10-2006, 07:57 PM

I'm surprised that you would find it ridiculous to think that the dems were clueless. Isn't that a standard talking point? ;)

Clueless in knowledge, no. Clueless in application of knowledge, yes.:)

scaeagles

10-10-2006, 07:59 PM

Can the Republicans among us please just man-up and stop casting blame where none lies?

All I've said is "if". I have not claimed a vast left-wing conspiracy. I will again point out that I am the one who brought this up and was beyond angry about it. I have calmed down a bit, obviously.

I will point out, though it doesn't really metter, that quoting from Time to me is like me quoting from Fox News to you.:)

Gemini Cricket

10-11-2006, 06:42 AM

A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.
The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.death.toll.ap/index.html)

For Leo: ;)
A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.
The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."
Source (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219638,00.html)
Bold emphasis is done by Fox"News".

Alex

10-11-2006, 08:59 AM

Whoa, deja vu (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright). (In the sense of a high death toll number, that time in relation to the sanctions following the first Gulf War gets the press while the more legitimate methodologies don't get much play.)

I know counting the excess dead is hard to do, but I find it hard to believe that the organizations that actually try to count bodies are missing 13 out of 14 of them.

And there are obvious methodolical concerns with establishing how many people have died based solely on interviews rather than hard counts so I'd be interested in seeing the nitty gritty details on their methodologies.

And if, as the CNN version says, the study authors in a previous version admitted to doing it with specific political goals, then they aren't doing research, they are engaging in activism which should rightly cast a pall over their result.

€uroMeinke

10-11-2006, 09:43 AM

Hmmm competeing body counts, reminds me of Vietnam...

SacTown Chronic

10-11-2006, 09:44 AM

Clueless in knowledge, no. Clueless in application of knowledge, yes.:)Perhaps, but the dems aren't so clueless as to invade Peter because they know Paul attacked America.

Strangler Lewis

10-11-2006, 09:49 AM

. . .how many people have died based solely on interviews . . .

Those must have been "interviews" conducted in Abu Ghraib.

Alex

10-11-2006, 09:56 AM

Huh?

Strangler Lewis

10-11-2006, 11:03 AM

Death by interview.

Gemini Cricket

10-11-2006, 11:05 AM

Even if the number is close to 655,000 it's wayyy too many.
:(

scaeagles

10-11-2006, 05:40 PM

Moonliner

10-11-2006, 07:26 PM

I'm sure this is just an attempt to distract.

Senate dem leader Reid dirty land deal (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061011/D8KMO6NG0.html)

If anyone made this land deal known to the news media, you know who I think it was? Hillary. I think she wants to be leader of the senate, thinks the dems will win control, and will use this to propel herself in a coup within the dem party.

I have to say, the wicked witch of the north (aka Hillary) would be perfect in the role of senate majority leader. That would nail down bush's laim duck status big time. She would block anything he tried to pass just out of spite and the the reverse would be true also. Perfect! At least until we get a new president.

Gemini Cricket

10-12-2006, 06:07 AM

Hey, if I remember correctly, didn't Foley lambast Clinton for his "sexual addiction"?

Heh heh. "Hello, Kettle? This is Pot. You're black."

scaeagles

10-12-2006, 06:33 AM

He probably did. He's a putz. Not for slamming Clinton....that actually raises his stature with me.:)

Gemini Cricket

10-12-2006, 06:36 AM

...that actually raises his stature with me.:)
He raised more than eyebrows apparently...
:D

...with his pages that is...

Sub la Goon

10-12-2006, 06:44 AM

That's a lot of money for some dirty land...

Gemini Cricket

10-12-2006, 06:47 AM

I'd like to see Reid go. We need someone in his position with cajones.

scaeagles

10-12-2006, 06:54 AM

Gemini Cricket

10-12-2006, 07:20 AM

Since I have always doubted that Hillary is female, she might be your best choice.

Wouldn't it be funny (well, in a sick fashion, really) if Hillary was Senate Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House? OK, not funny. Scary.
Whatsamatter, Leo? Don't think a woman could do a good job? ;)

I think Pelosi needs to go, too. She's too milquetoast for me. Hillary and someone else with cajones...
:)

innerSpaceman

10-12-2006, 07:33 AM

Pelosi, milquetoast???? Um, what planet?

Gemini Cricket

10-12-2006, 07:40 AM

Pelosi, milquetoast???? Um, what planet?
This one. Earth. She's not loud enough. And when she is, it comes off as strained and out of her realm to do so. She often strikes me as being someone with a personality to sell Tupperware than leading a group of politicians.

Alex

10-12-2006, 09:57 AM

I can't really stand Nancy Pelosi so I don't look forward to her being in a position that will get her in the news even than she does now. But I'm sure she'd be fine at leading the House of Representatives from an administrative point of view.

I have a lot of political respect for Hilary Clinton though I don't agree with her on policy decisions so I don't have a problem with her as Senate majority leader, though I don't really see that happening. There'll be about 30 Democrat senators ahead of her in seniority, the body is very traditional in certain respects, and there's going to be too much concern that she won't be running the Senate but running for president and that isn't necessarily a good thing for the Senate's ability to function. But weirder things have happened.

Prudence

10-12-2006, 10:14 AM

I just read that as "House of Republicans". I need a nap.

Nephythys

10-12-2006, 12:28 PM

ah- so it's the internet (http://www.examiner.com/a-339060~Robert_Cox__When_will_the_right_recognize_t he_cost_of_conceding_Web_2_0_.html) that has a left wing bias.

Alex

10-12-2006, 12:33 PM

Considering that internet usage skews young, educated, urban, and somewhat middle class, that is hardly surprising.

The recent string of questionable YouTube removals is bothersome from an admnistrative point of view but I wouldn't expect it to continue under Google's control. Of course, I don't see how YouTube can continue at all under Google's control since now it has deep pockets that every IP owner will want a piece of. Google can no longer claim to simply be caching and somehow within fair use.

Nephythys

10-12-2006, 12:52 PM

But Google is the company that refused to give info to the US Gov't but allowed China to filter and control access.

Alex

10-12-2006, 01:23 PM

And that has what to do with this?

In both cases, Google was complying with local law (censorship is legal in many countries and Google complies with those laws as well). Can you find a history of Google censoring political views in the United States that it doesn't like? Has Google prevented the ability to find all the conservatives bitching online about YouTube shutting down Malkin?

Nephythys

10-13-2006, 06:27 AM

Survey Says- (http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000956.html)

Nephythys

10-13-2006, 06:51 AM

Here are some random thoughts-

365 days a year x 2 years = 365 x 2 = 730

so we get :

655000 divided by 730 days = 897.26 deaths PER DAY in Iraq to get this figure that the Lancet decided on.

For Gods sake the morgues would be full to overflowing, the hospitals would be crammed full..and no one even reported this????

That all the media that has been so busy trashing every minute detail in Iraq MISSED a bodycount that resembles the Black Plague???

Wait..the last report had 100,000 dead in what..2004?? Now the figure has jumped to FIVE TIMES THAT NUMBER and not ONE person has reported this???

And people are FALLING for this???

No, it wasn't true at all. Even assuming that all of the accounts were accurate, the "researchers" didn't attempt to actually count bodies, they did a statistical analysis. And by doing so, they came up with a mean estimate for deaths of 98,000... with a 95% confidence interval of 0.92. Yes, that means that the margin of error was NINETY-TWO FRICKIN' PERCENT. 92%! How could any supposedly reputable researcher even release a study with such a ludicrous margin of error? How could a supposedly reputable academic journal (The Lancet) have published it?

That number is bull shyt and much too high .The American Civil War in four years on both sides produced six hundred eighteen thousand dead (618,000)and that was the bloodiest American war to date.

Hmmm......yeah.

innerSpaceman

10-13-2006, 08:10 AM

Actually, it wasn't the margin of error that was 92%; that was the number of households that ... at the conclusion of the interview ... produced a death certificate to back up their claims of who had died.

Hmmm, let's see, this was published in that hack rag The Lancet. And the methodology of the polling and accuracy of the results confirmed by that rookie John Zagby. And they had the audacity to use the same methodology that's been standard for death rate determination in war time by the U.N. and the U.S. government.

Yeah, the results must be bogus.

(oh, and I love how General Casey dismisses the study while admitting he has not seen it.)

wendybeth

10-13-2006, 08:40 AM

We may have troops there until 2010, but Britain wants out now. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15240385/)

And in other news: Rep Ney pleads guilty (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15249272/) . Of course, he is seeking treatment for alcoholism, which no doubt lead him down this ethically challenged path.*

*Not to make light of alcoholism, but it sure is taking the blame for a lot of bad behavior lately!

Not Afraid

10-13-2006, 08:46 AM

And in other news: Rep Ney pleads guilty (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15249272/) . Of course, he is seeking treatment for alcoholism, which no doubt lead him down this ethically challenged path.*

*Not to make light of alcoholism, but it sure is taking the blame for a lot of bad behavior lately!

Alcoholism causes all sorts of bad bahaviour, but the alocoholic still has to own the bahaviour not use alcoholism as the "excuse".

Alex

10-13-2006, 08:50 AM

If someone issued a study saying that the sun is green, it would be possible to dismiss it without having seen it. I'm sure General Casey has a metric assload of statistics about what is going on in Iraq and if everything he has contradicts this study as ridiculously high I'm sure he is confident in rejecting its results. Doesn't mean he is right.

I find the claim that there are death certificates for almost all of these 600,000 excess violent deaths to be hard to swallow. If they existed then the passive surveillance methods should not be missing approximately 6 out of every 7 of them because they'd be moving through regulatory channels. Maybe not in the outlying provinces (which are also the more settled provinces) but in Bagdhad where a quarter of the popluation is and is the center of violence.

I haven't read the details yet. But I know that there were significant methodological problems with the first report they did (primarily in skewed sampling) and wonder if they were addressed in this second round. Also, I wonder if they address the fact that either the last two years have seen a massive upswing or the first study was way off (implying methodolical problems that, unless corrected for, could still be in the place).

I also tend to be wary of research that has a political goal in mind at the beginning rather than the end. Doesn't mean it is wrong and the technical points need to be addressed rather than the motivations, but it raises concerns.

Alex

10-13-2006, 10:31 AM

Here is the Fred Kaplan article (http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/)* from 2004 about the first study that lays out a lot of the problems in the first study and are many of the factors I'm wondering if they were corrected for this time around.

The one that I wonder most about is the argument that the 2004 study used a pre-war mortality rate for Iraq that was 33% too low which would massively inflate the number of "extraneous" deaths.

And the 95% confidence interval for the 2004 study was 92%. That is, they said the number was 98,000 but that they were 95% confident it was between 8,000 and 194,000. A range so as to make the result almost meaningless.

I'm reading the full article now to see if these were addressed (though I early on I see that they are still using what is likely a low pre-war mortality rate).

*And just for anybody not familiar with the source Kaplan is solidly anti-Bush and pretty negative on the war.

Gemini Cricket

10-13-2006, 10:41 AM

Ney pleads guilty... Wow, what a mess.

Nephythys

10-16-2006, 08:40 AM

So where is the ourtrage?

Ken Starr has an investigation that goes on for years and spends oodles of money and is vilified for it.

Fitzgerald knows immediately where the leak was- yet he "investigates" for years and spends oodles of money only to uncover- nothing.

I guess it all depends on which side is being "investigated"

Alex

10-16-2006, 02:02 PM

Iraq Body Count, long dismissed by the right as offering inflated mortality numbers for Iraq has serious questions about the Lancet study. And they are good ones.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php

Note: They do not dismiss the study as ideologically flawed. They assume an earnest attempt but find the outcome sufficiently flawed (read the details) that they believe there must have been a flaw in the random sampling.

innerSpaceman

10-16-2006, 07:16 PM

I don't know what you're on about with Fitzgerald, Nehp. The investigation went on so long because Rove constantly changed his story, and so the grand jury kept calling him back in. It was Rove who dragged out the investigation, and not Fitzgerald.

And I'd hardly call a cover-up indictment of the Vice-President's Chief of Staff "nothing." As usual, it's always the cover-up and rarely the crime that gets these dweebs into trouble. Armitage confessed his leak immediately to the FBI and Justice Dept, and no criminal charges were pursued.

That the Administration's leaks came a few days later does not make them un-illegal. If you rape a woman who was just raped last week, you are still guilty of rape.

Nephythys

10-16-2006, 08:13 PM

Heh- of course. It's Rove's fault. Sure.
:rolleyes:

wendybeth

10-16-2006, 08:43 PM

Ken Starr investigation costs: $40,000,000. (approx)

Fitzgerald investigation costs: $1,500,000 (approx)

sleepyjeff

10-16-2006, 09:29 PM

Ken Starr investigation costs: $40,000,000. (approx)

Fitzgerald investigation costs: $1,500,000 (approx)

Just goes to show how much Democrats overspend.

;)

innerSpaceman

10-16-2006, 10:36 PM

Does your hair get all gritty from that sand you constantly have your head in, Neph?

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 06:40 AM

I dunno- do you get good TV reception with all the tinfoil?

scaeagles

10-17-2006, 06:44 AM

Hey sleepy - it's just because there is more corruption on the left so it costs more to investigate.;)

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 06:48 AM

Hey sleepy - it's just because there is more corruption on the left so it costs more to investigate.;)

heehee :D

scaeagles

10-17-2006, 07:03 AM

Random thoughts.....

Harry Reid is going to amend his Senate ethics reports for full disclosure because "Republicans believe in cover-ups, but (he) believes in facts coming to light."

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

September averaged .7 degrees lower than normal temps. Somehow I'm sure this will be spun as evidence of man caused global warming.

Mars is showing signs of tremendous climate change. It look as if our man caused global warming is having a much more far reaching effect than I had thought possible.

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 07:24 AM

Link (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/17/D8KQCNTO0.html)

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has been using campaign donations instead of his personal money to pay Christmas bonuses for the support staff at the Ritz-Carlton where he lives in an upscale condominium. Federal election law bars candidates from converting political donations for personal use.

innerSpaceman

10-17-2006, 07:47 AM

So, where's the blindness here? It seems EVERY lib on this board is perfectly willing to assume the worst about nearly every Democratic politician and political operative, but the conservatives here are so defensive about the Republican pols and operatives.

It does you no good to nah-nah-nah about Reid or Pelosi or back to Clinton if you'd like ... yeah, we won't bother defending them much. They are pols, and all of them crooked as a dog's hind leg.

It's you ostriches insisting "your" side's all squeaky clean that's laughable.

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 07:54 AM

None of us have ever claimed to have a squeaky clean side- but nor are we going to roll over and capitulate to the hysteria that says republicans/conservatives etc are evil incarnate.

JWBear

10-17-2006, 08:16 AM

None of us have ever claimed to have a squeaky clean side- but nor are we going to roll over and capitulate to the hysteria that says republicans/conservatives etc are evil incarnate.
But do Republicans not claim to be the party of traditional values and morality? Nothing reeks more of hypocrisy than claiming the moral high ground in public, but being very immoral in private. Republicans tried to crucify Clinton because he lied about his sex life. Yet they defend Foley and those who covered up for him. Can you not see the double standard?

Motorboat Cruiser

10-17-2006, 08:33 AM

If the republicans don't want to be ridiculed, perhaps they should avoid pompous statements such as this in the future:

REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

Tom Delay
Rob Ney
Scooter Libby
Randy Cunningham
Bill Frist
Tom Foley
Dennis Hastert
Richard Shelby
Michael Scanlon
David Safavian
Katherine Harris
Ralph Reed

All either convicted, indicted, or under investigation.

Federal Budget deficit: 8.5 Trillion

I don't suppose anyone would care to reconcile this information with the "Contract With America"?

JWBear

10-17-2006, 08:35 AM

And as for trying to dismiss wrongdoing on one side by saying, “But, but, but… Soandso does that too!” is a poor defense.

Let me ask you this Nephy…. If you were talking to one of your children about something wrong that they had done, what would be your reaction if he/she tried to use the excuse that their brother/sister did it too. Would you let them off the hook? No. Wrongdoing on one side does not excuse wrongdoing on the other.

The actions of some Republican lawmakers can not be dismissed because some Democrats have done bad things as well.

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 08:40 AM

But do Republicans not claim to be the party of traditional values and morality? Nothing reeks more of hypocrisy than claiming the moral high ground in public, but being very immoral in private. Republicans tried to crucify Clinton because he lied about his sex life. Yet they defend Foley and those who covered up for him. Can you not see the double standard?

whoa- bad example.

Foley resigned.

Clinton continued to serve.

Stubbs was censured- and continued to serve and be re-elected.

Etc etc.....who protects their sexual predators?

Not us- Leo castigated him- we all did. No one said what he did was right.

Everyone is a hypocrite- at some point.

I guess to some it is ok to be immoral- as long as you make it public.

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 08:42 AM

Alex

10-17-2006, 08:50 AM

September averaged .7 degrees lower than normal temps. Somehow I'm sure this will be spun as evidence of man caused global warming.

Nor is it evidence against man-caused global warming.

sleepyjeff

10-17-2006, 08:55 AM

Yet they defend Foley

Who defends Foley?

Scrooge McSam

10-17-2006, 09:30 AM

Hope you all are having fun!

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 09:30 AM

Hope you all are having fun!

Scrooge darlin' we are ALWAYS having fun.

(love the penguin BTW):D

JWBear

10-17-2006, 10:19 AM

I have never dismissed wrong doing. Two wrongs don't make a right- but I see hypocrisy and a severe double standard on the other side of the aisle here.

- and everything you said works on the flip side too.
You are one of the worst offenders when it comes to the “But, but, but Democrats!” defense to try and excuse something a Republican did.

Here’s another example… If someone is caught stealing, will the judge dismiss the charges when that someone points out to him that someone else stole too? Not likely.

Crimes committed by democratic politicians do not make the crimes of republican politicians go away. Those Republicans still committed those crimes. Any lawmaker, regardless of party, that commits a crime should be relieved of office. No party should be held above the law.

While I am no lover of the Democratic Party, and will not dismiss the illegal actions of a politician from that party, I find there is far more hypocrisy in the Republican Party. I find he current trend of defending the party at all costs – even to the point of putting party loyalty above the good of the country – to be abhorrent. Republican politicians seem incapable of admitting mistakes or accepting blame. This is especially true of the current administration. This is the reason that I will, for the first time in my life, be voting a straight democratic ticket; not because I am loyal to the DNC (I’m not), but because the Republican Party has become too powerful, too corrupt, too greedy, too out of touch. There needs to be a change. Thank the Goddess that the rest of America is coming to that realization as well.

JWBear

10-17-2006, 10:21 AM

Who defends Foley?
The Republican leaders did, until the story became public.

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 10:37 AM

You are one of the worst offenders when it comes to the “But, but, but Democrats!” defense to try and excuse something a Republican did.

Here’s another example… If someone is caught stealing, will the judge dismiss the charges when that someone points out to him that someone else stole too? Not likely.

Crimes committed by democratic politicians do not make the crimes of republican politicians go away. Those Republicans still committed those crimes. Any lawmaker, regardless of party, that commits a crime should be relieved of office. No party should be held above the law.

While I am no lover of the Democratic Party, and will not dismiss the illegal actions of a politician from that party, I find there is far more hypocrisy in the Republican Party. I find he current trend of defending the party at all costs – even to the point of putting party loyalty above the good of the country – to be abhorrent. Republican politicians seem incapable of admitting mistakes or accepting blame. This is especially true of the current administration. This is the reason that I will, for the first time in my life, be voting a straight democratic ticket; not because I am loyal to the DNC (I’m not), but because the Republican Party has become too powerful, too corrupt, too greedy, too out of touch. There needs to be a change. Thank the Goddess that the rest of America is coming to that realization as well.

I don't ever say "but but the democrats-" I will point out the things that they do- doesn't ever mean I excuse the same behavior on the right. I'm sorry you have that impression- but it is not factual nor accurate in how I view things.

You see it your way. I disagree. I don't think one party holds the monopoly on hypocrisy.

If anyone would actually kick people out of office for crimes- we would finally be able to start fresh. It won't happen- on either side.

I don't excuse crimes-but I also do not blindly buy into the notion of the right as evil and corrupt- while the left is genuine, caring and able to bring change. The left offers nothing- nothing positive, nothing new.

You know what I think will happen if the dems take congress? They will tick off everyone by raising taxes, trying to give amnesty to illegals, cut and run from the war on terror because they blame us more than our enemies, and they will tie up congress trying to impeach Bush. By the time 2008 rolls around- we'll see who is sick of who.

If you think that is what most of America wants- I'm afraid you are going to be very mistaken.

Bottom line- my life continues just fine no matter who controls congress.

sleepyjeff

10-17-2006, 11:18 AM

Hope you all are having fun!

C'mon...jump in. The water is nice and warm:D

JWBear

10-17-2006, 11:24 AM

I don't ever say "but but the democrats-" I will point out the things that they do- doesn't ever mean I excuse the same behavior on the right. I'm sorry you have that impression- but it is not factual nor accurate in how I view things.
You certainly do give that impression.

You see it your way. I disagree. I don't think one party holds the monopoly on hypocrisy.
Neither do I. But I see far more of it amongst the Republicans.

I don't excuse crimes-but I also do not blindly buy into the notion of the right as evil and corrupt- while the left is genuine, caring and able to bring change.
That’s not my viewpoint. I don’t think the right is evil, and I don’t hold the left as saints. Life is never that simple. Please do not assume I am simple as well.

The Republican Party has too much power currently. No party should control both Congress and the White House. Power leads to corruption. I used to have respect for the Republican Party. Now… not so much. To much emphasis on retaining power at all cost, too little regard for what is best for the country.

The left offers nothing- nothing positive, nothing new.

You know what I think will happen if the dems take congress? They will tick off everyone by raising taxes, trying to give amnesty to illegals, cut and run from the war on terror because they blame us more than our enemies, and they will tie up congress trying to impeach Bush.
Is that all you can come up with? Old, empty, tired sloganeering?

They may raise taxes, but could it really make anything worse? The economy is going down the toilet, the Republicans cut taxes for the very rich, and they are bleeding money into Iraq like it’s going out of style. I don’t see much in the way of fiscal responsibility there.

No one is cutting and running from the War on Terror – except Bush. He has done nothing to make the world safer from terrorism. He hasn’t gotten rid of Bin Laden. (Remember him? The guy responsible for 9/11?) And his little war in Iraq has made us much more hated by the Muslim world, replaced a secular government with an Islamic one, and done nothing to stop terrorism. Now he wants to drag us in to another needless war in Iran! I will fully support anyone that has a plan to get us out of that mess and actually go after… you know… terrorists.

If Bush has committed impeachable crimes, then he should be impeached. Notice I said “if”. We don’t know currently because the Republicans are in charge and won’t even investigate.

And when all else fails, using immigrants to scare White America to vote Republican is a good strategy…. “Oh my god… can’t let the Democrats get power – the brown people will get ya!”

If you think that is what most of America wants- I'm afraid you are going to be very mistaken.
If you think America wants a continuation of the mess we’re in, you have your head in the sand.

SacTown Chronic

10-17-2006, 11:32 AM

...cut and run from the war on terror because they blame us more than our enemies,...
What do you mean by "cut and run from the war on terror"?

Alex

10-17-2006, 11:34 AM

No party should control both Congress and the White House.

Out of curiosity does this mean that if the Democrats with the House and Senate this year that you'll vote Republican for president in 2008 regardless of candidates because that would be too much power for the Democrats?

Strangler Lewis

10-17-2006, 11:49 AM

.
If Bush has committed impeachable crimes, then he should be impeached. Notice I said “if”. We don’t know currently because the Republicans are in charge and won’t even investigate.

Embarrassed and criticized, yes. Impeached, no. His term will expire in two years. A democratic Congress should spend those years making its case for a Democratic president, not wasting its time on impeachment proceedings that, however called for, will only be viewed as payback for Clinton.

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 11:52 AM

You certainly do give that impression.

I have corrected your impression-don't accuse me of it any longer.

Neither do I. But I see far more of it amongst the Republicans.

...and I see the opposite. It won't change.

That’s not my viewpoint. I don’t think the right is evil, and I don’t hold the left as saints. Life is never that simple. Please do not assume I am simple as well.

Never did. If you expect me to not assume about you- do the same for me.

The Republican Party has too much power currently. No party should control both Congress and the White House. Power leads to corruption. I used to have respect for the Republican Party. Now… not so much. To much emphasis on retaining power at all cost, too little regard for what is best for the country.

Then I also expect you to vote for the opposite party depending on who holds congress in '08. Or else you are as gulity of the hypocrisy you accuse others of.

Is that all you can come up with? Old, empty, tired sloganeering?

I am not sloganeering- I am stating what I believe will happen.

They may raise taxes, but could it really make anything worse? The economy is going down the toilet, the Republicans cut taxes for the very rich, and they are bleeding money into Iraq like it’s going out of style. I don’t see much in the way of fiscal responsibility there.

While I agree there needs to be more fiscal reponsibility- the economy is not going down the toilet. I work in finance- so I am in it daily. You cut taxes for the rich because they pay the majority of taxes. Cutting taxes for people who don't pay much in taxes, or any at all is not cuts- it's wealth redistribution. Very cool if you are a socialist.

No one is cutting and running from the War on Terror – except Bush. He has done nothing to make the world safer from terrorism. He hasn’t gotten rid of Bin Laden. (Remember him? The guy responsible for 9/11?) And his little war in Iraq has made us much more hated by the Muslim world, replaced a secular government with an Islamic one, and done nothing to stop terrorism. Now he wants to drag us in to another needless war in Iran! I will fully support anyone that has a plan to get us out of that mess and actually go after… you know… terrorists.

I disagree- but I don't have time to debate it. Maybe someone else feels up to it.

And when all else fails, using immigrants to scare White America to vote Republican is a good strategy…. “Oh my god… can’t let the Democrats get power – the brown people will get ya!”

OOO race baiting. How impressive. Not immigrants JW- ILLEGAL immigrants. If you can't see the damage illegal immigration is doing to this country I can't help you. I don't care what color an illegal is- cause guess what, we used to have a huge problem with white euro illegals- same problem.

Spare me your reflective bigotry- it's insulting and not worth notice. Disgusting tactic.

If you think America wants a continuation of the mess we’re in, you have your head in the sand.

We'll see shall we- the real poll is at the voting booth.

Ghoulish Delight

10-17-2006, 01:18 PM

You cut taxes for the rich because they pay the majority of taxes. In 2001, the top 10% of the US population owned 71% of the wealth in the nation, and that's been trending higher since then. But in 2003, that same top 10% accuonted for 66% of tax revenue. That doesn't jive. That means, despite complaining about how unfairly our gradient tax system is, the wealthiest people in this country pay a smaller percentage of their wealth in taxes then those lower than them. The wealthy have far more opportunity to shelter their wealth than those in the middle and lower classes that don't have vast amounts of extra capital to sock away. So even though their income tax rate on paper is lower, they are giving a higher percentage of their pay checks in taxes. And yet, people continue to complain that the wealthy are treated unfairly by our tax system. Lord.

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 01:28 PM

I don't think they are treated unfairly- but they do pay the majority of taxes. Complaining about tax cuts for the rich-the people who pay more taxes- is just a class warfare tactic.

Taxes should be lowered all over- but it is disingenuous to gripe about giving tax cuts to people who pay more in taxes. I seriously question the motivation of anyone who makes those complaints- is it really tax related, or just class envy and a desire to stick it to people with more money and force them to redistribute their wealth to people who have not earned it.

The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

Strangler Lewis

10-17-2006, 01:35 PM

a desire to stick it to people with more money and force them to redistribute their wealth to people who have not earned it.

Like children, teachers and veterans.

Ghoulish Delight

10-17-2006, 01:36 PM

Taxes should be lowered all over- but it is disingenuous to gripe about giving tax cuts to people who pay more in taxes. I seriously question the motivation of anyone who makes those complaints- is it really tax related, or just class envy and a desire to stick it to people with more money and force them to redistribute their wealth to people who have not earned it.Disingenuous? That I want everyone to pay an equal share of taxes? That doesn't mean everyone pays 1/300,000,000 of the taxes. That means if I pay 30% of my income, then you pay 30% of your income. As the numbers show, at the moment, the wealthiest Americans are already paying taxes at a lower percentage rate than the rest of the country, and people are trying to get it even lower. Tax cuts for the highest brackets continue to shift a proportinally greater burdon onto the middle and lower classes.

And, oops, I forgot my source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_distribution)

And the income figures you quote ignore capital gains, rent revenue, gifts, etc. It only accounts for W2 wages.

Alex

10-17-2006, 01:41 PM

The problem with the tax system is that we use it as not just a source of revenue but also as a means of social engineering.

We create a billion loopholes to encourage certain behaviors and then get upset when a rich person uses all of them to end up paying little in taxes.

Lose the loopholes and actually make people pay percentages and make a two tiered flat tax system. I think even the poorest should pay some small percentage of their income into taxes rather than a blanket exemption. A society in which 30% of the people pay no taxes is a society that only has an interest in seeing taxes rise.

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 01:42 PM

I never said you were disingenuous GD- I said I suspect it of people who gripe about the "rich".

I am all for flat tax- at least in theory.

I am especially all for keeping more of our income and giving less to the infernal revenue service and the gov't- I am insulted that the gov't thinks they can spend my money better than I can.

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 01:42 PM

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 01:44 PM

Like children, teachers and veterans.

um, no.

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 01:51 PM

Lay's Conviction Erased from Records (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101700808.html)

:eek:

Oh my-

A federal judge in Houston this afternoon wiped away the fraud and conspiracy conviction of Kenneth L. Lay, the Enron Corp. founder who died of heart disease in July, bowing to decades of legal precedent but frustrating government attempts to seize nearly $44 million from his estate.

The ruling worried employees and investors who lost billions of dollars when the Houston energy trading company filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2001. It also came weeks after Congress recessed for the November elections without acting on a last-ditch Justice Department proposal that would have changed the law to allow prosecutors to seize millions in investments and other assets that Lay controlled.

...snip...

Regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission can still pursue their civil case against Lay's estate, but their task will be more difficult because they can no longer introduce the fact of his conviction and instead must prove all over again that he broke the law. The SEC case has been stayed pending resolution of the criminal issues, an agency spokesman said.

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 01:53 PM

Wesley Snipes accused of tax fraud (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061017/D8KQIL4O0.html)

Ghoulish Delight

10-17-2006, 01:55 PM

Lose the loopholes and actually make people pay percentages and make a two tiered flat tax system. w00t.

um, no.You seem to be conflating 2 (or 3) different issues. I may or may not agree that across-the-board tax cuts are needed and I may or may not agree with what tax money should be spent on, but that's an entirely different discussion than whether tax cuts that only lower taxes for a segment of the country that's already paying less than their proportionate share make sense.

I am insulted that the gov't thinks they can spend my money better than I can.Aggregated money is far more efficient than an equal amount of money distributed. A single entity offering 2 Million dollars for road work will get more roads built than 50,000 individuals offering $40 each for road work. I'm not going to argue that everything our government is spending its money on is being done efficiently, but having a combined resource pool benefits me more than having that $40 in my pocket. The difficult bit is finding the balance point.

Alex

10-17-2006, 01:56 PM

What exactly is the political thought inspired by that story?

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 02:07 PM

Rich and taxes ;)

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 02:07 PM

Aggregated money is far more efficient than an equal amount of money distributed. A single entity offering 2 Million dollars for road work will get more roads built than 50,000 individuals offering $40 each for road work. I'm not going to argue that everything our government is spending its money on is being done efficiently, but having a combined resource pool benefits me more than having that $40 in my pocket. The difficult bit is finding the balance point.

Yes-

I hate the way the gov't spends our money.

Not Afraid

10-17-2006, 02:09 PM

I hate the way the gov't spends our money.

Me too. Idiotic waste of money war.

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 02:12 PM

Me too. Idiotic waste of money war.

oh ha-

The list of things the gov't wastes money on seems endless. And since the POTUS sees no reason to limit spending- there it goes!

bah

Ghoulish Delight

10-17-2006, 03:35 PM

Well shoot, at least I don't live in Arizona (http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank06.htm)

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 03:39 PM

nope- Cali is three up from AZ.

What is that??

Heh- CO is right about middle- hmmm

Alex

10-17-2006, 03:41 PM

What a weird methodology they use. The entire basis for "smartness" seems to be based on public primary school statistics.

If you accept their criteria as valid measurements of something, it seems to be me it would just be statewide quality of public primary schools. By thoes criteria the entire graduating classes of Ivy League universities from 1990-2006 could move to California and the state would not get at all "smarter."

sleepyjeff

10-17-2006, 05:18 PM

By thoes criteria the entire graduating classes of Ivy League universities from 1990-2006 could move to California and the state would not get at all "smarter."

Don't worry. Sleepyjeff is coming down in a couple of weeks. California will get slightly smarter for a few days.....(heh, heh)

JWBear

10-17-2006, 07:04 PM

Out of curiosity does this mean that if the Democrats with the House and Senate this year that you'll vote Republican for president in 2008 regardless of candidates because that would be too much power for the Democrats?
Possibly. Depends on who the parties run as candidates. I’ll vote for who I think will do the better job, regardless of party affiliation.

OOO race baiting. How impressive. Not immigrants JW- ILLEGAL immigrants.
The right use immigrants (legal and illegal – some on the right don't seem to make that distinction) as bogeymen to scare people with. If this isn’t race baiting, I don’t know what is. The problem of illegal immigration is a complex one. One that can’t be solved in terms of black and white (color, not race). There is no simple answer. But using illegal immigrants as a scare tactic to win elections is just plain wrong. These are people we are talking about, not demons.

If you really care about the issue, then demand that Congress and the President do more to secure our borders. Complaining about the rain coming in the window does no good when you ignore that the window is still open.

If you can't see the damage illegal immigration is doing to this country I can't help you.
And just what damage would that be?

“They take our jobs?” They take jobs no one else will take.

“Their children take up room in our schools?” Yes, let’s deny an education to children (who may be US citizens) because their parents are here illegally. Let’s punish children for the crimes of their parents. Good policy.

“They don’t pay taxes, but use all the benefits.” Wrong. Illegals pay into the tax base, but are denied most government benefits.

“Health care services are overburdened by illegals!” Health care services are overburdened by people who do not have health insurance – the majority of which are not illegal immigrants. If there is a problem with the health care system, then let’s fix it. Blaming one group is not going to solve anything.

…cause guess what, we used to have a huge problem with white euro illegals- same problem.
Really? Do tell.

Spare me your reflective bigotry- it's insulting and not worth notice. Disgusting tactic.
I’m sorry… Did I touch a nerve?

Anyway, I refuse to get pulled any farther in to a debate on immigration. It tends to get ugly.

Nephythys

10-17-2006, 07:22 PM

No- you did not touch a nerve.

One thing I am not is a bigot- but you have reminded me why I usually ignore your posts.

Thanks- lesson learned.

scaeagles

10-17-2006, 09:18 PM

But do Republicans not claim to be the party of traditional values and morality? Nothing reeks more of hypocrisy than claiming the moral high ground in public, but being very immoral in private. Republicans tried to crucify Clinton because he lied about his sex life. Yet they defend Foley and those who covered up for him. Can you not see the double standard?

Who is yelling out about the "culture of corruption"? Is that not the same thing as claiming a higher moral ground? It is saying "you are corrupt and we are not".

Who has defended Foley?

I won't bother to go into Clinton, but the situation to me was not about his private sex life.

There is no shortage of hypocrisy anywhere in politics. It simply comes down to whose is more palatable to you based on your own politics.

scaeagles

10-17-2006, 09:20 PM

Well shoot, at least I don't live in Arizona (http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank06.htm)

It's a damn good thing I live here or we'd be even lower (in points not in ranking - duh!). :)

Ghoulish Delight

10-19-2006, 09:31 AM

Just once I'd like to see a political ad that says, "These are the reasons you should vote for this candidate" rather than "These are the reasons you shouldn't vote for this other candidate."

Nephythys

10-19-2006, 12:23 PM

The Liberal To Do List If They Win

Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act — H.R. 3760: Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and 74 Democratic cosponsors propose a new “Department of Peace and Nonviolence” as well as “National Peace Day.” Cosponsors include three would-be Democratic Chairmen: John Conyers (Judiciary), George Miller (Education and the Workforce), and Charlie Rangel (Ways and Means).

Gas Stamps — H.R. 3712: Jim McDermott (D-WA) and eight Democratic cosponsors want a “Gas Stamps” program similar to the Food Stamps program to subsidize the gasoline purchases of qualified individuals.

Less Jail Time for Selling Crack Cocaine - H.R. 2456: Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and 23 Democratic cosponsors want to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for possessing, importing, and distributing crack cocaine. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the bill, is a cosponsor.

Voting Rights for Criminals - H.R. 1300: John Conyers (D-MI) and 32 Democratic cosponsors, and H.R. 663: Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and 28 Democratic cosponsors would let convicted felons vote. Rep. John Conyers is the would-be Democratic Chairman of the Judiciary Committee which would consider this legislation.

Expand Medicare to Include Diapers — H.R. 1052: Barney Frank (D-MA) supports Medicare coverage of adult diapers. Barney Frank is the would-be Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Nationalized Health Care - H.R. 4683: John Dingell (D-MI) and 18 Democratic cosponsors want to expand Medicare to cover all Americans. John Dingell is the would-be Democratic Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee who along with cosponsors Charlie Rangel, would-be Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Henry Waxman, would-be Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, would have jurisdiction over the proposal.

Federal Regulation of Restaurant Menus — H.R. 5563: Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and 25 Democratic cosponsors authorize federal regulation of the contents of restaurant menus.

Taxpayer Funded Abortions & Elimination of all Restrictions on Abortion, Including Parental Notice - H.R. 5151: Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and 66 Democratic cosponsors want to overturn even minimal restrictions on abortion such as parental notice requirements. The bill would also require taxpayer funding of abortions through the various federal health care programs. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over the bill, is an original cosponsor.

(kill the babies- any way you can- but don't put drug dealers in jail)

Bill of Welfare Rights — H.J. Res. 29-35: Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) proposes a Soviet-style “Bill of Welfare Rights,” enshrining the rights of full employment, public education, national healthcare, public housing, abortion, progressive taxation, and union membership. On some these measures, Rep. Jackson is joined by up to 35 Democratic cosponsors, including would-be Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers.

Link (http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/10/19/the-liberals-are-coming-to-town-oh-my/)

Bleaugh-bloat, more absconding of our money to the gov't....whoopee.:rolleyes:

Not Afraid

10-19-2006, 12:42 PM

I guess I'm not really a liberal, then. Remember that.

Nephythys

10-19-2006, 12:50 PM

I guess I'm not really a liberal, then. Remember that.

heh- is there a Crazy Cat Lady party? ;)

JWBear

10-19-2006, 01:03 PM

Nephythys

10-19-2006, 01:21 PM

And I’m sure there are plenty of wacky bills introduced by Republicans that never make it out of committee as well. Shall we make a list of those too?

The vast majority of bills never make it past the various committees who vet them; that’s the point of the committees. Many bills are introduced that are never intended to make it out of committee (for a variety of reasons). I very seriously doubt that most of these would pass in a Democrat controlled congress, even if the author meant them to.

ROTFLMAO!!

OH MY GOD!

You have the audacity to say to me that I say "but, but, but the Democrats..." in order to excuse republicans- and you post this?

But but but the Republicans do it too!

LOL- thanks for the laugh. OMG- too funny.