The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 128

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?

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?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prudence

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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.

10-03-2006, 03:52 PM	#1271
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	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!
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 04:32 PM	#1272
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	No one's asked the most important question of all: Will Mark Foley be at Gay Days at Disneyland or not?
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 07:22 PM	#1273
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	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? __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 07:35 PM	#1274
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	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.
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 07:42 PM	#1275
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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).
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 08:34 PM	#1276
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	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. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 09:00 PM	#1277
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	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.
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 09:41 PM	#1280
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes