Author Topic: Foley-gate congressional perv (Read 5261 times)

lukster · « **Reply #105 on:** October 04, 2006, 07:43:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by dhaus
The CLINTON DID IT scream is the standard republican defense to every failing within the party. Sorry, Clinton was six years ago. That is not pointing out the dems' hypocracy as much as it is revealing the republicans'. We were supposed to be better off. We were throwing out the immoral, wacked out folks. Now it appears Hastert (and the rest of the republican leadership) turned a blind eye to Foley's behavior rather than start an investigation to clean up the House - an investigation which may have reflected poorly on a loyal republican. So who are the immoral whacked out folks this term?

Time matters little when precedent is set and this precedent was set in 1983. The difference here is that both parties want this guys head unlike it being only the Republicans objecting in 1983. 1983 wasn't that long ago for some of us.

Flatbar · « **Reply #106 on:** October 04, 2006, 07:46:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Time matters little when precedent is set and this precedent was set in 1983. The difference here is that both parties want this guys head unlike it being only the Republicans objecting in 1983. 1983 wasn't that long ago for some of us.

The act actualy happened in '73.

Does this meen that anything Nixon did can be used to attack repubs at this time some 33 years later?

lukster · « **Reply #107 on:** October 04, 2006, 07:48:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Flatbar
The act actualy happened in '73.

Does this meen that anything Nixon did can be used to attack repubs at this time some 33 years later?

He admitted it in 1983. Where was the Democrat outrage then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

In case you don't make it through the entire article:

"Studds was re-elected five more terms after the censure. He fought for many issues, including environmental and maritime issues, gay marriage, AIDS funding, and civil rights, particularly for homosexuals."

Tell me how what this guy did is different from what Foley has done.

Debonair · « **Reply #108 on:** October 04, 2006, 07:53:59 PM »

it was on the streetcorner, breakdancing

dhaus · « **Reply #109 on:** October 04, 2006, 07:58:19 PM »

ROFL!! Both parties want his head? Not until it was made public. Heck, the Rs even hid it from the one democrat on the comittee that oversees the page program. Sorry, this is all about the Rs maintaining power in the House. You can revisit the past all you want, but this is happening now and the party in charge is the one that has FAMILY VALUES!! Hypocracy indeed.

lukster · « **Reply #110 on:** October 04, 2006, 08:05:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by dhaus
ROFL!! Both parties want his head? Not until it was made public. Heck, the Rs even hid it from the one democrat on the comittee that oversees the page program. Sorry, this is all about the Rs maintaining power in the House. You can revisit the past all you want, but this is happening now and the party in charge is the one that has FAMILY VALUES!! Hypocracy indeed.

Uh, how were the vast majority of republicans supposed to want him out until it was made public? The hypocrisy is with any democrat not calling for Studds head through what, 1997?

Toad · « **Reply #111 on:** October 04, 2006, 08:08:23 PM »

I guess what is so apparent about the Clinton comparison to me is that both then and now Conservatives defend neither one were/are for full punishment of both Clinton and Foley.

OTOH, the Liberals were NEVER for full punishment of Clinton (and in fact continue to defend him today) while calling for Foley's head.

If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

dhaus · « **Reply #112 on:** October 04, 2006, 08:26:13 PM »

The conservative leaders in the House (Hastert, Boehnert, et al.) had information of Foley's improper contacts with underage pages three years ago, and never acted on them. How is that calling for his head? I, personally, believe that Clinton's transgressions were very different than the House cover up and did not warrant impeachment. I understand you disagree. So no, you can't help me, nor do I need that help. That discussion is for another thread.

Toad · « **Reply #113 on:** October 04, 2006, 08:27:47 PM »

I am not defending the Reps in the House. They need to get slapped up side the head too.

I'm talking about the posters on this BBS.

However, I am not suprised you can't see anything wrong in what Clinton did and then lied about under oath.

dhaus · « **Reply #114 on:** October 04, 2006, 08:35:00 PM »

You misunderstand my comment. I said that Clinton's transgressions were very different from the House coverup and did not warrant impeachment. That is different than saying I did not think he was wrong.

lukster · « **Reply #115 on:** October 04, 2006, 10:21:08 PM »

I'm not defending Foley, I want him out and prosecuted if appropriate as much as anyone.

HOWEVER, democrats knew about Studds doing the same thing for 14 years and never uttered a single word about him even leaving office. Can you say serious double standard?

bj229r · « **Reply #116 on:** October 04, 2006, 10:25:19 PM »

I'm somewhat ambivalent about the whole thing--good thing that Foley is gone, If Hastert goes, that's good but for a different reason---he's an ineffective leader, (which is why several Reps want him gone, using this thing as cover) the same way Trent Lott was in the Senate, who also was thrown under the bus. Heeh, here is Ann's take:

Quote

At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.

The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.

Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch-hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)

In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."

When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds -- not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men -- defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office six more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")

Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch-hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life."

Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.

No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.

But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager -- oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy -- and a credit check, too!

When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.

But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.

The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al Qaeda -- solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.

On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"

Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."

We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:

-- Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.

-- Priests: No gays!

-- Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.

-- Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.

-- White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.

-- Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.

-- Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?

This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.

Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.

© 2006 ANN COULTER.

soda72 · « **Reply #117 on:** October 04, 2006, 10:34:01 PM »

Quote

But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

lukster · « **Reply #118 on:** October 04, 2006, 10:40:11 PM »

Ann has it too easy, the democrats make such a large target.

rpm · « **Reply #119 on:** October 04, 2006, 10:40:35 PM »

What's so apparent about the Clinton comparison to me? 16 year old. 22 year old.

If you can't tell the difference, you never will.