Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 1K3 on October 05, 2006, 09:40:33 PM
-
:noid
-
That only works for Republican politicians, (Gary Hart aside)---when a Pub does it, it seems to be akin to a priest doing it--there is a higher standard/lower threshhold there.
-
weird, i guess even the "irregularities" in Boooosh admin is still not enough to unseat him:p
-
Sex sells, unless it's some huge insider trading thing ala Martha Stewart, you won't hear much from the tabloids. People want the dirt, the nitty gritty, and that's what a sex scandal delivers.
-
Louisiana former governor, now federal inmate, Edwin Edwards used to have a saying " The only way I'll lose this election is if they catch me in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." I wonder if he really coined that phrase. Legend is he did.
-
Originally posted by BTW
Louisiana former governor, now federal inmate, Edwin Edwards used to have a saying " The only way I'll lose this election is if they catch me in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." I wonder if he really coined that phrase. Legend is he did.
He did.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
weird, i guess even the "irregularities" in Boooosh admin is still not enough to unseat him:p
what are you saying , that clinton should have resigned?
-
Perfect example of the power of a sex scandal being completely relevant to your political party. 1984, two sex scandals with young pages. One guy was a Republican, second was a Democrat. Both actually had sex vice sending IM's or e-mail as Foley did. Congress was controlled by Democrats. The Republican leadership called for the House to expel both offending members. The Republican leadership demanded the the Republican offender resign, withdrew all election support, banned him from participation in Republican events and took away his committee appointments. The Democrats did nothing against "their guy". The Democrat controlled House voted only to "censure" both. That was it, and these were two guys that actually had sex with pages. The Republican refused to resign and lost his re-election bid because he was rejected by his own party. The Democrat refused to resign and was re-elected SIX TIMES with complete Democrat Party support.
No, no differences here.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Perfect example of the power of a sex scandal being completely relevant to your political party. 1984, two sex scandals with young pages. One guy was a Republican, second was a Democrat. Both actually had sex vice sending IM's or e-mail as Foley did. Congress was controlled by Democrats. The Republican leadership called for the House to expel both offending members. The Republican leadership demanded the the Republican offender resign, withdrew all election support, banned him from participation in Republican events and took away his committee appointments. The Democrats did nothing against "their guy". The Democrat controlled House voted only to "censure" both. That was it, and these were two guys that actually had sex with pages. The Republican refused to resign and lost his re-election bid because he was rejected by his own party. The Democrat refused to resign and was re-elected SIX TIMES with complete Democrat Party support.
No, no differences here.
Yes, let's go back 22 years and draw comparisons. Talk about reaching. You want to be fair? Ok, go ahead and censure Foley only and bring him back to your little party. Go ahead, I double dog dare you to do it.
-
Originally posted by Recap
Yes, let's go back 22 years and draw comparisons. Talk about reaching. You want to be fair? Ok, go ahead and censure Foley only and bring him back to your little party. Go ahead, I double dog dare you to do it.
Except that Studds stayed in office until only 9 years ago. There has been plenty of time for everyone today to become outraged when Studds carried out the act that Foley only wanted to. There's no avoiding it. Democrats today hold a different standard for themselves than they do for Republicans. Do you deny this?
-
Modesto Congressman Gary Condit was forced from office by the electorate. Circa 2002.
-
Why does it take a SEX scandal to bring down a politician?
or
why doesent a WAR scandal bring down a politician?
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Why does it take a SEX scandal to bring down a politician?
or
why doesent a WAR scandal bring down a politician?
Because there isn't a war scandal dummy, just a bunch of lefties that can't stand being out of power.
-
Originally posted by Recap
Yes, let's go back 22 years and draw comparisons. Talk about reaching. You want to be fair? Ok, go ahead and censure Foley only and bring him back to your little party. Go ahead, I double dog dare you to do it.
Typical...just ignore history when it's an inconvient truth (to steal a phrase from a Democrat moron).
Also, you're not paying attention to what I said. It was the Democrat controlled congress that chose to only censure both of these pinheads. The censure vote was the only vote the Dems would allow to come up. It was the Republicans that tried to have them both expelled. Also, let me make a small correction. The Dems did take away their guy's chairmanship of a sub-committee, I was mistaken on the specifics. Of course they then gave him chairmanship of a major committee (i.e., a promotion).
Nobody has ever claimed that individuals are not human and perfect, the difference is how Democrats will forgive anything from one of their own just as long as they toe the party line. For example, look at how the Dems have excoriated their own vice-presidential candidate Joe Lieberman just because he disagrees with them on one issue. As a general rule Republicans, although far from a perfect party, have historically been far more likely to put right ahead of wrong and the interests of the party. Many people make major mistakes based on sex or greed but a political party that knowingly and willfully "excuses" them for political expediency and gain is corrupt at the core.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Except that Studds stayed in office until only 9 years ago. There has been plenty of time for everyone today to become outraged when Studds carried out the act that Foley only wanted to. There's no avoiding it. Democrats today hold a different standard for themselves than they do for Republicans. Do you deny this?
The question is, why do you think one should have anything to do with the other? Have you asked yourself why it matters to you what happened with Stubbs? Are you looking for some type of justification for Foley's actions? Do you think that this all of some type of Democratic political scheme? What has caused you make comparisons to "the other party". Does this somehow let your party off the hook? I just don't get it.
I don't know all the details of the Stubbs case, but I read on Wikpedia he was openly gay, it was consensual, the person was of age, blah blah blah. Stubbs was re-elected because I assume he is from some area where there is a large gay constituency, and guess what, you won't find many gay republicans. I said you won't find many, apparently not that there aren't any. People basically looked at the situation, saw it for whatever it was, and decided that he could still be a representitive of Congress. I don't know, and I don't care.
Now let's examine Foley's case. He was not openly gay, he was making sexual advances (heck if i know how you describe what he was doing) to an underage page etc.. I'm not sure he broke any laws. Like Stubbs, extremely stupid, poor judgement, etc.. So, I ask you once again, why are you deflecting attention away from Foley and onto Stubbs case. What is the big injustice to you and your party from the Stubbs case that somehow relates to the Foley case. I'm cool with just censuring him, and letting the voters vote him out if they want to. Let the chips fall where they lie like Stubbs.
I just don't understand this trend where republicans blame someone else for their own problems, "Foley did it, yea but, but, so did Stubbs!!!" Republicans take responsibility for absolutely nothing. All their time and energy is focused on finding someone other than themselves to blame. You may think I'm defending the Democrats. I'm not, I could care less about them. They are not the ones in control. They are so weak it's not even funny. However, they are going to win it back because it's a two party system, and when the other party screws up so bad then the voters are left with the worse of two evils. See George W.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
As a general rule Republicans, although far from a perfect party, have historically been far more likely to put right ahead of wrong and the interests of the party.
Really I'd really like to see you quantify this. Please do show us how this is true will you?
I don't engage in someone so blindly partisan as yourself. Try not to be as apparent next time. k thx
-
^^^^^ :rofl :rofl :rofl
Talk about reaching. I think we can safely say the Republicans dumped Foley. No one is saying they shouldn't have. What's funny is that the Democrats are throwing a hissy fit and bringing this up at election time, and then there are clowns like you who are spewing a bunch of crap about it, trying to make it bigger than it is.
-
The male page was 17 in studds case, that's not of age where I live. The deomcrats defended him which imo nullifies any complaint they might express towards Foley. The republicans will take care of punishing Foley. We don't need any hypocrits involved.
-
Originally posted by Recap
The question is, why do you think one should have anything to do with the other? Have you asked yourself why it matters to you what happened with Stubbs? Are you looking for some type of justification for Foley's actions? Do you think that this all of some type of Democratic political scheme? What has caused you make comparisons to "the other party". Does this somehow let your party off the hook? I just don't get it.
I don't know all the details of the Stubbs case, but I read on Wikpedia he was openly gay, it was consensual, the person was of age, blah blah blah. Stubbs was re-elected because I assume he is from some area where there is a large gay constituency, and guess what, you won't find many gay republicans. I said you won't find many, apparently not that there aren't any. People basically looked at the situation, saw it for whatever it was, and decided that he could still be a representitive of Congress. I don't know, and I don't care.
Now let's examine Foley's case. He was not openly gay, he was making sexual advances (heck if i know how you describe what he was doing) to an underage page etc.. I'm not sure he broke any laws. Like Stubbs, extremely stupid, poor judgement, etc.. So, I ask you once again, why are you deflecting attention away from Foley and onto Stubbs case. What is the big injustice to you and your party from the Stubbs case that somehow relates to the Foley case. I'm cool with just censuring him, and letting the voters vote him out if they want to. Let the chips fall where they lie like Stubbs.
I just don't understand this trend where republicans blame someone else for their own problems, "Foley did it, yea but, but, so did Stubbs!!!" Republicans take responsibility for absolutely nothing. All their time and energy is focused on finding someone other than themselves to blame. You may think I'm defending the Democrats. I'm not, I could care less about them. They are not the ones in control. They are so weak it's not even funny. However, they are going to win it back because it's a two party system, and when the other party screws up so bad then the voters are left with the worse of two evils. See George W.
Evidently you don't get it because you refuse to. I haven't seen any Republican defend Foley. I haven't seen any Republican object to his resignation or suggest he shouldn't have resigned. I haven't seen any Republican point to a Democrat who wants to pork a 17-year-old page and say SEE, they do it to! What I do see is people, myself included, pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party. Def: Hypocrisy is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practise.
I see a Democrat Party that, after previously excusing one of it's own members for doing what Foley wanted to do, start screeching that the Republican leadership needs to be shot. Foley is gone. Good ridence. There is no logical reason to attempt to either deflect or make counter accusations REGARDING HIS BEHAVIOR because we all agree it was heineous....so why are Dems still trying to make hay of it? The criticism in this thread is not about a point which most people agree with, it's about a Democrat Party that will screech "oh my god" as if they're shocked and try to bring down the Republicans for political gain. That's fundamentally dishonest and, yes, hypocritical.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Def: Hypocrisy is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practise.
In the House, Foley was one of the foremost opponents of child pornography. Foley had served as chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. He introduced a bill in 2002 to outlaw web sites featuring sexually suggestive images of preteen children, saying that “these websites are nothing more than a fix for pedophiles.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Evidently you don't get it because you refuse to. I haven't seen any Republican defend Foley. I haven't seen any Republican object to his resignation or suggest he shouldn't have resigned. I haven't seen any Republican point to a Democrat who wants to pork a 17-year-old page and say SEE, they do it to! What I do see is people, myself included, pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party. Def: Hypocrisy is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practise.
I see a Democrat Party that, after previously excusing one of it's own members for doing what Foley wanted to do, start screeching that the Republican leadership needs to be shot. Foley is gone. Good ridence. There is no logical reason to attempt to either deflect or make counter accusations REGARDING HIS BEHAVIOR because we all agree it was heineous....so why are Dems still trying to make hay of it? The criticism in this thread is not about a point which most people agree with, it's about a Democrat Party that will screech "oh my god" as if they're shocked and try to bring down the Republicans for political gain. That's fundamentally dishonest and, yes, hypocritical.
So, what you are saying is that the Democratic party is hypocrytical and tries to bring down the Republicans for political gain, while the Republican party doesn't do that kind of thing?
-
Originally posted by Recap
Really I'd really like to see you quantify this. Please do show us how this is true will you?
I don't engage in someone so blindly partisan as yourself. Try not to be as apparent next time. k thx
Really, I'm partisan? Don't think I was trying, or care, to hide it. I've lived quite a while and seen quite a few things and, unlike apparently some others, I've learned from my experiences and developed opinions. If that makes me "partisan", good for me, I'll take it as a complement. I'm a conservative, get over it.
-
Exactly MT. Foley was a hypocrite and a pervert, so now he's gone.
Stubbs was a pervert, he stayed until he retired.
Kennedy is a muderer, he's still there.
Byrd is a hypocritical racist, he's still there.
See a pattern?
-
Originally posted by Recap
So, what you are saying is that the Democratic party is hypocrytical, and the Republican party isn't? That's your point?
As I said, the Republican Party has had some of it's own problems but yes, overall, the Democrats since lossing power have offered absolutely nothing but hypocrisy. From their votes regarding the war, from their accusations Bush is creating a new Nazi nation, to claiming the war is about oil, to standing on the floor of the Senate and accusing him of having known about 9/11, ...yeah, I'd say the Dems have either got the collective IQ of a rock or they're hypocrits. You can pick which one.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Really, I'm partisan? Don't think I was trying, or care, to hide it. I've lived quite a while and seen quite a few things and, unlike apparently some others, I've learned from my experiences and developed opinions. If that makes me "partisan", good for me, I'll take it as a complement. I'm a conservative, get over it.
Wow, well it's nice to meet the only person to "live quite a while and seen quite a few things". It's quite an honor. I guess I havn't lived enough where I blindly defend/follow a specified agenda. Good luck with that.
-
Originally posted by Recap
Wow, well it's nice to meet the only person to "live quite a while and seen quite a few things". It's quite an honor. I guess I havn't lived enough where I blindly defend/follow a specified agenda. Good luck with that.
It's funny how, when you have no legitimate counter argument, you go for gratuitous personal and sarcastic attacks.
-
Originally posted by Shaky
Exactly MT. Foley was a hypocrite and a pervert, so now he's gone.
Stubbs was a pervert, he stayed until he retired.
Kennedy is a muderer, he's still there.
Byrd is a hypocritical racist, he's still there.
See a pattern?
To your rant?
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
As I said, the Republican Party has had some of it's own problems but yes, overall, the Democrats since lossing power have offered absolutely nothing but hypocrisy. From their votes regarding the war, from their accusations Bush is creating a new Nazi nation, to claiming the war is about oil, to standing on the floor of the Senate and accusing him of having known about 9/11, ...yeah, I'd say the Dems have either got the collective IQ of a rock or they're hypocrits. You can pick which one.
Well those sound like some extremes to me. Personally, I thought,
We left Afghanistan too soon.
Never thought of Bush creating a Nazi nation. That one is just weird.
Thought Bush went to Iraq because there was an overall feeling that his Dad didn't finish the job when he had the chance and felt a desire to finish the job.
The war is about oil. As well as about a 1000 other things.
If he knew about 9/11, even being dumb as a stump, he'd done something I think.
Personally, can't stand this administration or the Democrats. I'm probably one of the millions of people who feel like they have noone to represent their ideas. It's called noone is right all the time. It's called compromise. It's called the middle. Right now there are only extremes.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
To your rant?
Looks more like a list Midnight but I don't think I'd call Kennedy a murderer. He probably would have gotten off with manslaughter. Byrd may or may not still be a racist but could you see a Republican surviving more than a few days after having been found out to have been a member of the KKK?
-
Republicans do what they are good at, first they have mass denial sessions, then they blame the other side and then the victims, They done it in Katrina remember? so called rapes etc at the superdome stopped them from getting aid in and such, then they replay the same here, denial after denial, blame the democrats oh yes! was all the democrats, they leaked it etc, then they blame the victims, Fact is, the ABC reporter said it was Republicans that leaked it, that of course can easily be denied as it was not corroborated by Fox news.
But yes you are right, Sex can often lead to someones downfall, BUT it's not all doom and gloom for the repubs, Hastert is still clinging to life with Reynolds snapping at his heels.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
It's funny how, when you have no legitimate counter argument, you go for gratuitous personal and sarcastic attacks.
Exactly what kind of argument where you looking for in regards to your confessed partisanship? Ok here you go, anyone that is so blindly partisan and doesn't look at each individual situation on a a case by case basis is wrong. There you go. Knock yourself out.
-
Dems cant beat the Republcians on any of the issues. Debate them? On what stances of their own?
So sure, let's just use a sex scandal to paint everyone near the guy as bad and hope it sticks.
Clearly the Dems arent too savvy....that stone tossing in the glass house is gonna get em.
-
Originally posted by Recap
Well those sound like some extremes to me. Personally, I thought,
We left Afghanistan too soon.
Never thought of Bush creating a Nazi nation. That one is just weird.
Thought Bush went to Iraq because there was an overall feeling that his Dad didn't finish the job when he had the chance and felt a desire to finish the job.
The war is about oil. As well as about a 1000 other things.
If he knew about 9/11, even being dumb as a stump, he'd done something I think.
Personally, can't stand this administration or the Democrats. I'm probably one of the millions of people who feel like they have noone to represent their ideas. It's called noone is right all the time. It's called compromise. It's called the middle. Right now there are only extremes.
Well, this is a point that we agree on. Right now, there are two very distant extremes. I certainly also agree that there are points that should be discussed and debated. There are things that, in retrospect, probably should have been done differently but we need to recognize that this is true in every single war. Everything cannot be boiled down to malicious intent by the Republicans.
The problem as I see it, and in my own personal opinion, is that the Democrat Party has gone off it's rocker and will say and do anything, regardless of the cost to the country, to defeat Bush. What they fail to realize is Bush is done and it doesn't make sense to continue to let Bush hatred drive their politics.
The US needs two strong and moderately sane if imperfect political parties. Despite the fact I'm a conservative, I do not like some of the things the Republican Party has done; however, the current state of the Democrat Party really disturbs me. I'm not kidding or poking fun when I say the Party is politically "insane" because I think it really is and that's not good for the Nation.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Well, this is a point that we agree on. Right now, there are two very distant extremes. I certainly also agree that there are points that should be discussed and debated. There are things that, in retrospect, probably should have been done differently but we need to recognize that this is true in every single war. Everything cannot be boiled down to malicious intent by the Republicans.
The problem as I see it, and in my own personal opinion, is that the Democrat Party has gone off it's rocker and will say and do anything, regardless of the cost to the country, to defeat Bush. What they fail to realize is Bush is done and it doesn't make sense to continue to let Bush hatred drive their politics.
The US needs two strong and moderately sane if imperfect political parties. Despite the fact I'm a conservative, I do not like some of the things the Republican Party has done; however, the current state of the Democrat Party really disturbs me. I'm not kidding or poking fun when I say the Party is politically "insane" because I think it really is and that's not good for the Nation.
To be honest, I have no idea what the Democrats stand for. It basically seems to be everyone who can't find a spot in the Republican party I guess. Kind of the leftovers. Ahh well, good talking to you all. Really. Gotta go for a bit, but will be back later. Glad we could agree on something.
-
Originally posted by Recap
We left Afghanistan too soon.
ahh, the USA and NATO are still in afghanistan. And they are kicking butt.
-
Originally posted by john9001
ahh, the USA and NATO are still in afghanistan. And they are kicking butt.
This line sounds like it came from GOEBBELS or BAGHDAD BOB. Talibs and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan went silent for 3 years and now they are on a rampage! You idiots created a 2 side war...
-
Originally posted by tikky
This line sounds like it came from GOEBBELS or BAGHDAD BOB. Talibs and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan went silent for 3 years and now they are on a rampage! You idiots created a 2 side war...
They run across the mountainous border of Pakistan and set off suicide bombs---I'd hardly call that a 2 side war....and what do you think they SHOULD have done?
-
Originally posted by tikky
This line sounds like it came from GOEBBELS or BAGHDAD BOB. Talibs and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan went silent for 3 years and now they are on a rampage! You idiots created a 2 side war...
Oh yeah, we started a two-front war just like Hitler did. Yeah...Bush is just like Hitler...yeah..that's the ticket.
Where are you at tikky? Europe? Seen the immigration figures for Muslims there? How about the Muslim population of UK or Canada? How about that great idea to allow Sharia law in Muslim enclaves in the UK? Riden a train in Spain lately or visited a nightclub in Bali? Seen a lot of level-headed Muslims refusing to burn cars in France? How about the intellectual Muslims that think murder and mayhem is the appropriate response to a freakin' cartoon? Maybe there are bunches of upset Muslims running around protesting against the murder of Van Gough? No? Maybe they're not protesting that because they're out protesting the murder of a Catholic Nun because someone didn't like something the Pope said?
You really think this is ONLY a 2 front war? It's only "2 sided" if you've got your blinders on.
-
The pay is too good?
hap
-
Pedophile Senator (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L91fmKHjRk&mode=related&search=)
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Looks more like a list Midnight but I don't think I'd call Kennedy a murderer. He probably would have gotten off with manslaughter. Byrd may or may not still be a racist but could you see a Republican surviving more than a few days after having been found out to have been a member of the KKK?
Here's one who hung on pretty long...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.
Point being... making a selective list does not constitute a trend.
-
I'll see your racist politician and raise you one still in office.
Robert Byrd
"Byrd commented on the 1945 controversy raging over the idea of racially integrating the military. In his book When Jim Crow Met John Bull[6], Graham Smith referred to a letter written that year by Byrd, when he was 28 years old, to segregationist Senator Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, in which Byrd vowed never to fight:
"with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
I see you guys already went here. Obviously I didn't finish reading the whole thread.
-
I'll see your repetition and raise you one redundancy...
:D
-
W0W, it sems that yesterday Jerry Studds dies while 69ing some dude:O :O :O :O
i saw it in teh newpaper "Gerry Studds Dead at 69", but i'm afraid to link it
:confused: :confused: :noid :noid :huh :lol
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
^^^^^ :rofl :rofl :rofl
Talk about reaching. I think we can safely say the Republicans dumped Foley. No one is saying they shouldn't have. What's funny is that the Democrats are throwing a hissy fit and bringing this up at election time, and then there are clowns like you who are spewing a bunch of crap about it, trying to make it bigger than it is.
Bigger than it is? :lol Do you have a son? Would it be a big deal if a old man was sending him messages like Foley did? To me this just shows a small insite into what this guy has done or could do in the future. You are just as sick as he is if you don't see this as an issue!!!
-
Originally posted by Recap
Personally, can't stand this administration or the Democrats. I'm probably one of the millions of people who feel like they have noone to represent their ideas. It's called noone is right all the time. It's called compromise. It's called the middle. Right now there are only extremes.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Republicans do what they are good at, first they have mass denial sessions, then they blame the other side and then the victims, They done it in Katrina remember? so called rapes etc at the superdome stopped them from getting aid in and such.....
This type of statement still to this day blows me away.
I'm sure there were SOME victims in the wake of Katrina....But to me...most of those that claimed to be "Victims" were FRKIN DUMB ENOUGH TO STAY AFTER REPEATED WARNINGS.
They were'nt victims...they were idiots. They were people looking to see what they could get for being stupid.
Victims my a**
-
Beautiful wonderful irony....
(http://www.bradblog.com/Images/FoxOReilly_MarkFoleyDEM_100306.jpg)
Yes Fox actually said Foley was a Dem... LOL
-
Not so beautiful hypocrisy.
(http://rightwinghowler.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/thornhill10062006.jpg)
-
If you know DC you know this isnt even a scandal. Page sex is not new nor a shock to most on the hill. The publicizing this is an Oct surprise in an attempt to sway the election. period.
ps
term limits would fix this too ..
-
what with the fizzling out of the "sex scandal" - maybe even some backlash - and the successful UN censure of North Korea and that pot belly pig who was shamefully honored by Clinton's sec of state, and the failure of Air America, I think ole MT is like a dog that has been hit by a car - laying by the side of the road gnashing his teeth and snapping at anyone who comes near... ;)
-
Who you calling "ole"!!??
(http://www.udap.com/images/Dog%20mean.jpg)
-
with 13000 + posts, I think its safe to say you've been around a while :)
-
It takes a scandal because people are too lame to vote the drunks out of office. Even when they are exposed as do nothing crooks & pervs, the team rallies to pass the buck and cloud the issue.. polishing that **** to a spit shine.
Folks blindly pick and support their "team" rather than being independent thinkers.
-
"Independent thinkers" are the ones that put Bill Clinton in office. More like not thinking imo.
-
This is why sex scandals don't bring down Dems:
Former Republican Congressman Mark Foley resigned in disgrace after revelations of his lewd computer messages to a former house page became public — and has been universally disavowed by the GOP.
But a Democratic congressman who actually had a homosexual affair with an underage House page and remained an honored figure within the party right up until his death Saturday is being praised as a "pioneer" for gay rights.
Former Massachusetts Congressman Gerry Studds was censured for his actions by the House in 1983 — but he never apologized — in fact defended the relationship — and was re-elected six times.
Congressman Barney Frank said Studds gave people "the courage to be who they are."
Ted Kennedy said Studds “changed Massachusetts forever and we'll never forget him."
And Congressman William Delahunt said "even now, his legacy is alive and well in the halls of Congress.".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221417,00.html
(And THIS guy actually boinked a minor)
-
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/196318538.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Perfect example of the power of a sex scandal being completely relevant to your political party. 1984, two sex scandals with young pages. One guy was a Republican, second was a Democrat. Both actually had sex vice sending IM's or e-mail as Foley did.
Did they even have email or IMs back in 1984? I thought Gore invented internet long after that.
-
Originally posted by lukster
"Independent thinkers" are the ones that put Bill Clinton in office. More like not thinking imo.
He was a democlone (and trailer trash), bought and paid for by the team via massive corporate donations.
Independents are growing. 44 percent of those aged 18 - 29 ID themselves as Independents, but the clones have the election boards infested with hack loyalists, in 1 case they conspired to illegally kept an Independent off the ballots to protect their grip on power. A federal judge chastised them publicly and forced them to include another opinion in the mix.
True American values right there huh? using their power to censor those they think are a threat...its the democrat / republican way. We are people fed up with politics as usual and want to end BS like this, which scares the clones to death..
http://www.independentnation.org/rise_of_independents.htm
"..The growing independence of voters, after all, has been proven by the votes in every Presidential election since my childhood—and the tendency, frankly, is on the increase."
—Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1940
"..self-identified moderates rising from a bare plurality of 36 percent in 1980 to 50 percent in 1998 and 2000.."
"..only 14 percent of the electorate said they always supported the candidates of a single party."
-
Originally posted by bj229r
(And THIS guy actually boinked a minor)
And his clone teammates marched in lockstep to protect him, like good party robots.
Just like Hastert with "Fat fingers" Foley, with the stench of corruption all around Foley, Hastert smells nothing but roses. Where the is smoke, there is fire.. unless you're a urine soaked clone surrounded by attack parrots.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
(And THIS guy actually boinked a minor)
No actually he didn't.
The age of consent in DC is 17, not 18. He had a consentual relationship and he owned up to it. No he didn't apologize for it. He and Republican Congressman Crane were both censured at the same time for inappropriate sexual relationships with pages. Studds occurred in 1973, Crane in 1980. One was re-elected, one wasn't.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
No actually he didn't.
The age of consent in DC is 17, not 18. He had a consentual relationship and he owned up to it. No he didn't apologize for it. He and Republican Congressman Crane were both censured at the same time for inappropriate sexual relationships with pages. Studds occurred in 1973, Crane in 1980. One was re-elected, one wasn't.
Ah, so pounditating a junior in high school in the 'exit' point is ok, I had no idea
-
Who said it was OK? You said he "Boinked" a minor. Neither he nor Crane legally "boinked" a minor. Both had inappropriate relationships. Both were censured. Basically rendering you without a point... boink.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Who said it was OK? You said he "Boinked" a minor. Neither he nor Crane legally "boinked" a minor. Both had inappropriate relationships. Both were censured. Basically rendering you without a point... boink.
Again, you are doing verbal gymnastics trying to defend a middle-aged man(hehe, who died at the age of...69...) having a sexual relationship with a high-schooler, (unapologetically so ) while lambasting a man (who promptly resigned when found out) who talked dirty to a kid who was (apparently) a legal adult at the time
Anyone know if foley gonna get his pension?
-
When the democrats start voting independent I'll consider it, not until. My vote will always be cast against a liberal/democrat/progressive/socialist.
Originally posted by x0847Marine
He was a democlone (and trailer trash), bought and paid for by the team via massive corporate donations.
Independents are growing. 44 percent of those aged 18 - 29 ID themselves as Independents, but the clones have the election boards infested with hack loyalists, in 1 case they conspired to illegally kept an Independent off the ballots to protect their grip on power. A federal judge chastised them publicly and forced them to include another opinion in the mix.
True American values right there huh? using their power to censor those they think are a threat...its the democrat / republican way. We are people fed up with politics as usual and want to end BS like this, which scares the clones to death..
http://www.independentnation.org/rise_of_independents.htm
"..The growing independence of voters, after all, has been proven by the votes in every Presidential election since my childhood—and the tendency, frankly, is on the increase."
—Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1940
"..self-identified moderates rising from a bare plurality of 36 percent in 1980 to 50 percent in 1998 and 2000.."
"..only 14 percent of the electorate said they always supported the candidates of a single party."
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
No actually he didn't.
The age of consent in DC is 17, not 18. He had a consentual relationship and he owned up to it. No he didn't apologize for it. He and Republican Congressman Crane were both censured at the same time for inappropriate sexual relationships with pages. Studds occurred in 1973, Crane in 1980. One was re-elected, one wasn't.
Actually the age of consent is 16 in D.C.. So what's the difference between Studds and Foley again?
http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/qanda/blageofconsentchart.htm
-
Originally posted by lukster
Actually the age of consent is 16 in D.C.. So what's the difference between Studds and Foley again?
http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/qanda/blageofconsentchart.htm
Difference is Studds is a hero:huh
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Who said it was OK? You said he "Boinked" a minor. Neither he nor Crane legally "boinked" a minor. Both had inappropriate relationships. Both were censured. Basically rendering you without a point... boink.
.. the typical liberal thought process here in action folks ...
-
yep... if there is no chance a democrat will get in then I will vote libertarian.
There is no other independant that I can think of ever voting for... as a rule they are all flaming socialists even worse than democrats.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lukster
Actually the age of consent is 16 in D.C.. So what's the difference between Studds and Foley again?
http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/qanda/blageofconsentchart.htm
Same as the difference between Foley and Crane.. nothing. Except that Foley was heading the committe to protect children. That is a little ironic dontcha think?
BTW.. Crane didn't resign either, he was just not re-elected.
-
"when in doubt, vote republican" an intelligent dude. so there you have it.
-
"Sex?? I like sex!
-Homer Jay Simpson.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Looks more like a list Midnight but I don't think I'd call Kennedy a murderer. He probably would have gotten off with manslaughter. Byrd may or may not still be a racist but could you see a Republican surviving more than a few days after having been found out to have been a member of the KKK?
wasn't David Duke in the KKK :noid
I believe that a stark difference between the two parties is that historically democrats have been the ones to challenge authority, while the power brokers, republicans, have been the authority. Democrats rarely follow one leader, and work within to topple whoever is in power, in one degree or another, while still going at the throats of their opposing party leadership.
republicans, show greater soloidarity, and generally exercise less free will than their liberal counterparts.
One party is run more like a collection of different opinons, squabbling within and at the opposition, the other like a military organization. Anyone who follows lock-step in line, with either party, is probably incapable of forming their own opinions anyway.
Like far too many posters here.
/shrug