Absolved: The alcohol made me do it...

[rwarn17588]

Of course, the ones who whine about a story's timing are the ones who are getting gored.

Nevermind the fact that Shimkus, Hastert, et al, saw an inkling of trouble 10 months ago -- well before an election cycle -- and didn't do anything about it.

If I knew of a middle-aged colleage e-mailing a teen boy in an "over-friendly" manner, I'd confront him on it and sic a private eye on him. The potential of really bad stuff from a guy like that is too explosive to ignore.

That's what the Republicans would call "pre-emptive" action.

Whoops.

[snopes]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Of course, the ones who whine about a story's timing are the ones who are getting gored.

Nevermind the fact that Shimkus, Hastert, et al, saw an inkling of trouble 10 months ago -- well before an election cycle -- and didn't do anything about it.

If I knew of a middle-aged colleage e-mailing a teen boy in an "over-friendly" manner, I'd confront him on it and sic a private eye on him. The potential of really bad stuff from a guy like that is too explosive to ignore.

That's what the Republicans would call "pre-emptive" action.

Whoops.

Foley is a sh__thead and needs to be dealt with, and severely. It just seems rather hypocritical for the Democrats to be throwing stones while they themselves live in a glass house.
Did you even read the article I posted? Is that information false? If so, I'll gladly retract the article and cry uncle.

[rwarn17588]

It's accurate, but it's not relevant to NOW.

And it's a lousy defense to say "Well, the other side did it, too -- ummmm, YEARS ago."

Let's face it -- the current GOP has a problem with corruption. Here's a current listing of lawmakers and those associated with them who are in legal trouble. (And Foley's not even on the list -- yet.)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/grandolddocket.php

By my count, there are 27 people listed. Just one is a Democrat, and that's Jefferson (whose rap sheet *is* impressive). The others have strong GOP ties.

The tired old "the other guys do it, too" doesn't wash when the current list is so lopsided.

[snopes]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

It's accurate, but it's not relevant to NOW.

And it's a lousy defense to say "Well, the other side did it, too -- ummmm, YEARS ago."

Let's face it -- the current GOP has a problem with corruption. Here's a current listing of lawmakers and those associated with them who are in legal trouble. (And Foley's not even on the list -- yet.)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/grandolddocket.php

By my count, there are 27 people listed. Just one is a Democrat, and that's Jefferson (whose rap sheet *is* impressive). The others have strong GOP ties.

The tired old "the other guys do it, too" doesn't wash when the current list is so lopsided.

I'll agree with you rwarn that the current batch are full of it. I have my share of problems with those in power as well. I'll take a look at your link. Thanks

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by snopes

Foley is a sh__thead and needs to be dealt with, and severely. It just seems rather hypocritical for the Democrats to be throwing stones while they themselves live in a glass house.
Did you even read the article I posted? Is that information false? If so, I'll gladly retract the article and cry uncle.

Your scattergun complaint doesn't really merit a tight response, I guess your intent is to confuse.  It doesn't confuse me.  Bad behavior is bad behavior, and it should not go unpunished.  I have absolutely no problem admitting that previous incidents (you left out some Republicans, btw) were not treated with seriousness or severity.

So what? Do you think you deserve a free pass?  Do you think that protecting pedophiles is okay because we've had pedophiles in Congress before?  Did Hastert and other Republican leaders cover up this Foley business?  Did they put children at risk in order to protect a house seat and the GOP reputation?  Its not okay, and even your conservative friends are calling for Hastert's head.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

It's accurate, but it's not relevant to NOW.

And it's a lousy defense to say "Well, the other side did it, too -- ummmm, YEARS ago."

Let's face it -- the current GOP has a problem with corruption. Here's a current listing of lawmakers and those associated with them who are in legal trouble. (And Foley's not even on the list -- yet.)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/grandolddocket.php

By my count, there are 27 people listed. Just one is a Democrat, and that's Jefferson (whose rap sheet *is* impressive). The others have strong GOP ties.

The tired old "the other guys do it, too" doesn't wash when the current list is so lopsided.

Nice spin Rwarn, out of the people listed on that page, there are only three Republican lawmakers, and many of the people cited are associated with DeLay, Cunningham, and Abramoff- three or four scandals.  You try to make it sound like the dealings of a few crooked congressmen have sent the entire party to "hell in a hand-basket".

Since you dropped the Abramoff card, here you go:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html

Fox guarding the henhouse? Whoops...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301582.html

Here's more:

http://www.uncorrelated.com/2006/01/abramoff_democrats.html

Here's an un-biased article on what a skank-pit Washington is:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52241

You need to realize the point of scandal-breaking in the first place.  

The details of Foley's follys are so salacious that it's instant front page news, the media picks up sound bites from Democrats saying they didn't know a thing and it must be a Republican cover-up.

Even if it's proven there was no cover-up prior to the mid-term election, that news will be page 6 or deeper in the paper.  Why?  Because it's not sex and it doesn't sell.

It would have played out the same way had this been a Democrat.  It's not biased media so much as it is they know they can sell lots of papers and get lots of viewership when a congressman is caught in a quasi-sex scandal with a teenager.  By the time the truth comes out, everyone has lost interest in the story and it's no longer sensational news.

What the opposing party counts on is the sector of voters who will only remember the first sound bites and form an opinion on the spot, much like yourself.

Instead sitting around pointing fingers at one party or the other being crooked or which has more peccadilloes than the other, don't you think it's time to realize that Washington is a very crooked place that sells your rights to the highest bidder?  For being an independent thinker, you don't seem to be willing to dig into how crooked ALL of Congress has become.  For a registered independent, you sure spend a lot of time throwing daggers at the Republican party, and I don't recall ever seeing a post from you that's been critical of Democrats.

[snopes]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by snopes

Foley is a sh__thead and needs to be dealt with, and severely. It just seems rather hypocritical for the Democrats to be throwing stones while they themselves live in a glass house.
Did you even read the article I posted? Is that information false? If so, I'll gladly retract the article and cry uncle.

Your scattergun complaint doesn't really merit a tight response, I guess your intent is to confuse.  It doesn't confuse me.  Bad behavior is bad behavior, and it should not go unpunished.  I have absolutely no problem admitting that previous incidents (you left out some Republicans, btw) were not treated with seriousness or severity.

So what? Do you think you deserve a free pass?  Do you think that protecting pedophiles is okay because we've had pedophiles in Congress before?  Did Hastert and other Republican leaders cover up this Foley business?  Did they put children at risk in order to protect a house seat and the GOP reputation?  Its not okay, and even your conservative friends are calling for Hastert's head.

I didn't say it was okay CL, and I didn't ask for a free pass. I have as many problems with the Republicans as I have with the Democrats. If it seems that I post more about the Democrats that's probably because I see hypocritical behavior on their part. To be honest, the Republicans are screwing up things pretty mightily right now but when I see attacks on them that are hypocritical, I'll definitely speak my mind.
I simply posted a site about previous incidents such as this on the Democrat side and the lack of any sort of punishment. Rwarn made some good points about that not being here and now; that kind of response I can at least listen to and consider. However, just because it was years ago doesn't mean it is invalid; those people are still in power.
Don't go off on me and put words into my mouth. I didn't ask for any pedophiles to be set free and my intent was not to confuse.

BTW, great post prior to this Conan.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by snopes

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by snopes

Foley is a sh__thead and needs to be dealt with, and severely. It just seems rather hypocritical for the Democrats to be throwing stones while they themselves live in a glass house.
Did you even read the article I posted? Is that information false? If so, I'll gladly retract the article and cry uncle.

Your scattergun complaint doesn't really merit a tight response, I guess your intent is to confuse.  It doesn't confuse me.  Bad behavior is bad behavior, and it should not go unpunished.  I have absolutely no problem admitting that previous incidents (you left out some Republicans, btw) were not treated with seriousness or severity.

So what? Do you think you deserve a free pass?  Do you think that protecting pedophiles is okay because we've had pedophiles in Congress before?  Did Hastert and other Republican leaders cover up this Foley business?  Did they put children at risk in order to protect a house seat and the GOP reputation?  Its not okay, and even your conservative friends are calling for Hastert's head.

I didn't say it was okay CL, and I didn't ask for a free pass. I have as many problems with the Republicans as I have with the Democrats. If it seems that I post more about the Democrats that's probably because I see hypocritical behavior on their part.

Hypocritical behaviour?

"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 websites featuring sexually suggestive images of preteen children, saying that "these websites are nothing more than a fix for pedophiles." As it was written, the bill would have prohibited commercial photography of children, and it failed due to the unmanageable burden it would have presented to the legitimate entertainment industry. In June 2003 he wrote letters to the governor and attorney general of Florida, asking them to review the legality of a program for teenagers of a Lake Como nudist resort in Land O'Lakes, Florida.

Foley's legislation to change federal sex offender laws was supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, America's Most Wanted host John Walsh, and a number of victims' rights groups. President George W. Bush signed it into law as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

Foley also succeeded in getting a law passed that allows volunteer youth-serving organizations like the Boy Scouts of America and Boys and Girls Clubs to have access to FBI fingerprint background checks to help protect children."

That hits me as hypocritical

[snopes]

I agree. It is hypocritical behavior Si. There's plenty to go around.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by snopes

I agree. It is hypocritical behavior Si. There's plenty to go around.

But this guy wrote the law. He was chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. How much more hypocritical can you get?

[iplaw]

Ugh...nice ad-hoc argument si_uk_lon_ok.  The context of using "hypocritical" in the discussion was the hypocrisy of a party pointing fingers when they themselves have committed the same offense sans the outrage when it happened with them, but I guess that's reasonable...

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Ugh...nice ad-hoc argument si_uk_lon_ok.  The context of using "hypocritical" in the discussion was the hypocrisy of a party pointing fingers when they themselves have committed the same offense sans the outrage when it happened with them, but I guess that's reasonable...

Was 1983 a cover up?

I can chose to use hypocritical to describe his behaviour if it is an accurate description. Or is that not allowed?

[iplaw]

quote:
Was 1983 a cover up?

Hmmm...it created about 5 minutes of noise and the LEADERSHIP of the DEM party allowed him to COMPLETE HIS TERM IN OFFICE, now that's HYPOCRITICAL.  Why did they not call for his IMMEDIATE removal?  They chose to censure him instead...

You chose to use the term "hypocritical" in direct relation to the aforementioned post.  They are non-sequitors which you chose to combine.

[snopes]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by snopes

I agree. It is hypocritical behavior Si. There's plenty to go around.

But this guy wrote the law. He was chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. How much more hypocritical can you get?

Not much. So that's what it has come to? Which party is THE MOST hypocritical? My point is that there is plenty of blame to go around and there has been for years. It seems that those in favor of the Democrats want to exploit the greed and hypocrisy of the Republicans. That's fine.
But I would suggest anyone in a glass house not throw stones or you will get some medicine of your own thrown back at you. To point out that this guy is a bastard and deserves punishment is all well and good (I agree). To act like "your" party is any better is partisanship 101, plain and simple.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by snopes

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by snopes

I agree. It is hypocritical behavior Si. There's plenty to go around.

But this guy wrote the law. He was chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. How much more hypocritical can you get?

Not much. So that's what it has come to? Which party is THE MOST hypocritical? My point is that there is plenty of blame to go around and there has been for years. It seems that those in favor of the Democrats want to exploit the greed and hypocrasy of the Republicans. That's fine.
But I would suggest anyone in a glass house not throw stones or you will get some medicine of your own thrown back at you. To point out that this guy is a bastard and deserves punishment is all well and good (I agree). To act like "your" party is any better is partisanship 101, plain and simple.

It's not my party and I'm not partisan.

Are we meant to shrug our shoulders and say the other party did the same back in 1983. 23 years ago?

Are the two parties now so murky there is nothing between them? In this scandal there is plenty of blame to go around, but looking at the list of people who knew about this and didn't do what they should have done I'm mainly seeing Republicans.

PS I've worked in a sunday school and know what the appropriate action is if something like this were to emerge. And it is not what happened in August 2005 when the emails got forwarded the first time nor the later dates when more people began to know about this behaviour.