Absolved: The alcohol made me do it...

[Chicken Little]

Abramoff is a Republican scandal.  This Republican's own it, and Foley, and torture, and trashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  The rich keep getting richer and the rest of us are slipping.  Its getting hotter, and nobody knows why (sheesh).  And where's Osama?  We don't know, but Frist is trying to get him an Afghani voter ID card.  Most important, the only "course" there is to "stay" in Iraq leads to a civil war.  

You guys can keep sipping your "Freedom-march" flavored Kool-Aid, but its pretty darn clear to me that the Republicans are morally bankrupt.  They don't deserve to be in the driver's seat any longer.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

Sure it sounds to me like Foley's a hypocrite based on his legislative record.  But so far as we know at this point, he's not had sexual physical contact with a teenager, nor has proof been presented that he collects or has otherwise viewed child pornography.  

I don't know what you'd call 1983, something worse than a cover-up.  Studds (what a hillarious name for a homosexual) actually had sex with a teenage page.  Where was the outrage then and why was he allowed to remain in Congress?

The proliferation of the conservative right wing into the Republican party has certainly provided "hypocracy" fodder when it comes to moral and ethic issues.  However, high moral and ethical standards should be expected of ALL leaders of our country.

[LilMikey]

Proof that Republicans don't use bookmarks.  They just bend the page over!  [}:)]

[iplaw]

I would like a respectable answer to my questions.  

Why is there so much outrage from Democrats NOW when the Democrats chose to allow Studds to complete his term in office for the exact same crime?  No Democrat ever called for his resignation and the leadership allowed him to stay.  Can we say "selective" outrage...

Could it have something to do with the fact that he has an (R) by his name?

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by 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?

Where was the outrage then and why was he allowed to remain in Congress?

I couldn't honestly say, because I wasn't born then. My mother was heavily pregnant at the time during the hot summer of 1983. This is what is so silly about digging really old stuff up. Simple thing is who can say? Any old fogies remember what happened?

Again does an (R) mean you'll defend someone even who is at best a dirty old man?

[iplaw]

quote:
Again does an (R) mean you'll defend someone even who is at best a dirty old man?

Nice try.  Not one person here on either side of the issue has proposed placating this situation or refrained from calling him disgusting.  We question the selective outrage.

quote:
This is what is so silly about digging really old stuff up. Simple thing is who can say? Any old fogies remember what happened?

You've got to be kidding me.  It's not like 1983 was somehow the dark ages where we didn't keep records of newsworthy items.  

You prefer not to answer the question because it places you in a logical trap you can't get out of and you can't admit this is nothing more than a case of "selective" outrage.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You've got to be kidding me.  It's not like 1983 was somehow the dark ages where we didn't keep records of newsworthy items.  

You prefer not to answer the question because it places you in a logical trap you can't get out of and and you can't admit this is nothing more than a case of "selective" outrage.

Maybe it had to due to the fact what happened with Studds was consensual? And he hadn't stood up quite so often to renounce somthing he was doing himself.

[iplaw]

Do yourself a favor and read about it.  He had sex with an underage page.  It doesn't matter one way or the other whether the page was consenting or not, it's still highly illegal.  BTW, there was a Republican who was involved as well.

Dems were in control of both houses of congress at the time and this scumbag was allowed to finish his term.  Has the Dem stance on pedophilia changed since 1983?

[snopes]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Abramoff is a Republican scandal.  This Republican's own it, and Foley, and torture, and trashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  The rich keep getting richer and the rest of us are slipping.  Its getting hotter, and nobody knows why (sheesh).  And where's Osama?  We don't know, but Frist is trying to get him an Afghani voter ID card.  Most important, the only "course" there is to "stay" in Iraq leads to a civil war.  

You guys can keep sipping your "Freedom-march" flavored Kool-Aid, but its pretty darn clear to me that the Republicans are morally bankrupt.  They don't deserve to be in the driver's seat any longer.

I'm pretty p_ssed off about much of what you point out as well CL. Although I am an Independent, I have voted Republican on several occasions and I find it nauseating what is going on.
Spending? Out of control under the Bush Administration.
Prosecution of the war? Abysmal!
Securing our borders? Laughable!
And many, many, more!
However, I see nothing better on the Democrat side other than finger pointing. I truly wish that there was a Democrat leader stepping up to the plate to offer valid solutions. Up to now, all I've seen and heard is that "we" can do better, but I haven't seen or heard any solid dialogue other than the blame game.
I believe both parties carry a blame for the direction this country has gone over the last several decades. The difference between you and I (imho) is that I will point out that those Republicans deserving are bums, but I have never, ever heard you, Si, or anyone who tends to lean to the left say anything bad about the Democrat party. Sure enough, the Republicans are in power and they have targets on their backs, so that's to be expected I guess. However, I've been around for awhile and I've seen the corruption on both sides. If I were keeping score, I'd say they're running neck and neck in the corruption game; something of which I, as an American am not proud.

[iplaw]

quote:
...difference between you and I (imho) is that I will point out that those Republicans deserving are bums, but I have never, ever heard you, Si, or anyone who tends to lean to the left say anything bad about the Democrat party....

I've pointed this out on numerous occasions.  I have never seen so many self-proclaimed "independents" who were blindly partisan for one side.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Abramoff is a Republican scandal.  This Republican's own it, and Foley, and torture, and trashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  The rich keep getting richer and the rest of us are slipping.  Its getting hotter, and nobody knows why (sheesh).  And where's Osama?  We don't know, but Frist is trying to get him an Afghani voter ID card.  Most important, the only "course" there is to "stay" in Iraq leads to a civil war.  

You guys can keep sipping your "Freedom-march" flavored Kool-Aid, but its pretty darn clear to me that the Republicans are morally bankrupt.  They don't deserve to be in the driver's seat any longer.

Did you say that the Democrats were morally bankrupt when President Clinton was proven to have had an extra-marital affair in the oval office, then had his minions try to cover it up?  Does that not fall into the realm of "moral bankruptcy"?

No, Abramoff is not a Republican scandal.  It is a Congressional scandal if you chose to read the Democrats cited in his contributions list.  He tried to buy influence from ANY congressman who could help his lobbying efforts.  As long as we allow our congressmen have PAC's and they allow money to influence their work, there are plenty more Abramoffs operating in D.C.  The main reason Abramoff was brought down was professional jealousy:  he was spreading more of his largesse toward Republicans which was a trend that began with the Republican take-over of the House.  Republicans now have the majority in both houses, which means they have more of the key leadership roles.  If the Dems had been in control of both houses, you can be assured that Abramoff would have been spreading more of his money on the other side of the aisle.

Money gets the influence in Washington and has for a very long time.  Which ever party controls the key influential posts will get most of the money thrown their way.  

[snopes]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
...difference between you and I (imho) is that I will point out that those Republicans deserving are bums, but I have never, ever heard you, Si, or anyone who tends to lean to the left say anything bad about the Democrat party....

I've pointed this out on numerous occasions.  I have never seen so many self-proclaimed "independents" who were blindly partisan for one side.

Ditto. It makes me sick. I see the perversion, corruption, and lies on both sides and it is SICKENING. It just makes me sick that people will use almost anything to gain ground politically these days, and that's on BOTH sides for those of you thinking I'm only talking about the Democrats. I wish there was another party that was viable. It would need to be named the AMERICAN party.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You've got to be kidding me.  It's not like 1983 was somehow the dark ages where we didn't keep records of newsworthy items.  

You prefer not to answer the question because it places you in a logical trap you can't get out of and and you can't admit this is nothing more than a case of "selective" outrage.

Maybe it had to due to the fact what happened with Studds was consensual? And he hadn't stood up quite so often to renounce somthing he was doing himself.

Well, I was alive in 1983, and an adult having sex with an underage boy or girl back then as now, was/is prosecuted as statutory rape- regardless of consent, in virtually every state and is good for 10 years to life, depending on the jurisdiction.

I'm not outraged so much that it was a Democrat that did it, I'm outraged that people in Congress are not only deemed as being above the law, but allowed to continue to author our laws after they flaunt and break them.

[snopes]

quote:
I'm not outraged so much that it was a Democrat that did it, I'm outraged that people in Congress are not only deemed as being above the law, but allowed to continue to author our laws after they flaunt and break them.

Great point.

[rwarn17588]

Back on topic: More news about Foley, and it gets even sleazier:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/new_foley_insta.html