Who is protecting us from the Watchdogs like Foley?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't mean to pick on you GoSlash. What I wanted to convey is that, even though I DO favor the Democratic Party, there is a deeper problem than that.

In case you think I was trying to include Monicagate into this mess, no. There was a difference. I never heard one peep about her being creeped out. That's the first piece of Foley news that was on TV, the aide being creeped out by the message.

Foley is a sexual predator in the most undisputable and disgusting sense. Not the kind of "predator" who has simply looked at a popup on his computer screen then closed it. 5 year minimum mandatory. No, he's a predator who ACTIVELY PURSUES boys 1/3 his age, and it would appear that in some instances the pursuits are only tolerated because he's in a position of power.

This is a kind of forced sexual contact. The rabid (which I am right now) would call it rape. Lucky for him, the going prison term is only about 3 years for that these days. Just ask springmom.

Yes, it is the "party of family values" to which Foley belongs. But he has collaborated with that other party to write laws making it a federal felony to knowingly (try proving you didn't know) possess (among, these days, tens of thousands of files on a typical computer) a single picture of a naked child. No child need be actually trapped in the computer, mind you.
 
O'Reilly - a sheep dog better bite him on his loofah and eat his falafel. He is the last dude to talk about a sex scandal.

Anyway - big news - folks who get into power use the power for their own amusement - be it money or sex. It's really independent of party. It is a basic characteristic of human behavior.

However, it is amusing that the true believers in controlling sexuality put party election concerns over anything else.

I don't understand this logic.

Foley was bad and we covered up
However, Clinton was bad and Studds was bad and the Dems covered up
Thus, it was ok for us to cover up in the same crappy manner.

That moral calculus doesn't cut it unless you are just a believer in supporting your tribe over moral considerations.
 
In answering the title of the post starting this thread, I don't know who's protecting us from said watchdogs. But I DO know who's protecting THEM from US:

Bill O’Reilly labels Rep. Foley a Democrat.
Click to expand...
 
With all the fact checkers, producers, and multitude of people who's sole job is to watch the program's feed, I've got to think that it was nothing less than intentional that they showed incorrect information several times. I feel that this is a trend which will only continue to get worse.

I'm not really suprised that they might be trying to distance this from the Republican Party, especially with the speaker of the house looking like he's in for a struggle to keep his head afloat.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/washington/04hastert.html?th&emc=th But it is the post so take it with a grain of salt...)

(Like this one...http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20061004/ts_csm/ascandal_1)

And has anyone heard all the BS public relations press releases about Foley?

I was drunk

I'm checking myself into rehab

I was molestered by a priest as a kid

I'm gay

(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/washington/04foley.html)

Jon Stewart really pegged it when it mentioned something about "the US Congress, also known as NAMBLA..."

Are we not the new Rome?
 
Fox has a heart attack if one criticizes the GOP or Bush at times.

I was once watching the morning show and they invited some expert to talk about Iraq. He had a background that seemed proBushy. However, he went off on the WMD and how Bush blew it on that issue. Blondie had a hissy fit and as they went to break (probably to take the guy out and shoot him), she was yelling it was not Bush's fault as the French and Israelis thought there were WMDs also. Not very nonpartisan - she was raving.

The Sunday show is pretty good - the pros and cons have reasonable and intelligent debates. The morning crew is a bunch of partisan dopes. At least be bright if you are going to be partisan, like Krystal or Hume. Hannity is buffoon also.
 
With all the fact checkers, producers, and multitude of people who's sole job is to watch the program's feed, I've got to think that it was nothing less than intentional that they showed incorrect information several times. I feel that this is a trend which will only continue to get worse.
Click to expand...

It's got to be true... the Ministry of Truth said so just this morning...

Seriously, though... There are going to be more than a couple Republican Congressmen going down over this unless they simply don't care what We The People think any more.

I also have to question Pelosi's timing when it comes to bringing this up. I have no idea when she first learned about it, but it just seems too suspicious that she claims she only found out and asked for the inquiry on the very last day before Congress recessed... The fact that We The People now have all these weeks until the election to mull this thing over, is just a coincidence, right?
 
Rome fell

Because of the same things that go on today. Vote independent. We can't trust the politico; they have no honor- Worf
 
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=24128
All I can remember is the Democrats mantra. That the troglodyte Republicans were obsessed by sex between consenting adults. That homosexuals in close working relationships with young people, especially young men, is a good and healthy thing. That some forms of sex, aren’t sex. That what two consenting adults do or say behind closed doors is their business. That intercepting and reading electronic communications between anyone in the US, especially those between two citizens, is never to be tolerated.

And most of all; never be judgmental.

So in the end, what do we end up with?

* A pedophile that wasn’t.

* A child that was actually an adult.

* The disclosure of personal electronic communications of a highly personal nature between two consenting adults revealed.

* A sex scandal between a couple who never had sex.

* That Democrat Congressmen can have sex with 17 year olds and get re-elected, but Republicans that talk about sex are forced to resign.
Click to expand...
 
Oh doublesnap.

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


And Dennis Hastert is an ugly
story.hastert.mon.ap.jpg


Ugly man.


And can you imagine having this entry for to your name for the rest of time?
http://www.nndb.com/people/545/000037434/
(And not just on the internet, he's in CONGRESS, that means a hundred years from now stupid little kids are going to be learning american history and laughing)
 
This message was dated April 2003, at approximately 7 p.m., according to the message time stamp at a time when the teen had been 18 for just six weeks.

In other words, the "teenager" was legally an adult, and ABC News got busted on it and was forced to modify their article.

People get drunk on the very day of their 21st birthdays, and does the media talk in breathless tones about it, "he had been 21 for just six hours! <gasp!>" and talk about how such a person is only "technically" legal to drink alcohol?

This story is gathering up a heady stench, and not just from Foley's NAMBLA leanings.

Democratic Delegates Boo the Boy Scouts - August 18, 2000
 
Foley is, an always will be, a more honorable pervert that Bill Clinton...

Yet...look at the difference between the way his case is being handled by the Liberals and THEIR media.

At least he resigned...
 
Looks to me like you're trying to say getting a consensual hummer from an adult (which isn't a crime) is worse than explicitly propositioning minors when you are in a position of great power over them (which is a crime).

Who's confused here, me or you?
 
Send a message

You want protection? Protect yourself. You only have one real weapon in this mess, and the chance to use it is coming up in a few weeks. Vote the incumbants out. If they are Republican, vote for the Democrat. If they are Democrat, vote for the Republican.

Do you really think a bunch of new people will do any worse than what we've got in DC now?
 
Do you really think a bunch of new people will do any worse than what we've got in DC now?
Click to expand...

Yup. The party that gets into power next always try to get its own share and undermine what the preceeding party did for its constituency. Such transition periods are never good.

That doesn't mean one shouldn't get rid of incumbents; it just means that we shouldn' naively think things can't get worse, as they likely will.
 
Looks to me like you're trying to say getting a consensual hummer from an adult (which isn't a crime) is worse than explicitly propositioning minors when you are in a position of great power over them (which is a crime).

Who's confused here, me or you?
Click to expand...


You are apparently. There was no minor propositioned in this case. This was submitted to the FBI and no crime was found. Was his behavior inappropriate, sure, but no more so that having sex while OTJ. As far as using your position of power to catch tail, you don't think it was Clinton's rock hard abs and white teeth that he used to bag Monica et al?

Bottom line, Foley resigned (as well he should) even though he comitted no crime. Clinton engaged in legal, though far more inappropriate behavior (for which any of us would be fired for), and lied about it under oath. Studds did have sex with a minor, was applauded for it by his party, and elected 2 more times.

Liberals are people of tolerance. They are people who feel that sex between adults is a private matter, even if it occurs on the job. They support the gay cause. Despite all that however Foley is somehow evil and should be tarred and feathered for not even doing as much as those who they hold up to be the rockstars of their own party.

Tell me, which party has people who seem to be the most "confused"
 
Dave - how you doing by the way - I just find the Fox Morning crew to be stupider than the other morning crews. I prefer intelligence and subtlety even in biased presentations.

The core of my objection is that they are obvious and dopey.

Once again - tribalism rules. When Clinton was in trouble, I thought he should resign, even though I voted for him. And the GOP beat the drums for that. But when your tribe member screws up - then the rationalizations flow.

I will say you are morally bankrupt, venial and corrupt if you act this way.

Again I say:

I don't understand this logic.

Foley was bad and was covered up.
However, Clinton was bad and Studds was bad and the Dems covered up
Thus, it was ok for the GOP to cover up in the same crappy manner.

That moral calculus doesn't cut it unless you are just a believer in supporting your tribe over moral considerations.

-------- If your party is more important than the actions of those involved, you stink and are a disgrace to America. That was true for Democratic apologists for Clinton and it is true for the GOP apologists for Foley and those who covered up for him.

I've even seen folks denounce the Washington Times as having an 'agenda'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top