La Cage Aux Foley

Perhaps if you'd try reading you'd get it, crash. There are at least two outright lies about me in your post. I have not talked about "innnocent flirting", I've talked about abuse of power. I have not once said that what Foley did wasn't wrong. And I made it clear very early on that by courting the so-called "values voters" I believe the republicans brought all this morality crap on themselves. Therefore, although I might not like the way this scandal is developing and some of the reasons people are calling for resignations, I won't stand in the way because I think these idiots deserve it.Once again, for you and any other ADD types, I regard what Foley did as an abuse of power. If you equate that with saying that I "dont think what he did was wrong" then I'm afraid you need far more help than I can give you.

---

W.W.E.D.?

The cartoon about it being too bad the writ of habeas corpus wasn't written in 1990! Too funny: as in, ouch, that hurts so funny...I don't have a moral problem with Foley's chat activities, per se, any more than I did with Clinton's diddling dallying with Monica: less so, in fact, because Clinton had taken vows of monogamy, and I assume Foley had not. In pragmatic terms, though, both men provided good reasons to question their judgment, and both men's actions suggest an arrogance of power the puncturing of which one has difficulty not cheering about.Still, the Republicans should not have brought government to a standstill over Clinton's pecadillos (cigar, cigarette...pecadillo?); Foley is just a poor shmuck who tapped out his mid-life-crisis lust for youth on a national stage, and outside the current, close-to-election day scenario, the story would be dying already.About both one can ask, What WERE they thinking?--while also reflecting that a man who too often thinks with the wrong head is not the best candidate for office.I am terribly frightened about what is happening in our national government. Giving a president the power to suspend habeas corpus at will is clearly unconstitutional: we are not in a time of "invasion or rebellion" as the Constitution stipulates for habeas corpus suspension. That Congress thinks it can simply tell the judiciary to butt out of the issue is almost as frightening.I desperately want the Republicans to lose one chamber of Congress to put a brake on Bush's fascist tendencies (and theirs) for the next two years. I would set aside causes long near and dear to me, swallow hard and vote for a Democrat who opposed those causes, if it were necessary to take that one chamber.Let me add that those voters likely to be appalled by the suspension of habeas corpus, etc., probably don't need much jaw-boning, so I actually don't think this story is crowding out much in the way of more important discourse, at least as it relates to the upcoming mid-term election, and the Foley story is dead on election day. Bush & Co. have lost a number of moderate Republicans, libertarians, independents, and former switch-hitting Democrats with their fear-mongering, and their contempt for the Constitution, Geneva Convention, and the truth. Very likely the voters who would be swayed by those issues have been swayed.I cannot but let this "scandal"--however absurd and trivial it may, in fact, be--give me hope that one last shock of recognition will peel away a few more voters, enough to make the difference. Note that immunizing U.S. soldiers and agents against charges of war crimes also has been high on the Bush agenda: along with the possession of one chamber of Congress comes, at last, the power to launch serious investigations. Once the crust of complete, tri-branch dominance is breached, I suspect the Bush regime will collapse like a draining boil. Everything is fine now. Good peasant stock--takes a kickin', keeps on lickin'!

---

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01 Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I think this is definitely a possibility, and if anything I am worried that by dems making such drama, it will allow reps to whip up enough backlash that people will be willing to do just that.If left alone as a simple scandal, many rep voters would likely have seen the name as poison. At this point leading reps are going out of the way to mention that a vote for Foley is really for someone else, and articles related to that issue, fostered by continuing attention, make that point. In other words they are getting free advertising to convince rep voters to vote Foley.And I'm afraid that some of the rep leaders, like Hastert, may be able to achieve a political comeback. There is nothing that looks bolder and shinier than a politician who manages to make it through a fire. Granted Illinois has been swinging left (kudos to my home state) but maybe reps their will find him a bold leader for standing up to dem pressure, and being able to admit mistakes. As long as he is not implicated in the criminal trial, this may very well happen.Its one of the reasons that I keep pointing back to the Studds case. There a guy went wayyyy further than Foley, and by taking a dramatic stand and ignoring censure and the media firestorm, he was kept in place far longer than he might have otherwise.But as you say, we'll see how this all plays out. The criminal investigation may even pull up brand new names and scandals.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

So it's really the parents fault?Does anyone in your world have responsibility for daily actions?

I don't know if I'd agree with "arrogance of power" being the issue (especially with Clinton), but I agree they both courted disaster and then made the fatal error of lying about it. In that there is a bit of schadenfreude.With Foley its more so for me, since I think he was being a bit unethical (not an age thing but that he tended to pursue coworkers) and may also end up getting hit with one of his own laws.That he's a rep and it'll potentially pry one more finger from their deathgrip on the gov't is also satisfying. Absolutely... unless those causes happen to be habeus corpus et al. Yeah, I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm hoping it'll have that effect. I am more worried efforts to play it up will miss people able to be reached by other issues, and also play into rep hands by allowing a backlash. And that's not just now.By setting this as so important an issue when the next sexual scandal walks out of a closet it could just as easily hit the dems and lose them enough seats to put reps back in, or further in control.I wish the dems and media could be content with letting it do what it will on its own.Heheheh, maybe I'm also thinking of the business addage to shut up once you made the sale. They guy is out and his name is poison. There's not a lot more they can get out of it by talking more about it. Cool. I'll be suffering for some time to come, but at least I'm not out of the fight.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

He didn't say that. He said if the pages were so immature they could not handle some very basic life issues, to the extent they'd be damaged by flirtations and sexual come-ons, then they didn't have adequate instruction so as to be mature individuals.IF they lacked such instruction THEN the parents did a bad job. I'm not sure what there would be to disagree with in that statement. Who else is supposed to be responsible for instructing their kids and making sure they are mature individuals?That said, berb's clearly stated-- and oft repeated-- position is that he believes they were mature, and hence the parents are not at fault for anything.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I saw no such implication in berberry's post.I was receiving homosexual solicitations, probably around one per month and mostly from strangers, by the time I was age 15. I had no difficulty ignoring them. I took it as part of growing up, that you learn to deal with the world as it is.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Oh, I'm reading; it's from reading your posts that I know how schitzophrenic your position is on this issue.Look, Berb. You're determined to stand in the middle and toss stones at both sides. I don't really have the time to waste on that kind of wankery.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

From your boss? Who was a Congressman?Did he ever offer to put you up for the night if you'd suck his cock? Offer to advance your career in exchange for sex? Foley did. I was no sheltered teen myself - at 16 I was living in Italy and was already quite well-traveled - but there's no doubt in my mind that I would have found that situation - the situation of powerlessness and perhaps inevitable sexual coercion - rather disturbing.I don't for a minute - for a minute - understand the minds of the people who are able to seperate the sex from the power. They're inextricable. Being sexually propositioned by your boss, who is one of the most powerful men in the country, is significantly different than random propositioning from homosexual strangers or whatever.

No, you look you lying asshole! I'm tired of you misrepresenting what I've said. If you read my posts, then why did you say something as stupid as: and Both statements are outright lies. I never said anything close to what you deliberately and inaccurately inferred.Look, crash, I don't have time to waste on a lying son-of-a-bitch like you. So go to hell.

---

W.W.E.D.?

On reviewing all of this, I wanted to comment on something holmes said upthread:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Or have you not noticed that the "attacks" are mostly coming from the right?

---

​

I don't see this as true. I regularly visit a number of news sites that are generally aligned with dems/liberals. They are going nuts on this.

---

But are democratic Congressmen going nuts? I haven't seen it. I haven't been paying particularly close attention so I'm sure I've missed a few details (which is why I've been careful to frequently include qualifiers in my comments), but I haven't been hearing a lot of criticism from democratic politicians.From what I've heard, by far the loudest voices (within Congress, at least) calling for Hastert's resignation have been republicans.

---

W.W.E.D.?

My read on your posts is pretty damn accurate, which is why I imagine you're resorting to playground name-calling instead of a legitimate rebuttal. I said that because that's exactly what you said. You denied harm; therefore you assert it was harmless. You denied that the pages were children; therefore you assert they were adults.You've criticized absolutely everybody who offered an objection to the behavior of an old man sexually propositioning teenagers. Obviously, you support old men sexually propositioning teenagers.I mean, that's the obvious conclusion. What else am I supposed to think? Over here on my side of the fence, where I think it's wrong for people to abuse the inherent power involved in being much, much older than their quarry (not to even mention the man's professional status), I'm getting stones tossed from the direction of those who see no issue inherent in sexual activity between adults and minors. Maybe that's not where you stand.But the fact that your salvos follow that exact trajectory is your problem, not mine. Like I said, what you're doing is wankery. Debate masturbation. It's a waste of everybody's time. Nonsense. These things are exactly what you said. What, you want me to quote you? Here we go.

quote:

---

I don't see the case that making a pass at a 16-year-old would likely cause damage to the youngster.

---

"Making a pass", synonymous with "flirting"; "I don't see the case for damage" synonymous with "harmless." My description of your stance as viewing this as "harmless flirting" is entirely accurate because that's almost exactly what you said.You don't oppose harmless flirting. Since that's what you said Foley did, you don't oppose what Foley did. (What, you were talking about hypothetical passes at hypothetical teens? Bullshit you were.) The fact that you continually pepper your posts with "I'm not defending Foley" is the same kind of smokescreen racists and bigots use when they say "now, some of my best friends are black/gay."It's just weasel words. Of course you're defending Foley. You clearly have no problem when an older man sexually propositions minors. You've relentlessly attacked anybody who does have a problem with that. The fact that you say "I'm not defending Foley" as you defend him is just nonsense. Of course I didn't take those statements literally.If you have a problem with someone seeing through your fairly transparent weasel language, take it up with the man in the mirror. It's hardly my fault I'm not stupid enough to take your ridiculous smokescreen at face value.

After reading your responses it really looks like you are simply trying to drive folk, lots of folk, into confrontation.Stop it.Step back and relax.You do seem to be blowing things way out of proportion. Totally your impression of what Berberry said. Lately you seem to be reading a whole lot into what others say.As usual, take any discussion of this to the man in the mirror.

---

Sorry berberry but even if true that is uncalled for. Stop it now.

---

It's "Crashfrog", or "Crash", please.