Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,618 Year: 4,875/9,624 Month: 223/427 Week: 33/103 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   First Openly Gay Congressman dies... hero or villain?
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3995 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 61 of 111 (357053)
10-17-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by U can call me Cookie
10-17-2006 10:09 AM


There is a good topic in here somewhere
I for one would like to see this discussion turn back toward the very interesting OP rather than this mundane talk of porn and serial killers.
Why was Foley treated differently?

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by U can call me Cookie, posted 10-17-2006 10:09 AM U can call me Cookie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 1:53 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 4:29 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 111 (357076)
10-17-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Jazzns
10-17-2006 12:33 PM


Re: There is a good topic in here somewhere
I for one would like to see this discussion turn back toward the very interesting OP rather than this mundane talk of porn and serial killers.
Yeah, I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Sorry I ever mentioned it.
Why was Foley treated differently?
Because he is a Republican.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Jazzns, posted 10-17-2006 12:33 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Chiroptera, posted 10-17-2006 3:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 66 by Jazzns, posted 10-17-2006 5:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 111 (357104)
10-17-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Hyroglyphx
10-17-2006 1:53 PM


Re: There is a good topic in here somewhere
quote:
Because he is a Republican.
Heh. I am reminded of the difference between the treatment of Robert Packwood and Bill Clinton in regards to their sexual harrassment charges.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 1:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 4:03 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 111 (357107)
10-17-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Chiroptera
10-17-2006 3:26 PM


Re: There is a good topic in here somewhere
I am reminded of the difference between the treatment of Robert Packwood and Bill Clinton in regards to their sexual harrassment charges.
Conservatives didn't much like Sen. Packwood, President Clinton or her husband for a variety of reasons

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Chiroptera, posted 10-17-2006 3:26 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 111 (357109)
10-17-2006 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Jazzns
10-17-2006 12:33 PM


Re: There is a good topic in here somewhere
Why was Foley treated differently?
He made what he was doing a crime. He's got no one to blame but himself.
Somebody wrote an email to Josh Marshall, a blogger who I read, that basically said that the actions of Foley has given a lot of people who were finding themselves more and more opposed to the Republican party line and party policies a "safe space" to make public their disagreement. In other words opposing the House cover-up of Foley's actions is a completely unchallengable position - there's no way anyone could put forth an argument that "you don't support America in the war on terror unless you support the right of House leadership to cover up a creepy old man's passes at minors" - so it's an opportunity for a lot of people to repudiate the Republicans as a whole.
Foley is a flashpoint. He's an excuse for people to recognize Republican failure on a host of other, more complex issues. There's really only one defendable position - Hastert and others are guilty of the cover-up of creepy misconduct - and, from that position, it's easier to countenance the repudiation of all the other Republican fuck-ups.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Jazzns, posted 10-17-2006 12:33 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Jazzns, posted 10-17-2006 5:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3995 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 66 of 111 (357114)
10-17-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Hyroglyphx
10-17-2006 1:53 PM


Could it be?
You don't think it has anything to do with the particular comittee he chaired or the legislation he fought to pass?
Could it possibly be that Foley is treated differently because America actually DOES hate hypocrisy more than a little sexual misconduct?
Clinton's issue was blown way up and yet he was not going around championing the cause of legislation to outlaw sex with interns. He did lie, but it does not seem to be nearly as ironic as Foley given the circumstances.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 1:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 6:57 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3995 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 67 of 111 (357116)
10-17-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
10-17-2006 4:29 PM


Why now though?
I am sort of disillusioned that it took THIS to get the outcry to the paltry level that it currently is at. In other countries there are riots (not that I want riots) for much less of a 'flashpoint' that what we are currenly seeing.
Are we just that fucked up that it takes a champion of anti-exploitation laws wanting to boink some teenage boys for us to finally pause Survivor look up and and say, "Hey, I think we are not being adequatly represented by our government!"
I got so burnt on the last election that I have a measure of doubt about the american people. Sure Foley is in the news now and he MIGHT be a flashpoint for some actual change although I am going to remain skeptical until after the elections.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 4:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Chiroptera, posted 10-17-2006 5:59 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 7:56 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 111 (357120)
10-17-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Jazzns
10-17-2006 5:39 PM


Re: Why now though?
quote:
I got so burnt on the last election that I have a measure of doubt about the american people.
Don't be too down on the American people. People in general aren't all that stupid. "You can fool some of the people all the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time," as the saying goes, "but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Although there have been some spectacular failures in this country and in other countries, in general people have a good idea where there best interests lie (and a decent idea of what constitutes "justice"). Remember that the Bush voters represent barely on fourth of the potential electorate, and even these ended up holding their noses when voting for Bush. The main problem is that the U.S. electoral system, using the first-past-the-post system, eliminates choices in the elections and discourages actual participation of people, so only half of the people can get interested enough to "vote the lesser of the evils." Personally, I don't feel the problem is the American people. It's the election system which discourages choice and participation as well as a mass-media propaganda system that keeps the issues confused enough that people aren't even sure what should be done about it.
Of course, it doesn't help that in the U.S. the middle class life-style is sufficiently comfortable, with no real short term threat, that there isn't enough incentive to make the important sacrifices of time and energy (and the risks of economic and political instability) to fight for the necessary changes to make this country an true democracy.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Jazzns, posted 10-17-2006 5:39 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 111 (357131)
10-17-2006 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Jazzns
10-17-2006 5:30 PM


Re: Could it be?
You don't think it has anything to do with the particular comittee he chaired or the legislation he fought to pass?
No, I don't. I think it has to do with him being is a Republican. If the allegations concerning Foley are true, then he's not fit for Congress. But as the OP pointed out, Foley admitted to sexual relations with a 21 year old former page and was found passing IM's to another. As inappropriate as it is, there was no criminal conduct. Stubbs, on the other hand, was in a scandal just prior with a page of 16 whom he had sexual relations with. That's a crime.
The New York Times ran an article recently that demonized Foley, but lauded Stubbs as "a role model." Any thoughts on that?
Could it possibly be that Foley is treated differently because America actually DOES hate hypocrisy more than a little sexual misconduct?
That certainly makes a difference to me because Foley went on national television praising NBC's Dateline segment, "To catch a Predator." He cooed and praised Steve Hansen, which, given his conduct, I find despicable. I'm sure it didn't help the situation, but I'm certain that for most people the number one reason they dislike him is for his misconduct, and the second because he's a Republican.
Clinton's issue was blown way up and yet he was not going around championing the cause of legislation to outlaw sex with interns. He did lie, but it does not seem to be nearly as ironic as Foley given the circumstances.
Clinton's issue wasn't blown out of proportion. Its the President of the United States of America having a lurid affair with an intern and shoving cigars up her vagina, then lied about it to investigators, then looked America in the eye and uttered his famous sentence, "I did not have sexual relations with that women... Ms. Lewinski," and then he hads the audacity to play a game of semantics about what constitutes sex.
In all fairness, Bart Starr, or whatever his name is, was like a rabid pitbull and he did more to further Clinton's case than Clinton did himself.
This is what I'm talking about. Its the double standards. And the Republicans are just as bad with this cat-and-mouse game.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Jazzns, posted 10-17-2006 5:30 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 8:03 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 93 by Jazzns, posted 10-18-2006 12:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 111 (357141)
10-17-2006 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Jazzns
10-17-2006 5:39 PM


Re: Why now though?
Are we just that fucked up that it takes a champion of anti-exploitation laws wanting to boink some teenage boys for us to finally pause Survivor look up and and say, "Hey, I think we are not being adequatly represented by our government!"
No, it's just that Republicans and their lapdogs are very good indeed at framing their opposition in a way that scares people from considering it. You can watch Tal and NJ do it here; all they do is parrot Sean Hannity: If you oppose the administration's handling of the Iraq war, you're a Saddam-lover. If you don't believe the state has an interest in suppressing the rights of gays, you're opposed to the traditional family. If you believe that the government needs a warrant to surveil American citizens, you hate America and you want the terrorists to win. If you don't think Congress should substitute it's own judgement over that of doctors in medical matters, you're clearly a baby-killing, euthanizing Mengele.
If you don't believe a 40-year-old congressman has any business soliciting sex from minors, contrary to a law he himself passed, you're.... what? It's the one issue where the Republicans can't demonize the opposition, but God knows they've been trying. They've been falling all over themselves to blame George Soros, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and even the pages themselves - as well as the "shadowy gay Republican syndicate" - rather than come to terms with the fact that a congressman solicited sex from minors and the Republican leadership protected him. But this is the one issue where the electorate has been trained to see through the bullshit - trained, because it's the exact issue that Republicans took advantage of to seize power in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Jazzns, posted 10-17-2006 5:39 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 8:34 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 71 of 111 (357143)
10-17-2006 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Hyroglyphx
10-17-2006 6:57 PM


Re: Could it be?
As inappropriate as it is, there was no criminal conduct.
The IM's constitute criminal conduct, thanks to Foley's own legislation.
How come that basic point keeps getting ignored? I feel like I've had to say that over and over again in at least 2 threads now.
Stubbs, on the other hand, was in a scandal just prior with a page of 16 whom he had sexual relations with. That's a crime.
Washington DC holds the age of consent to be 16. Maybe it wasn't then, though. Are you sure he committed a crime?
This is what I'm talking about. Its the double standards.
Seems like it's the same standard, or even lax standards for Republicans. Neither Stubbs nor Clinton broke any laws, and Ken Starr didn't really have the jurisdiction to investigate sexual activity in the White House. But the House leadership concealed Foley's activities for 5 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 6:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 8:23 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 111 (357145)
10-17-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
10-17-2006 8:03 PM


Re: Could it be?
The IM's constitute criminal conduct, thanks to Foley's own legislation.
How come that basic point keeps getting ignored? I feel like I've had to say that over and over again in at least 2 threads now.
I didn't know that it was a crime, but I agree that it should be. Send him to jail then. The point is, BOTH Foley and Stubbs made a mockery of themselves and of the congress. Why is there a double-standard on airplay when there shouldn't be? Send them both to jail to think about their mistakes and be done with it.
Washington DC holds the age of consent to be 16. Maybe it wasn't then, though. Are you sure he committed a crime?
If the age of consensual sex in Washington DC is 16, then, no, he didn't commit a crime. I find it odd that in DC, of all places, the age of consent would be so low.
But I digress. The original premise is about media bias. TheMedia Research Center reported that over the last 12 days, more than 150 stories have been made on Foley. Yet, there was yet another under reprted sex scandal when Democratic Rep. Mel Reynolds had sexual relations with a 16 yr old campaign worker. He also apparently conspired to have sex with the worker’s 15-year-old friend, solicited child pornography, and was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault and obstruction of justice. The networks ran a total of only 19 stories over the course of an entire year.
Seems like it's the same standard, or even lax standards for Republicans. Neither Stubbs nor Clinton broke any laws, and Ken Starr didn't really have the jurisdiction to investigate sexual activity in the White House. But the House leadership concealed Foley's activities for 5 years.
Perjury is a criminal offense classified as a 'miscarriage of justice.'
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 8:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 11:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 111 (357146)
10-17-2006 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by crashfrog
10-17-2006 7:56 PM


Re: Why now though?
You can watch Tal and NJ do it here; all they do is parrot Sean Hannity
That's interesting considering I have the most basic cable and don't get Sean Hannity.
If I parrot Hannity, do you parrot Colmes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 7:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 11:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 74 of 111 (357170)
10-17-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Hyroglyphx
10-17-2006 8:23 PM


Re: Could it be?
Send them both to jail to think about their mistakes and be done with it.
Well, wait now. What are you going to send Stubbs to jail for? I don't think he was soliciting any sex with minors via the internet.
What about Denny Hastert, who protected and shielded Foley, with full knowledge of his behavior, for more than 5 years? Should he go to jail?
He also apparently conspired to have sex with the worker’s 15-year-old friend, solicited child pornography, and was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault and obstruction of justice. The networks ran a total of only 19 stories over the course of an entire year.
Two different situations. Reynolds wasn't protected and shielded by the congressional House leadership. The reason for the greater media attention isn't because of media bias - that's ridiculous on its face - it's because the Foley situation is much, much worse. The Foley story is more juicy because it goes beyond just Foley. As far as we can tell, it goes all the way up to Karl Rove (what a surprise.)
Perjury is a criminal offense classified as a 'miscarriage of justice.'
Fair enough, but I think there's a legitimate question as to whether or not Clinton could be expected to be actually under oath considering Starr didn't have the jurisdiction to investigate Clinton's sexual activity.
And the question of whether or not recieving fellatio counts as sex is an open one. It differs from person to person. If people had wanted to know if the Clenis had been fellated, they should have specifically asked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 8:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 11:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 111 (357171)
10-17-2006 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Hyroglyphx
10-17-2006 8:34 PM


Re: Why now though?
That's interesting considering I have the most basic cable and don't get Sean Hannity.
They're called "radios." I'm pretty sure you have one.
If I parrot Hannity, do you parrot Colmes?
I don't know. Do I sound like a pussy and refuse to challenge your egregious errors in fact?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 8:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by AdminJar, posted 10-17-2006 11:10 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 11:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024