Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,651 Year: 4,908/9,624 Month: 256/427 Week: 2/64 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   First Openly Gay Congressman dies... hero or villain?
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 111 (357172)
10-17-2006 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by crashfrog
10-17-2006 11:02 PM


Re: Why now though?
Do I sound like a pussy and refuse to challenge your egregious errors in fact?
I'm sorry but that is just uncalled for. Stop it or there will be a suspension.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 11:02 PM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 11:32 PM AdminJar has replied

      
    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1554 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 77 of 111 (357174)
    10-17-2006 11:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 76 by AdminJar
    10-17-2006 11:10 PM


    Re: Why now though?
    Er, I guess you misunderstood. Alan Colmes is who was being called a pussy, not anybody else.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 76 by AdminJar, posted 10-17-2006 11:10 PM AdminJar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 78 by AdminJar, posted 10-17-2006 11:40 PM crashfrog has replied

      
    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 78 of 111 (357175)
    10-17-2006 11:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
    10-17-2006 11:32 PM


    Re: Why now though?
    I don't think I misunderstood anything. Stop it. Any questions should be taken to the appropriate thread.

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 11:32 PM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 11:45 PM AdminJar has replied

      
    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1554 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 79 of 111 (357176)
    10-17-2006 11:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 78 by AdminJar
    10-17-2006 11:40 PM


    Re: Why now though?
    I don't think I misunderstood anything.
    Then I'm the one who doesn't understand - when did it become against the forum rules to attack public figures?
    Is this the standard you're going to apply to your own posting when you talk about George Bush?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 78 by AdminJar, posted 10-17-2006 11:40 PM AdminJar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 81 by AdminJar, posted 10-17-2006 11:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 80 of 111 (357177)
    10-17-2006 11:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
    10-17-2006 11:00 PM


    Re: Could it be?
    Well, wait now. What are you going to send Stubbs to jail for?
    We won't be sending him to jail because he's dead.
    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?
    If he knew about, absolutely...
    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.)
    For starters, how is it traved back to Rove? Secondly, it so obviously because of media bias. Its 'juicy' because he was an avowed conservative and the media is by and large liberal.
    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.
    Didn't have the jurisdiction to investigate? Starr was a Special Prosecutor appointed by three judges to lead the investigation. The plea about Starr was just a spin to throw the dogs off the scent. The tactic was to refer to it as "a vast right-wing conspiracy" and to indict the prosecution instead of the one actually on trial. He commited perjury when he, under oath, knowingly bore false witness. That's an impeachable offense at best, and a crime at worse. If such a scandal came about by any other president they'd give them the axe.
    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.
    That's absurd. Fellatio is a sexual act in every state. Its a form of sodomy. Oral sex. By this logic, we should assume that lesbians are physically incapable of ever having sex.
    Secondly, its entirely possible that he did have intercourse with any number of his interns. Lewisnki wasn't the only one. He was under suspicion for at least two other women. The man was a philanderer.
    Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fixed italics

    "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 74 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 11:00 PM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2006 12:14 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

      
    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 81 of 111 (357179)
    10-17-2006 11:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
    10-17-2006 11:45 PM


    Re: Why now though?
    I have asked other admins to look at the post in question. They agree with your interpretation. I apologize.

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 11:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

      
    Adminnemooseus
    Administrator
    Posts: 3977
    Joined: 09-26-2002


    Message 82 of 111 (357180)
    10-17-2006 11:51 PM


    Topic temporarily closed / Reopened
    Take the discussion to the proper place (see signature).
    Adminnemooseus
    Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added "/ Reopened" to subtitle.

    New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
    General discussion of moderation procedures
    Thread Reopen Requests
    Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    Other useful links:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 83 of 111 (357181)
    10-17-2006 11:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 75 by crashfrog
    10-17-2006 11:02 PM


    Re: Why now though?
    They're called "radios." I'm pretty sure you have one.
    I occasionally listen to Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, and Laura Ingram.[/quote]
    I don't know. Do I sound like a pussy and refuse to challenge your egregious errors in fact?
    .....................................................?
    Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos
    Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : another typo

    "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 75 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2006 11:02 PM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2006 12:24 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

      
    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1554 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 84 of 111 (357182)
    10-18-2006 12:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 80 by Hyroglyphx
    10-17-2006 11:50 PM


    Re: Could it be?
    For starters, how is it traved back to Rove?
    When rumors of Foley's misconduct began to emerge a few years ago, Foley decided to retire rather than besmirch the GOP with a big scandal (exactly what's happening now, in other words.)
    Rove demanded that he not retire, because they didn't want to lose a GOP seat. Rove put political power over the safety of pages.
    Its 'juicy' because he was an avowed conservative and the media is by and large liberal.
    Your evidence? Websites like Homepage | Media Matters for America make it pretty clear that the media is pretty firmly in the buisness of reporting GOP spin as fact, so the assertion that the media is "by and large liberal" is just nonsense.
    The Foley scandal is juicy for the reasons I told you. It's just that simple, and appealing to non-existent "liberal bias" in the media won't change that.
    Didn't have the jurisdiction to investigate? Starr was a Special Prosecutor appointed by three judges to lead the investigation.
    An investigation into financial dealings. Starr had absolutely no mandate to investigate Clinton's sexual dalliances.
    That's absurd. Fellatio is a sexual act in every state. Its a form of sodomy.
    Few states even have sodomy laws anymore, and D.C. certainly didn't at the time. What oral sex may be in other states is irrelevant.
    I'm not saying it's not weasel language. But Clinton was never convicted of perjury, so he clearly didn't perjur himself. Multi-million dollar investigation by Starr, millions wasted, and no convictions or even indictments returned against the Clintons.
    The man was a philanderer.
    Certainly, but so what? He didn't break any laws by doing so.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 11:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-18-2006 1:21 AM crashfrog has replied

      
    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1554 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 85 of 111 (357183)
    10-18-2006 12:24 AM
    Reply to: Message 83 by Hyroglyphx
    10-17-2006 11:59 PM


    Re: Why now though?
    I occasionally listen to Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, and Laura Ingram.
    Ah yes. Described by Keith Olbermann the other day as "The Worst People in the World", for taking Ted Turner completely out of context.
    These people get the party line directly from Bush himself. They're little more than voluntary propagandists.
    .....................................................?
    You've never watched Hannity and Colmes? Hannity only suffers Colmes on his show because it's practically in Colmes' contract that he can't disagree with Hannity too much, and Hannity's little liberal-on-a-leash certainly isn't allowed to correct him or appear to know more than Hannity does.
    That was the point of my comment, to call Colmes spineless. Sorry if that went over your head, or worse, you felt it was targeted at you. If that happened I sincerely apologize.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 11:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-18-2006 1:37 AM crashfrog has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 86 of 111 (357186)
    10-18-2006 1:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 84 by crashfrog
    10-18-2006 12:14 AM


    Re: Could it be?
    When rumors of Foley's misconduct began to emerge a few years ago, Foley decided to retire rather than besmirch the GOP with a big scandal (exactly what's happening now, in other words.)
    Rove demanded that he not retire, because they didn't want to lose a GOP seat. Rove put political power over the safety of pages.
    Source?
    Your evidence? Websites like Homepage | Media Matters for America make it pretty clear that the media is pretty firmly in the buisness of reporting GOP spin as fact, so the assertion that the media is "by and large liberal" is just nonsense.
    Nonsense? There is a litany of of obvious offenders. Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, etc, etc. Do you listen to the news? Its so transparent that I find it incredulous that you could actually pretend like its not there.
    Interviewed by Larry King, Peter Jennings spells it out in his own words, saying, "historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think, yes, on occasion there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will."
    An investigation into financial dealings. Starr had absolutely no mandate to investigate Clinton's sexual dalliances.
    The law said he did. You trivialize the event and the depth of its severity.
    Few states even have sodomy laws anymore, and D.C. certainly didn't at the time. What oral sex may be in other states is irrelevant.
    I'm not saying it's not weasel language. But Clinton was never convicted of perjury, so he clearly didn't perjur himself. Multi-million dollar investigation by Starr, millions wasted, and no convictions or even indictments returned against the Clintons.
    That's right, he was never convicted of it. And that's part of the problem. As for the "millions wasted," show me how millions of dollars are needed to scrape semen off of Lewinski's dress to extract the DNA. That's a strawman. He commited perjury, he was wrong, nothing else should be said. In the same way, Foley was wrong. See ya later dude. Bye! I'm not gonna defend his actions. What I am going to speak out on is this bias, as Holmes already shared.
    quote:
    The man was a philanderer.
    Certainly, but so what? He didn't break any laws by doing so.
    So what? Make it a little more personal by having your wife commit it against you, then give your calloused response of, "so what?". And, yes, he did commit a crime. It was the crime of perjury.

    "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 84 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2006 12:14 AM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2006 5:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 87 of 111 (357187)
    10-18-2006 1:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
    10-18-2006 12:24 AM


    Re: Why now though?
    Ah yes. Described by Keith Olbermann the other day as "The Worst People in the World", for taking Ted Turner completely out of context.
    Its hard to take Ted Turner out of context.
    These people get the party line directly from Bush himself. They're little more than voluntary propagandists.
    Yeah, Medved, Ingram, and Prager are under presidential directive to run their talkshows, didn't you know? Their Bush's minions of doom.
    You've never watched Hannity and Colmes? Hannity only suffers Colmes on his show because it's practically in Colmes' contract that he can't disagree with Hannity too much, and Hannity's little liberal-on-a-leash certainly isn't allowed to correct him or appear to know more than Hannity does.
    I've seen it on rare occasions. For three years I didn't watch tv until about a year ago when I ordered the most basic cable, (which is about as worthless as it gets. I'm thinking of an upgrade). I can tell you this much, that your specious plea that Colmes is under some sort of contractual agreement not argue too much would completely undermine the premise of the show. Even if you called FOX news conservatively slanted, there is one thing even more tempting than spouting conservative rhetoric. And that's that conflict sells. The fact that they have a liberal and a conservative battling it out is the only reason its worth watching.
    That was the point of my comment, to call Colmes spineless. Sorry if that went over your head, or worse, you felt it was targeted at you. If that happened I sincerely apologize.
    So, you were essentially saying that Colmes has been deemed, presumably by his own ilk, as 'spineless' because he won't leave the show while under a contractual agreement-- that instead of standing up for his beliefs, he allows himself to be 'leashed' for personal and monetary gain? Is that accurate? As far as me thinking it was directed to me, no need to apologize, I didn't think that. I just didn't know what it meant.

    "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 85 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2006 12:24 AM crashfrog has not replied

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5906 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 88 of 111 (357226)
    10-18-2006 9:30 AM


    Studds v Foley
    Daddy's home. It appears a lot of shenanigans have gone on while I was away. Thanks to the few who tried to keep things on topic.
    One issue which has been brought up for the difference in treatment between Studds and Foley is hypocrisy. That is to say Foley had made legislation which would effect himself and seems to acknowledge guilt, rather than Studds who stood up against charges and felt no guilt.
    That is something I personally feel separate the two men in character. But I don't see how that explains how they have been handled regarding their conduct. After all much commentary against Foley was not on hypocrisy, as if to suggest his behavior was otherwise credible, and instead focused on the "heinous" nature of his behavior in and of itself with hypocrisy being icing on the scandal cake.
    Indeed within this thread some poster(s) who in another thread excoriated Foley's behavior on the specifics involved (IIRC claiming it didn't even matter if there wasn't a law), have here given Studds a pass on his admittedly much more extreme conduct.
    Where Foley was condemned for emails and IMs, because cyber sex is sex, Clinton is apparently given a pass because many do not believe oral sex is sex.
    I stand confused. And this kind of behavior is not just here.
    An example from the left side of the media would be Jon Stewart's skewering of Foley. He repeatedly demonized the activities Foley was engaged in. They would equally have to hold for Studds. Stewart even criticized reps for linking gays (or gay rights) to what Foley did, when clearly Studds' exact same behavior had been lauded as a benefit for gays... yet Jon remains silent.
    Perhaps a re-examination of age of consent (AoC) laws is in order, as it seems to underlie both these issues. Yet it doesn't seem that most believe Foley should escape criminal charges for what he did. That would (or logically should) impact Studds.
    Edited by holmes, : clarity

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

    Replies to this message:
     Message 89 by jar, posted 10-18-2006 10:22 AM Silent H has replied
     Message 91 by Wounded King, posted 10-18-2006 10:57 AM Silent H has replied

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 34064
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 3.8


    Message 89 of 111 (357235)
    10-18-2006 10:22 AM
    Reply to: Message 88 by Silent H
    10-18-2006 9:30 AM


    Re: Studds v Foley
    I think we also need to consider all aspects of the two incidents.
    First the Studds incident took place in about 1973 (based on the person involved being 27 and saying that it happened a decade before). That gives us the first three facts in the Studds case.
    Time of incident 1973.
    Age of youth at the time, 17.
    Time of exposure for discussion, 1983.
    So what was different about the incident?
    Well, I can tell you that in 1973 if it had become known some eyebrows might have been raised over the fact that it was a homosexual relationship but that would have been about all.
    There were no IMs, were no emails. Hell, in 1973 I doubt that there was even a single computer on Capitol Hill, much less one in Congress.
    Evidence would have been either individual testimony, possibly some personal letters (although since they were never brought up it is likely there were none) or things like the travel records for the overseas trip.
    What was different about the exposure?
    Congress immediately censured Studds.
    It was a decade after the fact. There were no complaints from the parties that were involved. Studds immediately admited that it was an error in judgement and went back to his constituents.
    The person involved also spoke out in support of the relationship and of Studds.
    His constituents listened to his explanations and then re-elected him.
    That is not the case with Foley.
    The question that I think needs to be asked is somewhat different than just looking at the media.
    If Foley had behaved as Studds did when confronted, how would his consituents reacted?
    If Studds incident were exposed today, how would the constituents of Studds react?
    Is the difference between how the two cases played out one of changing demographics and perceptions of the US population in general, one of regional differences among constituents, based on the different ways the two Congressmen handled themselves or based on a change in the adversarial system we call Government?

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 88 by Silent H, posted 10-18-2006 9:30 AM Silent H has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 90 by Silent H, posted 10-18-2006 10:54 AM jar has replied

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 5906 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 90 of 111 (357238)
    10-18-2006 10:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 89 by jar
    10-18-2006 10:22 AM


    Re: Studds v Foley
    Great reply.
    If Foley had behaved as Studds did when confronted, how would his consituents reacted? If Studds incident were exposed today, how would the constituents of Studds react?
    I am wondering this myself. One thing though, regardless of their political careers, how would their activity have been handled by the media.
    While I agree that its not purely the media, I think the media handling is different from then and now and could possibly have changed everything for Studds. In fact I am sort of wondering if it is impacting Studds now.
    If not for Foley would Studds be getting celebrated now much more openly, because he was the first openly gay congressman? Now it seems muted with some positive statements about his behavior (by the few speaking out for him) in direct contrast to what is being said about Foley's behavior.
    Is the difference between how the two cases played out one of changing demographics and perceptions of the US population in general, one of regional differences among constituents, based on the different ways the two Congressmen handled themselves or based on a change in the adversarial system we call Government?
    More good questions. I'd like to see opinions on this.
    I personally believe times have changed. People back then were more liberal minded toward sexuality and did not fear sexual activity of minors as they do today. Thus, as you said, his homosexuality would likely have been more the question.
    Nowadays it is near impossible to get past the near dementia society has on the topic of sexuality involving minors, such that when Foley says he is gay, people jeer him for connecting pedophilia with homosexuality.
    I think Studds would have been fried if it happened today. In fact what he did would certainly have been a Felony. Thus what at one time was awarded as being no one else business and a courageous act, is at this is criminal and everyone's business.
    Without this reality, I doubt the media would have found much to do with this story. After all the issue is 3 years old for Foley and only some sexual banter over email and IMs.

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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 89 by jar, posted 10-18-2006 10:22 AM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 92 by jar, posted 10-18-2006 11:48 AM Silent H has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024