Mark Foley

[steve11]

I can’t believe there isn’t a thread on Foley here yet so might as well have one.

So far the situation stands with it being fairly certain Foley did send sexually charged messages to the pages, however if he had any contact other then IM sex is not known yet, and quite honestly of little relevance to the far greater problem surrounding this.

The evidence is starting to point to some sort of cover-up, and if not an outright cover-up at least people would have looked the other way while this conduct was going on right under everyones nose. This is a dicey issue as covering up (or even ignoring for that matter) a child potential child molester within the House is disgraceful. If so it’s going to thouroughly tarnish the Republicans. Interestingly enough the republicans level the accusation that Democrats sat on the evidence that they had for 3 years only to release it in perfect timing for a major election season.

My personal views-

I should start this off with a preface. Having worked in DC and in the government (all be it briefly) I find it hard to believe that one side could have known about his personal life, while the other remained ignorant of it. It’s hard to say who found out about it first (though all details point to the republicans back into 2000), but it’s safe to say both knew about it for at least 3 years prior to this “leak”

Frankly I think we are in a position where both parties are guilty. The Republicans for engaging in a quasi cover-up, and the Democrats for looking the other way till the opportunity to go forward and cause the most damage reared it’s head.

Political predictions-

The republicans might not in as much trouble as one would think. The fact that signs strongly hint at a democratic leak, and prior democratic knowledge gives them some wiggle room. The danger is that the core religious right that is very much anti-homosexual will simply not show up and vote. The fact that several prominent gay republicans are now leaving their office might be an effort to get around this and help “purge” the party prior to elections to win voters back. It’s an uphill battle but I think t he damage has been done.

The democrats really should just sit back and avoid pushing to hard on this issue if they want to remain clean. The republican party is already tearing itself apart in contradicting statements over who knew what when, which makes them seem dishonest and hints at a cover-up. Democrats getting to involved just opens up they questions of why they waited for the leak, who knew what when on their end.

[TheSpacePope]

The danger is that the core religious right that is very much anti-homosexual will simply not show up and vote. The fact that several prominent gay republicans are now leaving their office might be an effort to get around this and help “purge” the party prior to elections to win voters back. It’s an uphill battle but I think t he damage has been done.

That is so completely abhorrent, so devoid of soul, and so callous. I am surprised that Any party would take part in that. That will almost certainly damage their swing-vote capability. It will also damage their reputation with moderate republicans as well.
*shakes head*

[Akamaz]

one of the funny things is that apparently on the state that the kids were in, they were above their local age of consent for their area (it states on the wikipaedia for this guy that tey were both over and under the age of 18.


some sources i've seen state that in the physical area the pages were in when this happened, the age of consent was 16.

[Lockeownzj00]

This is a non-issue. The guy's a perv, but really, has anybody explained why this was a bad thing? The kid was 16. Not 11. Not 8. Not pre-natal. If anything, it's a moral grey-area. Everybody, on both sides, just kind of spasmed in response to this, to look like the 'least bad guy--' (and soon the game begun to point the finger at the less sympathetic and more perverse side).

Okay: unprofessional, yeah. Perverted? Yeah. I still don't see how this is a matter of national importance. We're letting it get in the way of other things. I mean, hey, I'm all for the Republican party crumbling, but christ, for this? Not for the other egregious crimes it's committed? Not for brazen gerrymandering? Not for blatant hypocrisy? For a dirty old man? Jesus.

[katsielyonz]

What lockeownzj00 said. I couldn't have said it better meself.

[ArlanKels]

The real issue is perhaps not his messages, but the subsequent alledged attempt at covering it up.
Rumors abound of money being traded between politicians to keep it all hush hush.

If that part of this whole thing is true then that is the main issue, it demonstrates the weakness of our political system that bribery can so readily be used and accepted.

[ZERO.]

Mark Foley is a perverted old man.

That just about covers what I have to say on the subject.

[neyo the king]

Mark Foley is a Republican.

And that is all that needs to be said.

No, I kid. I kid.

But, seriously, one does have to wonder what brought this all out in such rapid succesion as this. It bogles the mind.

[Raiden]

Like it has been said, it truly wasn't THAT bad a thing. It was like Clinton. It wasn't so much that he had sex with Lewinsky and the other girls. It was him lying while under oath that really had the shit thrown at him.

And Neyo, it's been pointed out pretty heavily that the Democrats decided to wait until a major election time, and then release this information to greatly ruin the Republican reputation to throw the vote in their favor. While not proven, I don't think, it's heavily shown for them. Which is why it's made such big news, since they wanted a big tiff to be made in an attempt to score themselves more votes.

If the pages were both above the age of consent, and consented, there is NO real problem in that department. While somewhat perverted, if they were the right age and consented, then it was all legal and as such shouldn't have been shoved into the light so much.

Honestly, while this does look bad for Foley, it in my opinion looks even worse on the Democrats that initiated the "leak". I mean, how childish can you honestly get? In an attempt to win some votes, you decide to use information against your opposing party to try and ruin a man's life. Granted, a perverted man's life, but still. It's sickening when they use tactics like that. They probably believe it's some cunning plan and they're patting themselves on the back for it, but if you can't win an election without pulling out dirt like that...then you shouldn't BE in the election.

Keep in mind, this isn't me bashing Democrats. This is me bashing anyone childish enough to pull a stunt like that. Now, if they weren't the ones that "leaked", then fine. If they were, then I stand by what I said.

[Solid Snake]

I think what Foley did was a horrific abuse of his position of power, personally, and I damn well believe he should resign from public office and never, ever try to do anything political in nature again.

Also, I think Hastert should have resigned, even if he didn't know a damn thing about what Foley was doing, because as the majority leader of the Republicans in the House it was his professional responsibility to keep Foley in line. He failed in doing so.

That being said, what aggravates me about this is all the swing voters out there who decided to vote Democrat solely because of the Foley scandal. The reason I say this is largely because, in my home state of Connecticut for example, the incumbent Republican House members (Nancy Johnson, Chris Simmons) have no affiliation whatsoever with Foley and certainly were disgusted with what they heard. Why in the hell should Nancy Johnson be held personally responsible for what Foley did? Unlike Hastert, there's no way Johnson had prior knowledge of Foley's misdeeds. And her election platform, the issues she's campaigning for in Connecticut, have absolutely nil to do with Foley.

The problem here is the media is shouting "Foley did bad things...and he's a Republican!" And, what, am I supposed to feel ashamed for being a Republican voter now? What Foley did was against the core principles of conservatism (hell, forget conservatism specifically, how about just the core principles of civilized society?) I believe in, that's for sure. And I don't think the entire Republican party is 'guilty by association.' If some no-name Democratic representative was caught sleeping around with a male stripper, does that mean every Democrat deserves to lose an election?

The bottom line is, I find myself in a sort of awkward agreement with Locke, despite being on the opposite side of the political spectrum. If the Democrats sweep the House and the Senate, I want them to defeat my guys on the issues. If the Democrats win because Bush is mismanaging Iraq and certain social services in our country are in horrible shape, I can accept that. Hell, I'd even find myself in the position of partially agreeing with many of the Democratic voters, because I'm not terribly fond of the direction of our Congress these days either.

But if the Democrats win because of this? If Foley dominates the election and overshadows the issues we should be talking about? I'd be disappointed.

Oh, and Raiden; as a conservative myself I'd love to have the courtesy of believing that the Dems were behind the release of this information in some horrible left-wing conspiracy, but eh, I can't personally buy into that. I think this would have been a devastating hit to the Republicans regardless of when the information was released and if the Dems really knew about it beforehand, they would have gained a lot more by releasing it before the 2004 elections (when the Presidency was also on the line.)

Plus, if the Dems really were keeping this secret, they should have released it days before the election, not a month before the election. As is the Dems are giving the Republicans just enough of a breathing space to feasibly close the gap -- I'm not convinced they will, but had this been released around Halloween instead, the Republicans wouldn't even have a prayer.

[Fifthfiend]

This is a non-issue. The guy's a perv, but really, has anybody explained why this was a bad thing? The kid was 16. Not 11. Not 8. Not pre-natal. If anything, it's a moral grey-area.

Basically the reason it is a bad thing is

1. Foley is what, like, fifty years old? I mean look if some guy in his 20s is hitting on guys who are 17, that's a moral grey area. A guy who's fifty picking up high school kids, not so much.

2. These are kids for whom Foley is acting in an official position as a figure of authority. When I was in high school, it turned up that a teacher had been hitting on students, nobody spent a whole lot of time worrying whether that was any kind of gray area. This is pretty much the same thing.

Like it has been said, it truly wasn't THAT bad a thing. It was like Clinton. It wasn't so much that he had sex with Lewinsky and the other girls. It was him lying while under oath that really had the shit thrown at him.

It was not at all the lying under oath that had shit thrown at him, it was the Republican congress having Clinton perpetually under investigation since 1994, coming up with any amount of bullshit allegations, and then a blowjob was the best excuse they could find to throw shit at him. As far as lying, I mean what, is there some conceivable universe where Clinton could have admitted he banged an intern, and the Republican leadership wouldn't have gone into all-out Scandal Mode over Clinton banging interns?

I mean honestly, the lying? In the whole scope of that investigation, lying about that blowjob was like you're on trial for murder, and then the prosecutor asks by the way did you buy your mother a birthday present this year? And you say oh yeah totally, even though you didn't.

But if the Democrats win because of this? If Foley dominates the election and overshadows the issues we should be talking about? I'd be disappointed.

That'd be fine, if the media hadn't shown a studied inability to give a shit about the issues we 'should' be talking about. We just legalized torture! We just legalized torture, and suspended habeas corpus, and the media by and large just can't bother giving a shit. When it came out that US soldiers are beating prisoners and defacing Korans in Guantanamo Bay? the media pitches a month-long fit about defaced Korans in Guantanamo bay. I mean good Mercy, they won't even report on the soldiers who've died in Iraq, they refuse to even acknolwedge the existence of them. So you know what, if this is what someone can manage to get the press exercised about, then fine.

And you know to be honest, this is of a piece with every damn awful thing the Republicans have done in the last six years, which is take a position of responsibility, pay lip service to whatever it is they're supposed to be doing, and then venially exploit that position of authority in service of their own incontinence and greed and hunger for even more power. I mean I'd be thrilled if it were, say, the naked profiteering in the war on Iraq was the act of hypocritical selfishness that brought down the Republican congress. Or if the continued use of tragedy as a lever to grab powers that undermine our government without making us one damn bit safer from tragedy, I'd love to see that as the act of hypocritical selfishness that brings down the Republican congress. But you know what, I'm perfectly happy to settle for a Republican congressman taking advantage of sixteen year old boys, and the Republican leadership covering it up, all under the auspices of a party that pretends to support 'family values', being the act of corrupt, venial hypocricy that brings down the Republican party.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

You know what the really annoying thing is? No matter WHICH political party you choose, there's going to be corruption and bad things happen. It's a lose lose situation. The difference between Republicans and Democrats, as far as my foreigner eyes can see, is that they blow different horns in an attempt to appeal to people of different belief systems.

But in the end, both parties have a selection of corrupt officials. Thats government, and it can't be avoided. Thats why we can vote them out. ^^

And my political leanings and views are very similar to Solid Snake's from what I've read, but still... ewww. That was almost as bad as when the Liberal party in Canada kept it legal for 14 year olds to have sex with 50 years olds.

So you guys think you have it bad? In Canada, Foley would have been perfectly within his rights. Whoot.

[steve11]

FifthFiend you made some decent points, and then ruined it with an ultra-leftist “blame the republicans they are the root of all evil” rant at the end.

In truth both parties are equally as corrupt, screw the common citizen over, scandalous, and poor for our nation. The only difference is who’s cup of poisoned Kool-aid you think tastes better going down. The democratic party is just as bad, and has just as many rotten apples in it.

The issue is that which ever party is in power at the time, becomes a target so we only see their faults dragged into the media. It just goes back and forth. When you take the time to look at history rationally, you will find that their behavior mimics each other.

It’s an endless cycle. A group of reformists get into power to stop the abuse of power. Yet once they have power they become the abusers, then the other party gets in and the cycle repeats endlessly.

I’m a democrat, and I have no love for this administration and there are several republicans that need to go, there are others (Warner, McCain, and Graham come to mind) that are doing a stellar job (in so much as they can). By the same venue there are some democrats (Lieberman, Mrs. Clinton) who are nothing but trouble and need to go.

I’m all for having a democratic dominated congress, but I’m not going to lie to myself that they somehow have a moral high ground or are any less corrupt. Furthermore I’m confident that given enough time in power, that democratic congress will start to have the same type of scandals.

This is why I think that a balance of power is best, because it prevents either side from getting firmly entrenched and worrying to much about holding on to power and to little about moving forward.

[Althane]

Because I was too busy to read all the previous posts:

1. Democrats were bad because they used this for political gain.

2. Republicans were bad because they hid it.

3. Libertarians win.

Oh, well, scratch the third step.

Anyways, yes, horrific abuse of power, rather peverted too (what, he so hard up 'cause his wife is frigid or something?)

*sighs*

Personally, I think that both parties should admit their corruption, and cut it out. But, like I said in another thread, we're all corrupt, and politicians are just in more public denial of it.

[Fifthfiend]

FifthFiend you made some decent points, and then ruined it with an ultra-leftist “blame the republicans they are the root of all evil” rant at the end.

In truth both parties are equally as corrupt, screw the common citizen over, scandalous, and poor for our nation. The only difference is who’s cup of poisoned Kool-aid you think tastes better going down. The democratic party is just as bad, and has just as many rotten apples in it.

The issue is that which ever party is in power at the time, becomes a target so we only see their faults dragged into the media. It just goes back and forth. When you take the time to look at history rationally, you will find that their behavior mimics each other.

It’s an endless cycle. A group of reformists get into power to stop the abuse of power. Yet once they have power they become the abusers, then the other party gets in and the cycle repeats endlessly.

I’m a democrat, and I have no love for this administration and there are several republicans that need to go, there are others (Warner, McCain, and Graham come to mind) that are doing a stellar job (in so much as they can). By the same venue there are some democrats (Lieberman, Mrs. Clinton) who are nothing but trouble and need to go.

I’m all for having a democratic dominated congress, but I’m not going to lie to myself that they somehow have a moral high ground or are any less corrupt. Furthermore I’m confident that given enough time in power, that democratic congress will start to have the same type of scandals.

This is why I think that a balance of power is best, because it prevents either side from getting firmly entrenched and worrying to much about holding on to power and to little about moving forward.

If "ultra-leftist" is your word for "actually reads the news and pays attention to things" then fine, I'm an ultra-leftist.

The Democratic party is just as corrupt as the Republican party? No, it's not. The modern Republican party is systemically and institutionally corrupt, in a way beyond anything that has every been done by the modern Democratic party, and is dedicated to running the government in a way meant to enrich themselves and their contributors, to the complete exculsion of anything approaching the public interest.

I'm under no illusions that the Democrats are saints, but I'm not about to pretend the Republicans are anything other than massively worse on just about every level, just because hearing that happens to upset you.

Declaring all options equally bad is an great way to avoid never having to seriously evaluate any of them. If you want to believe that all politics is poison then fine, that's your excuse, but personally I'm willing to look at the actual policies and politics these two parties have advanced and say that in a world of imperfect options, well, one of these options remains much, much better than the other option. You can blame that on my hyperleftist liberal brain-fever if you like, but there it is.

[steve11]

No you're not reading the news and looking at the facts, you're looking at both parties with your political blinders on and seeing only what you want to see. Even this response smells of one sided party fanatical behavior.

Democrats have rigged elections, sent money to big oil, raped our economy, had affairs with interns/pages, been paid off, supported racism, and taken bribes in the past. They are historically just as bad, and have run the government to help them and their backers in the past. You can say "but not modern democrats" all you want but that arguement is worthless because they haven't controlled congress which prevented them from doing that. The truth is the party in control always acts like a bunch of jerks.

This doesn't excuse the republicans and what they have done recently. But to grandstand and say "The Republcians are worse across the board and the Democrats are bad" is the same kind of one sided fanatical behavior that the Evangelical Christians have about the Republicans, and it's based of just as little reason and just as much emotion.

The democarts are not much better at all, they stink just as bad but in a slightly different way.

Currently the only political parties I'd say are better are the smaller ones. Want change vote that way, those are better parties that aren't corrupt. But don't preach party superiority when you're backing one of the top two groups of crooks, just because you like grape kool-aid more then orange.

Of course though independant thinking is dead in America today, we all vote the party because the other side is a bigger bunch of ass goblins.

[Ryanderman]

Of course though independant thinking is dead in America today, we all vote the party because the other side is a bigger bunch of ass goblins. And thus, third parties don't have a chance of winning any national election. The only thing they can do is swing the votes towards one particular party by stealing votes from the party closest to them ideologically. But that still keeps the two parties in control and actually puts the worse party (from the point of view of the third party) in power. And even if a third party gain power, how many months would it be until they succumbed to the corruption that pluages Washington?

I voted the exact way that's keeping the two parties in power back in 2004. It was my first time voting, and I very much wanted to vote for the Libertarian candidate. (I think his name was Badnarik) But I couldn't stand John Kerry as a person or as a politician, and I knew Badnarik didn't stand a chance. So I held my nose and pulled the lever for Bush.

Being slightly more politically savy now, I know that since I live in New York my vote for Bush was meaningless as New York is always a lock for the Democrat. I wish I had voted for the Libertarian.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

But to grandstand and say "The Republcians are worse across the board and the Democrats are bad" is the same kind of one sided fanatical behavior that the Evangelical Christians have about the Republicans, and it's based of just as little reason and just as much emotion.

First of all, while I agree with your sentiments, bringing religious leanings into the issue is unfair. I'm an Evangelical Christian and I'm perfectly willing to admit that Republicans are bad. I figure that about all governments.

I don't think Democrats are worse across the board, and I actually agree with them on SOME (not all) policies.

We're not talking about why the Republicans get votes, we're talking that they did a bad thing, and your point is that the Democrats also would do bad things. You can leave it at that without putting viewpoints into the heads of us Evangelical Christians which only a minority of us actually have.

[Ryanderman]

First of all, while I agree with your sentiments, bringing religious leanings into the issue is unfair. I'm an Evangelical Christian and I'm perfectly willing to admit that Republicans are bad. I figure that about all governments.

I don't think Democrats are worse across the board, and I actually agree with them on SOME (not all) policies.

We're not talking about why the Republicans get votes, we're talking that they did a bad thing, and your point is that the Democrats also would do bad things. You can leave it at that without putting viewpoints into the heads of us Evangelical Christians which only a minority of us actually have.
Unfortunately, it's not a minority. Or if it is, it's hugely more vocal than the majority. I'm an Evangelical myself, and I know a lot of people who fanatically follow the Republican party just because that's what "we're supposed to do." This stereotype is sadly based on some truth.

But then again, I know several Evangelical Christians who are staunch liberals, so it's not all one way.

[Lockeownzj00]

am I supposed to feel ashamed for being a Republican voter now?

Well...yes.

And while I'll certainly be along with you guys to admit that it's blatant "manipulation," you have to realize that this is politics. It's not a platitudel; it's just true. What is this fanciful utopia which people imagine to be true where politicians just debate each other and concede to the most vigilant candidate, where the voters make rational decisions based on logical reasons?

I implore you to look at any point in history, especially American, and point to a period where "mud-slinging" wasn't common practice. Surely there are greater degrees of it, and some are uncalled for, but I find the "shock" that the story is being spun entirely laughable. What do you expect? Their job is to create conflict and exploit it for their own ends, and I dare you to find a case where that's not true.

All the "rational" politicans get the proverbial boot or are swept aside because people aren't paying attention to that. The Foley scandal, while a non-issue logically, is the quintessential "political" topic.


1. Foley is what, like, fifty years old? I mean look if some guy in his 20s is hitting on guys who are 17, that's a moral grey area. A guy who's fifty picking up high school kids, not so much.

It's skeevy. It's...kind of weird. It's a fragile "relationship." But it's really hardly a moral gray area. Tell me, when you were 16 or 17, were you this innocent, lost child in terms of sex? Probably not. Chances are, you probably sought it out yourself. Now, I'll venture to say that this kid didn't find Foley, it was the other way around, but the point is, he's not some 9 year old with a half-developed brain thinking that Foley has candy in his pants. It's just deeper levels of perversion being exposed publically.

But I couldn't stand John Kerry as a person or as a politician, and I knew Badnarik didn't stand a chance. So I held my nose and pulled the lever for Bush.

So wait--you could stand Bush as a person and a politician? I'm having trouble understanding this.


First of all, while I agree with your sentiments, bringing religious leanings into the issue is unfair.

Yeah man, stop even vaguely hinting at bringing about any kind of critical thought in terms of religion in the public discourse! Let's continue to give it a free pass and pretend it's simultaneously an incredibly important facet of our lives yet somehow outside of the realm every issue! </end>

[Ryanderman]

So wait--you could stand Bush as a person and a politician? I'm having trouble understanding this. A lot more so than John Kerry.

My point was that I picked what to me was the lesser of two evils, instead of voting for who I really wanted to win. And that's what a lot of people do, thus keeping the two parties in power when really neither deserve to be.

[subreci]

An argument can be made that Democrats are worse than Republicans, but it can also be argued that Republicans are worse than Democrats. Now I'm not suggesting that you should avoid seriously examining each party, but at one point it must be realized that the whole point of obtaining a position of power in the government is to abuse that power, whether that be in the form of accepting bribes, appointing your friends to places of power, allowing your campaign contributors to write your laws, or even making sexual advances on your interns. It should be expected that our representatives will do this when put into power, but we refuse to accept the obvious: the reason jobs in our government are desirable at all are that they give those who have them justification for abusing their power without consequence. Without this abuse of power, Congress wouldn’t attract anyone with any skill, after all the salary is less than what these people could make in the private sector.

Now, on the whole Mike Foley scandal, I have a problem seeing why there was outrage at all. The girls had reached the age of consent, so it wasn’t legality. Besides which, every man knows that you use what you can to get laid. If you’re incredibly handsome, you use that to your advantage; if you’re a member of a famous band, you use that to your advantage; if you’re incredibly rich, you use that to your advantage; if you’re a senator, you use that to your advantage. If you’re problem with this whole incident is that the girls were a third of Foley’s age, I can understand that, but is that truly wrong? Is it so much different that a fourteen year old boy masturbating to a picture of a girl three times his age? And since when is it morally reprehensible to send sexually explicit drunk messages, and if it has always been so, why hasn’t anyone told me? All I know is that if I were a senator, I would probably send sexually explicit messages to girls a third of my age while I was drunk, too, but then again, I am an asshole.

[Fifthfiend]

MODERATION

No you're not reading the news and looking at the facts, you're looking at both parties with your political blinders on and seeing only what you want to see. Even this response smells of one sided party fanatical behavior.

...

But to grandstand and say "The Republcians are worse across the board and the Democrats are bad" is the same kind of one sided fanatical behavior that the Evangelical Christians have about the Republicans, and it's based of just as little reason and just as much emotion.

...

You've personally insulted me twice now. I promise you, one more will be your last. If all you can offer in support of your views is calling me a raving irrational fanatic, you can and will be removed.

For someone talking about other people's emotionality, you're doing an awful lot of calling other people jerks and idiots for their failure to agree with you, and not an awful lot of offering much of anything in the way of reasoning or evidence for your views.

If you want to disagree then fine, that's what this forum is for, but you will keep the ridiculous ideological slurs and declarations of insanity of anybody who doesn't agree with you the fuck off of this forum.

/MODERATION

I may have a substantive, non-moddy response to you, at some point in the future when I'm not on my lunch break, but I thought I should get the no, name calling is not okay point made, right off.

...

Anyway, in response to the "The democrats just leaked this so they could win the election":

Longtime Republican was source of e-mails
By Alexander Bolton (http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news2.html)

The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.

That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.

The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.

But the whistleblower was a paid GOP staffer when the documents were first given to the media.

The source bolstered the claim by sharing un-redacted e-mails in which the former page first alerted his congressional sponsor’s office of Foley’s attentions. The copies of these e-mails, now available to the public, have the names of senders and recipients blotted out.

These revelations mean that Republicans who are calling for probes to discover what Democratic leaders and staff knew about Foley’s improper exchanges with under-age pages will likely be unable to show that the opposition party orchestrated the scandal now roiling the GOP just a month away from the midterm elections.

So, there's that.

[Mannix]

I dunno if I believe the whole "democrats sat on this until an opportune time" schtick, because wouldn't a far far faaaaaaaar more opportune time have been, say the 2004 elections? You know, the one where they were trying to get a president elected?

[steve11]

That wasn't an insult, but if you qualify it at as one then you've insulted me personally as well. If you want things to calm down then fine.

The ideological issue isn't a slur. It's a known fact that the republican base is largely comprimised of Evangelical christians and it's a core port of Karl Rove's "get out the base at the last hour" strategy that put this administration in power. It's gut level emotional politics, along the same lines as the lefts "republicans are warmongering buisnessmen out to make a profit off the lives of Americans".

I'm sorry if you take this post as trying to pick a fight with you but comparing something (or contrasting it) to fanatical behavior is not an insult. It's simply pointing out similarities in view points and punch lines. Which is very important in debate to insure both sides keep away from extremist jargon and logic. It's not an attack on the person, but a counter to the arguement.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

MODERATION
...

You've personally insulted me twice now. I promise you, one more will be your last. If all you can offer in support of your views is calling me a raving irrational fanatic, you can and will be removed.

For someone talking about other people's emotionality, you're doing an awful lot of calling other people jerks and idiots for their failure to agree with you, and not an awful lot of offering much of anything in the way of reasoning or evidence for your views.


Just a small point here... if you weren't a moderator, (or if he was saying this to someone else) would he be banned for what he was saying? Because it doesn't really seem like flaming to me, and he's been very rational about it all.

Otherwise if you're going to enter into a debate, and be upset and ban someone if they think you're way off base, perhaps you shouldn't because then you're abusing the powers of a moderator. In which case its much like the corruption of a government which you are saying exists.

I'll probably get banned for this, but it will prove my point. Your "debate" self and your "moderator" self should be seperate entities. Its not very fair if you just say a point, and then someone else says your point is irrational, and you ban them for it. Instead you should explain why your point isn't irrational. He was saying the point was bad, not you, hence not flaming. After all, just because you as a debater takes personal offense to something doesn't make it against the rules. And he was arguing with your debate, not with you as a mod.

[Meister]

Just a small point here... if you weren't a moderator, (or if he was saying this to someone else) would he be banned for what he was saying?
Well, as far as I can see, maybe not outright banned, but good discussion style is certainly something else if that's what you mean.

I'll probably get banned for this, but it will prove my point.
Look, would it kill you to not announce "I AM READY TO BECOME A MARTYR FOR THE CAUSE" whenever you're debating with a moderator? All of you? It's annoying, it's unfair debating style, and it won't do shit to protect you from getting banned if you do overstep the lines.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Look, would it kill you to not announce "I AM READY TO BECOME A MARTYR FOR THE CAUSE" whenever you're debating with a moderator? All of you? It's annoying, it's unfair debating style, and it won't do shit to protect you from getting banned if you do overstep the lines.

Point taken, and I apologize. But in all fairness to me, there was a ban threat made for disagreeing with a mod about a non-mod based issue just previously, so banning wasn't an unreasonable assumption.

But onto the actual topic, given time in power the Democrats would clearly become just as corrupt. Its both human and political nature for that to happen. As for the Republicans, I think they simply got screwed over with a naive, unwise leader who allows the evil people to take advantage.

I.E. I don't think Bush himself is evil. Just unintelligent. And not an oh so great leader-of-the-free world. I think the people who work for him are evil. So I don't think the democrats are less evil... just smarter... and Mark Foley is a dirty old man. End of story.

[steve11]

But onto the actual topic, given time in power the Democrats would clearly become just as corrupt. Its both human and political nature for that to happen. As for the Republicans, I think they simply got screwed over with a naive, unwise leader who allows the evil people to take advantage.

Very true. In fact the democrats were just as corrupt when they controled congress. This is the problem with our government. Great example is the current republicans. After decades of a corrupt democrat congress the republicans gained power 12 years ago to "reform" things and straighten it out, under Clinton. And while they did, once they had power they did everything to hold onto it and now are just as corrupt at the democrats were before them.

It's time for a change, but the democrats will end up doing the same thing, and then it will be time for a change again. No party can be left in power for to long.

It's an intrinsic problem with our 2 party system.

I.E. I don't think Bush himself is evil. Just unintelligent. And not an oh so great leader-of-the-free world. I think the people who work for him are evil.

I tend to agree. I'd call Bush ham handed, regardless of his intentions he is to stupid to go about it the right way.

So I don't think the democrats are less evil... just smarter...

They just aren't in power, so their problems aren't main stream media. When they are in power that will change. And if left in power to long we will end up with the democrats screwing us over just as bad.

If only we could get more parties in power. I'd love to see the libertarians and the green party get some seats, that would shake things up.

[Fifthfiend]

Oh wow, I really cannot believe any of this.

MODERATION

That wasn't an insult, but if you qualify it at as one then you've insulted me personally as well. If you want things to calm down then fine.

The ideological issue isn't a slur. It's a known fact that the republican base is largely comprimised of Evangelical christians and it's a core port of Karl Rove's "get out the base at the last hour" strategy that put this administration in power. It's gut level emotional politics, along the same lines as the lefts "republicans are warmongering buisnessmen out to make a profit off the lives of Americans".

I'm sorry if you take this post as trying to pick a fight with you but comparing something (or contrasting it) to fanatical behavior is not an insult. It's simply pointing out similarities in view points and punch lines. Which is very important in debate to insure both sides keep away from extremist jargon and logic. It's not an attack on the person, but a counter to the arguement.

Um, what? Are you kidding me?

1. The issue of ideology in politics is not a slur. The issue of you describing me personally as an ultra-leftist grandstanding fanatic is, absolutely, a slur.

2. A counter to the argument? No, sorry, dismissing an argument as irrational is in no way, shape, or form a counter to the argument. What it is, is a nakedly dishonest dodge that attempts to invalidate an argument, without ever having to actually respond to or evaluate it.

Here, let's look at an example:

If "ultra-leftist" is your word for "actually reads the news and pays attention to things" then fine, I'm an ultra-leftist.

No you're not reading the news and looking at the facts, you're looking at both parties with your political blinders on and seeing only what you want to see. Even this response smells of one sided party fanatical behavior.

I inform you that my views come from reading on current affairs and attempting to critically about issues. You tell me that, no, my views are actually the product of me being incapable of breaking the thrall which the Democratic Party holds over my mind. How exactly am I supposed to respond to that, now? Video-tape myself reading a newspaper? Get out my archive on every single piece of information I've ever read that has shaped my opinion? Actually physically remove my brain and deliver it to you for inspection? Sorry but no, I am not going to take upon myself the burden of proving to you, to your personal satisfaction, that I am not insane. It's a ridiculous game and I refuse to play it.

In fact here, look --


Very true. In fact the democrats were just as corrupt when they controled congress. This is the problem with our government. Great example is the current republicans. After decades of a corrupt democrat congress the republicans gained power 12 years ago to "reform" things and straighten it out, under Clinton. And while they did, once they had power they did everything to hold onto it and now are just as corrupt at the democrats were before them.

That's only true in the world of ideologically blinded centrists whose interests have nothing to do with facts and everything to do with their own inability to actually inform themselves. Your fanatical insistence on hyper-centrism only shows that nothing you say can be taken seriously, ever. The truth of the matter is that you are wrong, and the sooner that you accept that you are wrong, the better.

-- See? It's a stupid game that anybody can play, and has vanishingly little to do with anything approximating actual discussion and exchagne of ideas.

I really am vanishingly unconcerned with what you've decided is 'extremist logic' and your self-appointed right to police it. If you can actually manage to respond to my views on their merits then that is fine, if all you can manage to do is label them extremist and subsequently dismiss them, then you can bloody well do it somewhere that is not this forum. You may find it unfortunate, but inasmuch as I continue to have any kind of place in deciding what is and is not appropriate conduct on this particular scrap of internet, you will absolutely be required to proceed from the assumption that your fellow forumite's views are in fact informed by reason, and respond to them accordingly.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Just a small point here... if you weren't a moderator, (or if he was saying this to someone else) would he be banned for what he was saying?

As far as what would happen if I wasn't a moderator, you'll have to ask the other moderators, because how they would have judged that situation is their business and I don't assume for a moment they'd have agreed with me. As far as what would happen had he said what he did to somebody else, he would absolutely and without qualification have gotten the exact same warning he got for saying what he did.

In fact no, wait, that's not entirely true. If he'd said what he did to somebody else, you know what? He would already be banned off this forum. Because after he called this hypothetical person an ultra-rightist or an ultra-centrist, I would not have wasted any time whatsoever trying to argue with him that this person's views were valid despite his claim of their ideological inacceptability. I would in fact have warned him straight away that such behavior was unacceptable. So by the time he got to his subsequent post, going on about this person's hyper-fascist Nazi grandstanding or whatever, I would have been altogether happy to ban him.

I absolutely can and have warned and banned people on this forum for behavior that is similar to Steve's, where it was not directed at me. Even in cases where people are espousing views with which I agree, I have absolutely been willing to warn or ban them for expressing those views in a way which is uncivil towards their fellow forumites.

I'll probably get banned for this, but it will prove my point. Your "debate" self and your "moderator" self should be seperate entities. Its not very fair if you just say a point, and then someone else says your point is irrational, and you ban them for it. Instead you should explain why your point isn't irrational. He was saying the point was bad, not you, hence not flaming. After all, just because you as a debater takes personal offense to something doesn't make it against the rules. And he was arguing with your debate, not with you as a mod.

That is the fucking stupidest thing I've ever heard, absolute numb-skullery at its finest. Actually no, wait --

First of all, while I agree with your sentiments, bringing religious leanings into the issue is unfair. I'm an Evangelical Christian and I'm perfectly willing to admit that Republicans are bad. I figure that about all governments.

I don't think Democrats are worse across the board, and I actually agree with them on SOME (not all) policies.

We're not talking about why the Republicans get votes, we're talking that they did a bad thing, and your point is that the Democrats also would do bad things. You can leave it at that without putting viewpoints into the heads of us Evangelical Christians which only a minority of us actually have.

-- That, now, that is some real stupidity. Just honestly, I can't imagine why you insist on saying things that are so witlessly bone-headed.

...

Now do you see what I did there? All of that was a response to your words. AND YET! All of that, was pretty undeniably flaming! Those were absolutely horrible things to say to another person and have no business whatsoever on this forum.

Just a few days ago, one of our forum members commented on some of our member's comics. His comments were that these comics were stupid, badly made, and utterly without merit. And for that he got banned! Did he say anything about our members personally? That they themselves were incapable of producing a good comic perhaps? No, his comments were on the whole directed entirely at the work these members had produced. And yet flaming it remains.

Now I have spent the last two hours explaining why people are not allowed to come onto this forum and call me a raving radical fanatic nut-case. I really sincerely hope that is enough for all of you.

/MODERATION

[ArlanKels]

But onto the actual topic, given time in power the Democrats would clearly become just as corrupt.

Democrats are most likely already as corrupt, if not more so. The issue is that you can not readily see this due to the fact that their corruption is not at the forefront of the papers, given the greater number of Republicans in power and how our president currently is a Republican.

I seem to remember one time a while back someone commented to me about how Clinton had done something which was quite corrupt-ish...can't remember what it was, though.
:stressed:
BRAIN NO WORK

[steve11]

@Fith

I think you are taking “extremist” as insult, it’s not. I’m an extreme centrist, and proud to be one. Extreme just means you are on the fringe of said view point, and dedicated to it, There is nothing wrong with it, unless you let it could your judgement and get overly defensive about it. Perhaps if I define my extreme viewpoint you won’t take it as in insult. I fine it’s best for people grasp where they stand.

As an extreme centrist I feel both the left and right have issues, but the truth lies in the middle. It’s best not to pick a party (though I am a democrat) but to pick the politician. Extreme centrists (such as my self) are social liberals, fiscal conservatives, and central foreign policy. That’s text book.

I don’t get offended when people classify me as such because I don’t think it’s a bad mindpoint to have. Call me an ultra extreme centrist and I’m proud to be one, I think my political persuasion is the correct one, and I can defend it. And as such I’m not afraid to defend my standpoint with facts and arguements, however I will point out when somebody takes the ultra left, or ultra right view point on things. It’s a viewpoint and it can be extreme, all political viewpoints can be.

One of the biggest failures in political logic is to ignore the fact that you can be extreme, center, left, right, whatever, it’s all possible.

But I don't consider my extreme centrist debate point, the same person I am. It's not the same issue and I don't attach an ego to it. However in a true and honest debate, you must go with your gut.

[Krylo]

Great example is the current republicans. After decades of a corrupt democrat congress the republicans gained power 12 years ago to "reform" things and straighten it out, under Clinton. And while they did, once they had power they did everything to hold onto it and now are just as corrupt at the democrats were before them.

Um... Clinton was a democrat. The republicans have only been in power for eight years, six of which have been used being corrupted, writing away freedoms, and fighting shitty wars.

Really, the "Once they've been in control so long any party gets corrupted" quasi-defense of the republicans (I say quasi, because it's less defending them and more attempting to denigrate the democrats to the same level) falls apart when you realize that the democrats had power for four years and the worst they did was have sex with an intern, while the Republicans have power for four years and... well, guantanemo bay was already breaking geneva convention before the start of the second term. Not to mention the original write up of the patriot act they tried to push through and... well, everything they've done since Bush was elected, period.

[steve11]

I know Clinton was a democrat. The republicans stormed congress and started their reformation in 1994 that's 12 years ago.

Prior to that we had close to 40 years of democrat power and screw ups.


;)

[POS Industries]

Look, would it kill you to not announce "I AM READY TO BECOME A MARTYR FOR THE CAUSE" whenever you're debating with a moderator? All of you? It's annoying, it's unfair debating style, and it won't do shit to protect you from getting banned if you do overstep the lines.

It's one of those ideas that gets spread in dark, hushed corners around here. "Oh, don't try to argue with Shiney/Mashirosen/Krylo/Fifthfiend/Whoever.... They'll ban you just for looking at them funny, they will!" Seriously, if that's the case I don't wanna play anymore.

And have you noticed all the playing I do around here, by the way?

Back on topic....

Democrats have rigged elections, sent money to big oil, raped our economy, had affairs with interns/pages, been paid off, supported racism, and taken bribes in the past.

I've highlighted errors here, just to note. The first is minor and I think you meant to say "received money from big oil" rather than "sent money to big oil", because the latter would actually be awful nice of them. Might lower gas prices a bit.

The second point has to do with the fact that, over the past fourty years, it has been largely the democratic party that has taken the most effective steps in reinvigorating the economy, and the rise and falls of our overall economic standing have largely fluxuated with the party in power of the Executive branch, being that things were moreover good after FDR took office up through to Nixon, when things started going haywire during his and Ford's administrations. Ford, if you'll recall, couldn't think of anything to do except produce "Whip Inflation Now" buttons for everyone in America to wear under the idea that inflation would just realize it was unwelcome and go home. Now, the less said about Carter's run the better, because it didn't much matter in the grand scheme of things, but afterword things only got worse during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years. Clinton takes office and we suddenly have a budget surplus and jobs and social programs and the country actually running again. The Dubya comes into power and the economy tanks again. Coincidence? No.

Thirdly, what the hell? Are you thinking of the Civil War era parties here? Because that doesn't fucking count and you know it. The antebellum Democratic party ceased to exist after 1865, leaving only the Republican party in existance. Years when by and the party split into two halves, the stalwarts (conservatives) and half-breeds (liberals), the latter eventually breaking off to form the modern Democratic party.

I know Clinton was a democrat. The republicans stormed congress and started their reformation in 1994 that's 12 years ago.

Prior to that we had close to 40 years of democrat power and screw ups.


;)

You know what? See above. Yeah, total screw ups, all of them. I sure hate black folks drinking out of my water fountains, that's for sure....

[Deck Knight]

The second point has to do with the fact that, over the past fourty years, it has been largely the democratic party that has taken the most effective steps in reinvigorating the economy, and the rise and falls of our overall economic standing have largely fluxuated with the party in power of the Executive branch, being that things were moreover good after FDR took office up through to Nixon, when things started going haywire during his and Ford's administrations. Ford, if you'll recall, couldn't think of anything to do except produce "Whip Inflation Now" buttons for everyone in America to wear under the idea that inflation would just realize it was unwelcome and go home. Now, the less said about Carter's run the better, because it didn't much matter in the grand scheme of things, but afterword things only got worse during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years. Clinton takes office and we suddenly have a budget surplus and jobs and social programs and the country actually running again. The Dubya comes into power and the economy tanks again. Coincidence? No.

Yeah, send my thanks to LBJ (not a Republican) for starting the Vietnam War, which NIXON had to clean up after. You wonder why Nixon's economic troubles were so bad? LBJ left him a fat fricking war to deal with. I find it amusing you think economic policy is dictated by the President, when it is CONGRESS that has the power of the purse. Clinton got his surplus because a fiscally conservative congress kept him in check, not because Clinton wouldn't have spent a fortune of Hillary-care. And things were real bad for taxpayers in the Reagan years, all those taxes "for the rich" decreasing everywhere (and by rich, I mean, everyone who actually paid taxes, meaning those not on welfare living off the aforementioned taxpayers). And of course, forget Carter, he's not important. Nothing to see here folks, no deflection or anything.

Thirdly, what the hell? Are you thinking of the Civil War era parties here? Because that doesn't fucking count and you know it. The antebellum Democratic party ceased to exist after 1865, leaving only the Republican party in existance.

Mighty convenient... but not supported by history. According to wikipedia, the party started in 1828-32, and "Democratic" was first used in 1834. But it sure would be nice if the Democratic Party's racist roots just happened to dissapear into obscurity, wouldn't it?

Years when by and the party split into two halves, the stalwarts (conservatives) and half-breeds (liberals), the latter eventually breaking off to form the modern Democratic party.


You know what? See above. Yeah, total screw ups, all of them. I sure hate black folks drinking out of my water fountains, that's for sure....

Yeah, its not like the first Republican President wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. And it isn't like they didn't try to spearhead every single solitary piece of civil rights legislation.

But you are right, modern day Republicans are ALWAYS playing the Race Card. People like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Cynthia McKinney, Deval Patrick, Ned Lamont's blogging cohorts, those evil Republicans throwing orea cookies at Democrat Michael Steele.

Oh wait, Sorry, all those people above were DEMOCRATS (except Steele, who is running for Senate as a Republican in Maryland), and all those events transpired within the last 365 days or less.

But yeah, Republicans are SO totally racist. Mitt Romney once used the word macaca when referring to the sticky wickit that is the big dig. George Allen swore once I think, and I'm pretty sure Jerry Falwell may possibly hate black people, he's an Evangelical Christian you know.

[Mirai Gen]

I think you are taking “extremist” as insult, it’s not.
Uh, Steve...
No you're not reading the news and looking at the facts, you're looking at both parties with your political blinders on and seeing only what you want to see. Even this response smells of one sided party fanatical behavior.

...

But to grandstand and say "The Republcians are worse across the board and the Democrats are bad" is the same kind of one sided fanatical behavior that the Evangelical Christians have about the Republicans, and it's based of just as little reason and just as much emotion.
As quoted from Fifthfiend's earlier post. You called his actions "Fanatical behavior," twice. I'm almost positive that's the insult in question, and I'm with him on it. I hate being told "Your actions are fanatical." How do you respond?

Anyway.

The rest of what you're saying, Steve, I can't even begin to debate about. As POS has already done, half of your statements are littered with "They've already done this. Just look at history. It's right there," which completely ignores the actual facts in light of your own proudly stated extreme centrist. I'm not going to get involved in that.

So, yeah. Mark Foley.

I'm with Locke on this one (surprise, right?). Of all the things I wanted to see happen when the republican party got shot through the heart, this wasn't one of them. Pedophilia? Hell, it's not even really pedophilia. It's like post-pubescent-philia. How dull.

It is, however, deliciously ironic to have all of the soccor moms and old white rich republicans recoil in horror at one of their political leaders.

[steve11]

You know what? See above. Yeah, total screw ups, all of them. I sure hate black folks drinking out of my water fountains, that's for sure....

you are arware the the democrats were pro white power till it bit them in the ass in elections. they are the original race based party till they had to change.

Yeah, send my thanks to LBJ (not a Republican) for starting the Vietnam War, which NIXON had to clean up after. You wonder why Nixon's economic troubles were so bad? LBJ left him a fat fricking war to deal with. I find it amusing you think economic policy is dictated by the President, when it is CONGRESS that has the power of the purse. Clinton got his surplus because a fiscally conservative congress kept him in check, not because Clinton wouldn't have spent a fortune of Hillary-care. And things were real bad for taxpayers in the Reagan years, all those taxes "for the rich" decreasing everywhere (and by rich, I mean, everyone who actually paid taxes, meaning those not on welfare living off the aforementioned taxpayers). And of course, forget Carter, he's not important. Nothing to see here folks, no deflection or anything.

WOW holy crap another adult that actually understands what happened. Yeah the Regean years were not about him, nor were the good times under Clinton due to him. But all in all a solid 20 years of making money

[Meister]

Uh, take the non-Mark Foley related Republicans vs. Democrats discussion somewhere else, please. I'm sure they both have more than enough on their name.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

you are arware the the democrats were pro white power till it bit them in the ass in elections. they are the original race based party till they had to change.

Well yes & no. The party started to take on members who wanted more equality, and this changed the Democratic party from within. I think there were also some defections from the Dem party as a result of this switch. And this change took place over suceeding generations. If you look at either party, Republican or Democrat, you'd find that they've gradually been changing over the years.

(Sorry Meister, I was posting before you made your own post.)

SWB

[steve11]

Well yes & no. The party started to take on members who wanted more equality, and this changed the Democratic party from within. I think there were also some defections from the Dem party as a result of this switch. And this change took place over suceeding generations. If you look at either party, Republican or Democrat, you'd find that they've gradually been changing over the years.

SWB


True but all parties change, the issue is the centrists and where they gravitate.

Current centrists, J Kerry, J McCain, L Graham, W Clark, J warner, W. warner, j edwards, j webb.

Those people define centrist america, they can sway the vote and despite their party I don't have a problem with any of them.

[shiney]

As Meister said, back to Mark Foley.

And playing the "he/she is racist" card is a bit ridiculous these days. If homophobia is a form of racism, then I'd suggest that the republican party far and vastly outweighs the democratic, in many regards. It's senior executive member being the spokesman.

That said, I step from my soapbox and declare this thread to become as Meister specified.

[TBrauns]

I'm so tired of political posturing. Nothing actually gets DONE with this crap going on.

If the man did something illegal, throw him in prison and GET BACK TO WORK YOU STUPID CONGRESSPEOPLE. I don't pay you jackholes for your opinions on criminal acts. We all know they're all doing illegal shit up there, Foley just happened to get caught.

[TheSpacePope]

I'm so tired of political posturing. Nothing actually gets DONE with this crap going on.
I'm so tired of A party that will not allow two consenting Adult males get married, but will protect a party member that IM's underage boys and asks them to measure their penises.

But that, in fact, is totally not gay.
Not at all.

When can we split the republicans up into two groups, Conservative and Fucking scumbag?

Plus, the democrats knew about it and didn't blow the whistle, so obviosly thier motive was political posturing, not allowing the FBI to do their fucking jobs or anything.

The Dems didn't blow the whistle because no matter when they did it, it would be called posturing. Better to let the FBI do it.

*man it took me a long time to read this thread.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Plus, the democrats knew about it and didn't blow the whistle, so obviosly thier motive was political posturing, not allowing the FBI to do their fucking jobs or anything.

What are you talking about? While I know some Republicans & their mouthpiece have suggested that the Democrats have been holding onto this information for the sake of these elections, thus far I've seen no proof of that.

The closest link you can make, is a group (forget the name, but I think responsiblity was part of their title) that keeps tabs on Washington that had the e-mails that submitted them to the FBI, but then publically released them after the story broke. And from every indication I've read, the Republicans knew well in advance of this group (possibly going all the way back to Newt). Plus, this group, while maybe pro-Democrat, isn't the Democrat party. So again, I fail to see the link you're trying to make.

SWB