Mark Foley

[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

Originally Posted by 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.

...

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

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]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

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]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

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]

Originally Posted by Meister

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