Would you kindly provide a link to that poll?

There are two numbers. It is 6% based on Rasmussen. It is 11% based on Zogby.

Wrong.

If you're going to play Jabba the Hut to "lordhamlet" don't you think you should TRY and get his name right? It's lordhelmet, not "lord hamlet." One's Bill Shakespeare and the other is George Lucas. Clear now?




I've probably seen the words "hypocrites" and "hypocrisy" used more on than any week previous to this week. But hypocrisy is the greatest luxury and right now it's the party that proclaimed itself the paragons of "family values" and morality and all that jive that has been caught (almost literally) with their pants down and in a compromising position. It's comical watching Republicans saying, "Mark Foley? Who's he? Never heard of the guy."

A prank? You're seriously trying to hold on to the nutty idea that a six term Congressman in a guaranteed safe seat would resign and make himself a figure of national scorn and loathing based on a PRANK??? I knew some Righties had a tentative grip on reality when it came to Mark Foley, but this clinches it.

Do you really think "everybody does it" is any kind of defense for Mark Foley's disgusting actions? Talk about grabbing for straws.



You didn't mention where George Allen got his 11 point lead, TFI, so I'll do it for you. A Zogby poll had Allen up 11 points. But on SLATE, Allen is up 47.6% to James Webb's 42.4%. On the Gallup poll, Allen is only up by three points. Equally interesting not one Senate race is listed , so I wouldn't write that victory speech quite yet.

http://www.slate.com/id/2148600/?nav=tap3
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...te_race-14.html

I posted two polls, so don't get your panties in a wad. The fact that he's leading at all shows the Dem ploy failed miserbly. I'm telling you that you don't understand Virginia. Allen has always been popular in Virginia, if you want to sink his ship you'd better come up with something better than that. The whole thing was childish. You're just mad cause you had already written Webb's victory speech, hadn't you? Frankly I don't care about George Lucas, but you can go on quoting his stuff if you like. You have it all wrong, hypocrisy is what you see watching the Democrats and standing Clinton next to Bush. Bush has never been anything but respectful to Bill Clinton, giving him more respect than he deserves. Furthermore, Bush has never acted like Bill Clinton. No, take your blinders off so you can see clearly Mr. Hut. The Dems have yet to show a plan for what they would do beyond a bunch of Motherhood slogans. It's really sad that they want to get in by having the electorate vote against Reps instead for them.

Yeah. Really sad. Just like the fact that your entire post had ZERO to do with Mark Foley.

Write Webb's victory speech? What are you rattling on about? Personally, I don't have any stake in the Allen vs. Webb match-up. From what I understand Webb has had his own problems with using the "N-word" so if there was a way they could both lose, I'd whistle a happy tune.

The rest of your post is a just another off-topic anti-Democrat rant and has nothing to do with Foleygate.

Actually- what we in my biz see in Mr Foley is what we call "grooming"- they start being "all cool" with the illegal under-ager (usually it is a male to female- it is much more rare for same sex grooming) - and wait until the "barely legal" to come of age and then start with the naughty-naughty.

I think he would probably make the psych definition of pedophile without making the legal definition of pedophile- a distinction that is typically lost on the general public.

Foley is a predator. I am thinking he probably dodged the law on jail time from what I have read of what has been released.

I think he has dodged the bullet under his own legislation as well- it would be very hard to prove anyway- and, that has always been my beef with the "right wing moralists"- they have always demanded a much higher standard of proof for crummy behavior than they do of thier opposition- when you think the opposite would be true?


Doesn't make him any less of a predator though.

Geez, what happened to all the sweetness and light from exactly one month ago?



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=195654

Firstly, I think you need to look up the word 'Cliche'.

Secondly, 'what do I have to say about this'? Well let me think.

I originally posted this:

this is the lordhelmet school of desperate attack. When it is pointed out how the Republicans, or one republican in specific are morally corrupt and have serious problems, IGNORE the issue completely, and bring up 20+ year old cases where the Democrats did something similar.

Your devastating response in the last post, your effort to prove me wrong, was you bringing up a 26 year old case and a 33 year old case involving the democrats. You ignored the issue completely, and tried to shift blame/focus on generation-old examples of some democrats maybe doing something similar.

So, when you stridently ask: 'what do I have to say to that'? I guess in response to your 'rebuttal', I say this:

This is the lordhelmet school of desperate attack. When it is pointed out how the Republicans, or one republican in specific are morally corrupt and have serious problems, IGNORE the issue completely, and bring up 20+ year old cases where the Democrats did something similar.

I mean seriously, are you even reading the posts you are attacking?


And as for the rest of your vitrioloic tirade, lets break it down shall we?

-'The Democrats are only concerned about getting the house back'.

Well duh. Last I checked they were a political party. And are you suggesting that the Republicans would (and have) act any differently?

-'As the truth comes out about this being a prank, and probably much more the Dems will end up paying for this.'

A prank and much more? Please Founders Intent, be clear for us. Is it now your contention that Foley's actions were just a harmless prank, he did nothing whatsoever wrong, and it is entirely the fault of the democratic party? Its hard to weave through your angry assertions to get at your actual point, so please explain what you meant by Foley's actions being a 'prank and probably much more'...

As for the childish, pointless, insulting bits of your tirade:




...for that, I suggest a quick perusal of the AD rules, and then ratcheting back the absurdist neo-con extreme rhetoric, and spend all that violent energy making and supporting an actual point. Just a suggestion.

I didn't ask you to get involved in the info I posted on Allen. You did that on your own. Stop whining about lack of relevance to Foley. Maybe you shouldn't get involved in the conversation than.

Maybe you should review the rules Vermillion. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt you to ratchet back a bit.

Since I already stated that I think Foley was wrong and needs to face the consequences, I don't think I need to repeat that over and over, you can review my previous post on that if you have doubt. Some don't like the word hypocrisy, but I find it useful when past indiscretions of Democrats are treated differently than those of Republicans. If Democrats cannot hold a consistent standard, then they should expect the inconsistency to be brought to their attention. I believe there was a statement made here that that was then and this is now. Well I'm sorry but given the fact that many of the politicians then are still in office now, that thinking is wrong. The Democrats promote the distribution of condoms in schools, gay marriage and Nancy Pelosi marched in the Gay Pride Parade that also featured Harry Hay of NAMBLA, therefore I find it quite hypocritical for the Dems to voice any concern over the Foley issue.

Actually Founder's Intent I am quite happy to stand by my factual statements that THIS:



... IS absurdist neo-con extreme rhetoric. Are you willing to stand behind your statements made above? I am well aware of the rules, thank you, and your "I know you are but what am I" tactic doesn't even pass the laugh test.



Yes, that is true, you DID say that.

However, you ALSO said this:



A comment which seems to directly contradict your earlier statements, a comment I sked you to explain, and am still waiting.




Please. Condoms in school is the most utter non-issue on the planet, only the extreme religious conservatives still hold on to the fanciful belief that condoms somehow promotes sex amongst teenagers. But this is not the place for that.

Rather, I shall focus on the simple inane idea that, because The democrats have well researched, reasonable, logical and popular stances on issues you personally do not happen to agree with, thus they have NO CLAIM to voice any concern over a 53-year republican, sponsor of anti-child sex bills, attempting to prey on teenaged boys?

I mean that doesn't even make any sense.



By the way, as an aside, not only have you not been reading what others write, you apparently have not been reading what YOU write. Go back to post #49, when you listed two people caught in a generation old sex scandal with pages, then proceeded to empty your spleen about how democrats are pure evil.

Did you notise that of your two examples, one was a Democrat, and the other was a Republican?

Oops.

Like this republican sex scandal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Schrock
Or this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hyde
Or this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Livingston
Or this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Packwood
Or this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_%22Buz%22_Lukens
And so on. (Note, I'm sure there are plenty of democratic scandals too, thats not my point)

Gee, I guess that means ALL the bile you spewed about the Democrats applies equally to the republicans? After all it was them who kicked up a full about Clinton's sex scandal. What hypocrites, right? I mean, this is YOUR logic here, because the party was involved in a sex scandal decades ago, they have NO RIGHT to voice concern when the other party get involved in one now?

Or is your 'standard' more of a 'double standard'?

Oh, you don't have to ask me to get involved, TFI. This is an open board and I can reply to any post anytime anywhere I want.

Isn't democracy just super peachy-keen wonderful?



Yeah, yeah and Ted Bundy was a Republican and John Wayne Gacy a Democrat. Because Nancy Pelosi was in a parade with a freak from NAMBLA does that imply there is some guilt by association?

Because if it is, then there's a hellluva lot of Repubs like Dubya whom have been slimed by hanging out with Mark "Boy Toy" Foley.

Wow- going to a gay pride parade is a bad thing? I had no idea- I thought they were whopping good fun- much better than an anti-abortion parade- or any other "panties in a wad" republican "take your rights away for jesus" parade

Anyway- to get back on topic, I was just discussing this case with my co-worker, a PHD in psychology who is the state's expert witness in Pedophilia cases- and he says that Foley is a "no-brainer" for a pedophile diagnosis, but one of those "functional" pedophiles, that grooms his victims prior to age of consent, without overtly breaking the law, though, of course, highly unethical- and I made the observation of wondering if the FBI has gotten ahold of his personal computer and looked into his private porn collection yet- that is were you usually get the last word on the diagnosis- by thier porn- in Mark Foley's case, I am betting if they get ahold of it before he can destroy the evidence- there is some underage bad stuff going on in there!

Also- there is one other classic thing going on here- transference- Mark Foley wrote legislation he knew basically applied to him. It is like the preacher that really harps on the booze or gambling or prostitutes or anti-gay- they are transfering thier own personality failings to others.

Think of your friend that is a non-smoker after years of being a smoker- you ever noticed how over the top with the non-smoking thing they will go? It is the same kind of psychological quirk of human nature.

And that gets me back to the moralizing of the conservatives in this country- not dem or repub- but conservative- in almost every issue that deals with some "moralizing" behavior, that has no demonstratable harm to others- think gay marriage- they have some issue that is in themselves that forces them to put that issue on others.

I sure wish they could snatch Hastert's and Foleys personal computers though- boy, there would be a hot time in the old town tonight!

1.) The 'exploited' were minors and subject to the legal protections of the laws Foley felt inclined to support. There is no question in my mind that his actions were distasteful and unbecoming to a member of Congress (or for that matter, anybody anywhere). This sort of hypocrisy reminds me of 'No Law but the King.' Foley's oaths include upholding United States law. As a member of the body creating that law, he has a more exclusive window into the workings of such law. He should be jailed for simple stupidity more than the act of committing a sexual misconduct.

Having just read the Time article regarding the complete implosion of the republican party (you know - the party so called "conservative" posters here defend everyday), I've become more convinced Hastert's office participated in a cover up.

That "odd" and "over-friendly" email was Foley asking a page for what he called "a pic". The page forwarded this email on with the message "sick sick sick sick". Anybody that defends that email with the "well, it could have meant anything" needs to go to work for Bill Clinton. In my opinion, it takes a boatload of intellectual dishonesty to defend these "innocuous" emails because they were anything but. It's like defending someone who gave another "the finger" by saying, "well, it could have been any finger". It defies common sense. Foley was preying on house pages and just like everything else, the republican party did nothing to not risk losing power. In fact, the only democrat on the house page committee was not told.

But the article brought up an excellent point I hadn't heard discussed - while the republicans continue to blame the democrats and George Soros, would they rather nobody have said anything and let this abhorrent behavior continue?

The republican party should hang their head in shame because of the damage they've done to this country (by primarily making the democratic party a viable choice). The republican party will not hang their head in shame because it would require principles they no longer have. It's all about staying in power at any cost.

If his case qualifies, yes!. As far as I understand it, the bill has mandatory minimums. Given that this is a "first" for him in regards to being charged, I'm not certain what his sentence would be or how long it would be. At any rate, I fail to see any reason why he shouldn't be punished for the same things that he legislated so hard against.

Watch this and you'll wonder how he could keep a straight face.

Questions for debate:

1. Do you believe Mark Foley should goto jail under legislation he helped get passed in congress for his sexual exploitations online?

Not sure and if he does he should take Studds with him and perhaps Barny Frank.

IN 1983, REPRESENTATIVE GERRY Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, admitted to having sex with a 17-year-old male page. He was censured by the House of Representatives. During the vote, which he was compelled by House rules to be present for, Studds turned his back on the House to show his contempt for his colleagues' reprimand. He was not expelled from the Democratic Caucus. In fact, he was his party's nominee in the next election in his district--and the next five after that--winning reelection each time. He remained in the bosom of the Democratic Caucus in the House for the next 13 years.


2. If not. Why?
It has now been revealed that Foley had consensual sex with one page so clearly he is in the same category as Studds who got the standing ovation in the House and never resigned. We don’t have email or IM form Studds in 83 (was none) but surely these are similar events. Studds must have communicated with the boy he illegally seduced

Firstly, please read back in thread before you contribute. The utter irrelevance of this point has been discussed and concluded. Yes, a generation ago, a democrat did something which might be considered somewhat similar. Irrelevant and transparently desperate.

I refer you to post #48 in this thread.

This desperation by the way, is one of the reasons the republicans are appearing so pitiful in the eyes of the nation, and are losing popularity points by the handful. Yesterday and today experts are now saying because of this, the Democtrats stand to retake the house and the Senate.



By the way, you seem to have forgotten to mention that the 1983 Page sex Scandal involved Studds (Democrat) AND Crane (Republican). Funny, I wonder why you forgot to mention that?

The public will see this as a Dem ploy to hold the discussion on Foley, but they won't buy it. The Korean bomb test, War on Terror and illegal immigration is what matters to the voters. The Dems are shooting themselves in the foot with this. We need to discuss the important issues, not Foley. The Dems have had their own Foleys.

Well, thats been shown to be absolutely not true. The Newsweek poll I posted in the other thread on this title shows that in spades, this is all coming down on the Republicans. And of course it is. Despite the desperate attempts to shift the blame in ways that beggar logic, the Democrats simply have no notable involvement in this scandal.

I honestly cannot even imagine why some people keep wildly trying to blame this on the Democrats. I mean seriously.



It is true, these other issues matter to the voters. Sadly, this scandal is not in isolation. It is in fact a large straw that comes at the end of a long series of policy failures of the current government. The nation is less safe, Al qaida is stronger, the Iraq war is being lost and so on and so on.

Thats why this is so important, the Republicans ONLY had their stance on moral values left, and they lost it. Thats why the poll I posted showed, in every single facet of politics from the economy to the war on terror, the people of the US trust the Democrats more.




Yes, this has been discussed and discarded. A generation ago, there was a somewhat similar sex scandal that involved a Democrat AND a republicans. Well Founder's Intent if the next election were between the Republicans of today and the Democrats of 25 years ago, then this might be somewhat relevant. But it isn't, so it isn't.

Since this seems to be the True Crimes thread, thought I'd mention a little blurb I heard about requests for all Congressional pages to turn in their homework regarding dirty old men after their honey.

Here's a link to the left-wing tome:

Washington Post

story about how all pages are being asked, who's been chasing after your [self-edited to avoid auto filters or the wrath of mods]?

Okay, was it Foley? Was it a different guy? Maybe even a woman (hard to imagine, but maybe)? Got proof?

This seems to be a logical next step for the Ethics Committee, and maybe the findings will result in yet another thread on the dangers of being a Congressional page among those in the show business for ugly people.

Still don't think Foley will ever do hard jail time for his actions, but then I guess that's just the liberal talking. However, the ethics probe (yesh, that was bad) should keep everyone honest for a while.

Oh, and just for the record, the old Demo mishap occurred in 1973, which was, let's see, 33 years ago. The Repub mishap was in 1983. Anyway, there's been a little confusion on who did what to whom when.

Wiki Link

As usual you are wrong and for obvious reasons. The point is that if Studds can do the SAME thing and get away with it (and get a standing ovation) then maybe we should not be trying to get rid of Foley at all. Certainly Studds communicated with the minor he illegally seduced. RIGHT. We don’t have the records because he used letters or a phone while the idiot Foley used email and IM but the result is the same – consensual sex with a minor. Personally I think they are BOTH wrong but if you are trying to tell me the Democrats have any moral standing in this issue after giving Studds a standing ovation for the same thing --- you have to be kidding!

I am in no way defending Studds, how could I since the scandal happened a year before I was born, well over a generation ago in 1973.

I am however stating (again) that because something somewhat similar happened over a generation ago to the other party, they therefore have no standing to criticise is insane. It is also utterly self-destructive, as you yourself have proven your argument wrong.

Unless of course, you are willing to accept the fact that according to you, YOU are a total hypocrite. That is what you are arguing after all.

You maintain: The Democrats has a sex scandal 33 years ago, so have no cause whatsoever to complain about this Republican sex scandal.

Well, forgive me if I am wrong, but the Republicans have had past sex scandal as well. A lot of them. So by YOUR logic, they had NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to complain about Clinton's philandering. That is EXACTLY your point, is it not?

Yet there You are Ted, one of Bush Jr's biggest and most fanatical supporters on this board, always laying into Clinton every chance you get about his sex candal. I guess, according to YOUR argument that makes the entire Republican party, as well as yourself, guilty of exactly the same hypocricy you level against the Democrats, right?

Or is your standard of behaviour actually a complete double standard?


This is a Republican sex scandal, apparently covered up (to what degree is unclear) by major members of the Republican party, and the impact on this is entirely and justifiably falling on the Republicans. Trying to pretend its OK, or worse that its the democrats fault because of events 33 years ago is just pitiful.


Besides Ted, your pitiful Studds defence doesn't even pass the basic logic test. Both parties have had sex scandals in the past, several of them. That in no way invalidates the justifiable outrage of the Democrats AND republicans about Foley and his actions, and the increasingly obvious coverup that occurred in the party to hide the fact. I'm not even American (and thus neither Democrat nor Republican) and I am outraged.


Besides, in this case, the issue is already decided. Three polls in the last week have shown a startling drop in support for the Republican party, and pretty much every analyst in Washington is predicting a loss of both Senate and House for the Republicans. So the people are the United States are not buying your inane 33-year old parabole any more than I am.

Perhaps you could defend the composition and results of those polls when challenged in the appropriate thread then?

I agree with your basic point: pointing to the bad behavior of others doesn't absolve the current suspect.

However, while Congressmen have had a variety of "sex" scandals, things like Henry Hyde cheating on his wife or Newt Gingrich being unfaithful are not as close to the current situations as these past incidents involving Studds and Crane.

There does seem to be a difference about how the parties treat these types of scandals. Studds (yes, ancient history) served a decade in the House after acknowledging having a physical sexual relationship with a House page who was under the age of 17. He claimed it was a private matter. The Democrat controlled Housed censured him, but did not call for his resignation.

Let's contrast that to some Republican scandals: Gingrich stepped down after his infidelities came to light. Same with Hyde(when infidelity from the 1960s came to light), same with Packwood (after being censured by the Senate), same with Bob Livingston, same with Foley (upon the news breaking). The same cannot be said of Clinton or Studds.

In the 1983 case, Crane apologized for his behavior. Studds, while admitting and error in judgement, remained adamant that it was a private matter. Newt Gingrich tried to get them both thrown out of the House, to no avail since it was Democrat controlled. Also, Crane was not re-elected by his district the next year, while Studds' constituents apparently didn't have a problem re-electing him six more times (he served until 1996).

The discussion is moot, however. Foley is gone. He didn't appear to break any laws, however. What impact this will have on other Republican candidates is the subject of another thread.

AML,

You do have a solid point here, and it can be looked at from different angles.

The Demo leadership doesn't force people off the stage due to sexual misconduct. I think this ties to a particularly Democratic notion that what goes on behind closed doors isn't nearly as important as what goes on in the public office. Well, there's some dribble-over here. But, it's true that getting busted for having improper sex isn't an automatic beheading when you're in the Democratic Party.

The process of censuring Foley would bring more light to the stage, and it looks like that's the last thing the Repub leadership wants. From my angle on things, this points to Republicans being more concerned about PR than with governing. Some pundits make the observation that Republicans are great at winning elections, but suck at governing. I've heard Jon Stewart use this in a funny way, but there are serious thinkers knocking this idea around.

Then there's the angle that Democrats are simply immoral, whereas Republicans are noble creatures who fall on their swords.

Another particularly Democratic attitude: We don't care who's poking whom as long as we are employed, moving ahead, and not digging a deep hole. Seems that Republicans are the other way around: We don't care if you're unemployed, we're moving backwards or digging a deep hole as long as you're going to church, staying faithful to wifey/hubby, and waving a flag (as in following the leadership).

So yeah, there are major differences in attitudes between the Big Two.

Just a little note Amlord from from the other Mark Foley thread from nighttimer
Will the Foley Scandal harm the Republicans, in the 2006 elections

page 8 post 157



Also Henry Hyde is only retiring this year so after being outed by Salon during the Impeachment Hearings in the House of Representatives he was reelected 3 more times if not 4 times depending on when he was outed. Also I found this little nugget on the family vaules republicans politicans that is a long laundry list of misdiscretions to top all that have come up so far.

Sex and the Not-So-Single Republican

I think that comments like this are why threads get shut down...

Let's be realistic and tie this to the conversation. Hold on, as this might be difficult for some who don't understand political theory (see how productive "stabbing comments" can be).

Republicans differ from Democrats when it comes to the economy, jobs, etc in that many Republicans believe that the government has little to do with the process, particularly the federal government. Any economics professor would agree about 95%. The economy is nearly completely independant from government action, albeit not entirely. The fact of the matter is also that the economy is cyclical and time dependant. Actions (or inaction) that are taken in 1995 often still show lasting effects in 2005, get it?

Ok- how does that apply here? I believe that often times in American society, we've made pitiable decisions based on the "feel good notion". I at times have called Democrats the "party of pot heads that won't grow up". The truth when it comes to Foley is that the guy has been humiliated, his career is over, and he's done in the USA as far as most of us are concerned. If you believe that "turning a blind eye" to immoral behavior and governing via "loose morals", it extends into every facet of policy (i.e. making treaties with communist nations and never ensuring that they're adhering to the deal...). Turn your eye to the sex scandals, turn your eyes to the (_____) insert whatever. Then comes a Republican president. History repeats this over and over...

I believe the thread has been taken off track a bit here. I think there are some tangents that should be discussed, but in another thread. What Crane or Studds did however many years ago has nothing to do with the following question:



The question has two parts; (a)Foley's legislation and ( B ) should he face punishment under the very bill that he helped to push through.

Here's the bill: HR: 4472 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006

So do his crimes fit the punishment as given in the bill?

In reading these lines, I think he is on the radar screen as to who the bill aims to target:







In DC, 16 may be the age of consent, but this legislation supercedes DC law(i.e.-federalism) On top of that, the question is about the Foley bill, not D.C. law.



According to all of these standards, Foley's crime does fit the criteria for punishment. What punishment should he receive? For one, I believe that he will get some jail time. I believe that the bill has mandatory minimums, though from what I can tell, that's if you physically harm or kill a minor. I think it's more likely that he will wear an ankle tracking device if he earns visits, as well as go through a stringent process of registering as an offender. I'd be curious to hear from others if they think he will be behind bars for this crime.