Hastert should resign? - Page 2

Caroline · 10-03-2006, 01:35 PM

Geez Louise, folks...

Maybe I'm missing something, but does it make sense to debate about which party is worse when we're talking about sexual activity / communication with MINORS?

Is there anyone who disagrees that:

1. Any government official having sex with a minor should be investigated and lose his / her job if found guilty.

2. Any goverment official conducting a sexual correspondence with a minor should be investigated and lose his/her job if found guilty.

3. Anyone knowingly covering up for any of the above should be investigated and lose his/her job if found guilty.

Not that the other issues aren't important also, but for this discussion is THIS part something we can all agree on? Or not...? Maybe we can agree on 1 and 2, but not 3? (If so, where does that leave the Catholic Bishops??)

brewer12345 · 10-03-2006, 01:37 PM

I agree Caroline. But you left out #4:

The guilty should be hung by their privates, preferably low enough so that passersby can wallop them as they go.

youbet · 10-03-2006, 01:39 PM

Caroline,

Everyone agrees with those things. We're just discussing why it doesn't happen consistently. I think even the outspoken Liberals on the board would agree what Studds and Frank did was wrong and they shouldn't have gotten away with it. Neither should Foley. But, what do we need to do to get some consistency in a world where breaking the rules is happily accepted if you sell it correctly?

brewer12345 · 10-03-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

I think even the outspoken Liberals on the board would agree what Studds and Frank did was wrong and they shouldn't have gotten away with it. Neither should Foley. But, what do we need to do to get some consistency in a world where breaking the rules is happily accepted if you sell it correctly?

I certainly agree that what all of these guys did was wrong. Card-carryng members of NAMBLA don't belong in Congress, and Studds and Franks should have been investigated/punished at the time the allegations surfaced. But that was then and this is now. Only a hard-line Repugnant partisan could possibly think that trotting out Stubbs, et al. in any way changes the fact that what Foley and apparently the House leadership did was wrong and worthy of investigation & castigation.

youbet · 10-03-2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345

I certainly agree that what all of these guys did was wrong. Card-carryng members of NAMBLA don't belong in Congress, and Studds and Franks should have been investigated/punished at the time the allegations surfaced. But that was then and this is now. Only a hard-line Repugnant partisan could possibly think that trotting out Stubbs, et al. in any way changes the fact that what Foley and apparently the House leadership did was wrong and worthy of investigation & castigation.

Agreed. My point is that in addition to nailing Foley, we need to look at how these things are handled. What did we do wrong that allowed the Dems to sell Stubbs and Frank as heros and set the stage for Foley? I want Foley hung and I want procedures in place to prevent it from happening again. There seems to be a pattern......... Let's break the trend!

brewer12345 · 10-03-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

Agreed. My point is that in addition to nailing Foley, we need to look at how these things are handled. What did we do wrong that allowed the Dems to sell Stubbs and Frank as heros and set the stage for Foley? I want Foley hung and I want procedures in place to prevent it from happening again. There seems to be a pattern......... Let's break the trend!

Uhuh, I'm sure you have zero partisan angle here.

Foley & Stubbs evidently did this stuff in the 1980s. Just a guess, but I would imagine that the laws, Congressional rules, etc. are just a tiny bit different now.

eridanus · 10-03-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

What did we do wrong that allowed the Dems to sell Stubbs and Frank as heros and set the stage for Foley?

Dan Crane, too? I notice how you keep forgetting to mention him.

brewer12345 · 10-03-2006, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus

Dan Crane, too? I notice how you keep forgetting to mention him.

There is that unbiased, Repugnant spin on the facts again...

youbet · 10-03-2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345

Foley & Stubbs evidently did this stuff in the 1980s. Just a guess, but I would imagine that the laws, Congressional rules, etc. are just a tiny bit different now.

Maybe they are different, but they didn't work! Let's gather up what we need to know and should have learned from recent history and get things fixed!

brewer12345 · 10-03-2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

Maybe they are different, but they didn't work! Let's gather up what we need to know and should have learned from recent history and get things fixed!

Yes, yes!!! Anything to get attention away from the fact that the Repugnant leadership of the house covered up Foley's sleaze for several months. Nothing to see here, folks...

Caroline · 10-03-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Caroline,

Everyone agrees with those things. We're just discussing why it doesn't happen consistently. I think even the outspoken Liberals on the board would agree what Studds and Frank did was wrong and they shouldn't have gotten away with it. Neither should Foley. But, what do we need to do to get some consistency in a world where breaking the rules is happily accepted if you sell it correctly?

Why doesn't (holding people to account) happen consistently? Just look at this thread. Every time someone brings up the ISSUE, someone else (and ALL are guilty) takes us OFF the issue into "well your guy did it before so..." And someone from the other side chimes in that "your guy did it before that..." and we're off to the races.

It's more enjoyable to debate politics than to come out and say that these things are just wrong, whether the other side does them or whether my side does them.

I have never had the horrible misfortune to be molested myself. But I have friends who were and it SUCKS for them. Imagine it happening to YOUR children, and then tell me that you'd rather talk about what the Republicans / Democrats did last week or last year instead.

It's a free country and you can debate anything you want. But since I'm also free to comment on it, let me opine that any statement that says or implies that "that's just awful.. BUT..." is one that contributes to the problem.

They can only "sell" rulebreaking to us if we're willing to buy it.

mickj · 10-03-2006, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345

Yes, yes!!! Anything to get attention away from the fact that the Repugnant leadership of the house covered up Foley's sleaze for several months. Nothing to see here, folks...

It seems that you are a little defensive, I suggest you take eridanus's advice and "get over it"

mickj · 10-03-2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus

mickj, why no mention of Dan Crane, who was implicated in the same sex scandal? It's not because he's a Republican, is it?

anyone found to be involved should be punished

mickj · 10-03-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

mickj.....

Thanks. Those are great inputs and further explains the GOP failing at being able to "sell" themselves as being whatever they want people to see them as. That's what politics is, right?

Yes unfortunately it is right, I don't have a good answer; it seems the bigger the population of the country the easier it is for all of these problems to occur. When politicians at this level have so much power it is virtually impossible, in my view, for them not to be corrupt.

youbet · 10-03-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caroline

Why doesn't (holding people to account) happen consistently?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear Caroline, but that is exactly what I'm saying. We need to get to the bottom of the current situation and discipline appropriately. And we also need to understand why this could occur and what we need to do to have permanent corrective action going forward. We need a system, a culture, rules, whatever, that would make it impossible for a Foley, Crane, Studds or Frank to carry out their intentions. There seems to be a very unfortunate pattern which needs to be stopped cold in its tracks, forever.

mickj · 10-03-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear Caroline, but that is exactly what I'm saying. We need to get to the bottom of the current situation and discipline appropriately. And we also need to understand why this could occur and what we need to do to have permanent corrective action going forward. We need a system, a culture, rules, whatever, that would make it impossible for a Foley, Crane, Studds or Frank to carry out their intentions. There seems to be a very unfortunate pattern which needs to be stopped cold in its tracks, forever.

AMEN

eridanus · 10-03-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

rules, whatever, that would make it impossible for a Foley, Crane, Studds or Frank to carry out their intentions. There seems to be a very unfortunate pattern which needs to be stopped cold in its tracks, forever.

For the record:

Frank had nothing to do with pages or minors. His "friend" ran a sex-ring out of his apartment but pages had nothing to do with it.

The page system was overhauled after the Studds/Crane scandal 25 years ago. It looks like it needs some more work. Whoever sat on information needs to be censured at the least.

donheff · 10-03-2006, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

Caroline,
I think even the outspoken Liberals on the board would agree what Studds and Frank did was wrong and they shouldn't have gotten away with it.

Not so fast. I don't know about Studds - lets toss him in a bin with Crane and do some research as to what happened. But I remember Franks' problems well - that notorious apartment is about 200 yards from my house. Franks invited an adult guy to live in his apartment (a hot young - adult - guy but so what, Franks is single). The guy abused the invite by using the place to pursue his interests in prostitution while Franks was back in his district. By all accounts Franks was surprised and humiliated when he learned about it -- in the paper. So Franks has sex with an adult who turned out to be a deceptive jerk - sounds like a lot of us.

That leaves us with traffic tickets. As I remember it, Franks intervened to try to get the guy off since he was living with Franks and hadn't gotten a parking sticker (the neighborhood requires a $5/year zone sticker to park here during week days). Is this comparable to screwing under-age pages? You be the judge.

View Poll Results: Hastert should resign?
YES	44	77.19%
no	13	22.81%
Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll

10-03-2006, 01:35 PM	#21
Caroline Full time employment: Posting here. Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 904	Re: Hastert should resign? Geez Louise, folks... Maybe I'm missing something, but does it make sense to debate about which party is worse when we're talking about sexual activity / communication with MINORS? Is there anyone who disagrees that: 1. Any government official having sex with a minor should be investigated and lose his / her job if found guilty. 2. Any goverment official conducting a sexual correspondence with a minor should be investigated and lose his/her job if found guilty. 3. Anyone knowingly covering up for any of the above should be investigated and lose his/her job if found guilty. Not that the other issues aren't important also, but for this discussion is THIS part something we can all agree on? Or not...? Maybe we can agree on 1 and 2, but not 3? (If so, where does that leave the Catholic Bishops??)

10-03-2006, 01:37 PM	#22
brewer12345 Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ... Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 9,248	Re: Hastert should resign? I agree Caroline. But you left out #4: The guilty should be hung by their privates, preferably low enough so that passersby can wallop them as they go. __________________ “When you realize that you are one of the rare few who observe moral principles in their relationships with others, there is a temptation to sink into amorality, not out of conviction or pleasure but simply to avoid further pain, because there is no greater suffering than being an angel in hell, whereas a devil feels at home wherever he goes.” – Martin Page, How I Became Stupid

10-03-2006, 01:39 PM	#23
youbet Thinks s/he gets paid by the post Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,385	Re: Hastert should resign? Caroline, Everyone agrees with those things. We're just discussing why it doesn't happen consistently. I think even the outspoken Liberals on the board would agree what Studds and Frank did was wrong and they shouldn't have gotten away with it. Neither should Foley. But, what do we need to do to get some consistency in a world where breaking the rules is happily accepted if you sell it correctly? __________________ Over all was the silence of the wilderness - Sigurd Olsen

10-03-2006, 03:39 PM	#39
brewer12345 Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...