Hastert should resign?

[youbet]

Originally Posted by brewer12345

If we start indicting public officials for fixing parking tickets, we might as well have them report to Club Fed as soon as they are elected.

Boy, you've got that one right. Here in Chicago, parking ticket fixes are just one small tool in an arsenal of tools used to control voting. It's a must!

[youbet]

Originally Posted by donheff

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.

OK, I withdraw my statement. I was wrong. The outspoken Liberals on the board would not agree what Studds and Frank did was wrong.

My bad. I just didn't know you would support those guys.

[donheff]

Originally Posted by youbet

OK, I withdraw my statement. I was wrong. The outspoken Liberals on the board would not agree what Studds and Frank did was wrong.

My bad. I just didn't know you would support those guys.

Don't put words in our mouths.

I don't equate what Franks did (consensual sex with a poorly choosen ADULT partner) with what Studds and Crane did (sex with Hill pages). I think what Crane and Studds did was wrong, wrong, wrong. I think what Franks did was stupid.

If you equate those actions I don't know what to say. You are in a different universe than I.

[Tadpole]

Originally Posted by donheff

Don't put words in our mouths.

I don't equate what Franks did (consensual sex with a poorly choosen ADULT partner) with what Studds and Crane did (sex with Hill pages). I think what Crane and Studds did was wrong, wrong, wrong. I think what Franks did was stupid.

If you equate those actions I don't know what to say. You are in a different universe than I.

No pedophile that acts on their impulse should occupy a position of leadership in our government. It is time that, no matter who was or was not punished in the past, all such people should be punished. I don't understand anyone's shades of gray by comparisons to eons ago. I am sure there is at least one era where some group killed their first-born. Does that mean that you can kill your first-born? I think not. So, if you get the politics out of this, the air is clear.

A simple solution is to throw all the bums out. They are probably all guilty of dereliction of duty. They are your employees, not your superiors or your idols. They should follow you and not you they.

[donheff]

Originally Posted by Tadpole

No pedophile that acts on their impulse should occupy a position of leadership in our government. It is time that, no matter who was or was not punished in the past, all such people should be punished. I don't understand anyone's shades of gray by comparisons to eons ago. I am sure there is at least one era where some group killed their first-born. Does that mean that you can kill your first-born? I think not. So, if you get the politics out of this, the air is clear.

Tadpole: I am not sure who you are talking about. This was the quote you were responding to:

I don't equate what Franks did (consensual sex with a poorly choosen ADULT partner) with what Studds and Crane did (sex with Hill pages). I think what Crane and Studds did was wrong, wrong, wrong. I think what Franks did was stupid.

What about that constitutes "shades of gray." I described the actions with pages as WRONG. No shade of gray. I described Franks' consensual sex with a poorly chosen adult as stupid. Do you view consenting adult homesexual behavior as only a shade of gray different than pedophilia? I hope not.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by donheff

If you equate those actions I don't know what to say.

Obviously I don't. But, at a minimum Frank was, as you said, stupid. Clearly his constituents disagree with you and me!

[HFWR]

Well, then, I guess we get what we pay for...

[sgeeeee]

None of us knows all the facts about what Hastert knew and when. Due process is required and that takes too long to matter in this case. Hastert knows that and is not likely to resign whether he should or not.

[Tadpole]

Originally Posted by donheff

Tadpole: I am not sure who you are talking about. This was the quote you were responding to:

What about that constitutes "shades of gray." I described the actions with pages as WRONG. No shade of gray. I described Franks' consensual sex with a poorly chosen adult as stupid. Do you view consenting adult homesexual behavior as only a shade of gray different than pedophilia? I hope not.

Actually I was not disagreeing with you. I was trying to say something quite generic. I have seen a lot of digging into the distant past to divert the current. I imagine that some of these past cases that went uninvestigated had the same history. The discussion should be on saying "NO MORE". History is good if it shows that something needs to be done to make those in power accountable. When history is used to defocus, people talk "who is worse?" and "why should today's consequences be any worse than those in the past?". And, no, I'm not saying that you are trying to do this; I don't know. The problem I have is "individual accountability". If every church has at least one person who is a thief, does that make the church a thief? I would say - only if the church knew about the thievery and took a tithe. If the preacher knew about the thievery without the tithe, he is an enabler and puts 7/11 employees at risk if he keeps quiet. That preacher is no leader of the community. Toss him out; you can do better. That's all.

I see too many people that give admiration and respect based on a gang mentality rather than a rational judgment.

[brewer12345]

Originally Posted by sgeeeee

None of us knows all the facts about what Hastert knew and when. Due process is required and that takes too long to matter in this case. Hastert knows that and is not likely to resign whether he should or not.

I don't get you on that one. "Takes too long to matter?" I would think that an investigation could be done in a few weeks, no? Congress is already out of session anyway, so its not like anything will get done before they have a chance to investigate. Screws up the election timing, but that's unavoidable for the party in power anyway.

[FinanceDude]

Intersting thread..............

I always keep in mind the following "rules"

1)If a Dem does something very wrong, he is "troubled", "has problems", and we "support him"..........

2)If a GOP member does something wrong, it's "hang him high", "I'm livid", and "They should ALL resign"..........

Thanks for clarifying things.............where's the Independent party signup??

[brewer12345]

Originally Posted by youbet

OK, I withdraw my statement. I was wrong. The outspoken Liberals on the board would not agree what Studds and Frank did was wrong.

My bad. I just didn't know you would support those guys.

Studds appears to have been a sleaze who should have been hung up by his priates, with some handy pinata bats left nearby.

Frank? Looks like an adult who had a relationship with another consenting adult. His partner was not exactly a good choice, but I think we could say that about lots of elected officials. How do you equate a relationship between two consenting adults with a perv Congressman molesting the under-age pages? Shut off the Rush Limbaugh once in a while and think for yourself.

Oh yeah, I forgot: its all Clinton's fault!

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by brewer12345

Studds appears to have been a sleaze who should have been hung up by his priates, with some handy pinata bats left nearby.

Frank? Looks like an adult who had a relationship with another consenting adult. His partner was not exactly a good choice, but I think we could say that about lots of elected officials. How do you equate a relationship between two consenting adults with a perv Congressman molesting the under-age pages? Shut off the Rush Limbaugh once in a while and think for yourself.

Oh yeah, I forgot: its all Clinton's fault!

Hey brewster, when are you appearing on Letterman? I'll get the Tivo ready to roll...............

[ladelfina]

The reason Foley is different is the fact that, not only did other Republicans know and cover it up.. but that he was the BIG MAN on the Republican bandwagon w/r/t child porn / Internet / sex offender database and so on. That was Foley's whole political shtick and they continued to go along along with it even though they knew the fox hawk was guarding the chicken coop. Studds was not put in charge of officially investigating child pornography that I recall... nor do I remember any particular outpouring of "support".

FinanceDude, take a look at Foley who's now scrambling to position himself as a victim: he's going to "re-hab" (apparently with the Scientologists!).. his lawyer now says he was molested by a clergyman... I don't want to cast aspersions or say that he didn't have these problems, but isn't this from the "typical liberal whiner" playbook of excuses? Will Republicans chime in with: "he is "troubled", "has problems", and we "support him"?

It's not a matter of one creepy guy or another.. it's the whole climate of denial, hypocrisy, and delusion that the Republicans cultivate that makes my blood boil. When rumors circulated that he was gay, Foley said they were "revolting and unforgivable." Gingrich said no-one did anything about Foley because it might have been construed as gay-bashing (!) Matt Drudge says 16-years olds are "beasts". (!!!)

I just don't get this current generation of Republicans.. are they all closeted gays and pedophiles? Several years back it was crucial to our national interest to be able to examine photos of Clinton's penis..

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by ladelfina

The reason Foley is different is the fact that, not only did other Republicans know and cover it up.. but that he was the BIG MAN on the Republican bandwagon w/r/t child porn / Internet / sex offender database and so on. That was Foley's whole political shtick and they continued to go along along with it even though they knew the fox hawk was guarding the chicken coop. Studds was not put in charge of officially investigating child pornography that I recall... nor do I remember any particular outpouring of "support".

FinanceDude, take a look at Foley who's now scrambling to position himself as a victim: he's going to "re-hab" (apparently with the Scientologists!).. his lawyer now says he was molested by a clergyman... I don't want to cast aspersions or say that he didn't have these problems, but isn't this from the "typical liberal whiner" playbook of excuses? Will Republicans chime in with: "he is "troubled", "has problems", and we "support him"?

It's not a matter of one creepy guy or another.. it's the whole climate of denial, hypocrisy, and delusion that the Republicans cultivate that makes my blood boil. When rumors circulated that he was gay, Foley said they were "revolting and unforgivable." Gingrich said no-one did anything about Foley because it might have been construed as gay-bashing (!) Matt Drudge says 16-years olds are "beasts". (!!!)

I just don't get this current generation of Republicans.. are they all closeted gays and pedophiles? Several years back it was crucial to our national interest to be able to examine photos of Clinton's penis..

A couple bad apples, and now ALL Republicans are gay? That is a stretch.........

Per usual, on Capitol Hill, the two parties have nothing to do but fight like rival frats............because that's what to me Congress is...........a bunch of frat boys trying to outdo each other................

I can always count on things getting interesting in EVEN NUMBERED YEARS:

2000, 2002, 2004, 2006.....................

I actually hope the DEMS win Congress, so they can find out how whacked the whole system is, and then I'll sit back and watch..............

[ladelfina]

I read somewhere yesterday that NRCC chair Reynolds (who convinced Foley to run again) personally tried to cut a deal with ABC: exclusive interview if they didn't go public with some of the stuff.. can't find it now.. but Foley did contribute $100k to the NRCC at the end of July!

Edit: oops! sorry it was not Reynolds, but Reynolds' chief of staff Kirk Fordham (who had been Foley's chief of staff):
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

On Friday afternoon, a strategist for Rep. Mark Foley tried to cut a deal with ABC's Brian Ross.

The correspondent, who had dozens of instant messages that Foley sent to teenage House pages, had asked to interview the Florida Republican. Foley's former chief of staff said the congressman was quitting and that Ross could have that information exclusively if he agreed not to publish the raw, sexually explicit messages.

"I said we're not making any deals," Ross recalls. He says the Internet made the story possible, because on Thursday he posted a story on his ABC Web page, the Blotter, after obtaining one milder e-mail that Foley had sent a 16-year-old page, asking for a picture. Within two hours, former pages had e-mailed Ross and provided the salacious messages. The only question then, says Ross, was "whether this could be authenticated."

And FOX News? IDs Foley as a Democrat! now THAT's Fair and Balanced ™!


---
No, "all Republicans" are not gay.. but I think a certain number are.."conflicted". A lot of the recent right-wing issues circulate around sex: no gay marriage, abstinence over condoms, no morning-after pill, sodomy laws.. in TX/NC they keep working hard to ban dildos! (your tax dollars truly at work!) They seem interested beyond a reasonable measure in the private sexual conduct of Americans.

Of course, as Hastert says and Sean Hannity agrees: the Foley flap is all a big liberal conspiracy..

[youbet]