Hastert should resign?

[jclarksnakes]

....This really isn't a fair discussion. For the first time in your lives you liberals get to defend the moral high ground and you are not very good at it. This thread has mostly been a bunch of political yammering. If you were really serious about protecting children you would want to do whatever it takes to fully protect them. As long as you let pedophiles live in our society they are going to molest children. Liberals seem more interested in making political advantage of the current political situation than protecting children. If Hastert were to resign tomorrow you would quickly forget about protecting children from molestation and revert to your longstanding policy of making your political tent so large that it protects everyone including the pedophiles.
jc

 

[brewer12345]

....This really isn't a fair discussion. For the first time in your lives you liberals get to defend the moral high ground and you are not very good at it. This thread has mostly been a bunch of political yammering. If you were really serious about protecting children you would want to do whatever it takes to fully protect them. As long as you let pedophiles live in our society they are going to molest children. Liberals seem more interested in making political advantage of the current political situation than protecting children. If Hastert were to resign tomorrow you would quickly forget about protecting children from molestation and revert to your longstanding policy of making your political tent so large that it protects everyone including the pedophiles.
jc

This is possibly the most bizarre political rant I have seen on this site (so far). So what is your solution? Kill all the pedophiles, since "libruls" want to "let pedophiles live in our society?"

Oh yeah, and don't tell me about liberals not protecting kids from pedophiles when the grand Repugnant poo-bah of child protection measures in the House was running around after underage males while his superiors in the House apparently covered up his activities. Pedophiles in glass houses, and all that.

 

[donheff]

donheff and Caroline:

So, I've decided to spike my comment. In person I really enjoy getting into long, sometimes heated debates, but I just feel like it would accomplish too little here, and in the end cause too much annoyance to ourselves and to other posters.

Dood: I come from a family that loves to "fight." Our dinner table conversations would wake the dead. It scared a few potential SOs off early. Those who stayed discovered that we love each other and love to argue. Going home for Sunday dinners with my family was something I looked forward to every week.

So, don't hesitate to argue. Just avoid ad hominem attacks. By the way, I didn't see the post I responded to as personal attack. Just wrong headed

 

[donheff]

....This really isn't a fair discussion. For the first time in your lives you liberals get to defend the moral high ground

It is fun to defend the moral high ground but that is certainly not rare lately. Think torture, invasions of privacy, lying to the public, creating a massive terrorist recruiting program - AKA the Iraq War, and "denial" in general.

If you were really serious about protecting children you would want to do whatever it takes to fully protect them. As long as you let pedophiles live in our society they are going to molest children. Liberals seem more interested in making political advantage of the current political situation than protecting children.

Brewer is right -- this is just plain bizarre. Seriously, quote something a liberal said on this thread that would indicate that the above makes any sense at all.
[/quote]

 

[Zathras]

If the republican's were smart, they would force convince any of their members that had any connection with covering this up to retire.

The American public has an incredibly short attention span. If the resignations took place immediately it would all blow over in 2-3 weeks. The more they drag it out the more this issue will play a role in the elections.

 

[uncledrz]

jc

The present Republican party has proven that it is very good at the election process. It can sell "compassionate conservatism" and fear of "gay marriage" better than any could before.

It has, unfortunately, proven itself unable to competently govern. Large deficits, unwarranted wars, rampant corruption, votes for sale, and now young boys have shown its inablitliy to properly govern this country.

So when called to task for its incompentence, it resorts to that which it is best, the electioneering, the "liberals are...(fill in your fear)".

I don't know whether Hastert should resign or not for this incident. I'll let the facts come out and them make the decision. I do know that before you continue your attacks on "those liberals" you should look to your party leaders for an explanation of how they could have done such a poor job, and you should look to yourself for an explanation of why you have and continue to accept it.

Tio z

 

[FinanceDude]

jc

The present Republican party has proven that it is very good at the election process. It can sell "compassionate conservatism" and fear of "gay marriage" better than any could before.

It has, unfortunately, proven itself unable to competently govern. Large deficits, unwarranted wars, rampant corruption, votes for sale, and now young boys have shown its inablitliy to properly govern this country.

So when called to task for its incompentence, it resorts to that which it is best, the electioneering, the "liberals are...(fill in your fear)".

I don't know whether Hastert should resign or not for this incident. I'll let the facts come out and them make the decision. I do know that before you continue your attacks on "those liberals" you should look to your party leaders for an explanation of how they could have done such a poor job, and you should look to yourself for an explanation of why you have and continue to accept it.

Tio z

Good points to consider. Seems to me we had large deficits when we were trying to bankrupt the Soviet Union under Reagan.............seemed to work rather well. Granted, Ronnie didn't start any wars............

Of course as a Republican I am appalled. And I will vote in the elections as I always have since 1980. But, I got numb a LONG time ago to Congress and all their problems............I never blame a President or a Cabinet member...........seems to me Congress is the problem.

Example: If the Dems think Bush lied, why do so many Dems vote to appropriate money to the Iraq war? I don't want to hear they have no choice, that' s a copout.

Maybe the Dems will win back Congress, and then I can see that the status quo will be the same.....................

 

[jclarksnakes]

This is possibly the most bizarre political rant I have seen on this site (so far). So what is your solution? Kill all the pedophiles, since "libruls" want to "let pedophiles live in our society?"

Oh yeah, and don't tell me about liberals not protecting kids from pedophiles when the grand Repugnant poo-bah of child protection measures in the House was running around after underage males while his superiors in the House apparently covered up his activities. Pedophiles in glass houses, and all that.

Brewer,
....Coming from YOU that is a complement. Most of your political rants look very bizarre to me. Deportation of pedophiles seems like a reasonable solution to the problem.
....Your second paragraph just proves what I said in my post. You have the moral high ground on the current issue and rather than taking the high road and discussing reasonable ways to protect children from pedophiles you continue to attack Foley. We both agree that Foley is a hypocrite and a scumbag. Let's quit pointing fingers at him and get on to the more important issue of protecting children.
....The curent vote on the OP question about the resignation of Hastert is 75% in favor of his resignation. It seems like lynch mob mentality to call for his resignation before knowing all the facts. If the facts do prove out that Hastert knew about Foley molesting children and that Hastert protected him then he should resign. I just wonder what will turn up if we do have a FULL investigation of the Congress and the page system. I am betting that we will find more than one pedophile on either side of the political aisle.
....The important issue is protecting children from pedophiles.
jc

 

[jclarksnakes]

If the republican's were smart, they would force convince any of their members that had any connection with covering this up to retire.

The American public has an incredibly short attention span. If the resignations took place immediately it would all blow over in 2-3 weeks. The more they drag it out the more this issue will play a role in the elections.

Zathras,
...Agree 100%.
jc

 

[greg]

And I think we should ban all pages from Washington DC. If our leaders can't control themselves we should do it for them. . . . and we should not allow interns either. I can hear it now: "I did not . . . was not within five miles of that woman, Monica Lewinsky."

On a serious note: We currently have lawmakers and administraion members that seem unable to not break the laws or twist them in some fashion. I think it says more about us than them.

--Greg

 

[brewer12345]

You have the moral high ground on the current issue and rather than taking the high road and discussing reasonable ways to protect children from pedophiles you continue to attack Foley. We both agree that Foley is a hypocrite and a scumbag. Let's quit pointing fingers at him and get on to the more important issue of protecting children.

FWIW, I rather doubt that the issue of strengthening protections for minors vs. pedophiles will NOT come up as a result of all of this. In any case, laws, rules, regulations, etc. are already i place in many places, but if the powers that be won't enforce or activey work against the stuff in place, it is hard to see how more rules and laws will make much of a difference.

And I've no problem with stopping pointing fingers... after the election. 8)

 

[REWahoo]

And I think we should ban all pages from Washington DC. If our leaders can't control themselves we should do it for them. . . . and we should not allow interns either. I can hear it now: "I did not . . . was not within five miles of that woman, Monica Lewinsky."

--Greg

Greg, I don't care what Martha says. You're OK in my book...

I withdraw my previous statement.

Once again, Martha demonstates why she is the subject matter expert. Gregorically speaking of course...

 

[jclarksnakes]

jc

The present Republican party has proven that it is very good at the election process. It can sell "compassionate conservatism" and fear of "gay marriage" better than any could before.

It has, unfortunately, proven itself unable to competently govern. Large deficits, unwarranted wars, rampant corruption, votes for sale, and now young boys have shown its inablitliy to properly govern this country.

So when called to task for its incompentence, it resorts to that which it is best, the electioneering, the "liberals are...(fill in your fear)".

I don't know whether Hastert should resign or not for this incident. I'll let the facts come out and them make the decision. I do know that before you continue your attacks on "those liberals" you should look to your party leaders for an explanation of how they could have done such a poor job, and you should look to yourself for an explanation of why you have and continue to accept it.

Tio z

Tio z,
....I really did have high hopes for the present administration and congress. They have squandered their chance to do anything meaningful. The democrats will find themselves in control of both the legislative and executive branches soon enough and I will be asking you why anyone accepts the poor job they will be doing. The pendulum swings back and forth. Not much really changes. Things seem to work best when we have one party in the white house and the other running the congress.
jc

 

[brewer12345]

Things seem to work best when we have one party in the white house and the other running the congress.
jc

No argument from me on that point.

 

[eridanus]

....This really isn't a fair discussion. For the first time in your lives you liberals get to defend the moral high ground and you are not very good at it. This thread has mostly been a bunch of political yammering. If you were really serious about protecting children you would want to do whatever it takes to fully protect them. As long as you let pedophiles live in our society they are going to molest children. Liberals seem more interested in making political advantage of the current political situation than protecting children. If Hastert were to resign tomorrow you would quickly forget about protecting children from molestation and revert to your longstanding policy of making your political tent so large that it protects everyone including the pedophiles.
jc

That rants looks like it was lifted straight from Freep.

 

[donheff]

Good points to consider. Seems to me we had large deficits when we were trying to bankrupt the Soviet Union under Reagan.............seemed to work rather well.

This is a bit of a hijack, but this theory always steams me. Whether or not we drove the USSR into destitution by out spending them is irrelevant to the Reagan tax cuts. We didn't go knowingly go into a massive deficit in an effort to fight the commies. We went into a deficit because the republicans were wrong about the effect of the tax cut -- remember the Laffer curve et al? The cuts were supposed to pay for themselves.

So, either we blundered into massive deficits because the Reagan crowd didn't unbderstand what they were doing or they lied to us about what they believed about tax cuts. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Kind of like the war in Iraq that would pay for itself.

 

[uncledrz]

Tio z,
Things seem to work best when we have one party in the white house and the other running the congress.
jc

No doubt. Too much power on any one side leads to potential for abuse and corruption. OTOH, in 1990-92 didn't the dems control both houses and the White House, no scandals such as we've seen with votes bought, campaign slush funds, etc.

Don't misinterpret my comments. I have voted Republican, Democrat and Third Party when I believed appropriate. I simply am fed up with this Republican party which seems only to seek power and suppression of oppostion. Used to be the Republicans stood for things I agreed with like balanced budget, strong defense, individual rights, just to name a few. Today's Republican Party has abandonded those ideas and hurt this nation enormously.

Not so sure the Dems will win control of either house, but if they do I'll be watching them as well.

Tio z

 

[eridanus]

No doubt. Too much power on any one side leads to potential for abuse and corruption. OTOH, in 1990-92 didn't the dems control both houses and the White House, no scandals such as we've seen with votes bought, campaign slush funds, etc.

H.W. Bush was prez in 90-92.

 

[sgeeeee]

....This really isn't a fair discussion. For the first time in your lives you liberals get to defend the moral high ground and you are not very good at it. This thread has mostly been a bunch of political yammering. If you were really serious about protecting children you would want to do whatever it takes to fully protect them. As long as you let pedophiles live in our society they are going to molest children. Liberals seem more interested in making political advantage of the current political situation than protecting children. If Hastert were to resign tomorrow you would quickly forget about protecting children from molestation and revert to your longstanding policy of making your political tent so large that it protects everyone including the pedophiles.
jc

Are you sure you are posting on the right thread? I don't see a single post in this thread -- by a liberal, moderate, or neo-con -- that seems to have anything to do with your rant.

 

[Nords]

then I decided I would first PM Nords with my draft before submitting it, just to get someone else's feedback and be sure that I would avoid being disruptive.
So, I've decided to spike my comment.
I think this time I'll just bow out, and let my wicked repartee go unspoken.Once again, sorry for any disapointment. I hope you guys don't mind too much!

Aw, man, I'm a big fan of wicked repartée-- PM away!

We didn't go knowingly go into a massive deficit in an effort to fight the commies.
We went into a deficit because the republicans were wrong about the effect of the tax cut -- remember the Laffer curve et al? The cuts were supposed to pay for themselves.
So, either we blundered into massive deficits because the Reagan crowd didn't unbderstand what they were doing or they lied to us about what they believed about tax cuts. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Kind of like the war in Iraq that would pay for itself.

DoD's spending boost preceeded the tax cuts. I'd have to say that everyone in the military-industrial complex knew that accelerated defense spending was the only thing that'd preserve our tenuous lead in the arms race. For example although the USS OHIO was commissioned in Jan 82, the design testing & construction took an entire decade. Same with F-14 improvements, F/A-18 design & testing, the B-1 & B-2 bombers... the list seems endless compared with today's weapons systems development.

Of course the CIA and the defense intelligence agencies were inflating the bear's fear factor to help prime the funding pump. But that's another story.

As far as the cuts paying for themselves, they probably did... until Congress & the exec branch decided that they could spend the extra free bonus money.

 

[brewer12345]

Just saw this on Yahoo:

"House Speaker Dennis Hastert will take responsibility for the unfolding page sex scandal but insist he will stay on as leader of House Republicans, a House GOP official said Thursday."

Karl Rove must besihtting himself with rage. I couldn't think of a better way to prolong the agony and the press spectacle and drag this bad boy out right up to the elections.

On behalf of all who are disgusted with the Repugnant Congressional "leadership," I salute you, Denny boy!

 

[uncledrz]

H.W. Bush was prez in 90-92.

correct, sorry, 92-94

 

[eridanus]

Just saw this on Yahoo:

"House Speaker Dennis Hastert will take responsibility for the unfolding page sex scandal but insist he will stay on as leader of House Republicans, a House GOP official said Thursday."

Karl Rove must besihtting himself with rage. I couldn't think of a better way to prolong the agony and the press spectacle and drag this bad boy out right up to the elections.

On behalf of all who are disgusted with the Repugnant Congressional "leadership," I salute you, Denny boy!

I give him until Monday.

"The same pollster who provided the gloomy news on Hastert's effect on GOP candidates nationwide did send out an advisory on Tuesday to rank-and-file Republicans that they might consider canceling appearances with Hastert in their districts. Hours later, Rep. Ron Lewis of Kentucky announced he was canceling a fundraiser scheduled for next week where Hastert was supposed to be the headliner."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218043,00.html

 

[BOBOT]

:

"House Speaker Dennis Hastert will take responsibility for the unfolding page sex scandal but insist he will stay on as leader of House Republicans, a House GOP official said Thursday."

Karl Rove must besihtting himself with rage. I couldn't think of a better way to prolong the agony and the press spectacle and drag this bad boy out right up to the elections.

I think the rovester (aka slimy weasel) is right in the mix here. I bet the whole spin op is being orchestrated form his office. Who else would come up with the counterattack that the whole thing is the fault of "liberal Democrats and the media"?
Right now doesn't look good for the GOP next month, but don't underestimate their ability to capitalize on the fears, biases, & general cluelessness of a big portion of the electorate.

 

[donheff]

That issue is INFORMED CONSENT.

Underaged individuals are mentally immature and unable to give informed consent.

I liked this when I saw it but I just heard something on the DC evening news that raised an eyebrow -- the age of consent here is 16. This is, however, 2006 and the thinking with respect to sexual harrassment is well established. It applies here. Maybe a 16 YO is "old enough" to consent to sex with a peer. But when an authority figure is involved it is a whole different situation. This is really no different than similar behavior involving a high school teacher and a student. In fact, the House is school for these pages and the representatives (particularly the ones, like Foley, on the Page Committee) are the teachers. They are also employers and authority figures of the highest sort.

These "students" and very junior "employees" are beholden to the representatives who surround them. Those reps can be the difference between a stellar resume and golden references and a career black mark. Any questionable actions on the part of these teacher/employers is an abuse of power regardless of the legal issue of age of consent.