Sure. As a result of this, I am more likely to believe that current GOP legislative leadership is not on the up-and-up on any given issue.
I would add that the standard of judgment here is fundamentally a political one - do we know enough to demand that the bastards be tossed out of their jobs?
Yes, we do. And if we make the wrong judgment with one of them - well, a seat in the House isn’t a property right, even if it sometimes seems like it. All it will mean is that there’s a little more turnover in the GOP leadership than otherwise. I bet the GOP has equally corrupt leaders who can proceed to muscle their way to the front. Rep. Blunt’s drool is halfway down his chin already.
Don’t be silly, Bricker. No one is saying you should stop being politically conservative because of this. And, as the Republicans are still your best bet for realizing a politically conservative agenda in America, you should continue to vote for them. Just stop trusting them. Be loyal to your friends, your family, your God, and your ideals. But loyalty to a political party? C’mon, man, how can you have gotten as far as you have in your life and still think that concept makes any sense at all? A prostitute will do a lot of things for you if you pay her enough. But you’re a fool if you think that means she loves you.
He dun seen the light!* Waiter–champagne!
*the “light” is the headlamp of an oncoming locomotive, but details…
I’m having even more trouble finding where I said that it was.
Sure I have. But the main reason is that I don’t toe the party line reflexively enough. Nothing more to it than that.
Actually, the difference I can’t spot is the difference between this attitude and what Hastert is being accused of doing. He allegedlly sat on this important information, leaving the pages at risk of molestation, because he was (presumably) hoping to keep it hidden, perhaps until after the election. If the Dems do the same thing, also leaving the pages at risk of molestation, it is OK with you? Why on earth would that be OK?
If you are arguing that what Hastert allegedly did was not as bad as what Foley did, I guess I agree with you. If you are saying that in general, it would be OK if the Democrats did it (regardless of the risk to children) but not OK if Hastert did it (because it left children at risk), then it sounds like another, rather grotesque example of IOKIADDI.
The whole basis of the condemnation of Hastert is that he knew but didn’t act, because he valued political advantage over the safety of the pages. How is that any different than if Democrats knew but didn’t act because they wanted to save it until the elections?
Regards,
Shodan
I suppose it would be, if you had even the teensiest shread of evidence. If you have, bring it. You are, of course, welcome to write alternative fiction scenarios so long as you don’t expect anyone to respect them as anything else.
Still curious about your answer to my question. You know, back when you asked “Can you envision lissener pitting a gay liberal”? And I asked:
It must have gotten overlooked. Yes, that must be it. So I’ll remind you. No, no, don’t thank me, glad to help.
Um, the difference is that there’s no reason to believe that happened.
No, of course not. No more so than Wiskus will be changing his platform just because he’s denounced the Party proper. Seriously, what, exactly and specifically I would have you do is to hold your party representatives’ feet to the fire and demand that they start acting with the moral integrity they claim to hold. Start holding them accountable for HOW they go about reaching the “ends” you support. Call and write your representatives and encourage them – no, insist – that they stop blocking investigations into possible wrong-doing merely because they can, and because those investigations might, just might, open cans of worms they’d rather not expose. Too bad. They need to clean house. That means doing exactly what you admonished them to do in the OP in this case – “find out who else screwed up [on any and every issue of concern this nation has faced in the past 6 years, and] get them the fuck out of government.” Replace them with responsible, honest, decent Republicans – there certainly must be some out there!
Take your party back, DAMMIT! Wrest it from the control of the individuals who are corrupting it into something unrecognizable as a party within a democracy. Stop supporting the status quo just because it’s a means to your end, and seek out candidates who hold your political views, but who eschew the immoral tactics of the current party leadership. Force these guys out so that they quit forcing the decent Republicans out of the party, such as Kevin Wiskus and Nancy Boyda, who’s running in Kansas’s 2nd Congressional district, now as a Democrat, precisely because of her objections to the Bush administration.
Stop buying all their lies just because they claim to be on your side. They’re not. They are destroying your party. Make it stop!
It would not be okay (in the bizarro-land where there’s even a shred of evidence that it is the case); it’s just irrelevant to the question of whether the Republicans are at fault here. They keep trying to defend themselves by intimating that the Democrats knew about this ages ago, with absolutely no proof, when this does absolutely nothing whatsoever to excuse their own rather more factual mendacity. This, if you’ll recall, was Bricker’s point in the OP. Y’know, the bit about how the Republicans should shoot straight on this; take the lumps like a man, and not simply try and make as much noise as possible about the other guy in the hope that no-one will notice they’ve done wrong?
You are getting a bad reaction in this thread because you are choosing to focus on what you have decided are liberals’ reactions to hypothetical, tangential misdeeds committed by unknown Democrats regarding a wrong which was not even perpetrated by them in the first place. You haven’t uttered a word about Foley or any of the major Republicans throwing wild accusations of Democratic conspiracy. That’s not failing to “toe the party line”, that’s absolute and utter one-eyed bias. Oh, but yeah; you said, “I haven’t defended him.” My heart is all a-flutter. What new crushing condemnations will you offer to the grooming of under-age Congressional pages? Probably best to wait on that until you’ve thoroughly dealt with this issue of fictional Democratic conspiracies, though. That seems most prudent.
But hey, I must just think this because I’m a partisan shill; after all, the UK libertarian community is just huge on Democrats. Say, were you going to tell me about that Clint guy with the cigar? 'Cause I’m a big Leone fan, I’m curious. Really. A Fist Full of … what was it again?
Bricker, are you sorry you posted your OP yet? No good deed…
Of course Foley’s actions were worse than Hastert’s. If the Dems had held onto their information until it was the best time to help them get rid of Foley and anyone helping him, then yes, they’re morally culpable- just not as culpable as Hastert, and certainly not as culpable as Foley. But they didn’t.
Because the Republicans actively covered it up, while the Democrats passively ignored it until it would hurt the Republican party, the party actually doing the covering up, the most damage. If they did. Which they didn’t. And I feel that continuing this argument will only lend the “Democrats knew all along and covered it up so they’re really bad” blame deflection strategy more veracity, much like I feel that Fox’s “accidental” labeling of Foley as a Democrat is just a strategy to make Mom and Pop Yokel Voter think “Democrats=Pederasts”. Mind if we drop it?
No, you’re right, it was an attempt at sardonic drollery.
Of course. I’ve heard that there is a phenomenon known as “the opportunity to do something other than vote against the worse of two evils,” but I fear that it’s in the same category of probability as “humanity evolving beyond the need for violence.” But yes, as Lennon advised, I can “Imagine.”
Even if they did, and I’ll concede that this would be a step in the right direction, I’d need to see a less nuanced repudiation of the worst elements in today’s GOP before I could look upon a November victory for either of them as anything other than more bad news (even if less bad than before).
Well OK then.
The House Ethics committee, of course. They’ve already announced an inquiry. That body is composed of 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Bricker, I’d have an easier time believe the Republican party was the party of traditional morals if I didn’t see so many men who’ve been married 2 or 3 times (Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich come to mind, among others) calling gay people immoral and a threat to marriage because they’d like to marry once.
Like you, I consider abortion immoral; unlike you, I think, I believe it should be kept legal because, however immoral I consider it, there are times when I sincerely believe it may be the least bad alternative available and, in those circumstances, I want it to be safe and legal. I also have qualms about taking an absolutist stance on abortion considering the cost of pregnancy and childbirth and the number of people who lack health insurance in this country.
As a Christian, I’m aware of Christ’s injunctions to care for the poor and needy. I see little of that coming from the Republican party. I agree that the welfare system is a mess and there are people who abuse it; I’ve also experience what it’s like to be out of work in a tight job market and I’ve worked in a manufacturing plant which was being shut down because it was cheaper to do the work in Malaysia. I had the skills to move on to something better. Some of my coworkers who only had high school degrees weren’t as fortunate. The next town over now has a WalMart, but I doubt the pay and benefits match what that plant had.
I was in high school when Ronald Reagan was elected, another divorced man who touted family values. I remember even then being called a traitor and un-American because I disagreed with him. I’m not saying Democrats are innocent; I’ve been fed up with both parties for a long time and in my personal experience, I’ve seen Democrats do a worse job of governing that Republicans, but that’s because I’ve lived in strongly Democratic places. No doubt if I’d lived in strongly Republican places, I’d say the same thing about the Republicans. On the other hand, the cruelest, most vicious, nastiest political ads I’ve seen have come from Republicans, at least as memory serves. This includes Mr. Santorum who’s resorted to blatant lies in his current campaign. If I believe, as St. Paul says in his letters and, indeed, as Christ said, that “gossip, malice, and slander” are as bad as theft, murder, adultery and fornication, how can I say that the Republican party reflects my values? If I believe that, “What you do for the least of My people, so you do also for Me”, how can I support a party that doesn’t appear to do that?
I keep hearing that the Republicans have the moral high ground. I have high moral standards which I try to live up to (sometimes I even succeed), yet I don’t see the Republican party doing a better job than the Democratic party of upholding those moral standards. Indeed, because of some of my moral stands, notably on homosexuality and abortion, I am considered immoral. What’s a poor independent to do?
my bolding.
Bzzzzzt! Not “subsequent events” but “previous lies.”
I honestly can’t believe that you still have the gumption to defend the Iraq carnage with all the garbage that’s been revealed since. And for those of us that did a bit of digging, prior to.
Has it occurred to you yet that you have to go into Bizarro World to find the tu quoques you love so much?
The facts are what they are. Try dealing with reality sometime. It isn’t always easy or fun, I know, but it keeps you from getting laughed at *quite * so much.
The lies into a war of agression and the budgetbusting and the supinity and the culture of corruption and the sanctimony didn’t give you any pause to question them? This latest scandal did, though? Well, it’s a start - to the extent it’s even true.
To continue the excellently-stated thoughts by Princhester yesterday, it’s worth noting that the coverup-deploring position you espouse in the OP is precisely in line with what your party’s position has to be considering pure electoral politics. There is no other tenable position for a Republican who is not already part of the leadership that must be purged can hold. It takes no courage, no principle, no moral stand to participate in that deplorement and outrage, or at least to simply *appear * to do so. That is, in point of fact, the Republican talking point you’re giving us - that they’re still the party of morality (while the other guys implicitly are not), as you repeat yourself in your own Capitan-Renaultesque OP, that each new revelation is just a few bad eggs (you’ve already told us this is a scandal of individuals, not party :rolleyes: ), that as soon as they’re gotten rid of they’ll be back to upholding Truth, Justice, and the American Way. In short, spare us the hairshirt act.
That is why I asked what you’ll think and do after Election Day, when the Foley coverup scandal simply won’t matter anymore in terms of party power in Congress. If you can show us an instance of putting a principle or a moral stand above party affiliation in the future, as you claim now to be capable of doing, that’ll be great and I’ll applaud it as soon as I see it. But you ain’t done it yet, buddy. You’re still Shodan with a college-level vocabulary.
Oooh, time to break out the violins, Shodan’s going to do another rendition of “Us po’, po’ persecuted conservatives” again. :dubious:
Your reputation precedes you. Unfortunately.
I recall pitting Hillary Clinton once when she was pushing some obvious election-year anti-violent-video-game legislation; someone with more time than me could search the SDMB archives for it. Though I suppose that might not count, since Hillary doesn’t count as a “liberal Democrat” except in the eyes of the far-right nutjobs…
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnd… finish!
Ah, Shodan, your arias always end the same way…
Not fair, Elvish. Bricker is conservative, Shoddy is a reactionary.
You mean like interviews and reporting? Got that.
And that’s what defines our knowledge of pretty much everything these days. That’s as good as it gets.