I Used to Privately Snicker at the Dems

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=Apos]
Integrity watch: Fordham, who resigned, is openly gay…
[/QUOTE]

Ooooh, you can be such a little bitch about your cites sometimes!

[Patty_O_Furniture]

[QUOTE=Apos]
Bizarre. So apparently O’Reily’s crawls referred to Foley as a Democrat 3 different times in two different segments, in addition to the bizarre “Reid: did Dems cover it up to preserve their seat.”

Where are all the people who made all that fuss over the big X over Cheney now?

[/QUOTE]

It was pretty much just one person. I think this is a good time for a stroll down memory lane:

Clothahump [The OP]:

CNN apparently deliberately put an X on Dick Cheney’s face during a speech last week, then lied about doing it.

Bricker:

CNN has apparently acknowledged that a call taker did claim that the “X” was an act of free speech, and intentional. They have apparently fired the call-taker.

Please note that none of this shows that the “X” was deliberate. To assume that CNN deliberately flashed an “X” over Cheney’s image and then shared that plan with the phone switchboard staff is… rather credulous. The far more likely interpretation is that the “X” was a technical glitch, and the call center person was sick of his job and took the opportunity to vent his personal political views… for which he was rightly fired.

BobLibDem [bolding mine]:

I think CNN has established a fair degree of journalistic credibility over the years and have earned the benefit of the doubt. Even an utterly partisan network like FOX wouldn’t stoop to such a stunt, it strains credibility to believe that it was deliberate.

Terrifel:

Originally Posted by Clothahump
CNN apparently deliberately put an X on Dick Cheney’s face during a speech last week, then lied about doing it. Their reason for putting the X on his face: to get Cheney (and Bush) to stop lying.

Did it work?

Mr. Moto:

Oh, this was a technical glitch all right. Nothing sinister about it, perfectly logical explanation, and I have absolutely no problem with it.

<snip>

When something like this happens, CNN and others should be held to account. Reasonable people will be satisfied with a reasonable explanation, as I certainly was.

It’s worth noting that Clothy did in fact come back to post an “oops” comment. A week later.

[BobLibDem]

Why is it so surprising to some that the party of torture, the party of lying to invade sovereign nations, the party of emergency response incompetence, the party of tax breaks for millionaires and record deficits, is also the party of conspiracy to obstruct justice in a pedophilia case?

[Squink]

There are many people dissatisfied with Speaker Hastert’s handling of matters in the House of Representatives in the past year. From the William Jefferson investigation to the Mark Foley investigation, Speaker Hastert has sometimes seemed to have a tin ear. We have, on occasion, shared in these frustrations. But now is not the time for a leadership contest. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool or a foe.
…
Once the House is securely in the hands of a GOP majority on November 8th, we can reassess our leadership team. Until then, the feckless fools who would rather wander in the wilderness than govern should be shut out and we should remember who they are on November 8th and continue ignoring their siren calls.

::Snicker Snicker::

[eleanorigby]

Yep-never mind justice or even retribtution. As long as those seats are maintained as GOP seats-then all will be well in America.

My comtempt for all GOP supporters just got deeper. I didn’t think it possible. All we need now is Jerry Falwell or Dobson coming out to call for prayer etc–oh, not for those tempting, teasing teens*…for Foley and the GOP.

*I’m sorry I don’t have a cite, but friend says that one blog has claimed that the pages led Foley on. Sickening.

[elucidator]

You may be talking about Drudge, who I’ve heard suggesting that the pages are not the innocent lambs they are being made out to be.

[Excalibre]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
You may be talking about Drudge, who I’ve heard suggesting that the pages are not the innocent lambs they are being made out to be.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, wow. If Drudge is joining in with this anti-gay rhetoric, that’s hypocrisy. He really does have a black little soul, doesn’t he?

[elucidator]

Well, I might not be the guy to ask about this sort of thing, but I didn’t get so much of an “anti-gay” thing as a “trashy little young sluts” thing. Except he’s talking about, you know, guys.

[Fear_Itself]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
You may be talking about Drudge, who I’ve heard suggesting that the pages are not the innocent lambs they are being made out to be.
[/QUOTE]
That would be this:

On his syndicated radio show Sunday night, Matt Drudge lay some of the blame for Mark Foley’s sexually explicit instant messaging chats on teen pages: “You just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You’re not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him.”

…

“You could say ‘well Drudge, it’s abuse of power, a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17 year-old beasts, talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the internet.’ Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages. This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah. Oh, I haven’t … they were talking about how many times they’d masturbated, how many times they’d done it with their girlfriends this weekend … all these things and these ‘innocent children.’ And this ‘poor’ congressman sitting there typing, ‘oh am I going to get any,’ you know?”

[Kimstu]

@luc

You may be talking about Drudge, who I’ve heard suggesting that the pages are not the innocent lambs they are being made out to be.

Yup:

Clip #1. And if anything, these kids are less innocent – these 16 and 17 year-old beasts…and I’ve seen what they’re doing on YouTube and I’ve seen what they’re doing all over the internet – oh yeah – you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You’re not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven’t got the whole story on this.

Clip #2: You could say “well Drudge, it’s abuse of power, a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17 year-old beasts, talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the internet.” Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages. This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah. Oh, I haven’t…they were talking about how many times they’d masturbated, how many times they’d done it with their girlfriends this weekend…all these things and these “innocent children.” And this “poor” congressman sitting there typing, “oh am I going to get any,” you know?

[wring]

I once heard a man describe the sex between him and his eight year old child as consensual. just as outrageous.

[Lissa]

[QUOTE=lissener]
This incident should not, of course, suggest–as Bricker seems to think we’re suggesting–that all Republicans are liars. It should, however, eliminate “But a Republican cannot be a liar” as a valid defense.

Obviously, these are two extremes, neither of which can be true. I’m just wondering if, what with this and other recent examples of embarrassing Retardlicanism, the needle on Bricker’s “Never a liar ==> Always a liar”-ometer has moved over a notch or two; if not into the red zone, at least maybe into a straight vertical position of having an open mind for each such incident.
[/QUOTE]

Lissener, I am only using your quote to exemplify a myriad of posts.

Here comes Bricker, making a logical, rational decision and admitting that a political party he typically supports is clearly wrong, and many just pile on.

Countless times, many a poster has asked, “Why won’t they admit their wrong”. Maybe this is the answer to that.

The people get the government they deserve. If everytime someone admits they are wrong, the bandwagon starts up and everyone takes it to extremes, then what is the motivation for admitting failure?

Thus, our society gets what it deserves. Petty, underhanded, self-indulgent and myopic leadership who reject intellectuality and rational discourse. Just like the people.

[Fear_Itself]

[QUOTE=Lissa]
Here comes Bricker, making a logical, rational decision and admitting that a political party he typically supports is clearly wrong, and many just pile on.
[/QUOTE]
???

There has been very little piling on Bricker. Piling in the disingenous Republicans who excuse a child predator by dodging accountability, yes; but most are in agreement with Bricker.

[elucidator]

And this…

(Available with links at Washington Monthly
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/…)

Did a “velvet mafia” of gay congressional aides protect Mark Foley for years? That’s what CBS News reported last night:

One senior House Republican tells CBS that there’s a lot of anger at what he describes as “a network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the speaker a disservice.”

In fact, David Corn says there’s even a list circulating that names names…

Kevin Drum goes on with his own guess, but is rightly perplexed.

[kaylasdad99]

[QUOTE=wring]
I once heard a man describe the sex between him and his eight year old child as consensual. just as outrageous.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you know, he is the parent…

:eek:

Well, you know, he is the parent, and if he gave his consent for his kid to…

:eek: :eek:

Fuck it, I can’t do it.

[kaylasdad99]

But I’m probably going to hell for that anyway.

[wring]

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
But I’m probably going to hell for that anyway.
[/QUOTE]

no, but he ptobably did.

[elucidator]

Yes, but not soon enough.

[wring]

true dat.

[Black_Train_Song]

[QUOTE=Bricker]

and then we can say we stand for law and morality again. Right now, we seem to stand for weasel-dom.
[/QUOTE]

This is the problem I have with politics. Saying that we stand for something implies that they stand for the opposite.
But even more than that, these aren’t things people should be standing for. These are things that should be default in their characters as human beings. No party has a monopoly on morality and I don’t know all about that law thing considering they’re the ones who make the laws. Even then they seem to have trouble following them.