Where did all the "It's just sex" Democrats go?

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

And that case should be examined in a court of law, not in the kangaroo court of partisan politics.

Just like Clinton!!! Opps you feel into that trap pretty easily!!!

[tbone]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Uh, no. Pedophiles/sexual abusers are completely different than satutory rape cases in the eyes of the law.

Ummmm......

"Pedophilia - In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent,[1] as well as those who have sexually abused a child." Wikipedia

You are technically correct as there is no law against being a "pedophile", only the pursuit and conquest associated with it. He is being accused of the pursuit, which is against the law and according to the above classifies him as a pedophile.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

If the Republicans did something wrong, like a cover up, then of course it should be investigated. But I don't think they did anything illegal, so of course I think it's worthless. Perhaps you think they did something illegal?

So because YOU THINK they didn't do anything illegal, let's just drop this whole thing and move on......do you even hear yourself? If there was a cover up of a potential child predator, no matter your opinion or anyone else's, it needs a serious investigation by more than just Congress.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yeah, actually; it was headed toward the bottom of the page til you bumped it with your enlightening post.

There's no reason for this ballz. It adds nothing constructive to the topic.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Well that just makes politics boring, doesn't it?

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by tbone

Just like Clinton!!! Opps you feel into that trap pretty easily!!!

That wasn't a court of law.


But Former President Clinton is still probably the most scandalous president evah.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

That wasn't a court of law.


But Former President Clinton is still probably the most scandalous president evah.

I think Kennedy still holds that honor...

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The Clinton scandal is a comparison of reaction by the Democrats, not a comparison of the actions themselves.

Well, the Democrats (and many others) compared the actions of Clinton and Foley and found them to be subtantially different; therefore, they are reacting differently to them. This point has been repeated multiple times in this thread.

I think it's time to speak frankly.

Honestly, it appears to me that you seem to look on other's posts simply as points to be rebutted, not information to be considered, processed, and possibly even learned from. You don't have to agree with it. That's why I accused you of a knee-jerk partisan reaction, earlier. In your repetitive exchange with another poster earlier in the thread, did you actually learn anything about their position? Judging from your posts, one can almost see you wave dismissively every time they speak, and continue your assertions regardless. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that's how it looks to me.

I learn a lot from people who see things differently than I do, and I like that. I like to try and understand the thought process of the "other side", but frankly, many of your posts leave me confused. I've long ago learned to take some of your statements with a grain of salt, but now I'm beginning to think that you're possibly playing the Devil's advocate. Perhaps I am wrong in my assesment of how you form your positions, but that is the way that it appears to me.

And I do apologize if in this post (or in any others) if I appear to have attacked you (or anyone else) personally. Passions get aroused, and I will try to mind my manners, as I am a guest here. If I have attacked anyone, or if this post itself is too personal and off-topic, I'm truly sorry. I do think my opinions are relevant to this thread, as well as just being generally good for us to clear the air every once in a while.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I think Kennedy still holds that honor...

Clinton and Kennedy aren't pimples on Nixons ass!

(Nixon > Bush)

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Clinton and Kennedy aren't pimples on Nixons ass!

(Nixon > Bush)

By scandalous I took it to refer to the sexual kind.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Well, the Democrats (and many others) compared the actions of Clinton and Foley and found them to be subtantially different; therefore, they are reacting differently to them. This point has been repeated multiple times in this thread.

You're right, the two situations are different, and yet they both have somehow become political in the aftermath of their discoveries. First, it's important to note that one of these sex scandals involved actual sex, the other didn't. I'll let you figure out which one. That, to me, is even more important that what is theoretical. If you say 'there are laws against pursuing minors online' then let's see them. If that were so, they'd be investigating Foley himself, not the House, right? One would think. Nonetheless, this whole fiasco (just as the Clinton situation was a fiasco, a waste or our time and resources, and I with it never happened; the rest of the world is laughing at us now just as much as they were then) has become a political opportunity to destroy the Republicans. Is this something planned? It could be, I don't know. But the point is, the situations are a lot more similar than you think. Take into consideration the list of gays in the Reublican party that are supposedly going to be outed by the Democrats in the near future; what is this, homosexual McCarthyism? Since when are the Democrats on a witch hunt to destory the lives of gays? The point is obvious; to turn the Republican Christian base against Republicans, thus destroying the voting base. So you see, this isn't merely a comparison of Clinton gettin it on with Lewinksy and Foley flirting with a teen online. (I'd also like to point out that despite some efforts to convince us otherwise (colloquially of course ), there is still a difference between pedophilia and statutory rape...of which never occured anyway). Nonetheless, now that I have that established, let's look at what happened then, and now:

First, let's consider that ABC just added three more to the list of pages that are coming forward to make claims against Foley. Why? Does this have any journalistic value at all? Are they saying that the Republicans have been hiding their stories too for years (that would be a story)? No, in fact they don't even have proof of their conversations with Foley. Basically it's just more ammo to add to the Democrats' arsenal against the Republicans. That's all it is. Nonetheless I accept that it's politics, part of the blogging world, and it's what happens. For ABC to do it? They should leave it to the 'nobody' bloggers.

Anyway, let's look at the positions Democrats took then compared to what they take now:

Carville on Good Morning America in 1998 (talking about Ken Starr):

He's concerned about three things: sex, sex, and more sex.

--Oh really? Like the Democrats seem to be obsessed with at the moment? Sex that never happened but was somehow covered up?

Carville talking about Starr again on Meet the Press in '98:

These skuzzy, slimy tactics of wiring people up, of getting them in hotel bars and threatening to -- to -- to arrest their parents and all that kind of foolishness. You know what? When this whole Starr thing started, I told the American people about it, and they can see that I'm right in spades, they can see that I'm right in spades. We start out with a land deal, and now with traipsing around with some 24-year-old intern. It's ridiculous.

When asked 'Why doesn't the prez come forward and explain all of this?' on Good Morning America, Carville states:

Let the media and let the independent counsel go in and subpoena now six women that -- you know, that denied that they ever had sex with the president. They're out subpoenaing these people, harassing and I’m sure that they're gonna try to threaten to put their mothers in jails and their family and hold them for nine hours in some room. People are sick and tired. After $40 million of investigating, these people are out leaking and investigating sex and the country is sick and tired of it.

--Well it doesn't seem your party is sick of it, Mr. Carville

When Paul Begala was asked 'Should a married man be involved in a relationship with anybody but his wife?' he responds with:

The president said he didn't have a sexual relationship with this woman, I did not ask anybody to do anything other than tell the truth. There is an investigation going on, and it will clear him. If we're going to shut down the whole country about that, then I think that's unwise.

--You mean, like we're shutting down the whole country over the Foley situation?

When Susan Estrich was asked 'What do you believe will be the political, legal, moral, cultural fallout from the Juanita Broaddrick interview?' on Meet the Press, she says:

I don't think we should be convicting the president 21 years after the fact, and I'm a little troubled to hear the discussion as if these allegations are true. I mean, you know, this is very serious stuff, and even if 1978 some of it would have been called bad sex, and I think it would have been, Tim. You know, we can't convict the president on this kind of speculation.

--No, of course we can't convict the president, but we can convict Mr. Hastert and the whole Republican party over Foley and sex that never happened!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's time to speak frankly.

Honestly, it appears to me that you seem to look on other's posts simply as points to be rebutted, not information to be considered, processed, and possibly even learned from. You don't have to agree with it. That's why I accused you of a knee-jerk partisan reaction, earlier. In your repetitive exchange with another poster earlier in the thread, did you actually learn anything about their position? Judging from your posts, one can almost see you wave dismissively every time they speak, and continue your assertions regardless. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that's how it looks to me.

I learn a lot from people who see things differently than I do, and I like that. I like to try and understand the thought process of the "other side", but frankly, many of your posts leave me confused. I've long ago learned to take some of your statements with a grain of salt, but now I'm beginning to think that you're possibly playing the Devil's advocate. Perhaps I am wrong in my assesment of how you form your positions, but that is the way that it appears to me.

And I do apologize if in this post (or in any others) if I appear to have attacked you (or anyone else) personally. Passions get aroused, and I will try to mind my manners, as I am a guest here. If I have attacked anyone, or if this post itself is too personal and off-topic, I'm truly sorry. I do think my opinions are relevant to this thread, as well as just being generally good for us to clear the air every once in a while.

You know, you're welcome to speak frankly anytime you want. I admire the way you 'attacked' me, and I don't take any personal offense to it. But I disagree that you 'try to learn' from others. I have posted much information that you just refuse to listen to, but hey, that's what political debate is about, right? It goes beyond what's out there and into something deeper; personal convictions. Simple facts aren't just simple facts to everyone. You can't change someone's opinion by merely showing them what did or didn't happen. Why? Because how they perceive those facts, how they view them, and how they see right and wrong in their lives completely changes how those facts seem to them. See, to me the difference here is much different than 'Lewinsky was old enough and Foley pursued young kids'. The difference to me is that Clinton actually did have sex, and Foley was merely flirting online. Pursuing some may call it, but is that really against the law? Again I ask, if it is, why aren't they investigating him, and instead investigating Congress? Anyway, like I said, I appreciate your nice attempts to attack me, but listen, political debate is about arguing about points back and forth, is it not?

[KatKanPlay]

It doesnt appear to me that it is just the dems pointing fingers here but the repubs are also question the leadership in this matter. Frankly I think it is getting old and needs to drop back to page 8 until all assumptions of evidence are proven. It has become a major distraction to the real problems we have to deal with and in this I wonder if Rove is setting back with a "mission accomplished" smerk on his face as the actions of the executive branch have now been minimized and is receiving less attention in light of the NIE report and Bob Woodwards tell all book.

As a democrat this whole thing has more to do with exposing the hypocrisy of the "family values" mantra and less to do with politics in general.

[Diamond Cross]

I casn't agree. To me it's all about partisan political crap on a tit for tat basis with no real morality involved. They should've done this sooner than waiting for an election year, or should I say erection year?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

They should've done this sooner than waiting for an election year, or should I say erection year?

Proof the Democrats were sitting on this until election year?

[IminWonderland]

In reference to Ballz post about Clinton and the comparison to the two....


I do not believe that with Foley, or Clinton, that either of the issues brought forth are worth discussing. Foley resigned, and that was his choice to do so. If he didn't break any laws, but felt he couldn't hold office because of what people found out he was doing, well, that's his character flaw, and if people weren't going to vote for him because of it, that's his own issue with his consituents. As far as Clinton, that got blown WAY out of proportion too. Both sides are taking their turns exploiting the sexual actions of each side. The Religious Right, and the Republicans used Extramaritial affairs (and let's be realistic, I'm sure that MANY MANY of them have them.) and now the Democrats are using Homosexuality against the Republicans.

The reality is, to the American public, a person's Homosexuality, or their Extramarital affairs, are really none of our business. I don't care if my neighbor is gay, I don't care if my Dentist is having an affair, it has no bearing on my individual life.

But, all that being said, there is a game in America with the two party system, and all of them take their turns taking stabs at eachother. The Republicans CERTAINLY have done it to the Democrats, and visa versa. So, I don't believe that Republicans have room to be suprised because the Democrats are using this against them. They would do the same thing with a scandal.

I hope that this divides the Republican party, the issue of Homosexuality. Because the Republican Party used to be a party about LITTLE government in people's lives, it used to be about keeping government out of people's hair, and only doing what was necessary, and I believe alot of moderates still want that and believe that, but the party sold their souls to the Religious extreme Right, and now the party is becoming divided. I hope it splits the party up, because this two party system is whack anyways.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Foley resigned, and that was his choice to do so. If he didn't break any laws, but felt he couldn't hold office because of what people found out he was doing, well, that's his character flaw, and if people weren't going to vote for him because of it, that's his own issue with his consituents.

I think it was smart of him, why was it a flaw?

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think it was smart of him, why was it a flaw?

Resigning wasn't his flaw. Making choices that open himself up to character attacks was. Pretending to be something that he apparently wasn't, is the flaw.

I think it was smart for him to resign too. Because if this came out, and he refused to leave, then he would have ended up getting slapped on the wrist or something similar for having poor conduct with fellow employees (because like any other company, when people get caught with this kinda IM business, they get disciplined), but the fact of his coming out like that wouldn't have gone well for the public, and they would eat him alive.