Mark Foley

[wmw999 2,552]

Quote

The left takes a lighter view on sexual issues unless it will help them, the right seems to have one stance that has different levels of severity depending on the political motive

I agree that no one is defending Foley. But I think that the defining line for Clinton was the fact that everyone he slept with was a adult. He was guilty of severe indiscretion and little-brain-commanding syndrome, but I don't believe he slept with anyone under the age of 21 since he was close to that age himself.

Monica was over 21. Not that it's admirable, just that it's legal. His position as her superior was probably less admirable in some ways than his position as her elder (thanks to lawrocket for that insight).

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I agree that no one is defending Foley. But I think that the defining line for Clinton was the fact that everyone he slept with was a adult. He was guilty of severe indiscretion and little-brain-commanding syndrome, but I don't believe he slept with anyone under the age of 21 since he was close to that age himself.

My point was that the left defended it and even defended him lying about it under oath, while the right attacked him for both. While the right is not defending anything Foley has done, but the left sure is attacking over it.

In fact I don't think many people other than MBLA would even think about defending Foley if it is proven he did anything wrong. But some people did defend Clinton even after he admitted to it and admitted to lying.

Both parties are going to use something like this to their advantage. However, I don't see anyone defending Foley, and we do see the left defending people on the left who are involved with sexual cases.

[billvon 3,080]

>My point was that the left defended it and even defended him
>lying about it under oath, while the right attacked him for both.

Uh, I remember that time. Democrats in general were not defending what he did. They _were_ claiming that it's not appropriate to impeach someone for lying under oath about a blowjob. There were, of course, a few left-wing pundits who _did_ defend what he did.

>While the right is not defending anything Foley has done . . .

Right wing pundits are blaming the victims and claiming they are democratic operatives, and Foley was just a victim of their clever traps. A poster on here thinks Foley was engaged in a consensual, legal exchange of racy messages.

Now, they are in the minority, just as democrats who defended what Clinton did are in the minority. The two sides act very much the same when it comes to stuff like this, and that involves getting the most possible benefit out of the situation. And in both cases, most people saw it as beneficial to condemn what the respective politicians did.

[wmw999 2,552]

I don't remember a lot of people saying that Clinton did the right thing with Monica. I do remember a lot of people saying it was a damn silly thing to impeach a president over, and that those were questions that were more for Hillary to ask than Ken Starr.

Clinton's sexual act was not illegal. Stupid, shortsighted, and against his marriage, yes. But not illegal. He should not have lied about it, but, again, that was Hillary's question to ask. They would have been as appropriate asking him if he was currently wearing boxers or briefs, and to show them whether there was a racing stripe.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

They _were_ claiming that it's not appropriate to impeach someone for lying under oath about a blowjob.

I think that while the question maybe was wrong. The answer was not to lie about it. And lying about it was illegal. And lying under oath is enough to get any of us in trouble.

So, Getting a BJ from some fat chick that is not your wife? Stupid.

Lying under oath? Illegal.

I have no issue with the stupid, only the illegal.

Quote

The two sides act very much the same when it comes to stuff like this, and that involves getting the most possible benefit out of the situation. And in both cases, most people saw it as beneficial to condemn what the respective politicians did.

Agreed, but do you not see a double standard when it comes to sex and politics at all? It sure seems that the left only gets really upset when there is a political advantage.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Agreed, but do you not see a double standard when it comes to sex and politics at all?

I sure do get a kick out of watching the right wing trying to squirm out of the holier than any one else position they have painted themselves into....

Party of morality.....right.....

[billvon 3,080]

>Agreed, but do you not see a double standard when it comes to sex and politics at all?

I absolutely think there's a double standard, and both sides display it. If Foley had been a democrat, republicans would now be proclaiming themselves the party of trust, honesty and family values, and democrats would be calling it "a big GOP plot." Every GOP speech would mention "oh, and Foley's a pedophile, and Nancy Pelosi protected him."

>It sure seems that the left only gets really upset when there is a political advantage.

You must have been around during Monicagate. There was at least as much moral outrage by the GOP as there is now by the democrats.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Clinton death list. That has been debunked

Really? I've not seen anything debunking it yet... can you point me to a link?

Guilty until proven innocent huh. How about this death list?
Laura Bush: one ex-boyfriend.
George W: http://iraqbodycount.org/

Or like this^^^? It would have been pretty easy to find a site that actually debunked the claims that Clinton is somehow directly tied to the deaths of 56 people - most of which where on his bad side.

Instead to you try to change the subject.

Maybe you should take it up with Lucky. He's the one who brought up the "Clinton Death list".

This is Speaker's Corner. Since you don't like the way threads drift, why don't YOU volunteer to be a moderator?

Of course, you'd have to fill in your profile first, Mr. "no name entered".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I sure do get a kick out of watching the right wing trying to squirm out of the holier than any one else position they have painted themselves into....

Party of morality.....right.....

So you do agree that the left has a double standard?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You must have been around during Monicagate. There was at least as much moral outrage by the GOP as there is now by the democrats.

That is my point. But the left defended Clinton, and the right is not defending Foley.

I guess I am not explaining myslef well, or you are ignoring or avoiding my point.

The left seems to defend when it is them under attack for these kinds of acts, while the right does not.

[billvon 3,080]

>But the left defended Clinton . . .

You keep saying that. It's not true - or at least, is no more true than saying "the right defended Foley."

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

>But the left defended Clinton . . .

You keep saying that. It's not true - or at least, is no more true than saying "the right defended Foley."

Which brings us back to my "Queen sacrifice" model (I won't call it an analogy so Sundevil doesn't have to object on principle). The right has sacrificed Foley ("Foley is scum") so they can attack the Dems. There are about 100 posts of that nature on here right now.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Some might have a double standard.. as do so many here on the far right...

Clinton getting a BJ was a really stupid thing to stop our government over but the far right was absolutely rabid in their pursuit of the man because of his lack of morals.

Face it Foley is just another instance of hypocrisy and how power corrupts... and when he does it with teenagers... he needs to go. It is TOTALLY indefensible to use grroming behavior on children.. and YES I think a 16 year old is still a child.

Personally I think there need to be more women in the halls of congress...then there would be far less of the little head thinking that leads to EITHER of these kinds of incidents.

Talking about this sex scandel is stupid when there are so many issues that need to be discussed.. no matter HOW much those on the far right wish to deflect criticism onto the evil doing democrats with a ....well they did this or that too.


BUT I DO remember well when the party of morality that was going to change Washington to be a place of trust and morals and family values.... its just sad that they give us just more of the same old crap and added a few new twists in with their elective war that did not need to be fought.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Uh, I remember that time. Democrats in general were not defending what he did. They _were_ claiming that it's not appropriate to impeach someone for lying under oath about a blowjob. There were, of course, a few left-wing pundits who _did_ defend what he did.

And there you go downplaying the importance of that deposition, in the case of Paula Jones. Instead of defending himself he lies under oath, and then people just like yourself downplay the wrong this implies. You should not complain when anyone does the same thing....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 3,080]

>And there you go downplaying the importance . . .

Who are you answering? I didn't say anything about the importance of any deposition, nor did I "downplany the wrong this implies." Did you mean to answer Jeanie? She's the red one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I think that while the question maybe was wrong. The answer was not to lie about it. And lying about it was illegal. And lying under oath is enough to get any of us in trouble.

So, Getting a BJ from some fat chick that is not your wife? Stupid.

Lying under oath? Illegal.

The only thing is, he didn't lie under oath about it. The then current definition of sexual relations did not include a BJ, hence he did not lie about it either.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

I think that while the question maybe was wrong. The answer was not to lie about it. And lying about it was illegal. And lying under oath is enough to get any of us in trouble.

So, Getting a BJ from some fat chick that is not your wife? Stupid.

Lying under oath? Illegal.

The only thing is, he didn't lie under oath about it. The then current definition of sexual relations did not include a BJ, hence he did not lie about it either.

Why did he agree to pay Paula Jones $850,000, get disbarred (for 5 years) and fined over $90,000.00?

[Andy9o8 2]

Title of thread: Mark Foley

Reply: Well...Clinton got a blowjob. Lied about it, too.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Why did he agree to pay Paula Jones $850,000, get disbarred (for 5 years) and fined over $90,000.00?

Might have figured it was cheaper than continuing with a lawsuit. I make decisions like that almost daily.

Was he found guilty?

Lastly, in the case of Monica, it is clear he did not lie under oath....

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Now, they are in the minority, just as democrats who defended what Clinton did are in the minority. The two sides act very much the same when it comes to stuff like this, and that involves getting the most possible benefit out of the situation. And in both cases, most people saw it as beneficial to condemn what the respective politicians did.

On the other hand, I don't recall the Democrats proposing and passing legislation to retroactively make what Clinton did legal. Seems to be a lot of that nowadays.

[kallend 2,113]

So N. Korea has nukes.
We have a world record debt.
We are at war, costing lives and treasure.
We have an unsolved Social Security problem.
We have 40M people with no health insurance.

Why is everyone so preoccupied with this SOB and "the other side is just as bad"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,080]

>Why is everyone so preoccupied with this SOB . . . .

I'm suprised at how much the right wing is publicizing it. I think they actually are starting to believe their own propaganda.

The Iraq War - "Man, those democrats sure screwed things up! We said they were enabling the terrorists and look - now there are a lot more terrorists! I pity them this election when voters realize the truth, and vote them out of office for good."

The Foley scandal - "Now people will see what democrats really stand for. Clearly they don't care about kids or family values at _all_. It also proves just how supportive of families the GOP is. It's a good thing Foley sent those obscene IM's to the pages and then resigned! Good for us, that is. But we're not defending him."

Presidential approval ratings - "Thank god people are starting to see that . . . uh . . . that . . . that the GOP congress can do a lot more for them than even a republican president can! Yes indeed; those historically low ratings are a good thing for the GOP."

Debt - "Modern people realize that living in debt is a good thing overall. You can get that big house, that plasma TV and that Ford Excursion without having to pay for it! The GOP is behind that sort of thing 100%. And we prove it every day."

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So N. Korea has nukes.
We have a world record debt.
We are at war, costing lives and treasure.
We have an unsolved Social Security problem.
We have 40M people with no health insurance.

Why is everyone so preoccupied with this SOB and "the other side is just as bad"?

You're right. I'm beginning to think it's deliberate. If it weren't for Foley's problems then we certainly would have had more focus on John Warner's "cut and run" speech last week

[headoverheels 333]

Quote

I wanna know whose bright idea it was to let underage interns anywhere near Congress in the first place.

Brings to mind the riddle from about 20 years ago:

Why don't Senators use bookmarks? They prefer their pages bent over.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

>But the left defended Clinton . . .

You keep saying that. It's not true - or at least, is no more true than saying "the right defended Foley."

Quote

The only thing is, he didn't lie under oath about it. The then current definition of sexual relations did not include a BJ, hence he did not lie about it either.