More Foley bad deeds or not?

[kallend 2,150]

Once again you deliberately missed the really relevant point he made:

"Studds was never the Annointed Protector of Youth that Foley set himself up to be. You just can't top that on the hypocrisy meter."

...

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

[likearock 2]

Quote

What I'm hearing is "Studds was different...that doesn't count".

I'll try to hit the parallels again:

Studds: Seduced an active page - I don't know if the page was over the age of consent at the time, but may have been.

Foley: Sent "over friendly" emails to a FORMER page (over the age of consent) and more explicit IM's to another FORMER page (also over age of consent).

Both abuses of power...but Studds was applauded and exonerated by the Dems, where Foley is being crucified - THAT is hypocricy.

Man, when you have to dig back 23 years to try to draw a shaky parallel, the desperation is showing. Twenty three years ago, the party in question hadn't annointed themselves the Guardians of Virtue that the Republicans do now. That's what makes the story so compelling now when it wasn't then.

But even going with a comparison, we still have:

STUDDS: Had a relationship with ONE page.

FOLEY: Contacted and harrassed MULTIPLE pages and it got so bad that some of them complained about it. According to several accounts, Foley's proclivities were common knowledge among the active pages themselves.

[juanesky 0]

So you basically are ok with a 40+ yo pedophile abusing a minor. Gotcha. We understand there are no "valid" comparisons.

Still both were members of congress, one actually committed the act, and got away without any repercussions. I don't care what committees those worked for, or what they advocated.

It's very refreshing that you are ok with a pedophile living his fantasy as long as he is not an "advocate" for what is right or wrong.

You definitely would have made a "great" defense lawyer.

"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

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

So you basically are ok with a 40+ yo pedophile abusing a minor. Gotcha. We understand there are no "valid" comparisons.

Still both were members of congress, one actually committed the act, and got away without any repercussions. I don't care what committees those worked for, or what they advocated.

It's very refreshing that you are ok with a pedophile living his fantasy as long as he is not an "advocate" for what is right or wrong.

You definitely would have made a "great" defense lawyer.

Very very very poor and lame and inept attempt to misquote me. You need to do better than that.

...

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

[NCclimber 0]

He got the essence of what you said.

Foley resigned in shame. Studds was applauded.

I keep wonder which lefty blogger came up with:

Annointed Protector of Youth

Several of the posters around here seem to use it a lot.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

He got the essence of what you said.

Foley resigned in shame. Studds was applauded.

Foley resigned into "rehab", we have no evidence of shame.
Who applauded Stubbs? Got a link or did you just make that up?

...

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

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I keep wonder which lefty blogger came up with:

Annointed Protector of Youth

Several of the posters around here seem to use it a lot.

Really. You need to check your facts better:

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=annointed+protector+of+youth&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=1w&search_user_username=&sb=score&mh=25

...

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

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Foley resigned into "rehab", we have no evidence of shame.
Who applauded Stubbs? Got a link or did you just make that up?

Resigned into rehab? LOL That's some fancy spin you got there, sport.

This is from his resignation letter "“I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent.”
Sounds pretty contrite to me.

Here's a link on Stubbs.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/125952742.html?dids=125952742:125952742&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&fmac=&date=Aug+12%2C+1983&author=By+Sandra+Evans+Teeley+Washington+Post+Staff+Writer&desc=Studds+Gets+Standing+Ovations+At+First+Meeting+Since+Censure

[juanesky 0]

Don't you love it when clever people spin things and expect everyone to believe these skewed point of views?

"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

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Don't you love it when clever people spin things and expect everyone to believe these skewed point of views?

I'm still awaiting a source for your claim: "So you basically are ok with a 40+ yo pedophile abusing a minor".

or would you like to withdraw that PA?

...

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

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

Who applauded Stubbs? Got a link or did you just make that up?

Some members of his district applauded Studds. He was censured, and stripped of his committee chairmanship (which didn't have anything to do with protecting children).

I wish this whole thing would go away. The problem is that with so many folks (mainly conservative) using this kind of behavior as a whipping rod against others, the sharks really come to feed when it comes back the other way.

Kind of like how a minister who spends all his sermons railing about infidelity and how people who cheat on their spouses are going to hell gets more publicity when he's found to be getting some on the side, than a quiet minister who doesn't focus on the infidelity issue.

People kind of like to use hypocrisy to skewer others who have been skewering.

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)

[juanesky 0]

The source is clear for many, as you waid the difference of being outraged about it is that as long as the prepetrator is not a self annointed child protector, you are basically ok with it.

We understand you perfectly.....

"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

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

What I'm hearing is "Studds was different...that doesn't count".

You know, I keep hearing that it's the "Dems" who are driving this story in order to hurt the Cons. Could have fooled me

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

The source is clear for many, as you waid the difference of being outraged about it is that as long as the prepetrator is not a self annointed child protector, you are basically ok with it.

We understand you perfectly.....

Apparently YOU don't understand at all. When it comes to hypocrisy, there is no comparison between Foley and the others. None of the others set themselves up as guardians of family values, protectors of minors, paragons of personal responsibilty the way that Foley did.

...

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

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

I keep wonder which lefty blogger came up with:

Annointed Protector of Youth

Several of the posters around here seem to use it a lot.

Really. You need to check your facts better:

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=annointed+protector+of+youth&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=1w&search_user_username=&sb=score&mh=25

Right you are.

With all these smug labels like

arbiter of virtue

party of family values

party of personal responsibility

annointed protector of youth

... getting tossed around, they all tend to run together.

I think the overuse of loaded labels was mastered by Rush Limbaugh. He must be pleased that this smarmy tactic has such a wide appeal.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

None of the others set themselves up as guardians of family values, protectors of minors, paragons of personal responsibilty the way that Foley did.

You just can't help yourself. LOL

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Who applauded Stubbs? Got a link or did you just make that up?

Some members of his district applauded Studds. He was censured, and stripped of his committee chairmanship (which didn't have anything to do with protecting children).

I wish this whole thing would go away. The problem is that with so many folks (mainly conservative) using this kind of behavior as a whipping rod against others, the sharks really come to feed when it comes back the other way.

Kind of like how a minister who spends all his sermons railing about infidelity and how people who cheat on their spouses are going to hell gets more publicity when he's found to be getting some on the side, than a quiet minister who doesn't focus on the infidelity issue.

People kind of like to use hypicrisy to skewer others who have been skewering.

Wendy W.

Excellent post, Wendy. Of course, this cuts both ways. Those people who wish the minister should just stay out of their personal lives are hypocrits, if they skewer him when his indiscretions are revealed.

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

Those people who wish the minister should just stay out of their personal lives are hypocrits, if they skewer him when his indiscretions are revealed.

Not really. Hypocrisy is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. And when you publicly judge others for the sins that you are committing in private, it gets ugly when it catches up with you.

Just being a smug that the preacher got caught isn't hypocritical. For that matter, if the minister thinks it's OK for him to have an affair, then it's still not hypocritical -- it's a double standard, but not hypocritical.

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)

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice.

You mean like espousing a "live and let live" philosophy and then abandoning it when convenient?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Those people who wish the minister should just stay out of their personal lives are hypocrits, if they skewer him when his indiscretions are revealed.

Not really. Hypocrisy is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. And when you publicly judge others for the sins that you are committing in private, it gets ugly when it catches up with you.

Just being a smug that the preacher got caught isn't hypocritical. For that matter, if the minister thinks it's OK for him to have an affair, then it's still not hypocritical -- it's a double standard, but not hypocritical.

Wendy W.

Like the REVvvvvvvrend Jackson "begatting" a son on his secretary?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Those people who wish the minister should just stay out of their personal lives are hypocrits, if they skewer him when his indiscretions are revealed.

Not really. Hypocrisy is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. And when you publicly judge others for the sins that you are committing in private, it gets ugly when it catches up with you.

Just being a smug that the preacher got caught isn't hypocritical. For that matter, if the minister thinks it's OK for him to have an affair, then it's still not hypocritical -- it's a double standard, but not hypocritical.

Wendy W.

Like the REVvvvvvvrend Jackson "begatting" a son on his secretary?

That is an excellent example of hypocrisy. As is Foley, as is Jimmy Swaggart, as is Jim Bakker.

Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon is another good example.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Like the REVvvvvvvrend Jackson "begatting" a son on his secretary?

That is an excellent example of hypocrisy. As is Foley, as is Jimmy Swaggart, as is Jim Bakker.

Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon is another good example.

[wmw999 2,589]

Gay is not the same as pedophile. Pedophiles should be excluded from teaching. Because some pedophiles are gay does not mean that homosexuals should be excluded from teaching. Most pedophiles are men -- you don't hear that men should be excluded from teaching, do you?

Do you object to only gay male teachers, or are lesbians objectionable as well?

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)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Man, when you have to dig back 23 years to try to draw a shaky parallel, the desperation is showing. Twenty three years ago, the party in question hadn't annointed themselves the Guardians of Virtue that the Republicans do now. That's what makes the story so compelling now when it wasn't then.

Forget trying to show them how lame it is to make hiostorical comparisons. In this political climate... with the far right claiming to be the moderates..it is impossible.

23 years ago there was a far different climate and social mores that was being touted as the norm..they are incapable of remembering those days... since they DO NOT WANT to remember those days....

For those of them that are old enough...they were the squares.... the ones who could not even get a date on Sat night.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Man, when you have to dig back 23 years to try to draw a shaky parallel, the desperation is showing. Twenty three years ago, the party in question hadn't annointed themselves the Guardians of Virtue that the Republicans do now. That's what makes the story so compelling now when it wasn't then.

Forget trying to show them how lame it is to make hiostorical comparisons. In this political climate... with the far right claiming to be the moderates..it is impossible.

23 years ago there was a far different climate and social mores that was being touted as the norm..they are incapable of remembering those days... since they DO NOT WANT to remember those days....

For those of them that are old enough...they were the squares.... the ones who could not even get a date on Sat night.

Funny, the pre-Foley news was about a Republican supposedly using a racial slur 20-some years ago... seems like the "historical comparisons" can only be done if it's a Republican...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706