^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Part of the problem"



Partisanship and party-line-based finger-pointing will solve nothing.

Lewinsky was over 18. And not male.

Impossible to oust the incumbents...especially here in Cali. Arnold tried to get the districts re-drawn so incumbesnts wouldn't be guaranteed their spot, but the sheeple bought what the imcumbents sold them and voted against re-districting. Whatever.

If you don't vote for change, how can you expect any?

I vote,I want change,I believed in what they said (they lied)
they get elected, have lunch with a lobbyist, they forget all about us
We are stuck till the next time
he is entrenched now, good luck getting someone to take out the trash.
Rika

vbaron, I watched the report last night too! Great piece. Extremely disturbing, ongoing K Street madness. The lobbying process itself is poisoned.

Markus

Bread and circuses... everyone is "busy" watching sports, entertainment, escapism...

sounds much like what's happening right about now

Word. Oprah thinks he has a chance in 2012. I say "not with this country of crackers." :rolleyes:

What the hell does that have to do with it? Are you saying that homosexual affairs are worse than heterosexual ones?

You tryin' to get this thread closed too?? :D

Tyson Vivyan, 26 years old, came forward to say that Mr. Foley sent him sexually suggestive messages and invited him to his home after he served as a congressional page nine years ago. Where the case might lead next seems to be anybody's guess.

It took this idiot about 10 years to outraged enough to speak up. He is as guilty as the rest of them

Hah, nope, just asking P-o-P to clarify his statement. I thought he was tooling along just fine with the over 18 point until he threw in the gender...

Just seems awfully inconsistent for a liberal to make a distinction between a straight affair and a gay affair...not only that but insinuate that the gay affair is somehow "worse".

Any affair is bad. Any affair with someone underage is criminally bad.

My only point was to say, "think of how much MORE crap Clinton would've gotten if it was a guy" (mostly from those holier-than-thou types that pursued the impeachment hearings). That's the only point, FWIW.

Rick:

Somewhere else, I pointed out that the "situation" allegedly involves a homosexual relationship. The Republican party has worked hard and long to define "correctness" through things like a "sanctity of marriage" amendment movement, yet having a number of openly gay elected officials and staff members. Standing off to one side and just observing, this appears to be schizophrenic in nature, seeming to call homosexuality "bad" and hetrosexuality "good". Therefore, to conclude that Clinton's activities would be looked upon with a bit less distain than if Lewinsky would have been male, is understandable. Given the beliefs of the religious right, a hetrosexual relaionship, while abhorrent, is probably more tolerable that a homosexual relationship. The internal inconsistency of the Republican stand on gender relations does confuse the issue, and walks a razor thin line of logic.

Just the thoughts of one guy trying to figure out just what is going on.

That may be true Moneyguy, but try this irony on for size...

Most (if not all) gay activist groups are in the Democrat camp. The Democrats are having to walk the fine line of condemning Foley for a "gay relationship" (so far just text messages but who knows) while not condemning the act for being gay in itself. Not only that, but the gay activist groups seem to be the ones involved in breaking the scandal, thus outing and destroying another homosexual.

The final irony, of course, is that Congressman Stubbs had an openly gay sexual relationship with a 17 year old page and was celebrated for having the courage to come out. The Democrats seemed to be ok with homosexual relationships back then, but not now. I guess you could say the difference is 16 year old in Foley's case and 17 year old in Stubb's case...but that's a little thin.

Ironies abound. Foley was the chair of a child predator committee in Congress. Gay activists have thrown another gay man under the bus to further their political agenda. Democrats are the party of homosexuals and the "rights" of homosexuals yet are castigating Foley for a homosexual relationship. Republicans are the party against gay marriage, yet have several homosexual members in their party. Etc, etc, etc.

Even here we have degenerated into arguing about the wedge issues, ignoring the real problems in this country

You seem to be confusing the term "gay" with the term "child predator."

I'd get that checked out if I were you.

And if by "celebrating" Studds, you mean publicly censuring him, you are absolutely correct -- he was "celebrated." :rolleyes:

Thanks Moneyguy - that's EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. The Republicans cannot selectively decide when the principles of their relationship/ties to the religious right wackjobs in this country can and cannot apply. Either they do or do not. The RR has said time and again, "homosexuality is evil", "homosexuality is a sin", and so on. The Republican party embraces these people (and by extension, their intolerance). As such, it is perfectly logical to conclude that if one were to substitute a MALE white house intern for Monica Lewinsky (hypothetically speaking), the outcry would have been far worse. ESPECIALLY on the coattails of Gingrich's "Contract with America" and his "we're the party of morality" position (insert puke smiley here).

I'm not saying the Democrats are saints either - personally I can't stand EITHER party but in this case the Republicans are the ones caught with their pants down (literally and figuratively). The age-old game of trying to shift the conversation to Clinton or whatever else will not work - this is about the Republican party DELIBERATELY getting caught engaging in activity that is not only criminal, but clearly against the core tenets of their own party platform.

And FWIW (not that my personal feelings matter, but I'll share them anyway) I find homosexuality disgusting and repulsive, but I don't look down my nose at anyone for it, nor do I feel it's my place to pass judgement on them. I actually support gay marriage since although I don't understand it and find it repugnant, who am I to decree who one is allowed to fall in love with? I overcome my inherent distaste for the practice by applying logic, tolerance and common sense. One might call this the hallmark of a civilized individual.

Like cattle to fodder.


I'm so disgusted I feel hopeless to tell the truth. The one thing that can control this monster, the people, can't seem to see the forest for the woods.

Um, no this is what I call being publicly celebrated:

"Studds recieved standing ovations, not in Congress as has been reported, but in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

Studds was censured by the Republican controlled House...