Text 3039, 150 rader
Skriven 2006-11-01 00:47:00 av Bob Klahn (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Tim Richardson
Ärende: Foley, et al
====================
 DC>> There is a large difference between what Cliton did and what Foley
 DC>> did.  Or, haven't you noticed that?

 TR> There is every `bit' a large familiarity between what
 TR> Stubbs (or Studds, whatever his name was) did. Or, haven't
 TR> you noticed? Except for the fact that Foley has only so far
 TR> been shown to have sent e-mails; the democrat actually
 TR> butt-fucked a page. Or hadn't you noticed?

 Studds was also about 30 years ago. And he is dead. And who even
 remember it? So who remembers how much moral outrage anyone felt
 then? While you are at it, remember also, while Studds was
 charged, so was a republican at the same time. Did you fell
 moral outrage for that?

 TR>>> Clinton was the president of the United States....the Chief
 DC>> Executive  TR> of America. However hard Lewinski "persued
 DC>> Clinton"...it was Clinton's  TR> responsibility to do the proper
 DC>> thing and not engage in  TR> reprehensible behavior right in the Oval
 DC>> Office. He failed.

 Of course, there is the fact that the right wingers constantly
 try to oversell it by claiming he committed reprehensible
 behavior in the Oval Office. While, in reality, the only thing
 they did in the Oval Office was talk. Read the Starr report to
 confirm that.

 DC>> Had Lewinski been under aged or had been promised advancement in
 DC>> her career I would agree.

 TR> The `age' of consent in Washington DC is `16'. The minimum
 TR> age for a Congressional Page is `16'.

 The age under the federal laws governing solicitation by
 electronic media is 18. And it was across state lines, not in
 Washington. So Washington standards don't apply.

 DC>>> Yet, you make the claim that I defended him, didn't you.

 TR>>> I made no such claim. Reading comprehension is a large problem
 DC>> for  TR> you, isn't it?

 DC>> Now, it's your problem.  You are the one claiming that I didn't
 DC>> express outrage.

 TR> That wasn't `a claim'; I `pointed that out'! And it pissed
 TR> you right off.

 DC>>> Of course not.  The incident is some 20 years old.  Get over it.

 TR> Interesting; You people toss out Nixon on a regular
 TR> basis...and `he' was thirty or more years ago. But when
 TR> your own tactic of dredging up old stuff is thrown right
 TR> back at you.....suddenly its `oh...well! `That' was twenty
 TR> years ago!'

 Studds was 30 years ago. Dan got it wrong.

 Nixon was potentially a great president, at the least a very
 good one. He screwed it up, costing us all that disruption of
 the govt, and the damage to public confidence, and the service
 of a president who could have been great.

 He had the ability. He had too much ego.

 ...

 DC>> Yeah, some 20 years ago.  Stop living in the past.


 TR> By this criteria of `yours'.....I fully expect that neither
 TR> you nor any of your `friends' will ever again toss Nixon's
 TR> name into an argument. (yeah.......right!)

 Just when was the last time Nixon's name was tossed into an
 arguement?

 TR>>> So far.....all your lynch mob has been able to come up with on
 DC>> Foley  TR> is a few disgusting e-mails, and hear-say accusations
 DC>> about Foley maybe `cruisin' the Page dorm.


 DC>> Too bad the 'hearsay' is from the page directly involved in the
 DC>> incident.

 TR> Again: The age `16 years old' is the `age of consent' in
 TR> Washington DC.

 So, you think that makes it ok?

 TR> If Foley `did' anything illegal........cough it up and lets
 TR> see him get prosecuted for it. Its no more illegal to
 TR> `cruise' the Page dorm than it is to `cruise' bars. Did

 Don't be so sure. It is a federal facility. And the accusations
 of illegal acts involve interstate solicitation by electronic
 media. A violation of a law Foley helped write.

 ...

 TR>>> The democrac who butt-fucked a Congressional Page and bragged
 DC>> about it on-camera, belongs to the party that tries to claim the
 DC>> moral high ground, but continually falls into the gutter on its
 DC>> face.

 Foley is dead, he doesn't belong to any party.

 The right's constant attempts to use Studds to excuse Hastert is
 evidence of their moral weakness.

 DC>> I didn't know he was a Republican.

 TR> He wasn't. He was a democrat.....and he was also from the
 TR> same state as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

 And he is dead. And it was 30 years ago, before the clergy
 scandals educated all of us about sexual predators. And we were
 all outraged and screaming for his scalp... maybe... cause none
 of us even remember the incident. The reality is, it's all too
 common, and the right makes it a dirty secret, instead of a
 public concern.

 ...

 DC>> So, in defense, you drag up a case that's 20 years old and try to
 DC>> justify Foley's actions.

 TR> I wasn't `defending' nor trying to "justify" anything Foley
 TR> did. If he did anything illegal I want him prosecuted.

 So, does that mean, if what he did was legal, you have no
 objection to him going back to doing it?

 ...

 TR> it? You're so fuckin' pissed off that your boy Clinton got
 TR> impeached you just spew bullshit in all directions hoping
 TR> against hope that some of it hits republicans.

 In reality, it's the right who spew the attacks as if
 republicans never do anything that low. That's the part that
 really delights about Foley getting caught, and about Hastert
 being caught covering up for him.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... the government is big...the government does a lot of good things. B. Dole
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)