We interrupt this Foley garbage

[sirs]

First, the W remark was a joke. Sheesh

I saw the    yet, given your track record of commentary, I couldn't help but assume that there was actual sincerity to the "joke".  My apologies if there was no sincerity in the attempt at humor

Second, read what I wrote. It is about me. I'm not quite that egocentric. It is about voters in general Sirs.

So, may I suggest you go back and read what i wrote, since it was in reference to how Dems and GOP are perceived to voters in general.

My point is that what you use in your campaign to get elected will come back to you

Let's mark that under the column of "d'uh".  Of course it can.  I'm not talking about a specific campaign platform.  I'm talking in general, how the GOP, who in their desire to support high moral standards, are then in turn being scolded as "demanding" that people adhere to such standards.  You then in turn help reinforce my point, that since the Dems in general don't advocate high moral standards (leaving that to the GOP I guess) in their stump speeches or campaign jargon, they can maintan an apparently very low moral standard.  One can even get re-elected 5x for doing so much more than what Foley is being condemned and driven out of the party for.

I suggest you try again and this time read it. There's a standard for all politicians (and people in general) that voters will hold.

I have, and as you have helped demonstrate the moral & ethical bar for the Dems is apparently, and perhaps purposely placed very low, compared to the GOP.  Which is fine.  I will demand better from the folks I support, and condemn them when they fall, vs re-electing them over, and over, and over, and over again

[_JS]

I have, and as you have helped demonstrate the moral & ethical bar for the Dems is apparently, and perhaps purposely placed very low, compared to the GOP.  Which is fine.  I will demand better from the folks I support, and condemn them when they fall, vs re-electing them over, and over, and over, and over again

Sure you will.

You then in turn help reinforce my point, that since the Dems in general don't advocate high moral standards (leaving that to the GOP I guess) in their stump speeches or campaign jargon, they can maintan an apparently very low moral standard.

Where did I mention Democrats or Republicans?

Where did I mention either party could enjoy low standards?

Answer those questions please.

[sirs]

Sure you will. (demand better from the folks I support)[/i]

Another grasp at humor again?

Where did I mention Democrats or Republicans?  Where did I mention either party could enjoy low standards?

You helped reinforce the template....GOP running on an apparently higher moral/ethical standard, thus when they fall from grace, they can be not just condemned individually, but by plausible design, party wide.  Dems don't have such a burden, do they.  And I'm afraid I haven't seen a peep to help refute that standpoint by yourself, since I haven't seen any condemnations of Clinton's actions, any condemnations of Rep Studd's actions, any criticisms of how the Dems handled either of those situations, from your end of the keyboard.  Would you like to clarify your position on those 2 individuals and how the Dems dealt with each?

[Brassmask]

Once again, every Republican is apparently pure as the driven snow, as they are these supposed "paragons of virture", simply because they advocate living a moral lifestyle.  And if one of them dares sin, then they all are supposed hypocrits.  Which also apparently means, that its perfectly ok if you're a Dem to be a pervert, pedophile, racist & rapist, simply because advoocating better morals is not the Dem thing to do.  In fact, you can even be re-elected, and be supported for it

All hogwash.

Republican leaders (that's the leaders of the Republican party) protected an ephebophile and let him keep on keeping on so they could hold his seat and maintain power.  FACT:  Reynolds convinced Foley to run again AFTER he saw the emails.  It is no secret that Xian Conservatives view the Reps as holding to a higher power/standard.  Clearly, that has been proven to be a lie.

Morals are tricky standards to apply to all humans.  None of us holds all the same morals, in my opinion.  Sure, some might say that "don't steal" is a moral and I agree that not stealing is a good plan and ethically it is logical and good.  But not allowing gays to marry is a moral stance that I certainly don't share and when looked at ethically, no logical human would agree that it is.  That's why I make distinctions between "moral" folks and ethical folks.  Moral to me speaks of religious bias and nonsense a lot of times.  Ethics plays more towards logic for me.

I know we've discussed this before and some make no distinction between the two terms but that is where I stand on them.

The point was that when the leaders of the party that claims to be moral paragons DEFENDS and COVERS UP the "sin" (your word, not mine) of one of its own, then it is infinitely fair to say that the "party" is to blame as well as Foley who committed the offence.  (Note: I did NOT use the word "crime" in deference to the sensibilities of the  oh so fair-minded wagon circlers who have pointed out again and again how technically speaking Foley is not guilty of any actual crime.)

[Amianthus]

I know we've discussed this before and some make no distinction between the two terms but that is where I stand on them.

Morals are how you live your life. Ethics are how you handle professional situations. Sometimes they are in conflict with one another.

Such is life.

[Michael Tee]

<<Here, we get to see the mind of knute, in another person's typing.  Once again, every Republican is apparently pure as the driven snow, as they are these supposed "paragons of virture", simply because they advocate living a moral lifestyle. >>

I think advocating a Constitutional amendment to prevent gays from marrying each other is a little more than "advocating living a moral lifestyle."  It gets down to the point where they are changing the constitution of a country to prevent consenting adults, American citizens who see life differently than they do, from living their own lives according to their own morality, without knuckling to the moral values of the Republican Party.

When members of this Party, who have taken it upon themselves to LEGISLATE morality for others, are shown up to be perverts and the protectors and enablers of perverts, who prey upon children, then there is a kind of Schadenfreude that you will not find when a member of a more tolerant, laissez-faire and morally permissive party gets caught with his pants down.

Anybody with a reasonable amount of experience in the real world, dealing with real people, using basic common sense, would already know this.  Conservatives, living as they do with their heads stuck up their ass for an entire lifetime, need it explained to them.  Which is kind of sad.

[Plane]

   So Rep. Foley had to be a hypocryte to be in the Republican party.


    Which egg or chicken came first here?

     Foley will improve the Republican party by leaveing it.

[Michael Tee]

<< Foley will improve the Republican party by leaveing it.>>

So it's all about Foley, eh?  LOL  What about Hastert, will he improve the Republican Party by leaving it?

[BT]

I see no reason for Hastert to step down. He certainly should not just because a bunch of partisans are calling for it.

[Michael Tee]

<<I see no reason for Hastert to step down. He certainly should not just because a bunch of partisans are calling for it. >>

Just as I figured.  Circling the wagons.

[Plane]

<< Foley will improve the Republican party by leaveing it.>>

So it's all about Foley, eh?  LOL  What about Hastert, will he improve the Republican Party by leaving it?

Hastert is a good guy , I don't see what he is supposed to be guilty of .

Did Tip O'neil step down when Rep Studds did a simular deed?

Did anyone step down when Rep Studds did a simular deed?

If Rep Foley wants to run for congress again as a Democrat why shouldn't he,... he meets the standard there.

[Michael Tee]

<<Hastert is a good guy , I don't see what he is supposed to be guilty of.>>

insufficient attention to the problem at the time.

<<Did Tip O'neil step down when Rep Studds did a simular deed?>>

Get over Studds.  That was 20 years ago.  Besides, I'm not sure that anyone reported Studds to Tip or that Tip had any nominal oversight over Studds' relations with pages.

[Plane]

<<Hastert is a good guy , I don't see what he is supposed to be guilty of.>>

insufficient attention to the problem at the time.

<<Did Tip O'neil step down when Rep Studds did a simular deed?>>

Get over Studds.  That was 20 years ago.  Besides, I'm not sure that anyone reported Studds to Tip or that Tip had any nominal oversight over Studds' relations with pages.

The only dissimularity is the passage of time and that there is no evidence yet that Foley consumated his propositions.

I don't think that the passage of time counts for much , it is only twenty years , a mere comma in the sweep of history.

 Tip O'neil Presided ove a Democratic dominated Congress as Hastert does the Republican .

Foley has betrayed the trust of the Pages , the trust of the Pages familys , the expectation of his consituants last but not least he has let down his party. We are gonna let him leave , but hark'''' I hear a wolf at the door , I don't think he will be able to leave peacefully.

If Foley were a Democrat all of these things would be worthy of a shrug.

[Michael Tee]

I guess the big difference between Tip O'Neill and Studds on the one hand and Dennis Hastert and Mark Foley on the other is that in the intervening 20 years, the Republicans have positioned themselves as the guardians of traditional morality - - freaking out over Clinton's BJ, trying to amend the Constitution just to prevent gays from marrying each other, calling on the Legislature to up-end the courts over Terry Schiavo, banning federal funding for almost all human-embryo stem cell research, cutting severely into funding for foreign STD and AIDS programs that distributed condoms, promoting chastity education over safe-sex ed in American schools, ad nauseam.

To see these sanctimonious and self-righteous hypocrites caught with their pants down is absolutely hilarious, in a way that Tip and Studds and Bill and Monica were not.

[Brassmask]

I see no reason for Hastert to step down. He certainly should not just because a bunch of partisans are calling for it.

Partisans like the Washington Post and Richard Viguerie and initially Paul Weyrich.

The polls are saying that Hastert is weighing them down.  Watch for his resignation tomorrow late in the day.