PDA

View Full Version : Partisanship and Hypocrites



FatsRedux
10-20-2006, 08:26 AM
From the "people in glass houses" department.

'Studds standard' just for Democrats
Waterbury Republican-American
October 20, 2006
Editorial

Upon his death Saturday, former Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., got a hero's send-off by The New York Times because he was the first openly homosexual congressman and a champion of homosexual rights. He was beloved by the Times, too, because he refused to resign after his censure by the House for his homosexual affair with a teenage congressional page.

But the Times lamented that the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., "revived interest in Mr. Studds' own dalliance with a teenage page in 1973." Dalliance? As in "playful flirtation"? Here's what the investigative report of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had to say about Mr. Studds' "dalliance":

Shortly after he was elected to his first term in 1973, Mr. Studds, then 36, lured a 17-year-old page to his Georgetown apartment, plied him with vodka and cranberry juice and then had his way with him. The page said he and Mr. Studds had sex under similar circumstances "at least three or four additional" occasions before they traveled to Portugal in July 1973 where they had sex "every two or three days" during their nearly three-week trip. Two other former pages testified they had to rebuff Mr. Studds' unwanted sexual advances.

Though his predations were well known to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, they were not revealed until 1983 when a Republican backbencher, Newt Gingrich, finally blew the whistle. At the time, Mr. Studds said his actions "did not constitute improper sexual conduct." The Times agreed and said nothing about the Democratic leadership's failure to respond to the threat Mr. Studds posed to pages. But the world now knows the Studds Standard does not apply to Republicans as the Times made clear in its Oct. 3 editorial, "The Foley matter": "That House leaders knew Representative Mark Foley had been sending inappropriate e-mails to Capitol pages and did little about it is terrible."

What's terrible is a newspaper so blinded by partisanship that it believes unwanted electronic solicitations by a Republican congressman are scandalous while a certifiable Democratic homosexual predator deserves a fawning obituary.

Gayle in MD
10-20-2006, 08:52 AM
I agree, and also, that a Congress would impeach a President for telling a gentleman's lie about an affair with a grown woman, who had had other affairs with married men, but fail any oversight on a President who lied a whole nation of people into a war, is equally disgusting.

Do you recall, how many Republicans were exposed for having extramarital affairs while they were condemning Clinton's. Or that Bill O'Reiley paid off his own victim, shortly after harping on the Lewinsky matter. Or that Rush, ranted about illegal drugs, while he himself we addicted to them. Or that Newt paid for an abortion, with his personal check?

Not trying to argue with you, just saying, it goes both ways. Hypocracy is abundant. Let's vote all incumbants out! They all need a lesson! I only wish there was a viable third party alternative.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
10-20-2006, 08:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote FatsRedux:</font><hr> From the "people in glass houses" department.

'Studds standard' just for Democrats
Waterbury Republican-American
October 20, 2006
Editorial

Upon his death Saturday, former Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., got a hero's send-off by The New York Times because he was the first openly homosexual congressman and a champion of homosexual rights. He was beloved by the Times, too, because he refused to resign after his censure by the House for his homosexual affair with a teenage congressional page. <font color="blue"> Wow, this wouldn't, by any chance, be that double standard thing that doesn't really exist! </font color>

But the Times lamented that the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., "revived interest in Mr. Studds' own dalliance with a teenage page in 1973." Dalliance? As in "playful flirtation"? Here's what the investigative report of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had to say about Mr. Studds' "dalliance": <font color="blue"> Democratic NewSpeak for taking one "up the gipper" for the party. </font color>

Shortly after he was elected to his first term in 1973, Mr. Studds, then 36, lured a 17-year-old page to his Georgetown apartment, plied him with vodka and cranberry juice and then had his way with him. The page said he and Mr. Studds had sex under similar circumstances "at least three or four additional" occasions before they traveled to Portugal in July 1973 where they had sex "every two or three days" during their nearly three-week trip. Two other former pages testified they had to rebuff Mr. Studds' unwanted sexual advances. <font color="blue"> I even said hang the bastard in Mark Folley's case. Why di the democrats not do the same and are now celebrating this pervert? Naw, no double standard here, right.</font color>

Though his predations were well known to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, they were not revealed until 1983 when a Republican backbencher, Newt Gingrich, finally blew the whistle. <font color="blue"> Let's see 1983 was not even an election year!</font color> At the time, Mr. Studds said his actions "did not constitute improper sexual conduct." The Times agreed and said nothing about the Democratic leadership's failure to respond to the threat Mr. Studds posed to pages. <font color="blue"> At least he ahd the good name for this, Stud... </font color> But the world now knows the Studds Standard does not apply to Republicans as the Times made clear in its Oct. 3 editorial, "The Foley matter": "That House leaders knew Representative Mark Foley had been sending inappropriate e-mails to Capitol pages and did little about it is terrible." <font color="blue"> So did Newt think more about the page's plight than the political implications of this, sounds so. Maybe, just maybe this has soething to do with the face of the "New" more ethical, values based Democratic Party. </font color>

What's terrible is a newspaper so blinded by partisanship that it believes unwanted electronic solicitations by a Republican congressman are scandalous while a certifiable Democratic homosexual predator deserves a fawning obituary.

<font color="blue"> Sounds fair and balanced to me.....</font color>

DeeMan




<hr /></blockquote>

hondo
10-23-2006, 07:15 AM
You're dead right, Fats. Wrong is wrong.

Gayle in MD
10-23-2006, 08:54 AM
I agree, but I also think it is irrelevant. Trying to minimize the law breaking of today's Republican Majority, jand the White House, by dragging up issues from the past, is nothing more than desperate attempt to distract from the onslaught of the lawbreaking of the present. This is the only weapon the Republicans have, since there is really no excuse for all the corruption which has existed throughout this Administration, in every branch.

The checks and balances of our system must be protected. Much of what Bush has done, with the help of the Republican Majority, weakens, and in some cases, even destroys, that important fuction.

History is full of authoritarian leaders, with no accountability, who promise protection to their followers, their flock! And, as Mr. kuo, author of Political Seduction remarked recently, sheep are dumb, and they stink!

We're all Hypocrites. Especially those, who think they aren't. Shall we just ignore law breaking all together, because at some point in time, the other guy did it too? Typical Republican tactic of minimizing infractions.

Gayle in Md.

hondo
10-23-2006, 08:58 AM
Well, you're right. If they're trying to minimize
the damage done by Foley, and I've seen some evidence
of that, then it's just the same old diversionary crap.

Gayle in MD
10-23-2006, 11:53 AM
Absolutely!!! The mere fact that they kept the many intelligence warnings of the impending 9/11 attack, and Bush's failure to heed them, out of the investigation, and Bush even tried to cut off the funds for the investigation, shows exactly how these Republicans work!

I can't see how, given how our latest National Security Estimate exposes the dangerous negative results of Bush's incompetence, anyone would vote Republican, unless they just would rather sell off the safety of our troops, for their own pocketbooks, sell out their kids futures, by settling for lower taxes, with high deficits, that mostly favor the rich, anyway, and keep in place a Congress and Senate, full of crooks, who have covered Bush's arse while he has been sneaking around behind the scenes for six years, lying, and breaking the law. What kind of American does that???? Non-partisan??? Patriotic??? Pahleze! Those Republicans would rather look the other way, than address an internet predator! What could be worse that that?

Gayle in Md.

FatsRedux
10-23-2006, 11:54 AM
I could care less about either Democrats or Republicans.

You and Gayle place partisanship above principle. Principles are not something you conveniently shed whenever it suits your partisan needs. You had it right the first time Hondo: wrong is wrong no matter what. Hypocrisy in the promotion of one's agenda is still hypocrisy and goes against principle.

Hypocrisy:

1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

Principle:

1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.

2. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.

BTW I am an agnostic but I believe there is great wisdom in the below quotes from the Bible. You don't have to be a religious zealot to understand the truth in them:

Matt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Matt 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?

Matt 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Luke 6:42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

BTW--The two party system is bullsh*t. Democrats or Republicans -- it doesn't matter, they are both rapists.

The only thing that changes is who's getting a shot at Americas's collective azzes. Dems, Reps it just doesn't matter they are all 100% full of excrement.

Drop1
10-23-2006, 12:03 PM
I never let my morals,and ethics,get confused with my standards,and Cain Slew Able. You find any action?

Gayle in MD
10-23-2006, 12:26 PM
Well, I don't have any agenda, Fats. I'm not running for anything. But, I will say this much. Your quotes here, do seem to reflect, to me atleast, precisely what I find wrong in the Republican Agenda.

Doesn't Bush project himself as devout, Christian? Tell me, how does a devout Christian, lie, over and over. How does a devout Christian, support torture?

I make my judgements according to what I think is best for my country. According to my personal feelings about what is right and wrong. I believe that this administration is evil to the core. And, while no one is without fault, none of us who live and breath, the fact that we are human, and with fault, is no reason to suspend ones opinion regarding what is happening politically, and who is damaging to the country.

Sure, you can find fault in all Presidents, law breaking in all parties, and bad decisions on all sides. I have voted for Republcians in the past. I voted for Reagan, for one, but if one believes in ones heart, that an administration is evil, and hurting the country, destroying our rights, and infringing on our privacy, and using a tactic of fear to justify all of it, then how is one being partisan, by voicing their beliefs? I don't get that. I really don't. I've never gotten on here and said that Democrats are perfect, I just think that when any party has too much power for too long, and it becomes obvious that they are abusing it, and doing so in a way that is harmful to our country, it's time to get them out. I also think, that wrong is wrong, regardless, but, it's a matter of degree, and to what degree one's mistakes cause human suffering for others. You've got to vote for someone, disappointing as the contenders might be, on both sides. There is no way to make a choice about for whom you will vote, without making value judgements.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
10-23-2006, 06:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
got a hero's send-off by The New York Times <hr /></blockquote>

What does that mean?
Does the writer cite ANY evidence for this opinion?[ Notice he doesn't use one single NYT link to the quotes or even name the author.]

Why does everyone automatically assume that the writer is telling the truth? IMO he makes a lot of assumptions.

The 'Waterbury Republican-American'?

Really, is there one single thing in that article that proves that what the writer says are facts and not just a bias opinion or a figment of the writers imagination??

Q...........This is just the GOP propaganda squad running interference.

FatsRedux
10-24-2006, 12:12 AM
Google is your friend.

eg8r
10-24-2006, 06:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Why does everyone automatically assume that the writer is telling the truth? <hr /></blockquote> Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

eg8r

hondo
10-24-2006, 08:27 AM
You misread me, o wise fat one. I agreed with you.
But I said I'm beginning to see the Repubs. using it
in defense of Foley which is wrong. How is that a
partisan statement on my part? Enlighten me.
As I said, wrong is wrong.
Quite frankly your response to my post makes me wonder
about your motivation in the 1st place. You wouldn't
be a Repub. hiding in Libertarian wool, would you?

FatsRedux
10-24-2006, 12:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> You misread me, o wise fat one. I agreed with you.
But I said I'm beginning to see the Repubs. using it
in defense of Foley which is wrong. How is that a
partisan statement on my part? Enlighten me.
As I said, wrong is wrong.
Quite frankly your response to my post makes me wonder
about your motivation in the 1st place. You wouldn't
be a Repub. hiding in Libertarian wool, would you? <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

As to the change in my politics..I've come full circle.

I was a Libertarian long before I made the decision to support the Republicans in 2000 and 2004. I did so because as a fiscal conservative I felt that the Republicans would reduce spending. I was wrong. Spending has increased by roughly 33%. While I know that a significant portion of that spending is related to defense and the WOT, there is still a lot of wasteful spending.

I think the war in Iraq was prosecuted wrongly. Our military is great at what they do but they ought not be involved in open ended "nation building". We should have shot Saddam dead the second we located him, turned his body over to the people then declared victory. Then we should have called for a meeting of all leaders from rival factions and told them bluntly that we were pulling out and leaving them to solve their own problems. We should have given them a warning that if we ever got any more crap out of Iraq we'd be back to level their country, and then we should have gotten the hell out of Dodge.

Feeling disillusioned with the GOP, and not being fond of Democrat socialist policies, I decided to switch alliances back to the Libertarian Party.

Fats

Biagio
10-24-2006, 01:13 PM
Iam confused your avitar is Maitreya "what you may think is sadartha or the buddah", but your a libertarian? Are you a libertarian buddhist? If so I hope you are still following your dharmah &lt;------ youll know what I mean if you do follow the teachings "not one innocent life is worth sacraficing" leveling a counrtry would destroy thousands of lives

secound thought: why is GAY the big word in all this if the page was a woman it would all be a big joke in either case. lets not confuse "sexual deviants" and homosexuality, there two different things. I think this is a score for the republicans in that the democrats are making themselves look stupid again, in that they support gay rights but there right there to out someone and point there finger "hey everyone look its a gay republican" this is as bad a Kerry and his outting of Chaneys daughter during the debates.

hondo
10-24-2006, 03:00 PM
I understood about half of that.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Biagio:</font><hr> Iam confused your avitar is Maitreya "what you may think is sadartha or the buddah", but your a libertarian? Are you a libertarian buddhist? If so I hope you are still following your dharmah &lt;------ youll know what I mean if you do follow the teachings "not one innocent life is worth sacraficing" leveling a counrtry would destroy thousands of lives

secound thought: why is GAY the big word in all this if the page was a woman it would all be a big joke in either case. lets not confuse "sexual deviants" and homosexuality, there two different things. I think this is a score for the republicans in that the democrats are making themselves look stupid again, in that they support gay rights but there right there to out someone and point there finger "hey everyone look its a gay republican" this is as bad a Kerry and his outting of Chaneys daughter during the debates.
<hr /></blockquote>

Biagio
10-24-2006, 04:00 PM
oh for god sakes let me dumb this down

Avatar= the little picture in the upper left corner

Maitreya= the fat laughing buddhist "often confused as the buddah"

Dharma= what Buddhists call the path that they follow to enlightenment.

My point is that Fats has a symbol of Buddhism as his Avatar but he expressed that we should level Iraq=, this would not be the thinking of a typical buddhist.

As for my secound thought:
I think the democrats often try to act "sypathetic" to minorities and gays, then put there foot in there mouth. the big deal with the foley incident is that he was "as you would put it in west virginia" A Faggot! or as Pat Buchannan would put it "A Flammer". I think alot of people are seeing foley as a Homosexual more than what he really is, "a sexual Preditor", really hes just a dirty old man in my opinion. If the democrats are so supportive of gay rights why does Foleys sexuality come up, If they were really sypathetic to the gay lifstyle it wouldnt have been mentioned.
Iam a strait democrat by the way

heater451
10-24-2006, 04:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Biagio:</font><hr>Maitreya= the fat laughing buddhist "often confused as the buddah"<hr /></blockquote> <font color="red">But. . .isn't everyone a buddha?</font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Biagio:</font><hr>I think the democrats often try to act "sypathetic" to minorities and gays, then put there foot in there mouth. the big deal with the foley incident is that he was "as you would put it in west virginia" A Faggot! or as Pat Buchannan would put it "A Flammer". I think alot of people are seeing foley as a Homosexual more than what he really is, "a sexual Preditor", really hes just a dirty old man in my opinion. If the democrats are so supportive of gay rights why does Foleys sexuality come up, If they were really sypathetic to the gay lifstyle it wouldnt have been mentioned.
Iam a strait democrat by the way<hr /></blockquote><font color="red">I think they are trying to imply that it's ironic, that a Republican be gay--considering the accepted "standard" of a white, Christian, homo-phobic male. The implication being that he's also a liar/hypocrite.

Personally, I think hypocrites come in all shapes and sizes--at least among homo-sapiens&lt;---using "sapiens" loosely. . . .</font color>

wolfdancer
10-24-2006, 05:18 PM
Dee, you've either misread the post, or made the wild assumption that the times is the official organ (pardon the pun) for the Democratic Party.
I think the majority of both parties would react to predatory sex with the same distaste.
In the 70's and before....celebrity wrongdoings were not usually noted on the news. I don't know what the age of consent was then though...16, 18?
It may not have been illegal, but definately wrong.
Now either that was the world's most naive page...
"here, have another drink" every 2 or 3 days?
Did anybody get the recipe for the proper mixture of Vodka to Cranberry juice... shaken, not stirred?.....I'm only interested from a layman's standpoint, of course

Biagio
10-24-2006, 05:32 PM
no only the enlightened one is a buddah. buddhists are on a path to enlightenment,once they reach total enlightment and one with all then they are a Buddah. Everyone has the potential to be a buddah. I belive Jesus was a buddah &lt;--- thats only my opinion.

I wholeaheartedly agree about it being Ironic. I juped up and down a pointed my own finger when I saw it. Really my point is that society deocrats republicans coservities etc etc will often pigeon whole gays. What foley did was wrong becasue he abused his power and the person was under the age of 18Take the word gay out of all this and there is a very small controversy.

Drop1
10-24-2006, 06:30 PM
Google "Maitreya,"and "Ho Tai" You too can become a two book Buddhist. Maitreya is the awaited Buddah,and the avitar is one of many versions of the Laughing Buddah "Ho Tai"

Biagio
10-24-2006, 07:44 PM
One in the same!

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~paddler/bodhisattva/budlaugh.htm

In China Maitreya is known as "the laughing Buddha" and is usually represented as a rotund figure with a happy disposition. His Chinese name is Pu-tai Ho-shang or "Hemp-bag monk". He is originally a fertility figure who was known to bring "goodies" in his bag to local townsfolk, especially children. Later, he became a pre-incarnation of Maitreya. In Japan he is called Hotei and is one of the seven lucky gods.

Most people encounter this figure in Chinese shops and restaurants and confuse him for the historical Buddha Shakyamuni. The common tradition is to rub his belly for good luck and prosperity, this is because his big figure is a sign of abundance. Taken from;
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~paddler/bodhisattva/budlaugh.htm



Iam not sure if your questioning my knowledge of Buddhisum or if so why. I didnt have to google to come up with his name. I attend the namgyal monastary here in ithaca they have a great site if your interested.
http://www.namgyal.org/.

Drop1
10-24-2006, 08:01 PM
Always intrested,thanks. "All religion,is opinion"

Biagio
10-24-2006, 08:03 PM
I agree but I don't practice a religion, only follow a philosphy of a mortal man whose writings and teachings I admire.

Gayle in MD
10-24-2006, 08:59 PM
did I miss something? What gay person, did the Democrats, out?

Gayle

Gayle in MD
10-24-2006, 09:03 PM
Again, I hate to disappoint you, but it was a Republican Page, who brought this out in the open, and when he did, the issue WAS the sexual misbehavior, not the homosexuality issue. Foley, outed himself, through his attorney. Atleast, that's how I rember the incident.

Gayle in Md.

hondo
10-25-2006, 06:39 AM
Actually, I agree with everything you say.
I just found your spelling and grammar a little
hard to follow.
Your thoughts are intelligent but you lose a little
in the translation. Hope I didn't offend you.
Fats' avatar was probably chosen because of a
similarity in appearance to Gautama Siddhartha,
not because he's a Buddhist.
But I think it's kinda neat that you pointed out
the contradiction to him.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Biagio:</font><hr> oh for god sakes let me dumb this down

Avatar= the little picture in the upper left corner

Maitreya= the fat laughing buddhist "often confused as the buddah"

Dharma= what Buddhists call the path that they follow to enlightenment.

My point is that Fats has a symbol of Buddhism as his Avatar but he expressed that we should level Iraq=, this would not be the thinking of a typical buddhist.

As for my secound thought:
I think the democrats often try to act "sypathetic" to minorities and gays, then put there foot in there mouth. the big deal with the foley incident is that he was "as you would put it in west virginia" A Faggot! or as Pat Buchannan would put it "A Flammer". I think alot of people are seeing foley as a Homosexual more than what he really is, "a sexual Preditor", really hes just a dirty old man in my opinion. If the democrats are so supportive of gay rights why does Foleys sexuality come up, If they were really sypathetic to the gay lifstyle it wouldnt have been mentioned.
Iam a strait democrat by the way <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
10-25-2006, 06:45 AM
Dead right. Different attitudes back then. When I was
in my early 20's I had relations with some teenage
girls. One waited until she turned 18 to move in with me.
Now I'd be on every sex offender list in the country.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Dee, you've either misread the post, or made the wild assumption that the times is the official organ (pardon the pun) for the Democratic Party.
I think the majority of both parties would react to predatory sex with the same distaste.
In the 70's and before....celebrity wrongdoings were not usually noted on the news. I don't know what the age of consent was then though...16, 18?
It may not have been illegal, but definately wrong.
Now either that was the world's most naive page...
"here, have another drink" every 2 or 3 days?
Did anybody get the recipe for the proper mixture of Vodka to Cranberry juice... shaken, not stirred?.....I'm only interested from a layman's standpoint, of course <hr /></blockquote>

FatsRedux
10-25-2006, 10:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Actually, I agree with everything you say.
I just found your spelling and grammar a little
hard to follow.
Your thoughts are intelligent but you lose a little
in the translation. Hope I didn't offend you.
Fats' avatar was probably chosen because of a
similarity in appearance to Gautama Siddhartha,
not because he's a Buddhist.
But I think it's kinda neat that you pointed out
the contradiction to him.

<hr /></blockquote>

I was a devout Nichiren Shoshu Buddhist for a period of over five years.

I know about Shakyamuni Buddha (Siddharta Gautama), "The Laughing Buddha", Amida Buddha, Nichiren Daishonin, Mahayana vs. Hinayana Buddhism, the Theravada School, the Ten Worlds, Karma, Dharma, Zen and "The Special Transmission", The Lotus Sutra, and so forth.

I no longer practice any form of Buddhism. I chose that Avatar purely on a whim, and I'll change it any time it strikes my fancy. It was not intended to convey any particular message other than the image of a fat laughing wise guy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

hondo
10-25-2006, 11:18 AM
nichiren sushi? I think I've had that before.
Man that green dip for it will bring you into
satori.

Biagio
10-25-2006, 12:11 PM
Hondo thanks for the nice note. I agree somtimes I have a bit of a problem putting stuff into words when Iam typing. Belive it or not Iam 35 year old speech pathologist who just went on Aderall for Adult add.

Fatts Id like to see you come back over to our side but iam sure youve chosen your path for good reasons.