Royd 0 #76 October 10, 2006 QuoteYour post was a nice use of across the board stereotypes to distract from another's point that there might be an overlap of pedophilia and homosexuality, that might be worth looking into. Instead, the media wont go near it. Thank you. We now have a consensus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #77 October 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteYour post was a nice use of across the board stereotypes to distract from another's point that there might be an overlap of pedophilia and homosexuality, that might be worth looking into. Instead, the media wont go near it. Thank you. We now have a consensus. Hardly. Source: WordNet (r) 1.7 consensus n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief [syn: general agreement] Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) Consensus \Con*sen"sus\, n. [L. See Consent.] Agreement; accord; consent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #78 October 10, 2006 QuoteStatistically speaking - - young black men are something like 50 times more likely to be involved in criminal activity than the rest of the population. Do you have a source to support this claim?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #79 October 10, 2006 >We now have a consensus. AFAICT you have a consensus of one (thank goodness.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #80 October 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteStatistically speaking - - young black men are something like 50 times more likely to be involved in criminal activity than the rest of the population. Do you have a source to support this claim? Actually, I think I just heard that one time. Please accept my apology for claiming something I can't back up. Here are a few stories I did find. Bear in mind that both sources lean right, particularly Jared Taylor. Please, feel free to show where his findings have been disproven. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3691 http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050913_crime.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #81 October 10, 2006 So if I post several links of this administrations and Congresses ...examples of pedophilia... will that prove we have a problem in Washington DC and the people who came to power touting trust and morality?? http://www.morebadcopnews.com/homeland-security-deputy-press-secretary-arrested-for-using-internet-to-pick-up-14-year-old-girl.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #82 October 10, 2006 It's a pretty safe assumption that we've had character related problems in DC for quite some time. Examples, like the one you provided, definitely strengthen that assumption. As far as I'm concerned, anyone in government caught breaking the law should be fully prosecuted. It's the "string 'em up" vs. "what someone does in private is no one's business" posturing that annoys me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #83 October 10, 2006 >It's the "string 'em up" vs. "what someone does in private is no >one's business" posturing that annoys me. Those two statements are not opposites, nor contradictory. Anyone who breaks laws should go to jail. What someone does in private - as long as it's legal - is no one else's business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #84 October 10, 2006 Quote>It's the "string 'em up" vs. "what someone does in private is no >one's business" posturing that annoys me. Those two statements are not opposites, nor contradictory. No. But they are examples of how people (read: politicians) have tried to spin acts of misconduct. QuoteAnyone who breaks laws should go to jail. What someone does in private - as long as it's legal - is no one else's business. I've yet to hear what laws Foley broke. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #85 October 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteStatistically speaking - - young black men are something like 50 times more likely to be involved in criminal activity than the rest of the population. Do you have a source to support this claim? Actually, I think I just heard that one time. Please accept my apology for claiming something I can't back up. Here are a few stories I did find. Bear in mind that both sources lean right, particularly Jared Taylor. Please, feel free to show where his findings have been disproven. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3691 http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050913_crime.htm Apology accepted, though I wasn't offended. It bugs me when I see that particular claim, because it is rarely, if ever backed up with ingenuous evidence. I haven't examined your sources closely enough to comment on them.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #86 October 10, 2006 >But they are examples of how people (read: politicians) have tried to spin acts of misconduct. True. >I've yet to hear what laws Foley broke. I don't know either. I think a DA would be a better person to make that call. The separate issue of "do we want someone who sends explicit IM's to teenage pages representing us in congress?" has been resolved - he resigned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #87 October 10, 2006 QuoteQuote>It's the "string 'em up" vs. "what someone does in private is no >one's business" posturing that annoys me. Those two statements are not opposites, nor contradictory. No. But they are examples of how people (read: politicians) have tried to spin acts of misconduct. QuoteAnyone who breaks laws should go to jail. What someone does in private - as long as it's legal - is no one else's business. I've yet to hear what laws Foley broke. One doesn't need to break laws in order to be in violation of professional ethics. One doesn't need to break laws in order to be a hypocrite - all that's needed is to preach one thing and do another.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #88 October 11, 2006 I guess Washington DC has NO laws concerning sexual harrassment AT THE VERY LEAST. Since our right wing detractors like to point out that 16 is the age of consent in DC....I STILL have a problem with a 52 year old man propositioning a 16 year old boy... I wonder how these same right wingers would react if it was THEIR SON.... Unless they gained a political advantage of course by sending their son off with the Chester the Molester type Congressman of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #89 October 11, 2006 Since our right wing detractors like to point out that 16 is the age of consent in DC....I STILL have a problem with a 52 year old man propositioning a 16 year old boy... I wonder how these same right wingers would react if it was THEIR SON.... Of course there's a problem with it. It's just not a problem that will land one in jail, and it's not pedophilia. But neither is the example in the play that this whole thread is about.... linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #90 October 11, 2006 QuoteI guess Washington DC has NO laws concerning sexual harrassment AT THE VERY LEAST. Since our right wing detractors like to point out that 16 is the age of consent in DC....I STILL have a problem with a 52 year old man propositioning a 16 year old boy... I wonder how these same right wingers would react if it was THEIR SON.... Unless they gained a political advantage of course by sending their son off with the Chester the Molester type Congressman of course. I missed where anyone on this forum gave any indication they thought Foley's behavior was acceptable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #91 October 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteI guess Washington DC has NO laws concerning sexual harrassment AT THE VERY LEAST. Since our right wing detractors like to point out that 16 is the age of consent in DC....I STILL have a problem with a 52 year old man propositioning a 16 year old boy... I wonder how these same right wingers would react if it was THEIR SON.... Unless they gained a political advantage of course by sending their son off with the Chester the Molester type Congressman of course. I missed where anyone on this forum gave any indication they thought Foley's behavior was acceptable. We're not saying anyone was. We're saying that (a) Foley doing this privately, all the while touting himself as an anti-child predator activist, is a hypocrite, and (b) the Republicans holding themselves out as the party of "family values", while at the same time their initial reaction to the Foley scandal (before they got their shit together on a "message") was not to worry about the pages, but to circle the wagons and blame Democratic operatives for springing a pre-election surprise, are being hypocrites. In the past couple of days it's become the Repubs' latest tactical rebuttal to say, "Look, we never defended Foley", which of course evades the whole issue of their hypocrisy. And then when called on that, they just invoke "...but Clinton...", and we're off to the races. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #92 October 11, 2006 QuoteWe're saying that (a) Foley doing this privately, all the while touting himself as an anti-child predator activist, is a hypocrite, and (b) the Republicans holding themselves out as the party of "family values", while at the same time their initial reaction to the Foley scandal (before they got their shit together on a "message") was not to worry about the pages, but to circle the wagons and blame Democratic operatives for springing a pre-election surprise, are being hypocrites. In the past couple of days it's become the Repubs' latest tactical rebuttal to say, "Look, we never defended Foley", which of course evades the whole issue of their hypocrisy. And then when called on that, they just invoke "...but Clinton...", and we're off to the races. Aside from comments by the usual idiots (Coulter, Limbaugh et al), I missed where the Republican leadership did any of this. I thought the initial reaction was to get rid of Foley as soon as possible and to publicly condemn his behavior. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #93 October 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteWe're saying that (a) Foley doing this privately, all the while touting himself as an anti-child predator activist, is a hypocrite, and (b) the Republicans holding themselves out as the party of "family values", while at the same time their initial reaction to the Foley scandal (before they got their shit together on a "message") was not to worry about the pages, but to circle the wagons and blame Democratic operatives for springing a pre-election surprise, are being hypocrites. In the past couple of days it's become the Repubs' latest tactical rebuttal to say, "Look, we never defended Foley", which of course evades the whole issue of their hypocrisy. And then when called on that, they just invoke "...but Clinton...", and we're off to the races. Aside from comments by the usual idiots (Coulter, Limbaugh et al), I missed where the Republican leadership did any of this. I thought the initial reaction was to get rid of Foley as soon as possible and to publicly condemn his behavior. Hastert's INITIAL reaction was to condemn Foley out of one side of his mouth, but out of the other side of his mouth blame Democrats and the news media for timing the revelations in an attempt to influence the elections. He did it in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. http://mediamatters.org/items/200610060010 Quote The Chicago Tribune quoted House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) blaming Democrats for the revelation: When asked about a groundswell of discontent among the GOP's conservative base over his handling of the issue, Hastert said: "I think the base has to realize after awhile, who knew about it? Who knew what, when? When the base finds out who's feeding this monster, they're not going to be happy. The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros." He went on to suggest that operatives aligned with former President Bill Clinton knew about the allegations and were perhaps behind the disclosures in the closing weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections, but he offered no hard proof. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #94 October 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteWe're saying that (a) Foley doing this privately, all the while touting himself as an anti-child predator activist, is a hypocrite, and (b) the Republicans holding themselves out as the party of "family values", while at the same time their initial reaction to the Foley scandal (before they got their shit together on a "message") was not to worry about the pages, but to circle the wagons and blame Democratic operatives for springing a pre-election surprise, are being hypocrites. In the past couple of days it's become the Repubs' latest tactical rebuttal to say, "Look, we never defended Foley", which of course evades the whole issue of their hypocrisy. And then when called on that, they just invoke "...but Clinton...", and we're off to the races. Aside from comments by the usual idiots (Coulter, Limbaugh et al), I missed where the Republican leadership did any of this. I thought the initial reaction was to get rid of Foley as soon as possible and to publicly condemn his behavior. You missed the bit about blaming the Democrats for the pre-election timing of the news release - which lasted until it was revealed that a Republican told the media.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #95 October 11, 2006 QuoteHastert's INITIAL reaction was to condemn Foley out of one side of his mouth, but out of the other side of his mouth blame Democrats and the news media for timing the revelations in an attempt to influence the elections. He did it in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. Oddly enough, reports are now showing that the Dems were shopping this story around late last year... and Mike Rogers freely admits to timing the information that HE released to coincide with the elections...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #96 October 11, 2006 Quote>But they are examples of how people (read: politicians) have tried to spin acts of misconduct. True. >I've yet to hear what laws Foley broke. I don't know either. I think a DA would be a better person to make that call. The separate issue of "do we want someone who sends explicit IM's to teenage pages representing us in congress?" has been resolved - he resigned. I can't believe you are defending this creep. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #97 October 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteHastert's INITIAL reaction was to condemn Foley out of one side of his mouth, but out of the other side of his mouth blame Democrats and the news media for timing the revelations in an attempt to influence the elections. He did it in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. Oddly enough, reports are now showing that the Dems were shopping this story around late last year... and Mike Rogers freely admits to timing the information that HE released to coincide with the elections... You're buying into Hastert's (initial) complaint, and that's what misses the point. Post-whores and news junkies like most of us here in SC may argue about "suspect timing", but the average voter couldn't give a shit about that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #98 October 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteHastert's INITIAL reaction was to condemn Foley out of one side of his mouth, but out of the other side of his mouth blame Democrats and the news media for timing the revelations in an attempt to influence the elections. He did it in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. Oddly enough, reports are now showing that the Dems were shopping this story around late last year... ... So why did the House and GOP leadership do nothing?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #99 October 11, 2006 Shopping the story to the news outlets, sorry.... As for the "why didn't they do anything"... I didn't see the Dems doing anything about Bubba Jeff, even AFTER the news came out about Broaddrick, Willey, etc...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #100 October 16, 2006 Quote It would seem that the moral outrage liberals have exhibited doesn't always carry over to pedophilia as depicted on stage. Umm...that's silly. Do you really expect the same response to actions in a play that you expect to actions in real life???? Why do you only expect it from *liberals*? I think there are plenty of conservatives who are also outraged by real examples of pedophilia who aren't protesting this play too. At least I hope so. I would expect that most adults could tell the difference. I'd hate for every movie I see or play I attend or album I listen to to be limited in scope to what's acceptable in real life. linz Ummm...that's silly. I don't expect the same response as if it happened in real life, and I don't expect it only from liberals. I don't expect people to go out and protest in the streets to the play. I would expect that it not be popular in liberal circles, if they really did feel that such pedophilia is an awful offense. "If it was rape, then it was a good rape" is an example of how this play depicts pedophilia as a positive. How can an audience see this as interesting, entertaining...? Would it make a difference if the play depicted such acts between an old man and the 13 year old girl? How about between an old man and 13 year old boy? Maybe 13 isn't young enough, when it would go too far to just be an interesting fictional story, not "limited in scope to what's acceptable in real life"? It is not just that pedophilia is depicted, but that it is depicted as a positive that bothers me. Or, if the girl was not consenting? Is there no limit to what is OK to depict as a positive? I don't want censorship. I expect it to not be popular.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
