"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:j1sci2ttvmm7kks9t2fjklfadr1q770740@4ax.com...

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:26:36 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<gQsVg.14635$YW5.5804@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com> wrote:

"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:lefbi2p3rvgm3u0kptn8rhmp3b2nos9ah1@4ax.com...

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:37:33 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<NOfVg.11553$q.4042@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
wrote:

"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
news:ps1bi21k58245hu30bjffl532t5e6r8lag@4ax.com...

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:34:55 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
"Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<3UeVg.7912$DQ3.906@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
wrote:

[snip]

That's because they have a hot political issue
to use in the election. But the fact of the
matter is that liberal Democrats voting in
his district returned Gerry Studds to
Congress five more times *with* Studds
insisting that he had done nothing wrong
and that it was no one's business.

Get it?

*Voters* returned him. His transgression was 23 years
ago.

Yeah, liberal Democratic voters.

So you assert. And use that to dismiss them.

It's no big assertion, Matt. Who is it who
usually elects liberal Democrats to Congress
if not liberal Democratic voters?

How about there being a range of voters with a variety of
positions
and that he was chosen over the alternative? Or are you
saying that
racist Republicans elected Trent Lott?

A. I don't think that you seriously believe
that Studds' district offered or offers anything
but a safe liberal Democrat seat supplied from
a safe liberal Democrat constituency that would
happily look away from his repulsive behavior
with the high self-regard of the bien pensant
elite.

And I comfortably say that without even
looking any further than the fact that they
rewarded the man with five more terms in
Congress after his transgression.

B. Trent Lott is not a racist,

so he wouldn't
require "racist Republicans" to elect him.
C. Trent Lott has not buggered a Congressional
page and refused to resign his seat and then
been reelected by constituents who saw not a
thing wrong with it.

And so what if his
transgression was 23 years ago?

How is it relevant now?

It's the precedent that Democrats set for
themselves when dealing with their members
in Congress having sex with Congressional
pages.

It is a good thing that the voters in this country have
higher moral
standards than those you propose.

That I propose?

I propose that the liberal Democrats in Studds'
district should have brought Studds home at the
next election. They didn't. I likewise propose
that the liberal Democrats in Barney Frank's
district should have brought him home in the
next election after it was found out that a
gay prostitution ring was operating out of
his DC home.

What are your standards, Matt?

Do you think that
standards are getting higher among Democrats
just because they're jumping on this Foley
thing? Did Barney Frank resign when it was
discovered that there was a gay brothel being
run out of his DC home? His defense was that
he didn't know about it!

Did the Democrats refuse to investigate? It is this
simple: Foley put
children at risk and the Republican leadership did not
care. Everyone
but the most partisan Republicans immediately understand
this. The
Studds cases did not bring up those issues, the Frank
case
did not,
this case does. It is that simple.

There's no indication that the "Republican
leadership did not care?"

Sure there is. They asked Foley to stop it. They did not
investigate
beyond that. They did not seem to even consider the
welfare of the
pages.

How do you know? Are you psychic?

If Foley's earlier e-mails were "inappropriate," and
he was told to behave himself, and he agreed to, how
does that make it leadership's job to read his instant
messages?

Should they have kept a video recorder on
him 24/7 and listened to his phone calls?

They might not have
cared that Foley is gay.

Nor do I. I care that he seems to have preyed on children.

So, do you think that you're unique in that
regard?

Foley's instant messages were revealed
and he has resigned. The GOP leadership says it
would have expelled him if he had not resigned.

It didn't engage in a long censure process,
fail to expell him, and then make him a committee
chairman.

It didn't go on about how its "only about sex."

Nor did it simply point out that the age of
consent in DC is 16, and that these teenage
pages that Foley solicited had apparently reached
that age.

They might have warned
him about being too light in the loafers around
the pages.

Light in the loafer? Is that all you are worried about,
that he might
have appeared gay?

No, that he was approaching them as a homosexual
interested in them sexually.

I am worried that if we had those emails then worse
might exist. And if they had interviewed pages they would
have learned
lots more.

Perhaps. But you never know how the boys would
react to being questioned. They might be embarrassed
to talk about it, even as they laughed at
Foley for being such a reprobate.

And they might have believed his
reassurances that he would never do anything
untoward and that he was just a friendly guy.

Sure. Incompetence is always a defense.

Incompetence isn't a defense.

And taking
a Member of Congresses word for something
isn't incompetence.

A word to the wise
should be sufficient. In this case it
apparently wasn't.

But when his instant messages were unveiled,
Hastert's reaction was that he had to resign
or be expelled. Do you think that Hastert should
have been monitoring Foley's instant messages?

No, I think that Hastert should have talked to the pages.
He should
have looked into this. It is a classic abuse of power
issue. Having
been warned he did not go to the potential victims, he
just talked to
his friend and asked him to have a lower profile.

I already addressed that.

When Bill Clinton was getting fellated by
a White House intern it was just about sex,
you know. Well, Foley appears to have been
aware of the age of consent in D.C., but we
find out, this time, from Democrats, that it's
not just about sex.

It is about predation on children. And covering up that
predation.

Again, the age of consent in DC is 16.

Monica and the pages are equal in the eyes of
the law in DC as to whether they can give
consent or not.

With nothing more but control of both Houses.

So you would hope, but I've learned to never
lose confidence in the ability of Democrats
to rescue Republicans from their mistakes.

True, this is a midterm in a president's
second term, which historically results in
gains for the party not in the White House.
One would expect gains for Democrats based
sheerly on that. But I think that Democrats
have unique ability to thwart even that
historical cycle. I think that they can
do it; they're that good at missing the
boat.

Why? Because they have far more to be
ashamed about in matters like these than do
Republicans. But Democrats have the problem
that they feel no shame, ever, about anything.

Nice attempt to avoid responsibility, a common Republican
tactic.
Hastert did it just now. He took "responsibility" and then
said he did
nothing wrong and won't change anything.

Actually, he has said he should have done
more.

hunt against gays, Democrats charge."