okie wrote:Typical of the libs, Finn dAbuzz. I pointed out the hypocrisy and they don't like it. All the things kuvasz says only condemns his side. Just one example, he points out Clinton was not prosecuted for rape or sexual harassment. To my knowledge, Foley has not either. Talk about partisanship, if this had been a Democrat, they would not care or would not say a word about it. And the guy himself would not admit a thing, but instead start hiring lawyers. Another great example of this is remember when Barney Frank had a male prostitute running his services out of Barney's apartment. Well, old Barney is still in Congress, no contrition, no admission of doing anything wrong, no nothing. If Barney had been a Republican, he would be gone long ago and totally forgotten by now. He probably would have resigned immediately once found out.
All of this points out one thing. Apparently, I say apparently, Democrats don't care about personal morality and do not think it matters, but only use it on Republicans as a political weapon because most Republicans do believe in it. Anytime a Democrat is accused, they bristle at the suggestion that it even matters, but when a Republican is caught, they accuse the Republicans of being crooks and moral hypocrits. Its a little like a preacher doing something wrong. They claim to adhere to a higher standard, so they catch more grief when they don't. Meanwhile the town crime ring go about doing what they please and what they've always done without ever being accused of being hypocrits. If anyone points out the crimes by the crime ring, they simply reply that the preacher does it too so it doesn't matter, and besides its a personal matter what you do in your personal life.
Let me reinterate one thing clearly. I never defended Foley. My posts have been simply for the purpose of pointing out liberal hypocrisy and a liberal double standard. Morality and corruption should be a non-partisan issue. People that are found to be corrupt should be opposed by both parties in every case, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Once a party is more important than getting rid of corrupt politicians, we are in huge trouble, and that is why Clinton is constantly brought up as a reminder of this failure that needs to be corrected. The hatchet needs to swing both ways, not just as a political weapon to be used selectively whenever you think it might help your own party.
Foley is a a twisted and disturbed individual. It seems that the sort of almost manic drive that is required to achieve political success and powers stems from a psychological profile that inevitably manifests itself in aberrant behavior, and reckless arrogance. It's difficult to assign any semblance of honor to an individual like Foley, but at least his immediate resignation upon learning the sordid details of his behavior were to be made public, spares us the infuriating spectacle of a congressman desperately and shameless trying to preserve shredded personal interest when the mere appearance of such a scandal should compel him to leave the scene. I think in this regard of Congressmen Jefferson and Ney, to name but two.
As for the hypocrisy of liberals you write of, I confess that I find the characteristic to be all too prevalent among our friends on the Left, but I have to admit that is unfair to paint all liberals with the same brush that so perfectly renders a select group of A2K liberals.
I don't think anyone should hold their breaths waiting for liberals, either of the A2K or wider stripe, to begin arguing that Foley has not, yet, been charged with any crimes, that his behavior is born of psychological illness rather than malignant perversion, and that attacks on him are little more than thinly veiled expressions of homophobia.
It is very disturbing that the Republican majority in the House may have known of Foley's behavior at least as early as this spring and rather than stir up a political hornets' nest chose to ignore it. It remains to be seen just how much of his actual specific behavior was known and there are reports that at least one of the boys' families requested that information on the communication not be shared, but these certainly seem to be thin lines of defense for the Republican leadership.
Let's face it though, just as Nancy Pelosi's tough talk and action on the right dishonorable gentleman from Louisiana, William Jefferson was generally dismissed on the Right as politically motivated, the same sort of cynical response from the Left probably would have greeted any earlier action by House Republicans.
It's hard to take seriously the poses of outrage from the great majority of members of either party, as their sense of propriety tends to be situational and highly dependent upon political considerations. In this regard they are all high practioners of the art of hypocrisy.
It's a shame though when this hypocrisy extends to their supporters in the general public who, frankly, have nothing to gain from it but the maintenance of a sense of rightness, and superiority.
In any case, my comment to kuvaz really had nothing to do with to his opinions on the subject of Foley (to the extent any were actually expressed in his vitriolic attack on you) but was rendered in response to the typically mephitic and base level of his habitual ad hominem sorties...which, by the way seem to be increasing of late. Perhaps it is a result of his recent and unfortunate illness or simply the disintegration of the last vestiges of his patience, and a resulting over application of scorn.
I will admit though that his noxious responses (one of which I'm sure is coming, if it hasn't already arrived on another thread), are more entertaining and engaging then the sort of lame drivel that slips from the lips of other posters: e.g. "Aw your neo-con dreams are crumbling," and "Stop being insipid Finn!"
A piece of friendly advice to Kuvaz though - The chronic use of pedophilia in your attacks has become hackneyed. You might want to switch to incest or even necromania.
