Friday, October 06, 2006
Talking Point: Records of E-Mails and IMs Are Only Circumstantial Evidence
We shouldn't go jumping to conclusions just because a former Congressional page was able to produce "records" with "IP addresses" and "time stamps" and Foley "confessed." Sure "fellow Repulicans" said Hastert "knew" about "2 years ago." Sure, Congressional pages were told simply to "watch out for Foley" as early as 2001. But when the speaker of the house tells me that he only knew about the relatively innocent, "overly-friendly" e-mails between a gay Congressman and 17 year old boys, I'm inclined to believe him. Why would he lie?
If anything, Hastert should hang for standing up for a Democrat's "Constitutional" rights. Not for using $207,000,000 in taxpayer money to increase the value of his real estate holdings.
If anything, Hastert should hang for standing up for a Democrat's "Constitutional" rights. Not for using $207,000,000 in taxpayer money to increase the value of his real estate holdings.
Somebody Gets It!
This is indeed a slippery slope! If we let a NY prison guard wear a Muslim hat while at work, it's only a matter of time before the liberal-packed Supreme Court issues a fatwa requiring all our soldiers to wear turbans and baggy Aladin pants with those silly curved slippers!
Next they'll outlaw the cross and the ten commandments, and after that we'll all have to worship Allah under threat of execution! This is a culture war people, and the courts are on the other side! Onward Christian soldiers! A Muslim is trying to wear a hat at work!
Of more immediate concern, if we were to permit this Muslim to wear his special hat, that would totally interfere with his work. For example, it could get in the way of him sticking his head between bars to see what's going on inside cells. Or it could cause jealously among the other guards.
Worse though, is that it will lead to all the other guards wanting to wear all sorts of crazy symbols of "religious expression" like crosses, yamulkes, and temple garment underwear, which totally undermine the entire purpose of a uniform. The prison system would be in total chaos!
The government should never have to make reasonable accomodation for religious expression in the workplace - only ACLU fags are for that. Instead, we should purge the government of those who attempt to express their religion, especially if it's one we don't like.
Next they'll outlaw the cross and the ten commandments, and after that we'll all have to worship Allah under threat of execution! This is a culture war people, and the courts are on the other side! Onward Christian soldiers! A Muslim is trying to wear a hat at work!
Of more immediate concern, if we were to permit this Muslim to wear his special hat, that would totally interfere with his work. For example, it could get in the way of him sticking his head between bars to see what's going on inside cells. Or it could cause jealously among the other guards.
Worse though, is that it will lead to all the other guards wanting to wear all sorts of crazy symbols of "religious expression" like crosses, yamulkes, and temple garment underwear, which totally undermine the entire purpose of a uniform. The prison system would be in total chaos!
The government should never have to make reasonable accomodation for religious expression in the workplace - only ACLU fags are for that. Instead, we should purge the government of those who attempt to express their religion, especially if it's one we don't like.
REPUBLICANS DID NOT PROTECT FOLEY, ONLY THEMSELVES!
Of course the Republican house leaders weren't protecting that homo, Foley, they were protecting themselves! Now, you may ask yourself, why didn't they go forward right away?
I think the answer is pretty clear: Being good Republicans, they are also good businessmen, and once Foley donated $100,000 to the NRCC (right about the time Hastert knew), I bet the other house Republicans realized that this was a cash cow they could milk forever. That's why Tom Reynolds encouraged Foley to run for reelection, even after he knew.
So if the silence-for-money exchange blew up in their faces, we really ought to look at it as an isolated instance of bad business judgment, rather than a character problem. After all, it was only a few friendly messages:
"Take your dick out and measure it for me."
"Take your boxers off."
"Do I make you kind of horny?"
I think the answer is pretty clear: Being good Republicans, they are also good businessmen, and once Foley donated $100,000 to the NRCC (right about the time Hastert knew), I bet the other house Republicans realized that this was a cash cow they could milk forever. That's why Tom Reynolds encouraged Foley to run for reelection, even after he knew.
So if the silence-for-money exchange blew up in their faces, we really ought to look at it as an isolated instance of bad business judgment, rather than a character problem. After all, it was only a few friendly messages:
"Take your dick out and measure it for me."
"Take your boxers off."
"Do I make you kind of horny?"
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Foleygate
What distinguishes Foley from the average self-hating Republican homosexual was that he specifically sublimated his repression into a neurotic fixation on man-on-boy cybersex, an obsession that he carried into both his private and personal lives (with obvious contradictions).
However, Foley is not of real concern to me. Mass marketing aside, this sex scandal is not about sex, it's about corruption. Specifically how several members of the house Republican leadership knew about the scandal and let it ride after Foley contributed an astonishing $100K to the NRCC. It's really telling that the price for an open-season license on underage teenagers is so low in Congressional circles.
The vituperative back-stabbing and blaming amongst house Republicans is the inevitable result of several people being caught doing something they either know to be wrong or at the very least politically radioactive. Their reactions have varied, but some of the more amusing strategies have been:
1. Conflating homosexuality with a hyperactive sex drive.
2. Downplaying the scandal as politically timed.
3. Downplaying the scandal as homophobic!
4. Victim blaming.
5. Defending the conduct as non-criminal.
For the first time, I am entertaining hopes that the Republican rank and file will be disillusioned enough with the party elites to at least withhold their votes this year.
Of course, I doubt it. Fantasism knows no bounds.
However, Foley is not of real concern to me. Mass marketing aside, this sex scandal is not about sex, it's about corruption. Specifically how several members of the house Republican leadership knew about the scandal and let it ride after Foley contributed an astonishing $100K to the NRCC. It's really telling that the price for an open-season license on underage teenagers is so low in Congressional circles.
The vituperative back-stabbing and blaming amongst house Republicans is the inevitable result of several people being caught doing something they either know to be wrong or at the very least politically radioactive. Their reactions have varied, but some of the more amusing strategies have been:
1. Conflating homosexuality with a hyperactive sex drive.
2. Downplaying the scandal as politically timed.
3. Downplaying the scandal as homophobic!
4. Victim blaming.
5. Defending the conduct as non-criminal.
For the first time, I am entertaining hopes that the Republican rank and file will be disillusioned enough with the party elites to at least withhold their votes this year.
Of course, I doubt it. Fantasism knows no bounds.
