I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Oct 23rd, 2006 10:18 PM

Preechr

THINGS i DID NOT RESPOND TO:

(not that it matters)

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preechr

The teeming masses want to be entertained, not informed, and the government we are supposed to be wary of would want that, too.

See why I am less and less fond of democracy?

Yes I do. I am totally opposed to democracy as a form of government. It is nothing more than mob-rule. If I didn't drink so much, my IQ would be well within the range of the kind of folk I like to refer to as "us," and we make up about 20% of the world. I am scared to death of the 80% of the rest of the world being able to control what we do.

That being said, I am currently re-reading "Atlas Shrugged" in order to discuss it with a friend of mine, so when I say "we," I am referring to the minority of the actual honest producers of the world, even if my drinking may leave the actual me out of that group.

America is not, as you know, of course, a democracy. It is, as you know, a representative republic. When I say the word "democracy," I am generally speaking of some sort of representative government, but I guess I would also include any lesser form of government where at least everybody gets an honest vote on what's going on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Quote:

Maybe First Amendment protections need to be re-evalutated so as to apply only to actual principled journalists and not everybody even indirectly linked to the media.

No, the Constitution uses the phrase "right of the people", not "large newspapers" or "responsible media". It is our job to keep the media in check.

So, basically, you are saying that the media doesn't and shouldn't really have the freedom to say whatever it wants?

Your literal comment leads me to think of an America where the speach of any free individual is protected, but any other sort of speech is not actually prtected by the first.

I think that's interesting.

I have an objectivist work ethic. I believe that I sell some of my free time to an employer in exchange for money. I believe that money is a unit of time, not evil, so this sort of thing is a fair trade.

When a newspaper reporter, for instance... and from my point of view, is writing a story as a function of her job, I don't consider her to be free. Working is not actually freedom, though it is a function of freedom. The writing journalist is not functioning as a free individual. Is she, therefore, not necessarily protected by the first amendment?

Please, let me sketch this out for you guys: Pretend you are a left wing journalist, working for a right wing newspaper. You would know it is incumbent upon you to please your employers, in order to keep your job, by, if allowed by the marketplace (which it is,) filtering your telling of the story through some sort of ideological lens, right?

Simply put, if you want to keep your job, you do whatever it is you are asked to do for whatever reason. You are not free when you are acting like this, are you?

Biased journalism should, at leat in my opinion, be subject to no more protection than is advertising.

We can sue for false advertising.

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Quote:

Is there possibly a measure of integrity we could come up with everyone could trust?

Nope, because you'd essentially have the government watch dogging its own watchdog. Somewhat a conflict of interests.

Think please, as I often do, of the German Beer Purity Laws. Is truth not an objective standard? Do we live by a standard of reason, or one of baseless conjecture? Geggy COULD be right, but yet you always require proof of him. You do not let him get away with what might be, demanding instead that he back up his statements.

Is it so hard to imagine a press constrained only it's ability to prove, concretely, what it prints? The worst that could happen is a newspaper full of quotes from random, but named, people. That would be subject to the laws of supply and demand, and I don't think most of us would be buying papers if that's allwe got for 50 cents.

Oct 10th, 2006 10:51 AM

mburbank

I think North Korea may have just nuked this scandal.

Oct 7th, 2006 10:10 PM

Preechr

Well, of course.

It's no secret I hate politicians. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a matter of time before one of those lowlifes gets caught doing something truly disgusting once again, be they Republicrat or Demolicant.

Oct 7th, 2006 07:31 PM

Cosmo Electrolux

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

ugh....

Okay, so a day ago I disagreed with Preechr. Initially I thought the Dems were handling it well, playing it cool, and allowing The Republicans to cannibalize themselves.

now they're running ads on it. Howard fuckin' Dean is talking about it.

Cosmo, the Dems invited this. They tried to control the fire, get it t drift to certain districts maybe, rather than just watching it burn.

You're probably right. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out..

And Preechr...I wasn't aware that the group you mentioned had actually released those transcripts. But, in all honesty, do you believe that had Foley been a democrat and a Republican group had that info, they wouldn't have done the same thing? We all know for a fact they would have. Fox news would have rode the wheels off of that train and we all know it.

Oct 7th, 2006 01:45 PM

mburbank

I think the fact that he's gay AND a Republican should have raised red flags about his sanity.

Q.) What do og Cabin Republicans do in their spare time?

A.) hate themselves.

Oct 7th, 2006 12:00 PM

Ant10708

Quote:

Originally Posted by theapportioner

It's just fantastic how gay people, alcoholics, and even priests are now getting thrown under the bus because of this situation. Look guys, this just proves that all gay people are child rapists, too!

Fucking republicans.

Democratic strategist Bob Beckel suggested this week that the mere fact Foley is gay should have “raised questions” about his friendships with pages.

Those damn republicans.

Oct 7th, 2006 10:56 AM

Preechr

Quote:

Originally Posted by mburbank

But I think Kev is correct that R's worked very, very hard to create this particular vulnerability. Pride, even false pride, maybe particulalry false pride, goeth before a fall.

If they clean their house of anyone that actually did cover this up, that will make them stronger and prove that the party's moral stance is intact. America doesn't require leaders that never screw up, just leaders that own up to their mistakes.

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about real things here, just impressions. I have on my special glasses that filter all this through campaign politics and voter perceptions. Elections are my football.

Oct 7th, 2006 10:53 AM

KevinTheOmnivore

Yeah, it didn't take that long to go to the shitter.

But I sort of agree with you on Democrats....unfortunately.

Oct 7th, 2006 10:51 AM

Preechr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Someone who's been around a few more years than me, tell me if that doesn't pretty much describe every minority party ever?

Doesn't have to. The "Contract with America" Republicans worked to be a better, more functional group.

Oct 7th, 2006 10:48 AM

Preechr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmo Electrolux

Now the Republican "leaders" are bringing the Democrats before the house ethics committee asking what they knew about this before the press got hold of it. Why am I not suprised? Typical....

Of course they are. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is a Democrat group, and they seem to be the folks that sat on the story until election time. The investigation panel was formed to find out exactly who covered up what. Talking to Democrats as well as Republicans is not only typical for such a thing it's responsible.

Oct 7th, 2006 10:27 AM

KevinTheOmnivore

Oct 7th, 2006 09:56 AM

Cosmo Electrolux

Now the Republican "leaders" are bringing the Democrats before the house ethics committee asking what they knew about this before the press got hold of it. Why am I not suprised? Typical....

Oct 7th, 2006 08:57 AM

mburbank

Preech, I gotta agree with Kev here. Not because I think being a greasy old perv and masturbation in yur office while texting with a boy is at all out of the envelope for a Congressman, but because the GOP is holier than thou. A large part of the Republican base is all about their claim that they are Gods party. It hurts the party that the guy in charge of protecting kids is a perv, because that sort of irony is the R's achilles Heel.

Also, I think there is every chance that it will turn out Hastert is lying that he didn't know anything beyond the 'overly friendly' emails.

And I think that even totally gay active teens would have been laughing at foley more often than blowing him.

Is all of this fair? Do Foley's failings have anythig to do with his being an R? Of course not. Is D's righteous indignation an insulting charade? Mostly. But I think Kev is correct that R's worked very, very hard to create this particular vulnerability. Pride, even false pride, maybe particulalry false pride, goeth before a fall.

Oct 6th, 2006 07:36 PM

ziggytrix

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preechr

They've become the party of snot-nosed, bitchy, fingerpointing whiners that will seemingly complain about anything. There have been only a few issues they could have adopted in the last year to their benefit, and they've passed on every single one because they aren't interested in championing any progress, preferring instead to focus on tearing down and obstructing Republicans and any progress they might try to make.

Someone who's been around a few more years than me, tell me if that doesn't pretty much describe every minority party ever?

Oct 6th, 2006 04:26 PM

Preechr

A Republican. This doesn't stain the party. The question is will the idea that Hastert could have done more to stop it affect the party in the elections, and I say no it won't... not at least near as much as were the Democrats allowed to manage the media cycle with whatever else they'd planned to put out there.

That we're still talking about Foley rather than some new scandal here on a Friday afternoon shows that this is still the headlining issue. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Afghanistan. No terror, just one more homo caught doing what most Americans believe all homos typically do: prey on our children. There will be no proof before the elections that Republicans did anything to hide anything... we'll have to wait on the investigations for any of that if it exists... So it's time to start a reform process and we can ring the All Clear bell in about a week or two. The Party of Family Values saves the day again!

The Foley scandal was ONLY ever an attempt by Democrats to manage the media cycle in their favor, just like the NIE thing from two weeks ago. They blew it. This was bad strategy, and they've given control of the media cycle over to the Republicans. As I said, Kev... MR. CAMPAIGN... The Rs set out to run on local issues this year, while the Ds planned to run on national issues. Had they waited to start Foley-gate for the first week in November, it would have really been more effective. Instead, they played it too early and lost probably two critical weeks of media attention that could have been more favorable for them had they spent this time letting failures in Iraq or pending war in Iran be the news, then throwing Foley on the fire at the last minute to show the party in power to be just a corrupt bunch of windbags that like to touch children innappropriately.

See, the war has no immediate end in sight, which makes it scary. Foley only lasted a week before it's started to, if not already turn in the Republicans favor, at least show signs of being neutralized and entirely spinnable. Foley is a nice smokescreen, because it puts national politics on Jerry Springer terms for the electorate. The problem highlighted by one dirty old bastard is at least something we can fix, and people vote for those that fix things. Had the Democrat strategy revolved more on highlighting the things it seems we might never fix, it would have been more effective... But , alas, they couldn't do that simply because THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NO PLAN FOR HOW TO FIX ANYTHING ANYMORE.

They've become the party of snot-nosed, bitchy, fingerpointing whiners that will seemingly complain about anything. There have been only a few issues they could have adopted in the last year to their benefit, and they've passed on every single one because they aren't interested in championing any progress, preferring instead to focus on tearing down and obstructing Republicans and any progress they might try to make.

Oct 6th, 2006 03:27 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Another way to look at it-- Congressman Gerry Studds did far worse than what Foley is even suspected of doing. Foley had to resign from his conservative district in shame, while Studds was allowed five more trips to the Hill by his liberal district. Why is this?

Because Democrats supposedly do this stuff, and Republicans supposedly do not. is it a double standard? Yes, but it's one of the GOP's own design.

Oct 6th, 2006 03:00 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

I don't believe the Democrats are asking anything that the Washington Times already hasn't. Are they living in the past, too?

As I said before, the onus here is on the Republicans. The Democrats can be as cynical as they want to be here, b/c they're A) Out of power and B) Not the party of values, virtue, and piety.

Oct 6th, 2006 02:42 PM

Preechr

Until the IMs came out LAST WEEK, all Hastert had to move on was the e-mails, which were of decidedly less creepy character. As soon as the IMs came out LAST WEEK, Foley took off and the Republicans started taking it seriously. There's not even any way to prove the IMs weren't forged altogether, much less accurate or in context. The only thing that actually stands so far as real proof that Foley did anything at all wrong is his resignation, in fact. No proof means this is a scandal ripe for spinning, and it can spin much more easily in favor of the Republicans than it could help the Democrats. Any hit the Rs are taking in the polls due to this will be easily overcome if they rally behind some new effort to "think of the children" or something... If America smells a coverup, the Republicans are doing a fine job of pinning that on the Democrats while taking steps to protect pages in the future. Once again, the Dems are portrayed as living in the past and doing nothing to make the future better. America is a more hopeful country than that.

Oct 6th, 2006 01:40 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

You honestly believe that the American public will care if Denny Hastert pushes some resolution calling congressman-on-child pedophilia bad?

Whatever damage has been done is done. America smells a cover up. Even if the IM's were a prank, they weren't the only form of shady contact this guy has had with young boys. The chair of the RCCC pushed him to run again, even though Foley himself felt the pressure to get out.

Foley resigned almost immediately. Whether the exchanges were genuine or in jest, he had been made out. Whether they were real or a prank, Hastet, Reynolds, and perhaps others may have known about them. Wouldn't they still have warranted some type of action, even if they were maybe a joke? We know they may have been a joke now. Nobody knew that then.

Oct 6th, 2006 01:22 PM

Preechr

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Preechr, were the e-mails that were handed over to the FBI also a prank?

I'm not saying anything is or was a prank. Drudge is saying part of the IMs were a prank, and the fact is that there's no way to contest that. Foley's not around for another 2 weeks, and I can read through the IMs and believe he was getting rooked. No 16 year old straight kid is going to have those kinds of chats with an old sissy like Foley and not laugh about it with his friends. Even if it wasn't a prank, the possiblity that it was is too believeable to eliminate the rumor.

Long story short: The only damage done by this to the Republicans can be counteracted by Denny Hastert spending the next few weeks shoring up procedures to protect children from politicians in Congress. Who are the only potential people to not get behind that? Congressional pedophiles? Hastert's going to look like a champion of child victims, which will help the party, while the Dems will have to fight to squeeze around him in the headlines if they want to talk about anything else.

Oct 6th, 2006 01:06 PM

Preechr

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement following House Speaker Dennis Hastert's remarks at his press conference today:

"What Republicans don't understand is that this is about children, not politics. People are looking at this as concerned parents, not as Republicans or Democrats. It's disgraceful that Speaker Hastert and the Republican leadership didn't stand up for our children and do the right thing when they learned about the problem years ago, rather than a week after it became public. They chose to protect Congressman Foley and their party instead of the victims. Americans don't want to see finger pointing from the Republican leadership, they don't want to see the Speaker dodging tough questions. They want to see the people involved unequivocally stand up, take responsibility for their failures and investigate immediately."

The Buck Stops Where?

Oct 6th, 2006 01:03 PM

El Blanco

I never really understood that. Why her? He was the most powerful man on Earth. He should have pulled in quality ass the likes of which Derek Jeter and Colin Farrell only dream about.

For Christ's sake, JFK snuck Maralyn Monroe into the White House.

Was he that addicted and she was right there?

Oct 6th, 2006 01:03 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Preechr, were the e-mails that were handed over to the FBI also a prank?

Oct 6th, 2006 12:58 PM

mburbank

Did you ever hear Bill Marr's monologue about how doing Monica was one of the great sacrificies Clinton made for America? Putting up with what was basically Prison sex when he could have had almost any woman he wanted?

I don't think I agree, but it's very funny.

Oct 6th, 2006 12:27 PM

Cosmo Electrolux

I think it was a Washington Post editorial that suggested that Hastert resign. And, if memory serves, Members of Hasterts own party were playing the finger pointing game well before any Democrat suggested that he resign.

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off