Rush comes out in strong defense of Hastert

[MikeWaters]

Basically said if you want the Republicans to go down in flames, then ask Hastert to resign.

I think a good argument could be made that Hastert staying while under an intense microscope would be good for the democrats. They have their new Delay.

I love the Republican talking point: "the Democrats are playing politics. The timing is very suspicious." LOL. Actually, a significant number of Americans are stupid enough for this to work.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Basically said if you want the Republicans to go down in flames, then ask Hastert to resign.

I think a good argument could be made that Hastert staying while under an intense microscope would be good for the democrats. They have their new Delay.

I love the Republican talking point: "the Democrats are playing politics. The timing is very suspicious." LOL. Actually, a significant number of Americans are stupid enough for this to work.

Either way, this won't help Republicans. If they didn't know about Foley, it is unfair to blame Republicans for what happened (even though they WILL be blamed). They can't control Foley's actions (much as they do try to control the morality of the rest of us). If they did know about Foley and did nothing, they deserve all of the punishment they will take. Hastert then should resign and we should look into possible criminal violations against those who knew and covered it up.

[MikeWaters]

norcal on cb was saying that age of consent in D.C. is 16 years old, and that sexual relations wouldn't have been a crime in D.C. is that true?

the last guy who did this got off scot free and continued to be reelected. He said because the page was 17 it was legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Co...ge_sex_scandal

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

norcal on cb was saying that age of consent in D.C. is 16 years old, and that sexual relations wouldn't have been a crime in D.C. is that true?

the last guy who did this got off scot free and continued to be reelected. He said because the page was 17 it was legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Co...ge_sex_scandal

What do you know! It is 16. I just looked it up. For some reason I feel quite happy that I have never had occasion to look that up before.

That is interesting. Nevertheless, he could still be subject to criminal charges. He engaged in solicitation of a minor via email and text messaging while the minor was in another state. In such an instance, you would have to look to the laws of the state where the minor was located in addition to DC's laws. It sounds like there were several minors, so this could get messy. You would also have to ask where members of Congress found out about the Foley debacle and where they were when they planned to cover it up (if any such thing ever did occur). All of that could be relevant to criminal prosecutions.

Glad I am not in charge of that investigation. What a mess.

I hadn't heard about the Democrat pervert who had sex with the page until yesterday. I am still shocked that Congress didn't vote to expel him (particularly given the fact that he turned his back on Congress when they read him the censure). I am even more shocked that they did nothing to ensure better protection for their pages.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

What do you know! It is 16. I just looked it up. For some reason I feel quite happy that I have never had occasion to look that up before.

That is interesting. Nevertheless, he could still be subject to criminal charges. He engaged in solicitation of a minor via email and text messaging while the minor was in another state. In such an instance, you would have to look to the laws of the state where the minor was located in addition to DC's laws. It sounds like there were several minors, so this could get messy. You would also have to ask where members of Congress found out about the Foley debacle and where they were when they planned to cover it up (if any such thing ever did occur). All of that could be relevant to criminal prosecutions.

Glad I am not in charge of that investigation. What a mess.

I hadn't heard about the Democrat pervert who had sex with the page until yesterday. I am still shocked that Congress didn't vote to expel him (particularly given the fact that he turned his back on Congress when they read him the censure). I am even more shocked that they did nothing to ensure better protection for their pages.

And thus my point is proven.

A Democrat need not have any standards and will be reelected regardless of crime or sin.

A Republican will not receive equal treatment and will not be reelected.

Republicans may break their standards of conduct but are punished; Democrats don't have standards of conduct and are never punished. It might be nice to be a Democrat, commit crimes, be a pervert and nobody cares. In fact, it is probably a campaign platform, "Hi, perverts need representation too, and I'm just the man for you!"

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And thus my point is proven.

A Democrat need not have any standards and will be reelected regardless of crime or sin.

A Republican will not receive equal treatment and will not be reelected.

Republicans may break their standards of conduct but are punished; Democrats don't have standards of conduct and are never punished. It might be nice to be a Democrat, commit crimes, be a pervert and nobody cares. In fact, it is probably a campaign platform, "Hi, perverts need representation too, and I'm just the man for you!"

Two issues:

1. Foley hasn't been punished. He resigned of his own accord. The Democrat WAS punished (censored). I would have opted for expulsion, but he was punished. Foley may yet be punished, but nobody has indicated he will be yet.

2. Republicans take these issues more squarely on the chin because they hold themselves out as the party of morality. When you do that, you are held to higher standards. You can't, on the one hand, proclaim yourself as the party of morality and then, on the other, balk when people use it against you.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Basically said if you want the Republicans to go down in flames, then ask Hastert to resign.

I think a good argument could be made that Hastert staying while under an intense microscope would be good for the democrats. They have their new Delay.

I love the Republican talking point: "the Democrats are playing politics. The timing is very suspicious." LOL. Actually, a significant number of Americans are stupid enough for this to work.

As I was watching the news with my wife tonight I made the comment that I would much rather have a good example of a conservative and/or Republican in office than the idiots we currently have. Congressional Republicans IMO have become just as corrupt and power drunk as the Dems were through the 80s.

Sometimes a party needs a good ass kicking to get it refocused and get some fresh blood in. The GOP may be on the verge of that moment which IMO is not all bad.

If the Dems can just stay out of their own way and keep their mouths shut for the next month they ought to get the house back at a minimum. I fully expect Dems to return to power in a month through no fault of their own and then spend the next two years holding hearings on everything in the universe which by 2008 will turn the tide again. We'll see if I'm right.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

As I was watching the news with my wife tonight I made the comment that I would much rather have a good example of a conservative and/or Republican in office than the idiots we currently have. Congressional Republicans IMO have become just as corrupt and power drunk as the Dems were through the 80s.

Sometimes a party needs a good ass kicking to get it refocused and get some fresh blood in. The GOP may be on the verge of that moment which IMO is not all bad.

If the Dems can just stay out of their own way and keep their mouths shut for the next month they ought to get the house back at a minimum. I fully expect Dems to return to power in a month through no fault of their own and then spend the next two years holding hearings on everything in the universe which by 2008 will turn the tide again. We'll see if I'm right.

Now I am even more confused than before. This is almost verbatim what I said in this thread:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...6&postcount=44

To which you responded:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...1&postcount=46

What gives?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Now I am even more confused than before. This is almost verbatim what I said in this thread:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...6&postcount=44

To which you responded:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...1&postcount=46

What gives?

My post was not in response to the one you linked. It was in response to the one at the top of the thread.

[Frank Ryan]

moral guidance. He does the good republicans I know a disservice.

The guy is a libertine, ego-driven scumbag.

He is out to make money and garner ratings.

His type of show is what is wrong with the media.