Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Thursday, October 05, 2006

 

Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children

Sen. Lieberman, 1998:

In this case, the president apparently had extramarital relations with an employee half his age and did so in the workplace in the vicinity of the Oval Office. Such behavior is not just inappropriate. It is immoral. And it is harmful, for it sends a message of what is acceptable behavior to the larger American family -- particularly to our children -- which is as influential as the negative messages communicated by the entertainment culture.


Sen. Lieberman, 2006:

Mr. Lieberman cautioned against turning the incident into a partisan issue.

“The truth is, unless he knows what he saw and he saw something he should have acted on, he deserves to have a fact-finder come in,” Mr. Lieberman said, adding that an independent investigator could determine what was known.

Comments:
Dont you think he's right? There is no evidence of physical contact (cant say that of the 98 incident). And it now appears that the alleged child is 18. This so called scandal stinks to high heaven. First it is disgusting. Second, it has been exploited by our hypocritical friends on the left.
 
The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.

The e-mails were alarming enough to prompt the page’s parents in the fall of 2005 to ask their son’s congressional sponsor, Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), to take steps to stop Foley’s correspondence.

Some were 16 years old. Old enough to drive.

But not to vote.

Sanctimonious Joe (R - State of Denial).
 
energybanalist, back again. Nice Republican talking point re: claiming no physical contact. Seems to me a bunch of predators have been arrested by the feds for email contact only. So, if it is ok for kids you know to receive such emails, I guess there's not much that can be said.

Also, nice support of the Drudge/Hannity/Limbaugh speed aging. Keep the lie going, someone might actually believe it: but not at this site.

Lieberman and Lanny Davis are spewing the same old "shut up and don't criticize the Republicans." So, how would Lieberman feel if those emails were sent to his kids?
 
No that I know has said it isnt disgusting. The hypocritical part is that most of the noise makers (and I am sure that includes a "genius" like you Chaucer) are the ones who told us that it's only sex etc. Further, we all know how this is being exploited and frankly that is as disgusting as the act.

Now for you Chaucer, you man refer to me as EnergyAnalyst, EA or hey you, but the next time you stoop to calling names, your new name will be ASSHOLE. Got it fellow? But how like a wacko liberal to call names instead of trying to have a respectful argument
 
Hmmmm, most of the noisemakers are Republicans. And who, pray tell can you name who would say that predatory behavior against children is "just sex"?

Oh, and being the genius that I am, energybanalist, you can just call me Your Highnass.

Regarding Mr. Lieberman's call for a fact-finder prior to allowing free discourse, that would be the Republican run "ethics" committee which gutted its own rules to accomodate DeLay, I presume.
 
Like Not-so-holy Joe, EnergyApologist apparently thinks that it's okay for Repug Congressmen to solicit internet sex from and try to arrange meetings with underage pages.

Why does EnergyApologist hate American children?
 
I think you are Highnass without the Highn. First of all, this wasnt a child, but nice try. I think if you try real hard you'll be able to think of who talked about "just sex".

I seem to think that the "ethics" committee review is interesting since the guy is gone, which democrat scumbag boning pages has been removed from power. I know, that's different they are democrats afterall and they are YOUR chosen. You sir are a putz! Opps wrong side

Oh Sharoney (I will have to think up a nice name for you) the page was 18. The IMs and all were disgusting and shouldnt have happened, but let not make this out to be something is isnt. The page gave as good as he got. Kindah like monica lewinsky and Bill's phone sex with her. But why quibble
 
@Sharoney:

Oh, my. energybanalist is a Drudge/Hannity/Limbaugh dittohead. Even his Republican friends admit the page was 16. And the Clinton line is so tedious but hey, that's what these types have had to hang their hat on for so many years -- lack of imagination does that to you.

Sharoney, I hope energybanalist isn't too mean to you in picking up one of his very creative names. But, what do you expect from someone who protects a political party over children?

Finally, Sharoney, I guess you can figure out why our energy plan is crap judging from the type of folks involved.
 
funny thing is, his lawyer says he's 21 now. Now pay attention AH. The IMs happened 3 yrs ago. So 21 minus 3 equals 18. Republicans protect children better than democrats because foley is gone, Studds hungs around and Barnie is still around.

BTW AH, the energy policy sucks because the democrats derailed it 6 years ago--like $3 gasoline, thank a democrat!!
 
@ energybanalist: Wow, let's have a link to your information regarding age. Your republican friends still think he was 16 (well, one of the pages involved. Who knows about the rest?)

Hey, don't miss anything on Faux News for your next talking point.
I blame every politician for the energy policy, by the by. Nothing has been done right since the late 70s and even that was limited.

Time to waste more energy -- banalist.
 
on you AH it is a waste, but there is a 1% chance that someone with real aptitude will sign on here and I want to make sure they dont think that everyone is as nutty as you (although you are right on nothing being done on energy since the 70s, it's a pity that when someone wanted to do something about it the democrats politicized it).
 
Post a Comment



<< Home