Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What I'm suggesting is that this be handled in a serious manner by the justice department, rather than by grandstanding politicians who can barely keep the gleeful smiles off their faces while screaming "what did he know and when did he know it." Rather than being genuinely concerned with the outcome, many of these politicians are using this solely for political gain, and that is sickening to me.

I take it that if a Democrat is both genuinely disgusted by what Foley, Hastert et al. did and also thinks that it's a reason to elect more Democrats to Congress so that Hastert will not be the next speaker and Boehner will not be the next majority leader, that's OK? Your problem is that you can somehow tell that it's the Democrats here who aren't genuinely concerned with the children, and not the the Republicans using children as human shields? (Have you seen anything from a Democrat on this issue half as offensive as that clip?)

eta: For the record, I have no problem with the Justice Department handling things in a serious manner, but I do object to the times they get all silly.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub

What I'm suggesting is that this be handled in a serious manner by the justice department, rather than by grandstanding politicians who can barely keep the gleeful smiles off their faces while screaming "what did he know and when did he know it." Rather than being genuinely concerned with the outcome, many of these politicians are using this solely for political gain, and that is sickening to me.

do you really think anyone voter in a contested district will vote for or against a Congressional candidate based upon what some sick fuck from Fla. did, or what the leadership did or didn't do? Anyone who thinks "i must now vote the reps out of power" based upon this already had their vote decided.

This is a beltway issue.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I take it that if a Democrat is both genuinely disgusted by what Foley, Hastert et al. did and also thinks that it's a reason to elect more Democrats to Congress so that Hastert will not be the next speaker and Boehner will not be the next majority leader, that's OK? Your problem is that you can somehow tell that it's the Democrats here who aren't genuinely concerned with the children, and not the the Republicans using children as human shields? (Have you seen anything from a Democrat on this issue half as offensive as that clip?)

eta: For the record, I have no problem with the Justice Department handling things in a serious manner, but I do object to the times they get all silly.

I think most adults are genuinely concerned with children. However, many politicians are so caught up in the game that they become almost immune to the fact that real people's lives are being effected, and instead just see how the situation can benefit them personally.

I had trouble hearing the clip, but my thoughts are this. If he surrounded himself with children in connection with this issue, then it is appauling. If it was a generic political event, it's par for the course. Pols have been kissing babies for centuries.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think most adults are genuinely concerned with children. However, many politicians are so caught up in the game that they become almost immune to the fact that real people's lives are being effected, and instead just see how the situation can benefit them personally.

I had trouble hearing the clip, but my thoughts are this. If he surrounded himself with children in connection with this issue, then it is appauling. If it was a generic political event, it's par for the course. Pols have been kissing babies for centuries.

Transcript is below the clip. He surrounded himself with children to discuss this issue.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub

What I'm suggesting is that this be handled in a serious manner by the justice department, rather than by grandstanding politicians who can barely keep the gleeful smiles off their faces while screaming "what did he know and when did he know it." Rather than being genuinely concerned with the outcome, many of these politicians are using this solely for political gain, and that is sickening to me.

You'd have the criminal authorities handle a non-criminal matter dealing with House membership and discipline?

Where would the justice department's authority come from? My understanding of Article I has been that these issues are reserved entirely to the House itself. If the House wanted to appoint an independent special prosecutor, since it is the Speaker who is at issue, that would seem to make sense, but I think that is what they want to avoid. If the House just says, we'll let Justice handle the criminal issues, who is handling the non-criminal issues?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
I did look it up. American Heritage said: "A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy". It also refers to paedophile as a synonym. The term male child is also used. So the inference is to a young boy or child, not a sixteen year old, or young man.

I would consider a Pederast a pervert or a sexual deviant. I would not consider a man who had sex with a sixteen year old boy a pervert or sexual deviant. What he did may be wrong, but not something most other homosexual men have an inkling to do.

Just as I would not consider a man that had sex with a sixteen year old girl a pervert or sexual deviant. It would be wrong, but not an unnatural proclivity.

I understand what you are saying. It is not a particularly PC thing to say, but you are right to some degree. I haven't bothered scrolling back for the whole debate here, so I'm sure that I lack the background to jump into the fray at this point, but I'm kinda reckless and foolish that way...

I think that you are right that there is something (possibly biological in basis) that makes men value youth as a part of the analysis of attractiveness. Not pre-pubescent youth, but post-pubescent youth. Britney Spears didn't cause such a sensation in the not-that-innocent schoolgirl outfit solely because 12-year-old girls wanted to buy her music. Any QAF fans may remember the uproar caused by the high school kid who started hanging out at the gay bars because a lot of men in the gay community value that look (sure it was fiction, but it was based on some not-so-fictitcous ideals in parts of the homosexual community).

This Congressman did something wrong. Not only is it creepy for an old man to be flirting with, etc. a 16-y-o boy because of the mores of our society (despite whatever biological drives perpetuate this sort of youth idealism), but he was in a position of authority, so it was doubly bad. The yelling and screaming for mass resignations by any republicans who knew about it seems to me like business as usual in Washington. Neither party lives up to the ideal of sticking to issues of national importance and elevating the level of debate and discourse. They both try to find weaknesses in members of the other party and exploit it for their (or their party's) personal gain. Call me cynical, but that is the way it seems to work.

Should other people resign? I have no idea, and, sadly, I don't even care at this point. I hate our politicians. Every last one of them. Find me one who isn't a two-faced, glad-handing, money-grubbing, lying piece of shit and I'll be duly surprised.

My question is why not get rid of the congressional page program all together? It is probably 99% benefiting people who don't need the help (these kids are all sons and daughters of important constituents or other political donors anyway, no?). The kids can't be serving a particularly important purpose that couldn't be filled by older, more qualified people anyway. And then the Congressman and the Page scenerio won't have to play out again like a sick joke every couple of decades. Problem solved.

I should run our government. Or maybe Sebby and I should run our government. There would be some big big changes. Unfortunately neither of us wants the job.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Should other people resign? I have no idea, and, sadly, I don't even care at this point. I hate our politicians. Every last one of them. Find me one who isn't a two-faced, glad-handing, money-grubbing, lying piece of shit and I'll be duly surprised.

I'm running for City commission. I have to pretend to be a Dem :seenno:

neither of us wants the job.

bullshit. Sebby would take it in a second.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Well, Hank, S_A_M, and I all seem to agree on this. I'll go a step further - at 40, I am likely to react paternally and protectively to teenagers. They're just a few years older than my own kids.

You and S_A_M are so full of it, it makes me want to puke. Does your wife read this page? I am not attracted to young women is a bullshit line all men tell older women and you know it. It is similar to "check is in the mail", "if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about" etc.

Are you trying to tell me that anyone who found Tracy Lords attractive in one of her videos is out of the normal? I use to represent a few modeling agencies in LA and Tokyo. When I worked in Tokyo I represented one that did not have a singe girl over the age of eighteen (and all the models were caucasian). They had models that were thirteen. When they had partys every male employee in my firm wanted to go (and every male I knew, regardless of age). When we were at the partys, if we were with females lawyers from our firm all the men would say that they were too young to find attractive, but when the girls left all the men agreed it was amazing how hot these young girls were.

There are many playmates, strippers, pent house pets, hooters employees that are 18 and they don't look much different than they did when they were sixteen.

You would think that at least on an anonymous board idiots like you would cut your B.S. but I guess that it too much too ask.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Transcript is below the clip. He surrounded himself with children to discuss this issue.

Disgusting.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You'd have the criminal authorities handle a non-criminal matter dealing with House membership and discipline?

Where would the justice department's authority come from? My understanding of Article I has been that these issues are reserved entirely to the House itself. If the House wanted to appoint an independent special prosecutor, since it is the Speaker who is at issue, that would seem to make sense, but I think that is what they want to avoid. If the House just says, we'll let Justice handle the criminal issues, who is handling the non-criminal issues?

I raised this issue earlier. I could be wrong, but I believe that Justice has the authority to investigate the matter, including the cover up. I'm not convinced that there may not be some sort of aiding and abedding thing going on here. But if there ultimately is no criminal violation by leadership, then I do think it's appropriate for there to be a house investigation/impeachment/censure, etc. depending on the level of involvement. However, I think that is premature.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
You and S_A_M are so full of it, it makes me want to puke. Does your wife read this page? I am not attracted to young women is a bullshit line all men tell older women and you know it. It is similar to "check is in the mail", "if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about" etc.

Are you trying to tell me that anyone who found Tracy Lords attractive in one of her videos is out of the normal? I use to represent a few modeling agencies in LA and Tokyo. When I worked in Tokyo I represented one that did not have a singe girl over the age of eighteen (and all the models were caucasian). They had models that were thirteen. When they had partys every male employee in my firm wanted to go (and every male I knew, regardless of age). When we were at the partys, if we were with females lawyers from our firm all the men would say that they were too young to find attractive, but when the girls left all the men agreed it was amazing how hot these young girls were.

There are many playmates, strippers, pent house pets, hooters employees that are 18 and they don't look much different than they did when they were sixteen.

You would think that at least on an anonymous board idiots like you would cut your B.S. but I guess that it too much too ask.

My wife emphatically does not read this board, and I can tell you that you are quite wrong.

In my experience, saying "all men like ..." based upon personal experience tends to be, well, projection.

(Of course, I am also on record as being Not Breast Obsessed, so wjhat do I know.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Bob
My wife emphatically does not read this board, and I can tell you that you are quite wrong.

In my experience, saying "all men like ..." based upon personal experience tends to be, well, projection.

(Of course, I am also on record as being Not Breast Obsessed, so wjhat do I know.)

Thank you, Not Bob. I really don't think I'm odd for not having a desire to screw around with teenagers.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Well, I think that the Jeff Gannon thing was a horrible misstep, so yeah.

This is the politics board, and I take a political view on everything. Everything that happens in Washington is political and will be used for political purposes. That is the way the system works. The post I made before that so many people disagreed with was a political analysis. I think the Democrats made a bad political decision when they defended Franks and Studds, and that screw up makes it difficult for them to fully take advantage of the current situation. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Cleary Hastert screwed up by not dealing with this situation sooner but the guy did quit right when it came to light. I think a Democrat would have fought and the Democrats would have been less likely to dump the guy right away.

The Democrats also attacking Conyer as a pederast or paedophile is also destructive because it gives ammunition to the social conservatives. If you make that blanket statement that homosexuals that are attracted to sixteen year olds are paedophiles or pederasts then you really are giving the social conservatives ammunition when they say all homosexuals are pederasts or paedophiles. If the definition of a pederast or paedophile is if they find some sixteen year old attractives then the majority of all men are pederasts or paedophiles.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Thank you, Not Bob. I really don't think I'm odd for not having a desire to screw around with teenagers.

You may not want to screw around with them, but to say you don't find some teenagers attractive is a lie.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Thank you, Not Bob. I really don't think I'm odd for not having a desire to screw around with teenagers.

Are you guys arguing semantics with Spanky or something else? I would never generalize to say all heterosexual men like anything, so if that is your issue, fine. But I'm wondering whether you actually debate his point that a lot of the beauty ideals in our society, both among str8 men and homosexual men involve standards that tend to coincide with youth. Because I would be interested to hear the counter to that.