Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Eleventh Commandment

The Republican Party believes that we should encourage the rich in all their endeavors. The high tech products available everywhere are due to rich entrepreneurs. The great prosperity we are experiencing has been brought about by wealthy businessmen. The excellent jobs workers have in this country have come to us courtesy of billion-dollar CEOs of corporations. The rich are blessed.

Yes, Republicans believe there is a reason the rich are rich. The rich are self-reliant men. They do not depend on anybody else, especially not the government, for a hand-out. They define noble goals and work hard in their own way to achieve them. And they do reach their goals.

How come these few people reach their goals, while many others, with all sorts of goals, strive and strive and get nowhere? Evidently, God has blessed those who become rich. Similarly, God has withheld his blessing from those who are poor. Otherwise they too would have become rich.

Republicans feel that it is the job of elected officials to ease the path of those who have been blessed by God: the rich. Forget about the undeserving poor.

Which brings up the question about what Jesus said:

It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.

The Republican Party, the party of God, the party of moral values, searched for an answer. For a very long time it was baffled. The party knew it was right, but could not square what it knew with what Jesus said. It made no sense. But after lots of cogitation, research and prayer the solution came into view. It took a long time. Finally, Republicans became enlightened. They arrived at the answer:

After Jesus made his statement, the Devil intervened. He changed "poor" to "rich." So now we know that the original Jesus statement was:

It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a poor man to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Now, that squares neatly with the Republican version of the Bible. The rich are blessed by the hidden hand of God. The Devil's version, the one blessing the poor, is the Bible of the Democrats. They talk incessantly about the poor. They don't understand that God prefers the rich.

Republican research also unearthed another fact: There were originally not 10 but 11 commandments. The Devil silently removed the eleventh commandment, which says:

Honor the rich amongs you, for they are blessed.
Posted by Paul Siegel at October 2, 2006 6:15 PM
Comments
Comment #185759

Brilliant Post!!! You are so right on. The Republicans are all rich. They “grind the face of the poor” constantly as they trot around in their rich little cars with their model wives…

They’re just a bunch of tax dogding, kool-aid drinking, uneducated, religious bigots, filled with hypocrisy and hatred of the truth as God gives the Democrats to see the truth.

You should post more Paul. Your insight into the religous mind every republican is astounding. Your deep thinking must equal your spirituality.

T

Posted by: TMU at October 2, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #185761

Paul, this would be comical were it not what you actually believe. The Democrats need the poor to stay poor so they can pretend to care about them and get their votes. The Dems are what Bill Cosby calls the “Poverty Pimps”. If all the poor people in this country suddenly became affluent, the Democrats would no longer have a base. Now, which party would be better served by ending poverty? The GOP, of course, which is why they promote tax cuts to stimulate the economy and create jobs, while the Dems want to raise the minimum wage and raise taxes so the economy will be stifled and they can keep their customers addicted to the drug called welfare.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 2, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #185764

Republicans make tax cuts, sure, for the rich. Your logic doesn’t really follow.

Posted by: Sabrina at October 2, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #185765

This is the definition of those “compassionate Democrats.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 2, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #185766

Paul

People dont bite the hand that feeds them. There is an old chinese proverb that goes like this. Feed a man a fish you feed him for a day.(dems)——Teach a man to fish you feed him for life.(Repulicans). Off the point please tell me why the dems dont want voter I D cards?????. another item off point. Please explain to me why when Bill Clinton has an affair with an intern its no big deal its just sex. When Foley does something of a sexual nature all hell breaks loose. NBC CBS ABC CNN that all I see all day Foley.

Posted by: Thomas at October 2, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #185768

Please explain to me why when Bill Clinton has an affair with an intern its no big deal its just sex. When Foley does something of a sexual nature all hell breaks loose. NBC CBS ABC CNN that all I see all day Foley.

Maybe it’s because Foley targeted minor children for his “affairs” ??

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #185770

Paul,

This is a very broad argument that has a million tentacles that go in all different directions. You’ll probably end up with over 100 posts. If that’s how you judge success, then you will have met that goal. If your goal was something more in line with what Stephen, David, or Jack do which is to post a persuasive point on something of substance and get substantive responses, then I think you have failed.

There is a reference here that I’m forgetting, but it goes something like, “we are all now stupidier for having read this post.”

Thomas,

If I recall correctly, it wasn’t exactly no big deal when Clinton had his affair. What Foley did is an even bigger deal because he was soliciting a minor and a male. The second part shouldn’t matter but it does. The first part should matter and it does. There is nothing that Foley did that is worthy of defending. There is absolutely nothing that we should be doing as Republicans to try to defend him. If he were a teacher at your local high school, it would be big news in your community. He’s a Congressman, so it is big news in our country.

Posted by: Rob at October 2, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #185771

Thomas,

1. When someone “does something of a sexual nature” with a child, it is a big deal.
2. Republicans don’t want to teach the man to fish - they want to take the money that could have been used to teach him to fish and give it back to the guy who already has a bunch of fish so that he can buy even more expensive fish (caught by some other guy who is in charge of catching all the fish because of outsourcing).

Posted by: JB at October 2, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #185772

Duane-o, you just made the point about republicans, Bill Cosby one of the riches black in the US, who better to show the black that the rich get richer and the poorer get poorer.

Posted by: KT at October 2, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #185775

Well, actually the boy that Foley solicted is reported to have been 16 years old at the time.

Anybody know the age of consent in Washington?

Yep, 16.

Had Foley actually had sex with this boy, it would have been by law sex between consenting adults, against House rules but not against the law.

I’m glad that Foley is gone—sounds like a sicko.

But this is actually the very same thing as the Monica-Clinton scandal, a story about someone taking advantage of their power and influence over an underling.

The ONLY differences here (at least that we know of so far) is that the sex never actually occurred, Foley was not the President of the United States, and he at least had the decency to resign when he got caught.

Posted by: Pilsner at October 2, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #185778

Paul,
You are probably going to alienate many of your liberal friends by even alluding to the teachings of Christ even if your intent is to make a stereotypical jab at Republicans. I can usually sense liberal blood boiling every time the name of Jesus is included in a post based on the venom in the responses.
In case you did not know not all Republicans are wealthy. Many of us have no use for the Ken Ley types and the law makers who support them. However we more dislike the idea of being taxed out our rear ends to pay for a bloated government full of union hack patronage jobs. We don’t want to pay high taxes for schools that don’t work and where the answer is always more money. We don’t want too pay for social programs that discourage work and we don’t want criminals treated like misunderstood children. If everything you say about the Republicans was true they would still be a better alternative than the democrats.

Posted by: Carnak at October 2, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #185786

Listen folks, this current “scandal” is big news
because its always business as usual in politics.
The sleazy behavior of Clinton, Foley, et al is
fodder for political hacks of both parties to jump on for an advantage for their party. The voters would have removed Clinton if he had been
running for reelection, just as they would have
removed Foley. Lets not get lost in the political
furor occasioned my these spectacles of depraved
behavior and lose sight of the fact that politics
is a sleazy business overall, and both parties
members can and are guilty of it

Posted by: Dave at October 2, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #185800

I am a republican, and you foolish democrats will never figure out the way to heaven is to buy or shoot your way in. Our savior, G.W., is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of terrorists, or future terrorist, ages 1 month to 90 years old, just because there was no w.m.d.’s does not mean they wer’nt evil. We are on a crusade to rid this world of all those filthy muslum extreamists who disagree with our capitalistic sociaty. We are the party of the N.R.A. and the right to bear arms is carved in stone in the ten commandments.

Posted by: George W. Rove at October 2, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #185812

G W Rove?Yeh,right!!!Ha,Ha,Ha!

Posted by: rdavidc at October 2, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #185816

Paul:

I have an explanation of the term ‘eye-of-the-needle’, which I posted several months ago, but would be more germaine to this discussion.

“Eye of the Needle” was a term for a narrow passage through a wall of a walled city. It was narrow and short, and negotiating it forced people to walk in single file, or ride a single horse or camel while hunched over. It was a defensive mechanism to control access that allowed for people to enter the city while under either siege conditions or heightened alert conditions, while not having to open the larger, more vulnerable gates.

Jesus’ metaphor doesn’t preclude a rich man going to heaven. He simply meant that a rich man would be forced to walk in alone, without the possessions and the entourage that connoted royalty and privledge in those times, with the concomitant humility and personal surrender such a step would engender.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 2, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #185820

“you just made the point about republicans, Bill Cosby one of the riches black in the US, who better to show the black that the rich get richer and the poorer get poorer”

kerry? moore? edwards? hilliary? kennedy?
Just five of the many liberals who “say” they care about the poor, but yet they live in luxury.

Whats worse?
A person who says each individual is responsible for their own lives and promotes personal success?
OR
A person who “says” they care, but yet they won’t take the initiative themselves to help those they “say” they care about?
In other words, a hypocritical liar!

Paul, you forgot the liberals ONLY Commandment:
Thou shalt create dependency to get votes!

Posted by: kctim at October 2, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #185821

Anybody know the age of consent in Washington?
Yep, 16.

Hmmm… Interesting.

That would mean the only reason the dems have a problem with this is because it was of a homosexual nature?

The outrage can’t be because of the sex thing, because they supported Clinton and it can’t be because he broke House Rules because he already resigned.

If you’re right about the age of consent in Washington, it proves what I’ve always thought… Democrats will support homosexuality, but only from people who support them.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 2, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #185822

TheTraveler, the age of consent in Washington DC is definitely 16.

Now, when you look at reports in the media about this story, you will hear again and again that this scandal relates to a relationship with a “minor” or an “underaged teenage boy.”

Even many of the reports which give the boy’s age repeat this obvious falsehood. I guess it’s just no fun for reporters to bother researching the facts and the pertinent laws when the story has to do with attacking a Republican.

Foley is downright creepy and I’m glad he’s gone. But the Democrats’ reaction to this story exposes once again—as if we needed another reminder—their essential hypocricy.

Posted by: Pilsner at October 2, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #185825

Dems are hypocrites? It’s funny, but so many R’s seem to be on this “when we do it it’s bad, but when they do it it doesn’t matter” kick. First of all, and I have to write this time and time again here, just because a Dem did it doesn’t mean we all approve. Second of all, Clinton was impeached, right? Is that something that was brushed under the rug?

But overall, I think Dems jump up and point the finger of hypocrisy when they see someone like Foley, a member of a clearly anti-homosexual party (just try to deny that) forced to resign because of a homosexual relationship. That’s not to mention the actual sweeping under the rug of Hastert and crew, which is another funny bit of hypocrisy from a party of “values.” And the fact that Foley had been such a major part of laws having to do with this exact issue—it all rings very strongly of the Catholic Church scandal, which again, is classic hypocrisy.

Perhaps all of you R’s are self-haters? Allen hates that he’s a Jew, after all. I guess Foley would hate being gay as right-winger. Rush must hate being an addict. Bill Bennett a gambling man…those, my friends, are examples of actual hypocrisy.

And thanks, Pilsner and Traveler for giving us the age of consent. Even though it’s a pretty sorry state of affairs (forgive the pun) for you to feel the need to pull that out, the kid still *is* a minor. Damn reality-based “liberal” media!

Posted by: DavidL at October 3, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #185826

Duane-o,
You have got to be kidding.
I gathered that you meant: If the Democrats had their way everyone would be rich, so there would be no need for them to exist. Then the Republicans could take over for the Democrats. - I suppose.

However, there are more than a couple of flaws in your thinking.

Who will run the factories for all those new rich Republicans?
Who would do all the low wage jobs that our country needs\wants?
Who would wait on them in their big country clubs?

Not only do the Republicans believe in the idea of “one-up-man ship”, it appears to me that most rich simply want more and more.

We live in a world of HAVES and HAVE-NOTS.

I appreciate what Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are doing. What all the rich do (tax deductions are nice - aren’t they)for everyone.

I have read how Gates’ and his wife go over-seas to help the AIDS victims, but do they pay for days off so their employees can spend time with their families, or churches, or helping to feed the the hungry man and his family while they “teach a very hungry man to fish”.

Throwing money at a problem seldom fixes it. It takes getting your hands dirty. I don’t know many rich folks who are willing to get down and dirty volunteering their TIME, knowledge, and brawn to help anyone else get ahead.

Posted by: Linda H. at October 3, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #185827

DavidL, Foley has resigned. He’s been condemned by everybody, including the House leadership and every single Republican, and the incriminating instant messages only came to light in the last few days. There were some emails sent to other young men, but they were not sexually explicit and would look innocent if not for these newly revealed instant messages.

Nobody “swept” anything under the rug here, unless it was whoever sat on those messages in order to make them public right before an election.

Posted by: Pilsner at October 3, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #185828

Pilsner
How can you, or anyone else excuse ex-Rep.Mark Foley goes the ‘ex-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children’ behavior? He of all humans, ( I hesitate to call him that) should be aware of the influence an older man would have on younger teens. He should already know of the danger he was doing to the mental states of any of the teens he e-mailed.

Seventeen and sixteen Strong>may be the the age of consent but most 17 or 16 years are not interested in 52 year olds. Just the age difference between a 16\17 yr.old and a 52 yr.old is intimidating.

Foley’s crimes will continue to go on - potentially for several generations. Every child\teen will have to learn to deal with what Foley did or tried do to them.

Several of you are already aware that my life-time career has been spent working with children, rape and domestic violence.

Frankly I believe all pedophiles should be hung up by their toes until blood runs out of their ears, then be castrated.

Somehow I doubt that Monica feels anything but remorse, if that, for what happened with Clinton - also a direct example of ‘power intimidation’. However presumably Monica was old enough to make adult decisions. Teens are not.

Posted by: Linda H. at October 3, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #185829

Yes!! The standard liberal mantra: Corporations are evil!! All CEO’s are evil!! Bill Gates was born with a golden spoon in his mouth! (Well, actually he started much like the HP execs … working out of his garage. But this is a liberal thread, let’s not let facts get in the way.)

Damn those corporations employing all of those people! Big corporations are the worst because they try to fool us by paying out all that money in health care costs. GM is a key culprit in this, spending more money on health care than on steel for their cars … those feigning bastards!

Down with all corporations and all of their bosses! Arrrghhhh!

Posted by: Ken Strong at October 3, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #185831

Linda H., I can agree with most of what you say, and my comments have nothing to do with defending or excusing Foley.

Foley’s behavior is disgusting, and his ethical lapses and generally disgusting self are more than enough reason to run him out of town. Even though what he did might not be illegal, it doesn’t excuse him any more than it did Clinton.

As for who and who isn’t able to make adult decisions, what the law says is often very different from what sexual rights advocates or psychologists might say, and that’s an issue to take up with those who make the laws.

Foley, however, unlike Clinton, hasn’t as far as I know lied about his behavior under oath. His behavior is loathsome, but unlike Clinton, he has had the decency to resign after disgracing himself.

Personally, I think that the age of consent in Washington DC is way too low and that somebody who preys on young men, legally or not, doesn’t deserve to represent us in government. Just as somebody who preys on young women (Clinton) should have been, or for that matter somebody who gets drunk/stoned and crashes their cars while in office and tries to cover it should be (Kennedy) or does so and leaves a woman to drown (another Kennedy).

I just find it interesting that there is one standard of behavior for members of one party, and a far different standard for members of the other. And that the media simply doesn’t tell the entire truth when it comes to relating the facts.

Posted by: Pilsner at October 3, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #185838

1)Foley is a disgusting man who deserves everything he gets. Linda’s suggested punishment has some merit. Cruel and unusual, maybe, but it has some merit.
2)Saying the other guys do it to does not justify in any way what Foley did or diminish the necessity of his punishment.
3)16 is still a minor, to the best of my knowledge. I was under the impression people under 18 are minors, regardless the age for consent.

Paul
I strongly resent your characterization of all republicans as rich and supportive of the rich and people who want to shaft the poor. I lived in the third world country of Paraguay for a year. I assure you there are few who have more concern for the poor than I. My parents are both private school teachers. We are not by any American standard rich. I am fairly sure you are wealthier than my family. Call it an educated guess. Please allow for exceptions in your next post. “Most republicans,” or “powerful republicans,” perhaps.
Your mischaracterization of the Christian religion is also offensive. Please refrain from assailing my deepest held beliefs in the future. They do not make any friends. Given republicans routinely exploit my religion also, and this is far more offensive than yours.
I can accept that most of the republican party does favor the rich and tax cuts and slashing welfare etc. The majority is not 100% and those of us who do value welfare programs and things that help those who were born less privileged than us have the minority right to be recognized.

Posted by: Silima at October 3, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #185842

To begin with Bill Clinton was set up , by “find out what his weakness is” get it on tape. Girl friend talk to girl friend talk taped??? Now that is strange, never have I heard of girls taping theirs sex talk about their boy friends before .Just don’t happen.But they were both of age. Pure republicans style.Get him out any way you can.
I6 is still a little young.
But Democrats are not all poor, nor are they dumb. They work their way up and then they try to pull the rest up with them .Works for them .
They set up programs. Insurance for children, help for abused wifes and families.Better schooling for all.College education funds set up for people to inprove their lives.It is called Hope for you repugs . Welfare with schools paid for , for working Mothers to get the out of proverty. No hopeless , Social security was getting back on track.Instead of being stolen from the seniors that owned it.And our government needs to be on the same plan, and their health plan needs to be available to all Americans.We need to stop paying these people for the rest of their lives for their service in Government . We don’t pay army of the armed forces the rest of their lives for the time they spend in a war, unles they are killed or diaabled.And they are being shot at every day.

During the President Bill Clinton years there was more young single mothers gettings off welfare than ever before.Head Start programs for preschool to give them an even break before they start regular school. Music classes , Art classes. Things to keep and make a children interested in school, not some state regulated tests that kills all the teachers ideals for teaching.Teachers are there to spark interest.But where they are penalized for ever thing, those spark goes out the window.
Helping people in the U.S. not killing people over in some country that has their own ideals of how they want to live.Killing and maning our young men and women for life.Ruining their lives, for ever.
There was good jobs and the economy was going great for everyone during the Clinton years.
And surprise to all the churches were also going great , even had democrats going to church. Yes Democrates are Christians also.I am one,
But I have never in all my adult years have I heard so much crooked stuff going on in our government. It is rotten to the core now.And the Republicans rule. So who do you think is the crooks? They do not sound like Christians to me.
That has been a smoke screen for them to hide behind for the last 5 years and run the Democrats into the grounds.
Yes, Bill Clinton made a mistake, but if the truth was known ??? But that don’t mean that all Or even Bill himself is bad.He was educated and knew how to run a country like a business and the whole country profited from it.And America was looked up to and respected them, but not now. Our friends in the middle east want to kill us.How can we blame them after thousands of them have been killed over nothing,
Yes we had 9/11. Sad and tragic. But the real killer was never brought to justice. He is still out there druming up more business.But he isn’t Iraq.Train the soilders and police in Iraq, then get out and let them run their own country.Of course we want be able to steal their gas that way. But this country is smart enough to find others fuels. And not by drilling and killing our wild lands in Alaska.
When Global warming gets bad enough we need our national guards here in America to take care of our emergencies over here.New Orleans needs help.
And we also need to get the crooks out of our construction jobs, so that they can be done right,all the grafts moneys paid out for jobs done under shoddy work that won’t past muster.
Make those companys come back and do the jobs right.
There is tons of work to bring America back up to standard.And Democrats know how to work.

Posted by: Suzieq at October 3, 2006 2:22 AM
Comment #185845

Davidl

Actually Clinton was never impeached. The house drew up articles of impeachment, however the Senate rejected it.


And Paul what a load of stuff you’re shoveling here. OOOOh the evil rich Republicans. I bet you if they did a survey of the top politicians in each party you would find as many if not more millionaires in the Demoncratic party as there are in the Republican party.

Posted by: Keith at October 3, 2006 2:44 AM
Comment #185846

Keith,

No, Clinton was impeached, he was not removed by the Senate. Impeachment in this case is essentially the same as being indicted. Not being removed is comparable to being found innocent in trial.

In terms of the Democrats, they tend to attract people from both ends of the spectrum sort of like a dumbell. The very wealthy split between Republican and Democrat, the extremely poor tend to go Democrat, and the middle class tends to go more Republican.

As far as this argument about the rich being wrong, whatever. Its easy to criticize the rich when trying to exploit the jealosy of the poor. The Democrats have done nothing for the poor. They create a welfare state that concentrated poverty in the inner cities, ruined the inner cities, and created a state of dependent voters who they could always scare of the big bad Republicans. What a crock. The Democrats race bait constantly, scaring blacks into believing the Republicans are going to bring back Jim Crow while keeping blacks in poverty for thier votes. Democrats use both classism and race baiting to divide the nation for the exploitation these divisions cause.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 3, 2006 3:33 AM
Comment #185847

Keith:

Unfortunately, I respectfully suggest you are mistaken. The House DID impeach Clinton, which means only that they accused him. Impeachment is simply and accusation. The Senate rejected the charges against him. Impeachment is not removal from office, simply bringing charges, whose merits are then decided upon by the Senate.

Basically, an impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment, not a conviction.

Clinton was, in fact, impeached.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at October 3, 2006 3:41 AM
Comment #185849

YOU DAM REPUGS Clinton had sex with an consenting adult Not a minor YOU PEDAFILES

Posted by: Mike Sackman at October 3, 2006 4:55 AM
Comment #185867
The rich are self-reliant men. They do not depend on anybody else, especially not the government, for a hand-out. They define noble goals and work hard in their own way to achieve them. And they do reach their goals
Paul, I’m assuming this is tounge-in-cheek. Do you know many rich men? Rich meaning your money works for you, not you work for your money. I grew up in a community with rich people. The common thread, besides blinding intelligence within the founders of each “dynasty”, was focus. Focus on money and nothing else. Self reliant meant screw everyone else who wasn’t aligned with your goal of money. There was no morality if it conflicted with wealth accumulation as morality can always be manipulated to justify ones actions. This is what truly defines the modern Repuglican leadership.

HSK “wealth of a U.S. Senator on the Democrat’s side of the aisle exceeds that of the Senator’s on the Republican side” Where do you get this gem?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 3, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #185870
You are probably going to alienate many of your liberal friends by even alluding to the teachings of Christ even if your intent is to make a stereotypical jab at Republicans. I can usually sense liberal blood boiling every time the name of Jesus is included in a post based on the venom in the responses.

Why? The teachings of Jesus are beautiful and apt. What likely offends materialists is the superstitious belief that he was some kind of magical superhero. Or the fact that many conservatives, who apparently have no idea what Jesus actually taught, feel that the US is a Christian nation and our laws should be based on the Bible (and ironically enough, mostly selective teachings of the Old Testament).

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at October 3, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #185883
please tell me why the dems dont want voter I D cards

1) It is like a poll tax that disenfranchises the poor…it costs $$$ to get a photo I.D.

2) Arizona, like many other states, does have a voting I.D. law…I looked over the list…there is no way homeless, nursing home residents, working poor, or thousands of others would have the “approved” forms of I.S. at their disposal…this also disenfranchises people who have a right to vote.

3) There has been absolutely no proof that illegal immigrants are voting in numbers that could possibly skew any election…there are precious few anecdotal incidents reported, but no investigation has found any trends to show this is a problem.

4) It’s the federal government insisting on an I.D. system that would limit the people legally voting in a statewide election…it is infringing on state’s rights.

5) I.D.s can be faked just as can drivers’ licenses, green cards, etc. … there are no guarantees any of the I.D.s would be non-counterfeit, yet the insistence on them disenfranchises many people (more than Florida’s culling the list of legal voters!!).

Posted by: Lynne at October 3, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #185886

Haven’t you guys heard! Become a “conservative” Christian, become “Born Again” Christian in America and you don’t have to mess with the pesky teachings of Jesus. He was a damn bleeding heart liberal, anyway, he taught followers to give away their wealth.

You have to decide are you Anti-American or Anti-Christian. One or the other, it can’t be both.

Those wealthy CEO’s are mostly atheists anyway, but some of them become evangelical to keep those Christian Dollars flowing in.

Posted by: mem beth at October 3, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #185889

Monica Lewinsky was not underage.
Just remember age only comes into play when this country wants to make a juvenile an adult where the death penalty comes into play so they can murder people young and old all in the name of justice. Soldiers can’t have a drink yet they are sent off to war to kill after 6 weeks of basic training..how long has the US been training the Iraqiis???????
We can’t smoke a cigarette..yet the cigarette companies are getting fat and you know there are poisons in them and will kill us..let the condemned to death smoke themselves dead.
Close down the cigarette companies..do away with the sugary adds for children’s food, make them illegal
This Foley guy is a pedophile in every sense of the word and he is an admitted alcoholic…he checked into a rehab if this were you or I we would be sitting in county jail waiting for a trial date. Rules and laws for them and another set for us..politicians like him are making laws and speaking for us. All in DC should have background checks and be held accountable for their actions. Mel Gibson was stopped for driving drunk and you would have thought his actions had to do with the way our country is being run.
Washington needs to impeach themselves and is in need of a fresh start not just a bunch of millionaires making decisions for us when they have NO idea what struggling to keep your head above water. It costs tons to run for a seat and only the rich can do it because they finance much of their own elections. America land of the rich people for the rich people and to hell with the rest of us.

Posted by: Juice at October 3, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #185902

FYI
The 50 Richest Members of Congress (Roll Call)

http://blog.kasusa.org/interest/2006/9/11/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-roll-call.html

From:
Midterm Elections 2006
Informationen zu den Zwischenwahlen in den USA - Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation Washington, DC

Posted by: Linda H. at October 3, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #185904

Paul,

As usual I have no idea what you are talking about.

`They don’t understand that God prefers the rich.`

God doesn’t prefer anybody. He loves us all. He even has a picture of you in his wallet.

Posted by: JimmyRay at October 3, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #185905

JimmyRay
That kind of thinking doesn’t scare people into voting for your political party.

Posted by: kctim at October 3, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #185906

The Foley scandal is more about the lack of action and cover-up by Republican leaders in the House than Foley’s actions as reprehensible as they are. If Republicans can’t even protect pages from their own members’ advances, they certainly can’t protect America from terrorists.

If the Republicans had any integrity (which they don’t), they’d demand the resignations of Hastert and Reynolds from the House of Representatives, period. It’s their only chance of preserving their majority in the House come November 7th. If they don’t, the American people will take it out on every Republican candidate. Mere resignations from their leadership positions is not and will not be viewed by Americans as an indication that the GOP “gets it.”

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 3, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #185908

Slow down all you legal experts. I have heard the same thing that the legal age of consent in Washington DC is 16… The thing you people are not taking into account is this. The underage boy was receiving emails while he was in his home state (I forget which state). The age of consint in that state is 18. Also if there was not sex involved we are most likely not talking about any crime. However, you are all correct, he is a pervert.

As for the comparission with Clinton. Huge differnce in my opinion (not that I approve of Clinton’s act). Bill Clinton committed no crime by sleeping with Monica. She was a 23 year old college graduate who was working as an intern.
If you want to hold up all politicians to the moral belife that if they cheated on their spouse there not worthy of holding office, well, you would have never had Ronald Reagan either. Not to mention 50% or more of both sexes who cheat… Yes, females cheat at about the same rate as men. For every man/women who cheats, there was a man/women to cheat with.

Let’s drop the hollier than thou position and agree that both parties have idiots in it. The problem right now in this country can’t be blamed on the Dems. They Have No Power. Like it or not everything falls in the laps of those in power. Just as it did in 1994…

Posted by: Rusty at October 3, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #185910

Kctim,

I believe that you are an atheist. No? This must seem pretty funny.

As a Christian, I find that there are a lot of churches that are performance based. If you don’t do what is right God will get you. Why? Because it is easy and expedient to convict people to guilt them into change. People need to change, but it is all about motive.

Politicians/countries do the same thing. Why? Because it is easy and expedient.

How can God love Saddam? He is love. He is rooting for Saddam to do the right thing. Just like the rest of us.

Posted by: JimmyRay at October 3, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #185912

Dr. Poshek:
You might want to go to link I have provided

Pilsner:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100300572.html?nav=rss_email/components

In a For What it’s worth:
It seems that lots of people are afflicted with the same disease Reagan had while in office. You know the one - the famous “I can’t remember”. (I am not criticizing him for the horrible condition of (Alzheimer’s)just referring to the “I can’t remember” over the Iranian - Contra Affair. Since the late ’80s, until now, nothing has changed.
That same scenario has taken place. I call it the
“pretend, cover-up, or just plain didn’t care disease”.

So much for the integrity of the Grand Old Party.

Posted by: Linda H. at October 3, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #185915

Rusty, you are correct to point out the jurisdictional complications of the Foley case. There is also the issue that Foley sent some of the e-mails from Florida and hence, things get really interesting in light of Florida’s very tough child protection laws.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 3, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #185917

It’s funny about the Republican comments. Only a handful referred back to what Jesus said.

Silma:

I apologize if I offended you.

The Republican Party has for as long as I can remember been the party of business as apposed to labor - the party of the rich. Lately the party attracted others, but at its core, the Republican Party is the party of the rich.

I did not want to offend anyone. I merely wanted to point to hypocrisy.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at October 3, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #185925

Pilsner,

Age of consent? Have you read the transcripts of the emails?? At one point, the page walks away from the PC because his mother is calling him. When he gets back, Foley probes him about his mother seeing their conversation and if she is computer literate. If its consenting, why is he so worried. He wanted a page and he got the front. Deal with it

Posted by: truedrew at October 3, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #185927

Geez, this board is all over the place.
OK, first off, the “rich,poor” thing is off base. More accurate would be “power/no power”. Democrats do not hate rich people. We don’t want everyone to have equal wealth, as that would take the motivation out of it.
What I believe the difference between the parties boils down to is protection. Democrats want the powerless to be protected from exploitation, NOT protected from failure.
Corporations are not evil as they are not living things. BUT, those that run them DO have a history of becoming greedy and shortsighted, and taking advantage of their power.
Yes, creating wealth is a good thing, and so is working hard, BUT, we DO need to create a system where those that work hard but have no power DO have protection from those with power over them.
Just as “the commons” need to be protected from over exploitation so that the next generation has an inheritance.

As for foley, I’m busting a gut laughing at the pilsner and the rest as I predicted a few days ago that they would find some angle to defend him and some way to bring up Clinton. How bout some common sense? Try and think about if it was YOUR kid. If you found out that your SIXTEEN year old was seduced by a 52 year old vs. your 23 year old in the same situation. DON’T TELL ME you’d view those as in the same light.
Your L Y I N G !

Posted by: Observer at October 3, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #185932

Replies to the many;

Susieq:

Not all republicans are rich, if so I have misplaced my money. I work hard for my money, and do get rather upset, when more and more is taken away by the government. All Dems and Reps need to get ahold of their abuses of others money. I myself, when working along side someone, try to give then as much knowledge and learn as much as I can, so we help each other to succeed.

Linda H: Great link

Way to give the facts!~! In the senate There are 17 Dems in the top 50, which means 33 Reps, but do not let this fool you. All 33 Reps combined only comes out to roughly 36% total value of the top 4 Dems Estimated at 1.365 Billion(Top 4 Dems) to 497 Million(All 33 Reps). And drops to under 33% if you add in the other 13 Dems in the top 50.

Mike Sakman:

You have shown your well educated Dem side. I do not know if any of us Reps could ever outwit you.

Lynne:

Yes, Voter’s ID cards would cost Money. Taxpayer Money and since the ones that couldn’t afford them don’t pay taxes so, it can’t be a poll tax. It would be free to them.

Yes, Florida as a whole messed up. But the reason the for the purging of the voter registration lists, was due to the Mayor of Miami getting thousands of votes from the dead and people that no longer lived in the city. So the courts ordered the updating. Oh by the way the Mayor was a democrat. And the Dems say that reps are involved in voter fraud. Remember glass houses. Personally I feel that major reform needs to be taken, to make for better and more honest elections.

And Last:

Rusty:

I agree that the way that Foley and Clinton being compared is wrong. The only similarity is the abuse of power and prestidge. But another discussion another time. The correct comparison would be Foley/Studds. Studds had a Homosexual affair with a 17 yr old page. He admitted to it and told everyone to stay out of his business. At the time, Dems in Power, he was censured along with a Rep(forgot his name) that had an heterosexual affair with a 17 yr old page. Age of consent whether we like it or not is 16 in DC, call your congressmen, we need this changed.
I am glad that Foley is gone and if by law, he can be convicted, please Lord, let it happen. I am an equal opportunity comdemner of inappropriate congressmen/women behavior. If Haskert knew all of this, he needs to go. If other Reps knew and was covering it up, they must go. If Dems were holding this information until the best time to release it, before elections then they must go. But lets get all the information, before you condemn someone else. And here is my political bais, You Dems are good at pointing the finger without the facts. And so were the Reps, during the Clinton years. Lets take back our government to the way the forefathers wanted.

Please excuse any spelling or grammatical errors, I AM a uneducated Republican!~!, but only by DEMS standards

Posted by: MikeNC at October 3, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #185934

JimmyRay
“I believe that you are an atheist. No? This must seem pretty funny”

Yes I am and no, I don’t think its really all that funny. Sad, but not funny. Poking fun at religious folks in order to get your cheerleaders all riled up is pretty pathetic in my mind.
What I do find funny though, is Pauls’ and the lefts holier than though attitude and their envy.
They preach and con people into believing that the Dems are the only ones who care about the poor, but yet, they don’t practice what they preach.
They expect everyone else to be forced by govt to support their beliefs for them.
Nothing quit like living a well-off lifestyle and then bitch all the time about how the Republicans don’t care about anybody but big business. Not sure of the thrill one gets from such hypocrisy.

“Why? Because it is easy and expedient to convict people to guilt them into change. People need to change, but it is all about motive”

Its even easier to make people dependent on govt and then con those people into believing that voting for your party is the only way for them to get their freebies.

Posted by: kctim at October 3, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #185937

kctim,

Preach it brother.

Posted by: JimmyRay at October 3, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #185938

Tim, that is one possible explanation of the proverb. There are others, including mistranslations, etc. But in context, the saying is not difficult to interpret: it’s hard for a rich man to get to heaven. In fact, that’s what the verse before the figurative saying plainly says. In a slightly larger context, a rich man asked what he should do to get to heaven. Jesus said he should keep all the commandments, sell his possessions, give the proceeds to the poor, and then follow Jesus. He couldn’t do it, and Jesus was commenting on how difficult it is for the rich to give everything away to the poor.

The interpretation of the saying is only difficult for those who reject that idea.

Posted by: Trent at October 3, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #185939

Trent:

Acknowledged.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 3, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #185940

There’s another aspect of the Foley matter that has not been brought up. It’s the matter of trust and stewardship. A page is someone’s child, sent to DC to learn about the workings of government. The representatives and senators and their staff have been entrusted to care for these children and keep them safe.

Regardless of the age of consent, this trust was broken. If the situation was covered up, then that trust was broken more than once. Those involved should be censured, forced to resign, or punished, depending on the severity of their actions. (regardless of party affiliation)

On another note; Foley didn’t just come clean and then resign because it was the right thing to do. He only resigned after ABC revealed the scandal. If not for that, he would have stayed and continued with his illicit activity, unabated, until he retired.

Any comparison to Clinton and Monica is invalid. Monica was clearly an adult. She persued Clinton, if you recall, by her own admission. Of course, he should not have cheated on his wife, and surely should not have lied about it. But when he took part in the affair, prior to lying about it, he had committed no crime, unlike Foley (apparently). He was dragged through the mud for it and impeached, before he was acquitted. But his actions are most definitely not in the same ball park as Foley’s.

The pages were (are) minors in the sense that they are still children. They are teenagers. They were easily manipulated by someone in power. They were intimidated by that power. And that trust given to people like Foley was irrevocably broken.

Posted by: Cole at October 3, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #185951

Cole and Observer, I would agree with you (despite the seeming fact that the the boy was of legal age) that the Foley situation was worse because of a greater age discrepancy if there had been actual sex involved here instead of just suggestive emails and instant messages. We agree that it’s wrong in any case, and I’m glad to see Foley out of there.

Yes, a powerful person taking advantage of those further down the rung is wrong, and its good that Foley was stopped when he was because it’s very possible that he might have gone on some day to act on his sick desires.

How bout some common sense? Try and think about if it was YOUR kid. If you found out that your SIXTEEN year old was seduced by a 52 year old vs. your 23 year old in the same situation. DON’T TELL ME you’d view those as in the same light. Your L Y I N G !

Yes, how about how some common sense. I don’t see them in the same light at all. If I had to choose between those options, I’d rather have my child subjected to suggestive emails instead of cigars in their orifices and semen-stained articles of clothing any day. A pretty easy choice.

Posted by: Pilsner at October 3, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #185954

Pilsner

That’s right. If your “child” was subjected to the things you mentioned. But this, as I said, was not a child in the case of Monica Lewinsky. She was an adult college grad, approx 22 or 23 years old. She persued Clinton; not the other way around. The two are not analagous. They were two consenting adults who entered into a sexual liason; with Monica being the initiator.
There is no comparison.
Let me reiterate the salient points:
1. Monica Lewinsky; adult, initiated contact, no laws broken in the affair.
2. Unnamed Page; teenager (minor child), sexually approached by 52 year old man, probably broke the law in doing so (we’ll find out soon), broke the trust of parents sending their children to congress while heading up the caucus on exploited children.

You could even go so far as to say that, if intent were extrapolated, Foley would have had a sexual liason with these minors. His instant messages bear that out (“Love to take them off of you”, when referring to the boy’s shorts) Clinton’s intent was clear, because he carried it out. He had sex with an adult.

Sure, Clinton was wrong and Foley was wrong, in the same way that a traffic ticket and a felony are wrong.
Where Clinton was seriously wrong was when he lied under oath. We all agree on that. But it’s still not comparable to this scandal.

Posted by: Cole at October 3, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #185964

How did a post about class warfare become a conversation about Rep. Foley’s gayness? ( I think he should be crucified sideways, BTW)

Posted by: Duane-o at October 3, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #185969

MikeNC,

I couldn’t agree more. As a democrat I agree both parties are equal in terms of guilt at different times. If you have read some of my other posts at differnt times you will see that I have supported check and balance. With that I mean I like gov’t that has one party in charge of the White House (don’t really care which party) and the other party in charge of congress. They both tend to keep the other one honest, and compromise is almost always the best way to go. Balance gov’t means both parties will have to give some to get things done. Which means we usually don’t get to far to one side or the other. Which I don’t think we would have to much disagreement that we have gone too far to the right over the past 6 years.

Posted by: Rusty at October 3, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #185971

Duane-o

It’s not Foley’s gayness, it’s his predatory behaviour that is being discussed and is the problem. Your bias shows.

Posted by: mark at October 3, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #185975

“I’d rather have my child subjected to suggestive emails instead of cigars in their orifices and semen-stained articles of clothing any day”

Ok, Clinton obsession aknowledged. But can I ask, what do you think the end goal of Foley was? Do you doubt that his goal was to hook up with one of these kids?
And it isn’t a matter of age difference. It’s the difference between the maturity of a 16 year old and a 23 year old. Those are light years apart.
Lastly, I remember reading one of the 8000 front page stories the “liberal media” published on the Clinton scandal and I believe that Monica starting flirting with Bill before he reciprocated. I don’t believe any pages flashed their thong wearing buttocks, enticing Foley against his better judgement.

Posted by: Observer at October 3, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #185992

So Foleys signed himself into a clinic, blaming it all on alcohol eh? As the Romans used to say, which I’m sure Sicilianeagle will verify, in vino veritas, or as my late dear mother used to say, what’s in sober, comes out drunk!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 3, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #185994

It now takes money to win the presidency
Washington spent virtually nothing to become president. The next few candidates incurred only small costs—small enough to handle out of their own and their friends’ pockets. Really big money didn’t pour into presidential campaigns until after the Civil War. A crucial turning point came in 1896, when William McKinley’s campaign manager basically invented systematic fundraising. That year, McKinley raised and spent about seven million dollars to his opponent’s piddly $650,000. This year, according to the Financial Times of London, the two presidential candidates spent over $1.2 billion between them. Whatever else a presidential election may be, it’s now a contest between fundraising honchos.

Seems to me that both parties should give to the poor…. from their war chest of funds ummm that probably doesn’t sit well ” render on to caesar that which is caesar’s”

Posted by: Jeff S at October 3, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #186026
Yes, Voter’s ID cards would cost Money. Taxpayer Money and since the ones that couldn’t afford them don’t pay taxes so, it can’t be a poll tax

I don’t know of a single state that issues photo-drivers’ licenses nor photo IDs for free…plus, at present, one has a choice as to whether or not to get a state-issued photo ID…but it’s mandatory for voting, so that choice is no longer a choice, but mandatory.

Flordia is a whole other story and people were taken off voting lists not because they were dead…that’s why so many of them showed up at the polls and weren’t allowed to vote! Pretty much alive!!

Posted by: Lynne at October 3, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #186063

Paul
Thanks.

Republicans and Democrats are not the party of the rich or the party of the poor. They just differ on how to get people out of poverty. Reps are hard core about people pulling their own weight and fulfilling thier dreams themselves. Dems want to give them some help. Unfortunately the republican solution greatly favors those who are already ridiculously wealthy, since money buys fame, power and influence wether we like it or not. The Democrat solution has been taken advantage of and republicans tote this to no end, about how taxpayer money was wasted. Kinda funny coming from the party that started the Iraq War, actually. What we need is a welfare program that works, that can’t be exploited. Something to help people up.

Jeff S.
Excellent idea!

By the way I found this statistic that if the US spent like 1/20 of what it spends on defense on building safe water supplies, it would halve the number of people without sustainable access to such supplies. Or fund the 47 countries with the lowest primary school completion rates to have universal access to primary school. Such wonderful priorities our nation has. Especially since our budget ALONE is 47% of the world’s defense spending.

Posted by: Silima at October 3, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #186112

Cole,

Good post. It would seem that in the minute of whether or not what Foley did was technically legal or illegal, the concern about whether or not it was wrong is lost. Much the same seems to be the case with the recent string of female teachers who’ve had sex with their younger male students. Even if a student is above the age of consent, it should still be illegal as it is a fundamental violation of trust. Colleges recognize this, a professor who sleeps with a student will be fired. In the military, you’ll go to jail for fraternization.

Silma,

Your ideas about diverting military funds, if that’s what you intended, are erroneous. We don’t spend much on safe water supplies because safe water supplies are relatively cheap. For example, a B-2 stealth bomber is literally worth more than its own weight in gold. Our military hardware and training are expensive, but it pays off in allowing us to have an incredibly small military in comparison to our population. I don’t agree with all of our military spending, but I’m willing to bet more than the funds to accomplish the goals you seek exist in the earmarks and riders of pork barrel spending that seems to be one of the few truly bi-partisan efforts of Capitol Hill nowadays.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 4, 2006 8:20 AM
Comment #186178

The Eleventh Commandment seems an appropriate addition for a capitalistic society. Capitalism is characterized by a tendency toward concentration of wealth with the wealth holders increasing their control over government.
While the democrats and republicans manipulate the populace with their orchestrated campaigns, the leaders of both parties make their single priority the preservation of their own power.
I suggest that our greater concern should be that all three branches of government have become subordinate to the wealth holders. Instead of bickering about dem’s/rep’s wealth…ask why our legislature consists of almost exclusively of millionairs, business owners and trust fund holders. Our representative government appears to represent the wealth holders, but its not so obvious that they represent the people.
This should concern all of us my friends, both democrats and republicans.

Posted by: Viv at October 4, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #186249

I think we as citizens of the U.S. needs to start making new rules for our elected officials.
#1 . Each family in this country pays $10. when they pay their income tax. That all goes into a fund, that will be divided equal , with the parties running for office.And if they are caught acepting any money from business it is would be an automatic dismissal from the race.
#2. In each office they would be paid a salary according to the # of years they were in office. They would pay in to social security , and have the same insurance the teachers have until they leave office , then they are just like a normal citizen, they get a job and pay for their own insurance and their own health care.
#3.They should be furnished housing and car.And all expensives paid for the time they are in office.Plus a very good living wage, but they shoud not be paid the rest of their lives.The presidents could be at a much reduced salary.
#4. The staff should be paid by the hour, with insurance and benfits. Only so many to each office.

After all does your job provide for you for the rest of your life no matter what.
I don’t know when this deal started where we pay these people forever.The working people of the United States does not owe these people that.

A plan like this might insure that we get people that are good at their jobs and can stay good enough to keep their jobs.

Think about it . It is time for change. The government is supposed to work for the people , not the other way around like it is now.If we continue the way we are going this country will go broke, for sure or our taxes will get so high we can’t afford to have a government.

Posted by: Suzieq at October 4, 2006 4:09 PM
Post a comment