Florida Republican Representative Resigns Effective Immediately

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not committing any crimes means his actions shouldn't be illegal.

Does anything indicate that GePap believes Foley's behavior should have been illegal?

[GePap]

Oh, poor misguided boy.

First of all, admit you were pwned.

Second, you and Drakie pooh keep arguing about how it wasn;t illegal, blah, blah, blah. Get over it. Scandals are scandals not because of crime, but sensationalism. And this case has a guy who made his career "protecting children", from a stridently anti-gay political party, and all of a sudden, there is something that gives even the slightest hint of possible impropriety, and the guy turns out to be gay as well..what do you expect? No scandal? I mean, come on, I know you are young, but you are not stupid, are you?

Of course this was going to blow up in someone's face. If your best possible arguement is that democracts have scandals too, then you lost already. Yes, democrats have sex scandals, so what? That doesn;t make this sex scandal any less scandalous.

[DinoDoc]

You two have to be involved in the most mind numbingly boring discussion that I have ever seen on this board. Who honestly gives a flying **** what you think GePap said when he is quite capable of saying what he meant?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not committing any crimes means his actions shouldn't be illegal.

Semi-Godwin: Jefferson owned slaves. It was perfectly legal. It should have been illegal. It is entirely possible for things that should be illegal to be legal.

Does anything indicate that GePap believes Foley's behavior should have been illegal?

He seemed eager to me to demonstrate that it was, or would be in most places. Either way, I don't care so much about that point as about the fact that GePap wouldn't be nearly as eager to jump on Foley if he were a Democrat. (Neither would I, actually, but at least I'm somewhat more neutral.)

[Kuciwalker]

Of course this was going to blow up in someone's face. If your best possible arguement is that democracts have scandals too, then you lost already. Yes, democrats have sex scandals, so what? That doesn;t make this sex scandal any less scandalous.

When Democrats (e.g. Clinton) have sex scandals, you defend them and attack the Republicans who use the scandal for political gain. When Republicans have sex scandals, you support using it for political gain.

[Ramo]

Tell that to GePap.

Why should it matter? We're not talking about whether or not Foley should go to prison, but whether or not the House Leadership should have taken steps to protect Congressional pages from predators and whether or not a public servant should engage in this sort of the behavior. The margin of error for incarceration certainly should be higher than for electoral rejection.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Semi-Godwin: Jefferson owned slaves. It was perfectly legal. It should have been illegal. It is entirely possible for things that should be illegal to be legal.

Say it is illegal to carry more than 5 grams of pot. If you carry less than 5 grams of pot, then that isn't criminal and carrying 4 grams shouldn't be illegal.

Perhaps you just fail to realize that according to the English language, 'should' has more than one definition.

I don't care so much about that point as about the fact that GePap wouldn't be nearly as eager to jump on Foley if he were a Democrat.

As the little old lady says, "Where's the beef?"

You make a BAM, you should at least have the decency to admit you have absolutely no proof on the matter.

[Kuciwalker]

I care infinitely more about the policies supported by the House leadership than their regulation of the personal conduct of their members (except in cases like bribery, which effects policy). It just doesn't interest me.

xpost

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

When Democrats (e.g. Clinton) have sex scandals, you defend them and attack the Republicans who use the scandal for political gain. When Republicans have sex scandals, you support using it for political gain.

Boo hoo hoo.

As opposed to you, who supports republicans in sex scandals and attacks democrats. Welcome to politics boy.

The difference here, at least in sex scandals, is that invariably Republicans wrap themselves in family values, God, and homophobia. Its more delicious when they get into sex scandals because the stench of hypocrasy is just too wonderful. Oh, and in the end, the general public forgives most politicians in sex scandals. Clinton being an obvious one. Only few are not forgiven, those who deal with kids, and only one group is most staunch in its endless disdain, social sexphobic conservatives. So again, when one of their "flock" is the one who gets in trouble, the whole things is just that much sweeter to watch.

What is even funnier is seeing the Republicans in the house go after each other. How the rats jump the Hastert ship, no?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Say it is illegal to carry more than 5 grams of pot. If you carry less than 5 grams of pot, then that isn't criminal and carrying 4 grams shouldn't be illegal.

Perhaps you just fail to realize that according to the English language, 'should' has more than one definition.

I'm pretty sure Ramo was using the word should in the sense of "even if this conduct were illegal, I would support removing that law because such a law would be morally wrong" (probably because it's likely to cause more harm than good). But why don't you ask him what he meant, since he's right here.

As the little old lady says, "Where's the beef?"

You make a BAM, you should at least have the decency to admit you have absolutely no proof on the matter.

Re: che, just ask him what his biggest issue with the Democrats is. My avatar says he'll answer that they're too much like Republicans.

(che, no fair changing your answer just to make me change my avatar )

Re: GePap, you haven't provided any evidence of him criticizing Democrats, and the only instances I recall are related to electability (in 2004) or being RINO's (e.g. Lieberman). If you really want to conduct a study on GePap's posting habits for the past year or so, go ahead. I have better things to do.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Boo hoo hoo.

As opposed to you, who supports republicans in sex scandals and attacks democrats. Welcome to politics boy.

Didn't we debunk this already?

[Kuciwalker]

I'm rooting for Congress to go blue in November.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'm pretty sure Ramo was using the word should in the sense of "even if this conduct were illegal, I would support removing that law because such a law would be morally wrong" (probably because it's likely to cause more harm than good). But why don't you ask him what he meant, since he's right here.

I frankly don't care what he meant by it, by the fact that I didn't explore it in anymore detail. It was just nice to slam you for accusing GePap of something without any knowledge or proof of his personal feelings on the issue .

You didn't know what GePap thought was moral, but presumed you did. Does it feel nice when it happens to you, Kuci?

Re: che, just ask him what his biggest issue with the Democrats is. My avatar says he'll answer that they're too much like Republicans.

OH NOES! That means that he never criticizes any Democrats at all unless they are too far to the right!

Re: GePap, you haven't provided any evidence of him criticizing Democrats, and the only instances I recall are related to electability (in 2004) or being RINO's (e.g. Lieberman). If you really want to conduct a study on GePap's posting habits for the past year or so, go ahead. I have better things to do.

You are one asserting he never criticized Democrats, but only Republicans. So you belly up to the bar and present your proof rather than throwing BAMs.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Didn't we debunk this already?

You claim not to care about the personal behavior of politicians, but if that were true, then why bring up any other sex scandal? If you trully don;t care about any sex scandal, no matter who the person in the center is, then that other scandals have happened before should only really be proof of runaway sensationalism, and yet, you are trying to say "dems have sex scandals!" as if that, again, solves anything.

So why did you mention any other sex scandals if you trully don;t care about such trivialities?

[Kuciwalker]

You claim not to care about the personal behavior of politicians, but if that were true, then why bring up any other sex scandal?

Because of your behavior re: said sex scandal.

So why did you mention any other sex scandals if you trully don;t care about such trivialities?

We're posting on an Off-Topic forum. do I have anything better to do right now?

...

Actually, yeah, sleep, I have a midterm tomorrow. Night.