Congress sees through party-colored glasses

[Sailboat]

First 3 paragraphs from 1998 article below. Does anyone other than me see the total irony and feel the utter disgust at the corruption of politics on both ends of the political spectrum?

WASHINGTON – For more than a week, members of Congress said they would avoid partisan politics when they got Kenneth Starr’s report on President Clinton. But when they finally saw it Friday, they split along party lines.

Republicans were aghast at Clinton’s behavior, with many saying it showed he had lied and abused his power.

"It’s vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It’s more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

Full article click below

[Congress sees through party-colored glasses
By BILL ADAIR

© St. Petersburg Times, published September 12, 1998
](http://www.sptimes.com/Worldandnation/91298/Congress_sees_through.html)

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Cue Alanis Morisette clip:

“Isn’t it ironic, don’tcha think?”

 

[shockerfan]

Here is the difference: when the story got out, no republicans argued for Foley to stay. When the story got out about Clinton, the vast majority of Dems wanted him to stay.

I don’t excuse any republican who would have put politics ahead of doing the right thing, and they should be gone too. But, the Dems circled the wagons around Clinton.

You see congress through the very same party colored glasses you mention in your thread.

 

[Sailboat]

Clinton wasn’t with a minor, big difference. I don’t know what you’re talking about as far as me seeing Congress through party colored glasses because I’m not a Democrat shocker.

 

[shockerfan]

Clinton wasn’t with a minor, big difference. I don’t know what you’re talking about as far as me seeing Congress through party colored glasses because I’m not a Democrat shocker.

No, but he was accused of rape and sexual harrasment beyond the issues of the Lewinsky case. His supporters were looking thru their party colored glasses when they gave him free pass after free pass.

 

[Sailboat]

Well, Clinton WAS a scum actually. But the point of my thread was the total hilarity and irony of this statement by this guy. I read an account of the instant messages that he sent to this boy, and they were the most pathetic, inane, and ridiculous things I’ve read in a long time. They talk about their erections and how they masturbate.

 

[MikeWM]

No, but he was accused of rape and sexual harrasment beyond the issues of the Lewinsky case.

So? He wasn’t convicted of any of those things. Despite the recent attempt (and, alas, temporary success) by the Republicans to roll back judicial progress by 800 years, some people still believe in ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

Mike

 

[shockerfan]

So? He wasn’t convicted of any of those things. Despite the recent attempt (and, alas, temporary success) by the Republicans to roll back judicial progress by 800 years, some people still believe in ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

Mike

Just like OJ, huh?

Just because someone is not convicted by a court of law does not mean they were innocent. We can’t send him to prison because of our judicial process, but we don’t have to treat him as if he’s innocent.

There are numerous stories of people who got off by technicalities, expensive lawyers, biased juries, etc. These people are “not guilty”, but not necessarily “innocent”.

No, in the Dems eyes, Juanita Broderick and Paula Jones, were liars, and Clinton (a CONVICTED liar) must be protected at all costs. Now, with Mark Foley (a pervert who I’m glad is out of office) finally comes some Democratic indignation. To bad for victims of Democrats…

 

[b_justb]

Greorge Washington’s farwell address 1796:
Geo. Washington:

All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

 

[MikeWM]

Just like OJ, huh?

Just because someone is not convicted by a court of law does not mean they were innocent. We can’t send him to prison because of our judicial process, but we don’t have to treat him as if he’s innocent.

There are numerous stories of people who got off by technicalities, expensive lawyers, biased juries, etc. These people are “not guilty”, but not necessarily “innocent”.

So here we are. You’re guilty because we think you are, not because it can be proven in a court of law. Much easier if you can throw away all that courtroom and all that judge and jury business, isn’t it?

Small wonder that anyone who is looking at what is actually going on thinks the ‘Military Commissions Bill’ should be putting a chill down the spine of every single American, citizen or not. If people in the administration think this way - and there is little evidence that they don’t - then your representatives in Congress have just lined up to vote for the end of freedom in your country.

Amazing - and terrifying - how scarily short the road is from freedom to tyranny

Mike

 

[Richardols]

Just because someone is not convicted by a court of law does not mean they were innocent.

True enough. Just as conviction by a court of law doesn’t mean that a person actually committed the crime.

There are numerous stories of people who got off by technicalities, expensive lawyers, biased juries, etc.

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If he can’t make his case stick, then the person IS not guilty.

 

[jman507]

First 3 paragraphs from 1998 article below. Does anyone other than me see the total irony and feel the utter disgust at the corruption of politics on both ends of the political spectrum?

WASHINGTON – For more than a week, members of Congress said they would avoid partisan politics when they got Kenneth Starr’s report on President Clinton. But when they finally saw it Friday, they split along party lines.

Republicans were aghast at Clinton’s behavior, with many saying it showed he had lied and abused his power.

"It’s vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It’s more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

Full article click below

[Congress sees through party-colored glasses
By BILL ADAIR

© St. Petersburg Times, published September 12, 1998
](http://www.sptimes.com/Worldandnation/91298/Congress_sees_through.html)

Guess I cannot say it any better than Foley. Good for him stepping down. I hope and pray he gets the help that he needs, and that he doesn’t go back to doing the simaliar things to what he did in the past. I hope and pray for anyone he caused harm too. While disgusted, I really can’t say that I’m to surprised, given the way man is. It’s really too bad these things get too partisan. “Gotch ya” politics is hurting politics way too much. I’d really like it if people didn’t go straight to the people should step down, other than the person doing the direct act. Let an investigation start showing what happened, before just going for scap goats , atleast we should know if they are covering things up. Unfortunatly in this poltical atmosphere a good investigation is going to be hard to do, it seems only bad ones will occur. I’d like to know what Republican leadership knew, and if this is about protecting pages, why is this whistle being blown on the first week of Oct?

 

[shockerfan]

So here we are. You’re guilty because we think you are, not because it can be proven in a court of law. Much easier if you can throw away all that courtroom and all that judge and jury business, isn’t it?

Small wonder that anyone who is looking at what is actually going on thinks the ‘Military Commissions Bill’ should be putting a chill down the spine of every single American, citizen or not. If people in the administration think this way - and there is little evidence that they don’t - then your representatives in Congress have just lined up to vote for the end of freedom in your country.

Amazing - and terrifying - how scarily short the road is from freedom to tyranny

Mike

You seem to be making great leaps here. At no point did I ever say that we should abandon the judicial process. My point, which you seem to be arguing with, is that because someone was not convicted of a crime in a court of law, does not mean we should treat that person as innocent.

Go back to the 60’s where members of the KKK would committ attocities against blacks, and then because they were in Alabama or Mississippi, they would get all white juries who would acquit them. With your line of reasoning, we should treat them as innocent since they were found not guilty???

I made the statement that since Clinton was a democrat, his offenses were overlooked by his supporters. Stick to that point instead of making the leap that I want to scrap the legal system.

 

[Sailboat]

As far as I’m concerned, Foley did worse because he was luring adolecent young people into homosexuality. Lewensky on the other hand was more mature, plus she was very flirtatous with Bill Clinton. I don’t know about Clinton’s other crimes in the past, I think he had been a multiple wife cheater with cheap women who were blabber mouths. I think I’ve read that our current President has had a checkered past as well.

I think Foley did the right thing to step down. I don’t like how he now expects to be canonized for being gay, or how he’s trying to blame the Church by saying he was molested. We don’t even know if that’s true or not. If it is then isn’t he even more vile to do the same to other young men, to use his own power and standing to lure them into homosexuality?

 

[shockerfan]

True enough. Just as conviction by a court of law doesn’t mean that a person actually committed the crime.

agreed.

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If he can’t make his case stick, then the person IS not guilty.

Lets clarify that a bit. The person would be “not guilty” by a legal definition, but they quite possibly are NOT innocent.

 

[MrS]

As far as I’m concerned, Foley did worse because he was luring adolecent young people into homosexuality. Lewensky on the other hand was more mature, plus she was very flirtatous with Bill Clinton. I don’t know about Clinton’s other crimes

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_8_9.gif*“I did not have…” “I did everything to find OBL…” *

How about… I only lie when I open my mouth.

in the past, I think he had been a multiple wife cheater with cheap women who were blabber mouths. (shame on them for taking aloud about rape)

I** think I’ve read** that our current President has had a checkered past as well.

I think Foley did the right thing to step down. I don’t like how he now expects to be canonized for being gay, or how he’s trying to blame the Church by saying he was molested. We don’t even know if that’s true or not. If it is then isn’t he even more vile to do the same to other young men, to use his own power and standing to lure them into homosexuality?

and you were posting pretty well (on other threads) until this one…

who has more “power” than a US President?

Personally I think both parties are going to dig up everything on everybody that they can… from Barney Frank’s house of protestution on down…

That will expose a lot of people and make this November’s election a “memorable” one.

And our “friend” in England will continue with banal posts about our politicians.

 

[estesbob]

So? He wasn’t convicted of any of those things. Despite the recent attempt (and, alas, temporary success) by the Republicans to roll back judicial progress by 800 years, some people still believe in ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

Mike

Ladies and gentelmen if anyone wnats to see the perfect example of seeng through party colored glasses just read the above.

The irony of this whole situation is the idea that the party of abortion, sodomy and promiscousity would deem to lecture anyone on sexual morality

 

[MikeWM]

You seem to be making great leaps here.

I don’t think so. We’ve seen the logical conclusion of this kind of reasoning, and it passed Congress last week. Perhaps you personally don’t approve, but I sure don’t see people here speaking out against this legislation which demolishes much of what America supposedly stands for.

At no point did I ever say that we should abandon the judicial process.

Good. Unfortunately the Republicans in Congress and the President in the White House clearly does want to.

My point, which you seem to be arguing with, is that because someone was not convicted of a crime in a court of law, does not mean we should treat that person as innocent.

I have to disagree, except possibly in very exceptional cases. The standard for conviction in a court is beyond ‘reasonable doubt’. If you can’t show someone did something beyond reasonable doubt, you have to treat them as innocent.

Go back to the 60’s where members of the KKK would committ attocities against blacks, and then because they were in Alabama or Mississippi, they would get all white juries who would acquit them. With your line of reasoning, we should treat them as innocent since they were found not guilty???

It depends, doesn’t it? Even there the person accused may not have done the crime. He may be unpopular and end up being accused falsely, like in Salem.

Also of course, in that case, the entire principle of the jury trial has been perverted (by all white juries). That’s something that needs to be fixed in the legal system, not by assuming ‘where there’s smoke there’s fire’.

I think you have to be very careful indeed about assuming someone has done something criminal when you can’t secure their conviction in a courtroom.

I made the statement that since Clinton was a democrat, his offenses were overlooked by his supporters.

By some, yes. There is always partisanship, and anyone would be a fool to deny it. It would be much better all round if there were not, but there you are.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

Ladies and gentelmen if anyone wnats to see the perfect example of seeng through party colored glasses just read the above.

Nothing to do with party-coloured glasses. If you’d read my comments in the other threads you’d know I’ve been just as scathing about the Democrats that went along with this monstrosity. Nevertheless, it was a Republican idea, passed by a Republican Congress, and is going to be signed by a Republican President. More than enough reason for anyone who cares less about America to vote these people out, and right now, the Democrats are the only alternative.

Mike

 

[Sailboat]

My point was Mr S, that there are alot of Presidents and Congressmen who haven’t been caught. Clinton definately chose cheap women, that is very true. Look at JFK! He was a known cheater too, while he was in office. Lots of Presidents from both parties have been cheaters, or maybe even gay. There have been unmarried Presidents before, maybe they were gay?

My point also is that both parties will attempt to make political hay out of this. This Foley has been particularly exposed as a hypocrite by the way, which was another point of my thread. The quote from 1998 is so utterly ironic now, look at him! He was a total hypocrite throwing stones for political gain like that. He should have kept his hypocritical mouth shut. Also, using ‘family values’ as a way to get votes is really dispicable when you are leading a pathetic personal life yourself like this.