At this point everybody understands that there are Christians who practice their religion (outside the political arena), but there are also Christians who actively insert their particular religious views into the political arena. Or what Andrew Sullivan and others call "Christianists" (aping the term "Islamist" for followers of Islam who insert their religion on politics). I have no trouble with anybody taking Christianists to task for their political speech, as Marcotte has done in the past (and I've also have heard/read bad words in my day, so the "f-bomb" as people like to call it on G-rated blogs, like this one, doesn't faze me much, either). Basically, it's a double standard cooked up by the Christianists - they get to say (and do) whatever they please in the realm of politics (including saying/doing what they will w/r/t the abortion debate and gay rights), but the minute somebody comes down on them, and calls them on their B.S., they suddenly cry about how Christians are getting the shaft. Poor dears. It's not the Christianity that makes people like Marcotte (and me!) angry and ready to spit f-bombs all over the map, it's the fact that they would continue to support laws that keep gays (and women) second-class citizens. Stop trying to install the (selective reading of the) Bible in place of the Constitution, please, and we'll all have a much nicer time in the blogosphere, with fewer bad words that get the Right's panties all balled up and uncomfy-like. What say?Comment Posted By IncandenzaH On 12.02.2007 @ 18:28
It's nice to see that Rick Moran has at least so-far today curtailed his foul-mouthed name-calling on the people (i.e., "trolls" like me) whose posts he disagrees with -- the evidence of a nerve being strummed, I suppose.
But sad to see him resort again to the most wishful of thinking, as he contorts logic to absolve the GOP, to wit: "Iâ€™m sure the FBI will have some interesting conversations with former pages that will reveal not only that the Democratic pages had heard the rumors about Foley also but that they had dutifully passed them on to Democratic staffers."
(Yeah, and he also hoped CREW was holding onto these emails... but alas it turns out CREW turned them over to the FBI the same day they received them way back in July --- CREW is non-partisan, btw, but it's just that there are SO many GOP scandals these days, they only SEEM partisan.)
But I'm not one to begrudge you a little illogical "hope" to keep the apoplexy at bay, Rick. Whatever gets you through this latest GOP-only scandal, I guess.Comment Posted By IncandenzaH On 2.10.2006 @ 13:19
B.Poster... what are you talking about? What "sensitive files"?
"Failed in their oversight function"? How can they oversee anything when the Republicans kept it hidden from Democrats view?
I'll state the case again: The Republicans first went to their Campaign Committee when this first came out 11 months ago... they did NOT inform any offical organ of the house itself, they definitely did not inform the Democrats (not even those on the Page Committee).
I ask you: Where were the Dems supposed to find these elusive and "sensitive files?"
In the "Top Secret" Shared File Cabinet on the House floor?
(And your solution is to weaken the Courts?... Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot the name of this site. Nevermind.)Comment Posted By IncandenzaH On 30.09.2006 @ 16:10
Let's pretend House Republicans are an ethical group. What should an ethical group of Republicans do now that the cat is out of the bag about Foley's antics, that their leadership knew of said antics months ago (if not longer) and not only did nothing, but actively hid what was going on from Democrats.
A) Hastert resigns?
B) A stern rebuke of policies that keep people in the closet -- hiding so deeply they can only seek out children via the Web?
C) Or do they just chuck the ethics (again) and try to pin blame on the Clintons?Comment Posted By IncandenzaH On 30.09.2006 @ 15:52
B.Poster... I'm sure the Dems would have performed their oversight functions, if the Republicans hadn't consciously kept the information AWAY from the Democrats 11 months ago.
Please, don't expect Democrats to clean the Republican house... especially when there's a coverup going on and nobody on the outside's been told it's dirty!
As Josh Marshalls put it:
"I don't think cover-up is too strong a word since there was apparently an active effort to keep the allegations from the only Democrat who serves on the Page Board. That decision, I think, speaks volumes." (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/)
Me, too!Comment Posted By IncandenzaH On 30.09.2006 @ 15:41
Of course the silver-lining in this cloud might just be that the Republican base finally realizes (something? finally?) just how uncaring their Leadership is of their "hot-button" issues -- they can't abide a homo, but apparently Hastert et al. not only abided one, but by inaction abetted this closet-case's continued "grooming" of pages.
The Democrats rallying cry this week -- and beyond -- probably needs to be: "It's the hypocrisy, stupid."
Then again, that's a pretty big word for the Bushbots to understand.
http://www.hardcoretruth.com/Hypocrisy/Comment Posted By IncandenzaH On 30.09.2006 @ 15:25
Incorrect -- First of all, it's "Gerry," not "Gary."
Far from "standing behind" Studds, the Democratic-led House actually censured him in 1983 for the *consensual* relationship he'd had with a 17-year-old page (which had occurred 10 years prior).
"As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own." [Wiki]
NB: Unlike the hypocritical Foley, Studd's never actively supported and fought for anti-gay legislation. Quite the opposite, actually.Comment Posted By IncandenzaH On 30.09.2006 @ 14:58
Better than I can say it, this from Christy Harden Smith at Firedoglake: "Let me be crystal clear here: these are teenage children who are given an honorary position due to their exceptional grades, their outstanding community service work and any number of other reasons. They are working in the United States House of Representatives. They are teenagers.
"And the Republican leadership was aware that an elected Republican representative was sending personal e-mails and IMs to various teenage pages â€” but either didn't investigate any more closely to see if they were wholly inappropriate and/or sexually explicit or what, according to Hastert's hemming and hawing in the WaPo this morningâ€¦and they did not tell the Democratic leadership nor did they take any overt actions from what I've been able to ascertain to remove this Republican representative from contact with these teenagers other than telling him to act more appropriately."Comment Posted By IncandenzaH On 30.09.2006 @ 12:04
Pages (1) :