Comments Posted By ed
Displaying 131 To 140 Of 205 Comments
WASHINGTON TIMES TO HASTERT: RESIGN NOW
Ignoring all the red flags pre-9/11 and Iraq incompetence and pork-barrel spending with raging deficits, inaction on Immigration and the Katrina response and Abramoff/K-Street and now being more concerned about protecting a Republican majority than protecting a minor.
Had enough?
Comment Posted By Ed On 3.10.2006 @ 09:17
OY WHAT A MESS! FOLEY COVERUP AND THE GAMBIT THAT EXPOSED IT
From Jon Sandor:
"ed
Sure, we should “quit†calling Clinton a sexual predator. Since nobody is doing it, it will be easy to quit.
Foley had no “authority†over the pages. You may as well say that as Congressman he had “authority†over anyone in the US, and that therefore any sexual relationship he had wth any American was improper.
The facts and the law are against you, as evidenced by this kind of grasping at straws. Congressman Stubbes (D) actually engaged in a sexual relationship with a seventeen year old page. Remind me, please, what charges he was brought up on?
There is an argument to be made that this SHOULD be illegal. But it is not illegal at present, and all this hyperventilating about “sexual predators†and “underage children†and “minors†is either confused or malicious."
The only people I've seen work this hard to defend sexual predators are sexual predators. Got something you want to get off your chest, Jonny boy?
Comment Posted By ed On 3.10.2006 @ 14:17
Jon Sandor:
Thanks for clarifying. So we all need to quit calling Bill Clinton a sexual predator, correct? Didn't think so. It also appears that D.C. law move the prosecution bar to 18 if the actor has significant ties to the victim of a sexual crime (authority over, for one?).
I do agree with you that 16 is too young for an age of consent, and additionally, more emphasis needs to be placed on the age disparity between a minor and their sex partner in prosecuting sex crimes. A 16 year old with an 18 year old is quite different that a 16 year old with a 50 year old.
Comment Posted By ed On 2.10.2006 @ 13:26
“when the dog lives under your porch, its your job to keep him under control, not your neighbors, even if the neighbor hears that the dog bites on occasion.â€
So, pedophiles should only be turned in by members of his own political persuasion? If you know about a murderer or a thief, do you not have to turn him in because he’s not of your political party? Nonsense. If CREW or anyone knew of this months ago they should have turned him IMMEDIATELY, not wait until a time they would gain the most politically.
Sorry, CT. The Republicans are in control of the House and therefore are the management. They carry the greater burden to deal with personnel problems. As I stated in my original comment, I was discussing the political aspects, not the legal or moral. Legally and ethically, anyone with knowledge of a crime needs to speak up. But management always carries the greater responsibility.
Comment Posted By ed On 2.10.2006 @ 12:03
Thank you for an excellent report up front on the scandal aspects. However, your attempts to beige-wash the political aspects of the affair by raising doubts about message authenticity, how Democrats knew about it also, and pointing out the "political" nature of some accusations is disingenuous at best. (Yes, I read and understood your up-front disclaimers that you don't support child sexual predation, and I have read you long enough to know your revulsion of such behavior is genuine and heartfelt, but we are discussing the political aspects now. I am neither left-wing or slow.) The right always pulls the "Democrats are just playing politics" card when the shit hits the fan. Of course politicians play politics, ALL politicians play politics. Its part of the the job! Stop saying it like it was an unex8pected crime of some kind. This is equal to be astounded, just astounded, I say, that lawyers use the law or surgeons use scalpels.
The congressman immediately resigned and went into rehab, the 21st Century style of admission of guilt. As for the Democrats culpability, when the dog lives under your porch, its your job to keep him under control, not your neighbors, even if the neighbor hears that the dog bites on occasion.
Comment Posted By ed On 2.10.2006 @ 10:57
GOLDBERG ON TORTURE: SOPHISTRY ON A STICK
Um, Drewsmom. The Iraqis didn't ask for our help in the first place. We invaded them.
Comment Posted By ed On 28.09.2006 @ 16:39
VIET NAM REDUX IF DEMS TAKE CONTROL OF HOUSE
doug deeper
Which part of the facts I presented would you call strawmen? Does using the term "strawmen" w/o any supporting facts constitute your idea of a counterargument? I work with facts to extend discussion and to exchange ideas. Your profoundly juvenile use of "hee-hee" and unsupported strawmen claims show you to be unthinking and incapable of constructing any kind of argument worthy of the term. Buy another Club Gitmo shirt and let the grownups talk now.
Comment Posted By ed On 28.09.2006 @ 11:53
How disappointing. Just when I think you are so good at providing commentary, you have to hit the "feed the extreme right blog base" button. "The biggest bunch of sniveling cowards on the planet" line is simply pathetic.
Have you such limited knowledge of history? Who declared war on the Axis powers in the 1940's, when real armies theatened to invade America? Why that sniveling coward Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat. Who made the gut-wrenching decision to drop an atomic bomb to save endless numbers of American and Japanese lives at the end of World War II? Why that cowardly Democrat, Harry Truman. Who stepped up to the plate in 1917, despite personal doubts, to engage the United States in World War I, to end that long-term war? Why, the cowardly Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. Who took the United States to the brink of nuclear war in 1962 to prevent Soviet warheads from being placed in Cuba, 90 miles off our shores. Why, that terrible coward of PT 109, John F. Kennedy, Democrat. Who chose to stay the course in Vietnam, to fight the evils of Communism, even though it cost him his Presidency? That cowardly act belonged to Lyndon Johnson, Democratic President.
When push comes to shove, Democratic presidents have frequently shown great moral courage and handled international crises and wars with effectiveness and tenacity.
I do not see where floundering endlessly in Iraq with too few troops, getting American troops killed for the false hope of imposing democracy (an oxymoron, if there ever was one), and declaring war against an idea (the War of Terror), much like the War of Drugs and the War on Poverty (drugs and poverty won, by the way) is a plan for any free thinking non-ideologue to support. I hope you are both feeling and thinking better tomorrow.
Comment Posted By ed On 26.09.2006 @ 14:43
APPALLING DISHONESTY FROM OLBERMAN
I agree, Rick. Olbermann is the classic smartass trying to palm off meanspiritedness and mushy thinking as "funny" or "clever".
As our old friend Euripides stated, "Cleverness is not wisdom."
Comment Posted By ed On 26.09.2006 @ 12:29
Dear Drewsmom:
Comment Posted By ed On 26.09.2006 @ 08:33
I am sure you are a lovely woman and Drew is a child to be proud of. I have four that I am proud of. With all due respect however, terrorism is a VERY criminal matter. Like the Mafia, they are most effectively dealt with by tracing the flow of money (yes, I favor wiretaps, following private computer messaging, etc.) and intercepting the plans for terrorist acts and stopping them before they happen. The military is designed to fight other countries' army's, not a scattered bunch of nuts. The results of our military actions against terror speak for themselves. A country out of control (Iraq) and the emergent return of the Taliban in Afganistan. We did not get the Mafia under control by shootouts and we will not get the terrorists under control with military action.
