The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Easy Mac]

It seems Denny Hastert has decided to dive headlong into the old dead hooker/live boy conundrum.

[JPhillips]

The Hastert story is shocking, both for the details and that it didn't come out sooner.

[stevew]

#familyvalues

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by stevew

#familyvalues

Full story isn't out yet but yup, sounds like another hypocrite.

[flere-imsaho]

It's funny, Illinois politicians usually just go for straight-up corruption. The hooker thing must have been Washington's influence on him.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Full story isn't out yet but yup, sounds like another hypocrite.

I found this funny.

If I understand the history correctly… - The Washington Post

If I understand the history correctly, in the late 1990s, the President was impeached for lying about a sexual affair by a House of Representatives led by a man who was also then hiding a sexual affair, who was supposed to be replaced by another Congressman who stepped down when forced to reveal that he too was having a sexual affair, which led to the election of a new Speaker of the House who now has been indicted for lying about payments covering up his sexual contact with a boy.

Yikes.

[molson]

I never got this line of thinking. Is it better for Democrats to molest kids because they don't preach as much about family values? So molesting kids is more consistent with the Democrat way of thinking and thus it's less hypocritical for them to engage in it?

No, I think if you're molesting a kid that's a pretty vile act all on its own. It's not worse for Republicans and somehow not as bad for Democrats because of their political and social views.

[Dutch]

Its just a dig. And yes, he's a hypocrite and deserves the ridicule. The entire party does not. If a Democrat did it, I would of course make a similar dig, but its not blaming everybody. I'll gladly get in line to fry this dude.

[molson]

Every child molester is a hypocrite. Unless they're in NAMBLA. Unless I missed something in the Democrat party platform about being pro-molestation.

[JPhillips]

It does make his handling of the Foley page scandal interesting. Perhaps he was quiet because he knew what could come out if he spoke out.

[NobodyHere]

So if Martin O Malley jumps into the primary race on the Democratic side and nobody listens, does it make a sound?

[JPhillips]

Fuck cancer.

R.I.P. Beau Biden.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/us...ies-at-46.html

[Edward64]

In a way I think we are still in a war and so we should keep it. In another way, I think of how much is too much and how long is too long.

Still confused and don't have a strong opinion but am glad that Rand Paul is bringing it to the forefront for at least a discussion again.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/31/politi...nsa/index.html

The Senate voted 77-17 on Sunday night to pass a key procedural motion to cue up a vote on a House-passed bill to reform the National Security agency's bulk data collection program after top Republicans staunchly opposed to changes to that program, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, reversed course.

Just a week earlier, that same procedural motion failed by three votes.

That bill renews three of the Patriot Act provisions expiring at midnight and would overhaul the controversial bulk telephone collection program. Because of Senate procedural rules and possible votes on amendments it is likely there will not be a vote on final passage for several days.

If there are any changes to the Freedom Act it would have to go back to the House of Representatives for consideration.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul vowed Saturday to "force the expiration of the (National Security Agency) illegal spy program," but Sunday's vote means its likely just a matter of time before lawmakers renew large swaths of the Patriot Act.

Paul acknowledged after the Sunday vote that "the bill will ultimately pass" and said he and his Senate allies would put forward several amendments. And he appeared to also reassure his supporters.

[Dutch]

Has the Patriot Act affected my life? Yes, it has. It's a pain in the ass to go to the Airport now. Will removal of the Patriot Act remove some of these heavy-handed security measures that we now have in place? Maybe. Do we want that? I'm not so sure.

The Patriot Act has wire-tapped, recorded, and dissolved dozens of terror plots in the USA. What will happen if we stop?

The Patriot Act has also recorded millions of citizens conversations (I believe that's true) and that will stop if we get rid of the Patriot Act. Is it worth it?

The Patriot Act goes against everything that we consider a right to privacy.

But at the same time, the enemies of America live in a brave new world where they are closer than ever and have achieved "Global Strike" capabilities (to steal a modern US military phrase) and they exploit our very principles to achieve results. How do we continue to defend against that?

Ultimately, it's not a decision to be taken lightly, there are ramifications either way.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Has the Patriot Act affected my life? Yes, it has. It's a pain in the ass to go to the Airport now. Will removal of the Patriot Act remove some of these heavy-handed security measures that we now have in place? Maybe. Do we want that? I'm not so sure.

The Patriot Act has wire-tapped, recorded, and dissolved dozens of terror plots in the USA. What will happen if we stop?

The Patriot Act has also recorded millions of citizens conversations (I believe that's true) and that will stop if we get rid of the Patriot Act. Is it worth it?

The Patriot Act goes against everything that we consider a right to privacy.

But at the same time, the enemies of America live in a brave new world where they are closer than ever and have achieved "Global Strike" capabilities (to steal a modern US military phrase) and they exploit our very principles to achieve results. How do we continue to defend against that?

Ultimately, it's not a decision to be taken lightly, there are ramifications either way.

The question is at what cost (both financially and to privacy) is it worth it? The results are completely immeasurable right? For all we know it could have stopped 5 more 9-11 type events or it hasn't stopped anything. So it usually seems to be framed as a liberty vs security things but how about liberty vs security vs waste of money? People say all the time why should panerd care if they are listening in on his conversations if he has nothing to hide... well what if panerd doesn't care about his privacy as much as he cares about his tax money being wasted or at least misallocated.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by panerd

The question is at what cost (both financially and to privacy) is it worth it? The results are completely immeasurable right? For all we know it could have stopped 5 more 9-11 type events or it hasn't stopped anything. So it usually seems to be framed as a liberty vs security things but how about liberty vs security vs waste of money? People say all the time why should panerd care if they are listening in on his conversations if he has nothing to hide... well what if panerd doesn't care about his privacy as much as he cares about his tax money being wasted or at least misallocated.

I agree.

I do think they have said that "dozens" of plots have been uncovered and arrests made, I don't believe it's all shrouded in secrecy. It can't be much of a secret once people are arrested afterall. Not sure if a correlation between "plots uncovered" and Patriot Act "wins" is truly there though.

[thesloppy]

Yeah, I hate the idea of the Patriot Act, but I suppose in this day and age any & all governments are spying on their citizens as part of necessary internet security, and it could be argued that at least we have some sort of implied 'contract', or something.

That said, even if it just starts as rhetoric, I'd like to see a cultural/governmental shift towards respecting individual privacy, and/or take just a couple baby steps away from fear based governing.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Lindsey Graham announced his bid. The Republican race is turning into a bad "a {descriptive noun} walks into a bar" joke.

And he's officially in and already calling for more war in Iraq, since our previous wars have turned out so well.

[Easy Mac]

Does anyone actually believe that the Patriot Act provisions expiring will actually stop the wire taps and other things the NSA has been doing?

[Dutch]

I guess we'll find out.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Not sure if a correlation between "plots uncovered" and Patriot Act "wins" is truly there though.

That's kind of key, I think. The last time I looked at the data, it appeared that the vast majority of arrests were made through well-executed "traditional" law enforcement, mainly by the FBI.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I never got this line of thinking. Is it better for Democrats to molest kids because they don't preach as much about family values? So molesting kids is more consistent with the Democrat way of thinking and thus it's less hypocritical for them to engage in it?

No, I think if you're molesting a kid that's a pretty vile act all on its own. It's not worse for Republicans and somehow not as bad for Democrats because of their political and social views.

What you're missing is that it's 20-year GOP tactic to attack liberal values as a slippery slope to depravity. For example the idea that homosexuality leads to pedophilia or bestiality. The message being that if you let the morally upstanding conservatives win elections, you'll be saved from all that.

Except that it turns out that moral depravity knows no political boundaries, and in fact on the evidence it would appear it's actually more common among GOP politicians.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What you're missing is that it's 20-year GOP tactic to attack liberal values as a slippery slope to depravity. For example the idea that homosexuality leads to pedophilia or bestiality. The message being that if you let the morally upstanding conservatives win elections, you'll be saved from all that.

Except that it turns out that moral depravity knows no political boundaries, and in fact on the evidence it would appear it's actually more common among GOP politicians.

So again, if it's a Democrat that's a child molester, then that's better because they're less of a hypocrite, and you don't have that "20-year GOP tactic", because the Dem view of morals is more compatible with child molestation?

It just shows where our priorities are when child molestation is politicized like that. Child molestation is a great opportunity for people whose personal worth is wrapped up in their political party being the superior one. It's almost like some people are excited about it. Which is another kind of weird moral depravity.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

So again, if it's a Democrat that's a child molester, then that's better because they're less of a hypocrite, and you don't have that "20-year GOP tactic", because the Dem view of morals is more compatible with child molestation?

It just shows where our priorities are when child molestation is politicized like that. Child molestation is a great opportunity for people whose personal worth is wrapped up in their political party being the superior one. It's almost like some people are excited about it. Which is another kind of weird moral depravity.

You are the only one here trying to make the point about it being "better".

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

You are the only one here trying to make the point about it being "better".

If someone is accused of molesting kids, and the response is that the behavior is hypocritical and and contrary to their stance on family values (which people ARE arguing), then they're also necessarily arguing that it's somehow better if you take away those elements. I think the focus on politics and scoring political points minimizes the gravity of child abuse. It is "hypocritical" for either a liberal or a conservative to abuse kids, unless their stated position is that such behavior is OK - which to my knowledge no politician has done.

Edit: I also think the #family values/hypocrite stuff basically equates homosexuality to child abuse. Like when conservative pastors or politicians speak out on homosexuality and then turn out to be homosexuals. That's the tone of this, but this isn't that. This was child abuse, which is contrary to ALL mainstream views on family values. Child abuse isn't more inconsistent with Republican views than Democratic views, its terrible a crime inconsistent with all mainstream views.

[cartman]

It isn't better, it is less just less hypocritical. As you say, you don't see people saying that abusing kids is ok. But when some people make it their focus to say that abuse is very bad, but then go and commit abuse, that is just hypocritical. Not any better or worse than the person who thinks abuse is bad, but doesn't make it their focus, and abuses a kid. Both are very bad, but one is more hypocritical.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

But when some people make it their focus to say that abuse is very bad, but then go and commit abuse, that is just hypocritical.

Democrats aren't more tolerant of child abuse than Republicans. I think they're all universally against it.

[cartman]

So when someone uses their status as an decorated teacher and high school coach to win election, then serve on the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families in the House, because they are a politician it somehow exempts them from being called a hypocrite when it is later found out that they apparently molested a kid?

This does put how he handled the Mark Foley page scandal while he was Speaker in a new light.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

So when someone uses their status as an decorated teacher and high school coach to win election, then serve on the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families in the House, because they are a politician it somehow exempts them from being called a hypocrite when it is later found out that they apparently molested a kid?

This does put how he handled the Mark Foley page scandal while he was Speaker in a new light.

I don't know how he handled the Foley thing but JPhilips mentioned earlier that he was "quiet" during it. So rather than being this huge crusader against child abuse, he apparently wasn't actually that vocal against it. So I think the family values stuff/hypocrite stuff is more about his party membership than any specific aggressive role he took against child abuse. It's just the standard stuff you see when a conservative value guy is exposed as a homosexual. Except this was alleged criminal and predatory behavior, which is contrary to everyone's family values, not just Republicans. I get the joy and delight people express when a gay-hating guy is exposed as gay, but I think it's different when it's a crime, and when there's a victim. (A now very rich victim, apparently, but a victim nonetheless).

[cartman]

Except for the whole being a school teacher and coach. That is kind of assumed that they are in a protective relationship regarding minors. Add in that he also served on that Select Committee, and that kind of dampens any charges that he is being called a hypocrite just for being Republican.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Except for the whole being a school teacher and coach. That is kind of assumed that they are in a protective relationship regarding minors. Add in that he also served on that Select Committee, and that kind of dampens any charges that he is being called a hypocrite just for being Republican.

Well, there was flere-imsaho saying that "what I was missing" is that this was all about a "20-year GOP tactic to attack liberal values" and that child abuse is more common among around GOP politicians.

I think the fact that he was a teacher gave him access to kids, it doesn't make things worse or make him more of a hypocrite - if he didn't have that, he would have found some other access, like youth sports or through a family member. Almost every child molester exploits a position of trust. But if you're horrified that a teacher and coach, of all people, would do that, I can't disagree with you, but I don't think that's what flere and others are expressing.

[cartman]

To be fair, you were the first one to bring up parties, and Flere responded directly to that. All the other posts were comments about Hasert himself, not Republicans. I'm the only other person to reply, so I'm not sure what you mean by others.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

To be fair, you were the first one to bring up parties, and Flere responded directly to that. All the other posts were comments about Hasert himself, not Republicans. I'm the only other person to reply, so I'm not sure what you mean by others.

I was responding to the #family values/hypocritical stuff. I just think those are weird attacks to throw at an alleged child molester. Again, if it was a gay hater exposed as gay, I get it. But this is criminal child abuse, it's an objectively bad thing that EVERYONE is against, at least openly. Child abuse has nothing to do with different views on family values, it is contrary to every mainstream family value. I think its weird to lump those things together. "You claim to be against child molestation but then you go and do it!" What the hell? Aren't we all against child molestation regardless of our political views? I don't think child abuse is worse or "more hypocritical" if its perpetrated by someone who preaches family values v. if its perpetrated by someone who is more socially tolerant. If the more socially tolerant child molester is really somehow "less hypocritical" that means that their views are more compatible with child molestation, and I don't think that's true. Since that makes no sense to me, I tend to think that those kinds of attacks are really just political. It's just a knee-jerk reaction to the conservative who gets into some kind of moral trouble, or has some kind of sex scandal. A way to score some points and give yourself some affirmation. Which is just a weird need in the context of child molestation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Rand Paul

The one thing I can think of that would get me to vote for Hillary.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The one thing I can think of that would get me to vote for Hillary.

How about Bernie Sanders? Does Rand Paul get you to go that far?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The one thing I can think of that would get me to vote for Hillary.

Ted Cruz.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sabotai

How about Bernie Sanders? Does Rand Paul get you to go that far?

Hrm. Doubt it. I mean, if I was forced to vote in a Dem primary then sure.

But I can't really picture a Sanders v Hillary November race. Not nearly as hypothetically possible as Hillary v Nutjob.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Democrats aren't more tolerant of child abuse than Republicans. I think they're all universally against it.

Well, except for the somewhat suspicious numbers of GOP politicians who have, you know, actually committed child abuse.

Like the number of anti-gay GOP politicians who turned out to be gay.

Or the number of GOP politicians who railed against adultery (and, for instance, impeached the president over it) but did it themselves.

Or the number of GOP politicians who are against abortion, but force their mistresses into having one.

This isn't about child abuse somehow being more in line with Democratic party values, or whatever ridiculous claim you're making. It's about the GOP making themselves out to be the party of family values and then consistently being shown not to live up to those values themselves.

It's about saying one thing and doing another. Not about not saying something and then not doing it. These are two very different things.

But you seem bound and determined to make some big false equivalence out of the whole thing, as usual, so please don't let me get in your way there.

[stevew]

Rick Perry redux.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This isn't about child abuse somehow being more in line with Democratic party values, or whatever ridiculous claim you're making.

I'm making the opposite claim. I'm claiming that Democrats and Republicans are both against child abuse. Meaning that it's not more hypocritical when a Republican does it. All child molesters are hypocrites - unless they're members of NAMBLA or otherwise outspoken in favor of child abuse.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's about the GOP making themselves out to be the party of family values and then consistently being shown not to live up to those values themselves.

Child abuse is a CRIME. It's against EVERYONE'S family values, not just Republicans. Democrats oppose child abuse also. It's not the same thing as being gay or having an abortion or cheating on your wife. You're grouping all those things together, which is incredibly bizarre for a claimed liberal.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's about saying one thing and doing another.

Both Republicans and Democrats generally will say they're against child abuse

I'm just annoyed by the politicizing of child abuse. I was wondering in the other thread if you were going to ask Todzilla what the political affiliation of the alleged child abuser was. It seems like in your world, that's the important thing. If it was a Republican, it'd be a great day for you, and an opportunity to affirm your political beliefs.

[Kodos]

You don't see the hypocrisy in railing on the other party (especially those damn LIBERALS!) for not having family values while you're secretly abusing a child?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Kodos

You don't see the hypocrisy in railing on the other party (especially those damn LIBERALS!) for not having family values while you're secretly abusing a child?

I've posted, several times, that I thought that all child abusers were hypocrites. Unless they're openly pro-molestation.

That's the minority view here. The majority view is that Republicans child molesters are especially hypocritical, or more hypocritical than liberal child molesters. That I don't get at all. Both Republicans and liberals oppose child molestation. Are you saying that Republicans oppose it "more"? And that's what you think makes them more hypocritical? I disagree. I think Democrats are just as opposed to child abuse as Republicans are.

The grouping of child abuse, a CRIME, with stereotypical Republican rantings about morality and homosexuality and abortion and adultery is crazy to me. I can't believe so many liberals here are doing that.

Edit: The stereotypical conservative Republican moral hostility that we oppose so much is towards stuff like homosexuality, gay marriage, divorce, adultery. You guys are throwing in child abuse into that mix. Don't you see how that's different? Don't you see how that's weird and actually offensive to throw child abuse in there? Is child abuse really another one of those weird Republican hang-ups like gay marriage? OK, if that's true, I think I'm now one of the more liberal posters here, because I don't see it like that all. Child abuse is not a family values issue, it's a crime that we all oppose. I don't think you guys REALLY think that child abuse is akin to homosexuality, I just think that some people can't see the distinction when they're in full-on team politics mode. So it's just a knee jerk reaction - "That guy molests kids even though he claimed to be against it, typical intolerant Republican!" We're all against child molestation, Democrats included.

The conservative gay-basher who is outed as gay is absolutely more hypocritical then a liberal tolerant guy who is outed as gay. Because the latter guy did not bash gays. But on the other hand, the conservative who abused children isn't any more hypocritical than the liberal who abused children because they both opposed child molestation, like everyone in society does. See the difference, and see how it's actually kind of offensive to group those things, and how it minimizes and politicizes child abuse by characterizing opposition to it as a weird hang-up that Republicans have?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by stevew

Rick Perry redux.

I sure hope he can name that third dept he wants to get rid of this time,,,along with solid reasons for wanting to get rid of then

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

That's the minority view here. The majority view is that Republicans child molesters are especially hypocritical, or more hypocritical than liberal child molesters. That I don't get at all. Both Republicans and liberals oppose child molestation. Are you saying that Republicans oppose it "more"? And that's what you think makes them more hypocritical? I disagree. I think Democrats are just as opposed to child abuse as Republicans are.

FWIW, I called him a hypocrite. I was not generalizing GOP or Dems.

However, Bill must be smiling at the sweet irony that those that accused him/"cast the first stone" have been caught in scandals themselves.

[Edward64]

Domestic policy is still important but unless the economy takes a drastic downturn again, I am putting more weight on a President that can do a "better" job on Foreign policy this time around.

Hillary obviously has a lot of experience but I don't remember a lot of production (and no, I don't think she gets the blame for Benghazi).

FWIW, polls say

John Kerry rated worst secretary of state in 50 years - MarketWatch

A new survey of scholars ranks Secretary of State John Kerry dead last in terms of effectiveness in that job over the past 50 years.

Henry Kissinger was ranked the most effective secretary of state with 32.2% of the vote. He was followed by James Baker, Madeleine Albright, and Hillary Clinton, as judged by a survey of 1,615 international relations scholars.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

However, Bill must be smiling at the sweet irony that those that accused him/"cast the first stone" have been caught in scandals themselves.

Maybe it's just human nature to feel that way, especially for him, since he went through so much.

I just wish that the main take-away here for so many people wasn't how awesome this is politically. It's just distasteful. There's a pretty strong likelihood that there are other victims, maybe many other victims. A pedophile who was a part of an organization for so long, was so respected, with so much access to children, was unlikely to have one and exactly one sexual contact with a student over all those decades.

[cartman]

Again, molson, you seem to be the one making the claim that 'liberals' think it is 'awesome' that a Republican was accused of child molestation, when there isn't much to support that point. Anyone who commits child abuse is a scumbag, and someone who was in a position of authority over children and championed that while also committing abuse is a hypocritical scumbag. That in no way is awesome, it is sad.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Again, molson, you seem to be the one making the claim that 'liberals' think it is 'awesome' that a Republican was accused of child molestation, when there isn't much to support that point. Anyone who commits child abuse is a scumbag, and someone who was in a position of authority over children and championed that while also committing abuse is a hypocritical scumbag. That in no way is awesome, it is sad.

Fair enough, I initially only expressed mild annoyance that this was characterized as a familyvalues/hypocrite issue in the first few posts, but then I got into it a little more based on flere's responses and his responses alone.

Agreed, child molesters are scumbags. I prefer that characterization to conservative family value hypocrite acting contrary to his views on homosexuality, abortion, and adultery. Because again, if this is a conservative family value/hypocrite deal, then THOSE are the relevant traits we're talking about, not being anti-child molestation because everyone is against that.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by cartman

Again, molson, you seem to be the one making the claim that 'liberals' think it is 'awesome' that a Republican was accused of child molestation, when there isn't much to support that point. Anyone who commits child abuse is a scumbag, and someone who was in a position of authority over children and championed that while also committing abuse is a hypocritical scumbag. That in no way is awesome, it is sad.

I dunno, I visit a couple of a liberal message boards and they get positively ecstatic when a story like the Duggars or Dennis Hastert breaks. Anecdotal I know but I do see it.

[bob]

Looks like some potentially big stuff could be included in this hack:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politi...ent/index.html

Not that I'm advocating it here, but I wonder at what point a country will consider hacking as an act of war? Will it require some physical destruction caused by the hack (like a power plant being sabotaged) or will the simple theft of classified material do it?