Cynical Nation

They both like to poke around pages....HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...ohmygod...get it, pages, like book pages AND congressional pages?

Thank you, ladies and germs.

Q. What do emergency room doctors and Mark Foley have in common?

A. When they get a page, they come.

I heard that joke in 1983, back when the object of the joke was Gerry Studd. The more things change...

Say, haven't I seen something in movie credits called a "Foley grip?" There's gotta be a joke in there somewhere....

You didn't hear my joke in 1983 because I just made it up, you know, like JMK makes up most of his "facts" (gets them from Rush Limbaugh).

Bailey- I heard the "bentover pages" joke in 83.The doctor joke would work, if doctors answered pages. Foley artists dub sound effects into movie soundtracks. I suppose the foley grip is a tech guy, (or a secret gay handshake).

Uhhh, Paul....Liberals like BH & Blue don't wanted to be reminded of the Democrats unfortunate and unsavory support for the likes of Mel Reynolds (the lecherous forty-something D-IL, Congressman) one of whose hobbies was molesting High School girls, nor Gerry Studds (D-MA) who'd coerced several Congressional Pages into sexual trysts - the Democratic Congress gave him a standing ovation when he turned his back on the dias as he was censured by the Republican Senate.

Studds didn't even have Foley's decency to resign. In fact, he was re-elected from that repugnant Left-wing Massachussets district!

Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton, among other prominent Democrats defended the disgraced Mel Reynolds "passion for teen girls."

Looks like only one Party is courting that all-important NAMBLA voting block and it begins with the fourth letter of the alphabet.

Sure, deny, deflect, lie, Clinton did it first.

Got it.

The "Party of Morality" LOL!

JMK: "...Gerry Studds (D-MA) who'd coerced several Congressional Pages into sexual trysts - the Democratic Congress gave him a standing ovation when he turned his back on the dias as he was censured by the Republican Senate."

Jesus, you need to go back to civics class AND stop listening to fairy tales (no pun intended). Find the tape of Studds getting a standing O in Congress...lotsa luck. That's a Hannity tall tale. And Studds got censured by the Republican Senate? Hmmm, that's interesting as well. Find me that one, too. And don't bother looking on wikipedia.

JMK doesn't research, he just repeats whatever lie Rush O'Rielly Hannity is telling today. He isn't big on independent thought.

As a fireman, he doesn't believe people have a right to privacy or anything else. Your home can be freely invaded and searched, and in his opinion, that is a good thing.

Clearly, if it were 1776, JMK would have been fighting for King George, just like he fights for King ChimpGeorge today.

That's NOT a "Hannity tale," it's a Gingrich tale!

Gingrich who served in Congress with Studds brought legislation to the floor that would oust anyone caught up in such a criminal scandals.

http://www.anewtone.com/blogpage.html
"Congressional page sex scandal:

"Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent, according to state law at the time. The relationship was consensual, but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.

"During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions represented "a very serious error in judgement."[1]

"The House voted to censure Studds, on July 20, 1983, by a vote of 420-3. While Studds has often been reported as having "turned his back on the House" as the House read its censure motion aloud,[2] contemporary reports made it clear that in contrast to Crane, who faced the House as the motion for his censure was read, Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his back to the other members.[3] Also in contrast to Crane, who left the chamber after his censure, Studds rejoined the other members of the House after his censure was read.[3] In addition to the censure, the Democratic leadership stripped Studds of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine subcommittee. Studds was later appointed chair of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
"While Studds has often been reported as having "turned his back on the House" as the House read its censure motion aloud,[2] contemporary reports made it clear that in contrast to Crane, who faced the House as the motion for his censure was read, Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his back to the other members," I clearly like Newt Gingrich's version a lot better.

It makes for a better delivery - a more powerful impact.

Studds plied younr Pages with alcohol and used them for sex, no such charges have surfaced relative to Foley...no Pages have come forward to declare any sexual relations with the former-Congressman.

"Sure, deny, deflect, lie, Clinton did it first.

Got it.

The "Party of Morality" LOL!" (BH)
(BH)


That's not an argument in favor of taking the Foley case seriously...which is an argument those who insist on that view MUST make.

To date, Foley has not been charged with having sex (consensual or not) with anyone.

Sadly (and thanks largely to Democratic lawmakers), sixteen is "the age of consent in Maryland," so he wouldn't be guilty of any crime if he had had sex with one of those Pages!

Again, I'm not merely comparing the Foley case to the Studds and Reynolds cases, there's no comparison - both Studds and Reynolds had sexual relations with underaged children, Foley has not even been charged with that...only with sending some "inappropriate emails and IMs."

No one's going to make the case that Foley's transgressions rose to the level of either Reynold's nor Studds' (cases that the Democrats actively DEFENDED), because that case can't possibly be made.

"They Are Terrorists, You are a Moral Relativist, I am a Republican."

http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/blog/bob_king/2006/oct/09/they_are_terrorists_you_are_a_moral_relativist_i_am_a_republican

Uhhhh, what does that particular article have to do with the Constitutional questions addressed here???
"Apparently their morals are relative in private - relative to the potential political costs of a perv being caught..."

Well, Foley hasn't had ANY sex charges filed against him.

Yes, his emails and IMs were inappropriate and he did the right thing by resigning (unlike both Reynolds and Studds).

The term "perv" implies pedarist, which wouldn't even apply here IF Foley were charged with having a sexual affair with a 16 year old Page...because the "age of consent" in Maryland is sixteen.

Thanks Maryland Democrats!

Mr. King's thinking on this matter seems as muddled as your own.

Wow, look at all of these "Democrat" states! Looks like a landslide is certain in 2008:
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm

So, I guess almost ALL STATES have 16 as the age of consent. Nice try though, Rove would be proud.

As I said earlier, "about 3 dozen states have 16 as the "age of consent," " (actually it's less, according to this survey, about 32)...18 states are at seventeen or above.

My point is that even if Foley had sex with a sixteen year old Page, he couldn't be accused of "having sex with an underaged partner," at least not in Maryland!

Of course to date, no such charges have been made against Foley.

Yet some folks are eroneously accusing Foley of not only that, but of being a "pedarist."

I'm just trying to understand the actual facts;

(*) Foley sent inappropriate emails to a few Pages and did the right thing and resigned.

(*) No one, to date, has come forward with charges of actual sexual indiscretion involving Foley.

(*) Even if Mark Foley DID have sex with a sixteen year old Page, that wouldn't qualify as "sex with an underage partner, let alone "pedophilia."

If I didn't know any better, I'd be tempted to think that some (many?) Dems are trying to muddy the waters vis-a-vis pedophilia.

We constantly see examples of adult female school teachers having sex with twelve and thirteen year olds, I fear to make the perversion that is pedophilia seem less creepy and less vile than it is.

Now the Democrats have taken to deliberately misusing that word, which is as offensive as misuing the word rape, to get their message across, apparently the message of, "OK we're sexual libertines and we support child sex, but so does everybody else."

You don't find that a vile message?!

Er, it was Hannity, Limbaugh, and Drudge who suggested that the "beasts" (victims) were in fact the "agressors" who "tricked" "poor" Mark Foley into playing a harmless "game" in which he was goaded into typing the most outrageous thing he could think of into an IM.

Your heroes floated the idea that the pages tricked poor Foley and then whisked the evidence to George Soros, who sat on it for three years and then released it in a cynical political ploy.

That is what I call vile. Your heroes, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Drudge cooking up "blame the victim" lies and repeating them over and over, hoping they will catch on or at least keep the base brainwashed despite the mounting evidence.

The evidence clearly points to a hypocrite Mark Foley being protected by hypocrite Repugs to protect his seat and 100% lockstep vote on all issues.

Repugs blackmailed Foley and naturally kept the dirt from Democrats, all the while marching around like the Party of Morals while a predator chased minors around his desk.

That is vile.

Once again, would you mind posting a link to those folks (Hannity, Drudge, Limbaugh, etc) saying the Pages duped Foley.

I have no frame of reference on that matter so I don't know whether they said or implied any such thing...and given your track history, I'm not inclined to take you at your word.

The problem with the Foley case at this point is bascially, no victim...no one has of yet charged him with sex with an underaged partner.

Unlike in the Reynolds and Studds cases, there seems to be no one coming forward to charge Foley with a crime.

Moreover, Foley's gone. He resigned...if only he were a Democrat, he could count on the full faith and support of that Party. Even if were censured, he could expect to be cheered as he ignored the cenusre.

I'm happy Foley did the right thing for his Party, my only question remains, "Where are the sex charges?"

Did he even have sex with any Page?

If so, how old were they?

If not, we can't begin to compare a few inappropriate emails and IMs to what Studds and Reynolds did...can we?

Well, besides personally HEARING them say it while I was commuting, here are a few links. Doesn't mommy allow you to listen to anyone but Rush?

"Drudge on Foley: 'This wasn't coerced,' 'the kid was having fun with this'
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610020015

Limbaugh: Pages Were Probably Paid or Threatened by Dems to ‘Titillate’ Foley
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/10/03/limbaugh-bashes-foley-victims/

Mark Foley Is Just A Victim - Matt Drudge And The Monster Inside The Republican Machine
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/1288/print

Salt Lake Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4451609

Media Matters!?

They're constantly trying to take Bill O'Reilly to task and looking stupid doing it.

That's a real nudnick outfit over there.

Still, though that wouldn't be my strategy, Drudge and Limbaugh have a right to their opinions on the matter and Drudge's take that "the kid was having fun with this," attested by his frequent uses of "LOL" throughout his messages, seems like an honest opinion to me.

Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean their motives are tainted.

Again, there is more than a little hypocrisy coming from a Party that supported the lecherous Mel Reynolds, who preyed on H.S. girls, and Gerry Studds, who actually had sex with Congressional Pages...after plying them with alcohol...a Party that welcomes NAMBLA under its big tent to suddenly find a few inappropriate emails and IMs cause for alarm...don't you think?

I am not FOR Democrats, I am AGAINST Republicans. I am against Absolute Power. I am a Gridlock Independent.

I am a registered Republican, because the Democrats typically held too much power, especially with the left-wing Supreme Court. I voted for Chimp the first time, because he was running against Gore. Had he ran against Clinton I would have voted for Clinton again. I thought Gore was crazy and extreme, and Bush was more moderate. Bush lied though, and I was wrong. In retrospect, I would have voted for Gore. The Repug congress would have kept him in check.

On the morality front, the Democrats haven't sold themselves to the religious nuts as the Party of Gawd, the Party of Morals. That was the Party of Hypocrisy, the GOP.

Yes, I remember all the dirty Democrats. When they were in power, they were corrupt. They couldn't keep a Speaker in the House more than six months either.

What people have to see is the extreme danger of one party rule. Bush/Rove have a master plan to make the Repug majority permanent, which, as we can now clearly see, is a disaster.

The Repugs shot themselves in the ass with the Foley thing, because they shut the Democrats out of every office of government. By their own hand, they stripped the Dems of all power and thus all responsibility. They had the power to do anything they wanted, so it is hard to whine about the powerless Dems.

DeLay, Abramof, Duke, Frist ... the list just never ends. Absolute power only ends in corruption.

So no, JMK, I am not a Liberal. I am a Gridlockist. I believe that the best government is the most restrained government, right or left.

I truly hate Bush/Rove for their evil plan to destroy this country with one party rule, and for the disasters they have caused in their partial success.

Time for that to end.

Being in favor of gridlock is being in favor of nothing.

A sensible person takes governmental gridlock only as a last resort.

The problem with the Democrats is the same problem that's been their plight since the 1960s...Leftism is dead, they just don't realize it yet.

The Republicans problem is that they've abandoned Gingrichian Republicanism.

There's an awful lot of government waste and mismanagement that still needs to be corrected. There's a tax system that NEEDS to be reformed via a NRST or "Fair Tax" system.

We certainly seem headed for gridlock, or worse...but that's NOT going to be good, certainly not with a determined enemy looking toward our vulnerabilities as points of attack, as political hacks from both sides will play politics with those very vulnerabilities.

Gridlock is a simplistic answer to a far more complex problem.

We ONLY have what seems like "one Party rule," because the Democrats have been so inept - Liberalism fails and they inanely presume, "Our problem is that we haven't been Liberal enough!"

Like it or not, gridlock it will be. The Repugs are getting thrown out on their asses for their own misdeeds and no other reason. The Repugs have failed miserably, and deserve to lose.

Once again, I've said above and you'll see later, "We certainly seem headed for gridlock, or worse...but that's NOT going to be good..."

You're not much of a forward thinker, so it's hard for you to figure out the problems with wartime gridlock...it's not going to be to the good at all.

When Clinton was "saddled" with that Republican Congress, it kept the Democrats' natural inclination toward bigger government and excess spending in check.

That won't be the case now.

BOTH Parties are spendthrifts and one (begins with D) is going to be obstructionist over the ongoing war.

LOL! Yeah, tell me about how the Democrats are going to "tax and spend" us to death. Like Reagan, Chimp has used the national credit card to fund tax cuts for his rich friends, running up a huge deficit. He did this with a Repug congress rubberstamping his every idiotic and illegal move. They turned a surplus into a deficit. They stole the money and distributed it to Halliburton and friends.

The idea that liberals outspend conservatives has been forever blown out of the water. You sound like a brain-damaged parrot repeated that old propoganda.

Where did you get the inane idea that "deficit spending is bad?"

The current deficit amounts to 1.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), down from 2.6 percent in fiscal 2005.

Moonbats love to say insipid things like, "No one could get away with running their personal finances that way."

I'ts stupid because (1) national finances DO differ from personal finances and (2) almost no Americans have a personal debt load of less than 5% of their incomes (personal GDP), let alone 1.9%!

Necessary military and domestic security expenditures raised the deficit, but those across the board tax rate cuts have put more money back in more people's pockets and halved that deficit in an incredibly short time.

There's no getting around that very vital fact.

Oh OK. So if the "liberals" just ran up a huge national debt instead of raising taxes, you would vote for them, right?

My, my, you are easy to please. Pelosi can give tax cuts and go wild with social programs at the same time! All that will happen is that the deficit will grow. Big deal.

LOL! You are such a joke.

Read more carefully!

1.9% of America's GDP is NOT a "huge deficit!

In fact, any deficit under 5% is probably quite managable, especailly in that most of that money the government owes is owed back to...the government.

Once again, I don't blame you for not undestanding economics, as that's mere ignorance that can be corrected. I DO blame you for adhering to a simplistic, naive and well, stupid belief system in the face of the mountain facts that point to the contrary.

Clinton surplus, Bush debt, suddenly deficit doesn't matter.

If the Democrats ran up a huge deficit you would be squeaking, squawking, and raving like madman.

Like I said, JMK, you missed your calling: a loyal SS officer.

There was no "Clinton surplus."

As you well know, it was the "Gingrich surplus."

Congress controls the purse strings and Clinton , wisely went along for the ride, even as MOST Democrats opposed the fiscal conservatism that the "Gingrich Congress" applied and the welfare reform they initiated that has saved untold hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

In fact, without that welfare reform, we'd be hard pressed to run this war right now.

In a sense, we owe a real patriotic debt to Gingrich & Co for reforming that hideously wasteful system!

The current debt, is also a Congressional debt!

It's "the Hastert Debt."

Congress controls all the purse strings, the President merely signs off.

The Bush administration knew that America needed this series of wars in the Mideast, so he went along with some other favored projects to get it.

As proven, the deficit has been halved in less than two years. All we need do is "stay the course" economically and we'll retire this debt by 2008.

There are more wars to be fought...many more wars!

So, the billowing H1B visa crimes were Gingrich Selling Out America, followed by Hastert Selling out America -- so outsourcing our jobs falls 100% to the Repugs, according to your fucked up logic.

The President doesn't set the cap. It was all the Repugs.

Just like you refused to be me that gas would fall until the election and the go back up, you also won't bet that the debt will really be retired in 2008, will you?

Ah, you know it's a lie. You are just a very silly person who listens to Rush too much.

Yes, the H-1B visa limits were raised in both 1996 and 2000 by the Republican Congress and Clinton, RIGHTFULLY, signed onto those increases.

The H-1B visas did NOT erode ANY tech jobs!

The tech industry was decimated by collapse of the "Tech Bubble" that began in the Spring of 2000 - a bubble created by some legerdemain at the SEC...a "bubble" that never should've existed in the first place!

Gasoline prices and oil prices are tied to speculative markets NOT Presidential policy.

A milder than average winter of 2006 = much lower gas prices, perhaps as low as $25/barrel.

A colder than average winter of 2006 = higher oil and gas prices.

OPEC lowering its production output would also impact world oil prices, as would any increased instability in any of the OPEC regions.

One thing that will have almost no impact on oil prices is U.S. governmental action.

Your inane bet demands that I posit that there will be no major threats of instability into 2007 (I don't believe that), or that the winter of 2006/2007 will be mild (I don't necessarily believe that either)...I do KNOW that there's next to nothing the U.S. government can do to either raise or lower oil prices.

Price controla dn "windfall profits taxes" would ultimately (over time) greatly increase fuel costs), but not immediately, just as reducing the obscene gasoline taxes federal, state & local (in some ares) would drive down the price of gas, though the latter would NOT do so by lowering the price of oil or gasoline production, merely by "freeing it" from already existing governmental restraints.

You are a well trained, but not a useful, idiot.

"The H-1B visas did NOT erode ANY tech jobs!"

You are talking to someone who lived through it, and still receives calls from Indians recruiting for jobs, and had every interview involve an Indian (except for the job I took).

They are still here, and I know plenty of American programmers out of work. Some left the field entirely. Students dropped out of Computer Science in droves.

The dotcoms were in Silicon Valley (that's in California, JMK). The dotcom bust had NOTHING to do with the destruction of IT in America. It was outsourcing. My job wasn't taken by a Californian willing to work cheap. I don't have Californians recruiting and giving me interviews. The H1B visa system destroyed the IT industry, and our technical future.

Why go through engineering or computer science? Kids aren't. They dropped out, and switched to business so they can become investment bankers.

More parasites, fewer people producing things of value: the bright neocon future!

America didn't win through outsourcing. America lost. It lost the future for the illusion of short term profit (which never came, by the way).

It was the worse, dumbest, and most short sighted event since Chimp was re-elected by a bunch of frightened ninnies and religious yahoos.

Keep living in your bubble of ignorance, drinking Snapple.

The H-1B visa did notU.S. Tech Jobs on the Rise

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0419biz-cyberstates0419.html

"High-tech jobs rebounded last year for the first time since 2000, according to a study being released today by trade association AeA.

The nation added 61,100 technology jobs in 2005, for a 1 percent gain to 5.6 million jobs. The bulk of the jobs were in engineering and tech services, where 57,000 jobs were created. Software services added 43,400 jobs, and electronics manufacturing added 3,300 jobs. Those gains were offset by the loss of 42,600 jobs in communications services."

And many more tech jobs are expected to be added in 2006 & 2007, as companies previously looking to pare down expenses to improve profitablity, now look to grow from within. Recruiting for tech jobs has increased throughout 2006.

Now, remember to give that guy you call "the chimp" credit for this surge in hiring, since you erroneoulsy blamed him for the previous losses.

I don't have to give this guy credit for this...he wasn't responsible for the Tech Bubble Bust, nor the subsequent tech market collapse, nor is he all that responsible for the current and coming surge in tech hiring.

Of course, YOU must remain consistent - you blamed Bush for the loss in tech jobs, so now you must credit him for the gain. Just as those nutty enough to blame the Bush administration for higher gas prices, had to acknowledge that their views also have to credit him with the current fall in gas prices.

That first line should be;

"The H-1B visa did not eradicate ANY American jobs.

That's a fact."

They are begging for American programmers now because the number of competent Indian programmers is actually very small, and their projects went bust.

Now they wish they had truly educated, experienced, and talented programmers like they used to. Instead, they have cheap, unexperienced, aggressive excuse mongers, like they deserve for their short-sighted treason.

It had utterly nothing to do with Chimp.

OK, so you finally see that the "Tech Bubble Bust" was the culprit, as it wiped out about a third of the programming jobs within the U.S.

Anyway, given that, it also follows that the Bush administration had no other choice but to let the Tech Bubble Bust run its course. There was absolutely no way to return to those inane SEC rules changes that fueld the late '90s Tech Bubble.

Now, after five years of shrinkage, the IT sector is coming back slowly - a 1% gain in IT employment in 2005. Analysts expect higher IT growth in '06 & '07 and there'll be plenty of willing Americans to fill those jobs.

Surely, we're not going to see any artificial induced NASDAQ 5000 any time soon and rightly so.

But again, and here's the point you still seem to fail to understand - the H-1B Visas didn't erode any American IT jobs, in fact, after the first cap increase the demand for programmers also INCREASED!

Likewise, even now, with the large number of the H-1B Visas coming into the accounting field, neither the demand, nor the compensation for accountants has decreased.

Wow! It took you such a long time to make such little progress.