Culling the herd
It’s obvious that this election cycle the Demotards are engaged in their standard seminar activity, releasing a scandal about a conservative/republican every day or so, thinking it somehow weakens us.
Here’s a little concept that will put your finger a little closer to the clue button, you morons: At the first sign of any perception of impropriety, conservatives recuse themselves or resign. When they are “convicted” even if it’s only in the court of public opinion, they are already private citizens, for the most part. What is the net effect? the REMAINING republicans are strengthened, not weakened, you dumbasses. This tactic of running up behind the herd and attacking the weak has only made the herd stronger. Keep it up. And thanks.
16 comments Og | Uncategorized
Two words for the Democrats: Gary Studds.
‘K. But what do you call his Republican colleauges (as well as major media outlets, to be fair) covering the whole thing up — strengthening, or immoral?
I call what they did practical politics. They covered nothing up that the victims themselves couldn’t have made public at the time; they told Foley to cease and desist, he promised to do so, and as it turns out, he reneged on his promise. He’s now private citizen Foley as a result.
In contrast, Gary Studds was reelected multiple times after his affair with a male page was publicly revealed. Apparently Democrats have no shame.
Everybody thinks the leadership should have dumped Foley five years ago. The problem with that is that the leadership couldn’t fire him; all they could do is force him to resign. His consitituents could have fired him — after all, he’s been reelected twice since then — but apparently none of Foley’s victims ever saw fit to go public until (how conveniently) just now.
Play it how you want; them’s the facts. October surprises are always fun.
And yeah, Hastert needs to go. But after the election, not before. After the election, he’s going to go either because his party loses the majority, or because he’ll lose the leadership election if they don’t.
Broad, what democrats did to cover the whole thing up was criminal. yes, I said democrats: I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume you’re naive enough not to know that what one party knows on the hill, so does the other. For Republicans who knew of this (assuming some actually did) to not do anything is wrong. For democrats not to do anything is wrong not only in the fact that it put kids in harms way, but did so for political purposes. And the media is exactly as much to blame.
Well, as a member of the 4th estate, I’m certainly not going to stand up for the media on this one. That was absolutely criminal, and I couldn’t even begin guessing why this wasn’t reported.
But if you’re going to use politics as the reason, excuse etc., I don’t see how you can make it solely the Democrats’ fault. If that’s the case, ALL OF THEM were working under the auspices of politics, so in my mind, that makes each and every one of them at fault for this.
Regardless of political affiliation.
Og, you are definitely on a roll. Excellent observations.
Bringing forth a scandal about a republican helped the republicans how, broad?
I’m confused — are you saying that the Republicans brought this into the light, or the Dems? I honestly don’t know, and I haven’t found anything that says something definitive yet either way, except that CREW reported it to the FBI back in July.
Here’s the short version: The media brought this forward. THe information was given to them by democrats(who knew about it but held onto it until it could benefit them politically) seeking to take out not only foley but hastert. Like Hastert should resign for something Foley did.
beg to differ.
Blah dad blah, da blah.
just fer humor’s sake, Except that I have none:
Who’s boneman, and what did he say?
Anyway, perhaps the Dems did, though I still haven’t found anything on who holds the smoking gun. But something else to consider: Reports are saying that the WaPo, Miami Herald and the others have known about this for up to a year but never said anything. Are you going to posit that the Dems are behind that?
As for asking Hastert to resign — well, I don’t know if that’s correct or not. Was it right to expect all the archbishops to resign after all that mess? They did essentially the same thing, albeit on a much larger scale, and I don’t recall any of them stepping down.
Check it out.
1: The WaPo had an email; the email was innocuous, read it for yourself.
2: the IM’s were graphic and out of line, but the subject of the IM’s was 18 at the time. No crime, except of stupdity.
The fact that the IM’s were witheld until the last day of the congressional session, 48 hours after it was too late to remove Foley’s name from the november ballot, that’s a little telling, isn’t it? And who saves IM’s except to specifically use them to harm someone?
Compare with Deuteronomy 25:17-18
Teresita Troll at Belmont Club was denying stupidity was to be expected from those who are born with too close a genetic tie in parents, especially products of that being repeated after many generations.
And we have the Dems who repeatedly repel any ideas which their collective “minds” dislike.
So Og, your suggestion and the Bible may coincide. All of which suggests that consanquinity need not be sexual alone to produce morons.
Oh, and continue to be of good cheer Og. Since you believe in God (I wish I was so certain), you should know he is on your side. How? From Exodus 17:16.
Og, I tried to weigh in on the scandal issue and don’t think I succeded in saying anything new.
I’d say yours was the clearest take I’ve read on the timing of the scandal and its overall effects on a party as a whole. Kudos for clear thoughts.