• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Shays on Foley handling: At least no one died (1 Viewer)

R

reaganburch

I can't believe nobody has posted a thread about this... I about laughed my head off when I read that someone in Washington actually had the balls to say this in public...

<<
HARTFORD, Connecticut (AP) -- Republican Rep. Christopher Shays defended the House speaker's handling of a congressional page scandal, saying no one died like during the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident involving Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy.

"I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day," the embattled Connecticut congressman told The Hartford Courant in remarks published Wednesday.

"Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody," he added.>>

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/11/shays.kennedy.ap/index.html
 
ProudAmerican said:
thats freakin hillarious.
Click to expand...

I wonder how long it'll be before he's attacked as 'sad' or 'pathetic' or some other term like that because he stated the truth, ProudAmerican...

Shoot the messenger, not the message, right?
 
Frankly, I thought it was despicable. It shows me how the people in Congress aren't any more mature than those with whom I went to elementary school.

I'd be embarrassed if a democrat said that, but guess what? It would unlikely happen. I find that democrats are unwilling to stoop to the level of republicans. JMHO

In reading the article, it now makes sense to me:

Last week, Kennedy campaigned for Democrat Diane Farrell, who is locked in a bitter fight with Shays that could help determine whether Democrats recapture the House after 12 years of GOP control.

"This is symptomatic of Chris losing his composure in a tight race," Farrell said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. "Chris just seems to be lashing out in anger."
Click to expand...

I will jump for joy if Shays loses his seat.
 
Last edited:
You're right, aps. That's being a little hard on Uncle Ted. How about this instead: At least no one died.....like the time Gary Condit had his little sexual tryst. ;)

Gary Condit: The only American relieved when 9/11 happened!
 
Last edited:
CurrentAffairs said:
You're right, aps. That's being a little hard on Uncle Ted. How about this instead: At least no one died.....like the time Gary Condit had his little sexual tryst. ;)

Gary Condit: The only American relieved when 9/11 happened!
Click to expand...

LOL I actually like that one. I think Gary Condit is a snake. That whole thing was truly bizarre.
 
I admire the b@lls on the guy for slapping the democrats across the face with their own hypocrisy!

The Dems who are calling for Hassert's head are the same guys who were in office during the Clinton Administration when a Democrat had SEX with a page and never once asked the guy to resign! Its ok when a Democrat does it, I guess! :roll:

Now Dirty Harry is in hot water for breaking senate rules about his little land deal, and the democrat's response is "Its much ado about nothing!" :spin:

And, now Shay stands up and reminds people how Teddy whacked a date/left her to die in a ditch and it was smoothed over because of his last name and because he is a DEMOCRAT!

Foley needed to get axed for his mis-deeds, but so did the Dem perv who never had to give up his seat after having sex with a page. Kennedy needed to be punished for his little deal. Dirty Harry should at least be censured for breaking Senate rules. ALL of the criminals, pervs, and con artists need to be removed from politics, no matter what party they belong to!

Don't feign anger/disgust over 1 person's misdeeds if you aren't willing to do the ame accross the board, and don't bash a guy for pointing out that 'the Imperor has no clothes!'
 
aps said:
LOL I actually like that one. I think Gary Condit is a snake. That whole thing was truly bizarre.
Click to expand...
So lets tally up the score:

Ted Kennedy - sexual tryst, killed her.
Gary Condit - sexual tryst, killed her
Mark Foley - sexual tryst, resigned.
 
easyt65 said:
I admire the b@lls on the guy for slapping the democrats across the face with their own hypocrisy!

The Dems who are calling for Hassert's head are the same guys who were in office during the Clinton Administration when a Democrat had SEX with a page and never once asked the guy to resign! Its ok when a Democrat does it, I guess! :roll:

Now Dirty Harry is in hot water for breaking senate rules about his little land deal, and the democrat's response is "Its much ado about nothing!" :spin:

And, now Shay stands up and reminds people how Teddy whacked a date/left her to die in a ditch and it was smoothed over because of his last name and because he is a DEMOCRAT!

Foley needed to get axed for his mis-deeds, but so did the Dem perv who never had to give up his seat after having sex with a page. Kennedy needed to be punished for his little deal. Dirty Harry should at least be censured for breaking Senate rules. ALL of the criminals, pervs, and con artists need to be removed from politics, no matter what party they belong to!

Don't feign anger/disgust over 1 person's misdeeds if you aren't willing to do the ame accross the board, and don't bash a guy for pointing out that 'the Imperor has no clothes!'
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think raising a situation that occurred decades ago, as stated by Kennedy's office, shows how desperate Shays is. It is so unbelievably immature that I am embarrassed for Shays. What an a$$wipe.
 
reaganburch said:
I wonder how long it'll be before he's attacked as 'sad' or 'pathetic' or some other term like that because he stated the truth, ProudAmerican...

Shoot the messenger, not the message, right?
Click to expand...

Well, it certainly didn't take long.....
 
aps said:
Frankly, I think raising a situation that occurred decades ago, as stated by Kennedy's office, shows how desperate Shays is. It is so unbelievably immature that I am embarrassed for Shays. What an a$$wipe.
Click to expand...
What does the passage of time have to do with it? It still happened. Does history get erased when enough time passes?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Doesn't matter much anyway. The Foley story is over. The Reid story is now front and center.
 
aps said:
Frankly, I think raising a situation that occurred decades ago, as stated by Kennedy's office, shows how desperate Shays is. It is so unbelievably immature that I am embarrassed for Shays. What an a$$wipe.
Click to expand...

Its not just something that happened a decade agon, it demonstrates a PATTERN of democratic Party Behavior of hypocritical double-standard BS!

Kennedy was just the most heinous case, leaving a date in an upside-down car in a water-filled ditch to die...and its no big deal!
Gary Condit - sexual tryst....No Problem!
Studds - No problem!
Clinton's MANY scandals - No problem!
Pelosi (Travel-Lobbygate) - No problem!
And now Harry Reid breaks Senate rules - no problem!
-- Harry was just shown in a press conference where he stated that if the senate requests and allows him to do so, he will 're-rile the appropriate paperwork'! In other words, he will pull a Pelosi and 'cook the books', refiling the paperwork to cover up the mis-deed instead of accept any punishment or step down as the democrats demand of GOP offenders!

And you comment about being embarrassed for shay is comical! He was right on the money, and you and the rest of the Dems are trying to deflect from that fact!
 
easyt65 said:
Its not just something that happened a decade agon, it demonstrates a PATTERN of democratic Party Behavior of hypocritical double-standard BS!

Kennedy was just the most heinous case, leaving a date in an upside-down car in a water-filled ditch to die...and its no big deal!
Gary Condit - sexual tryst....No Problem!
Studds - No problem!
Clinton's MANY scandals - No problem!
Pelosi (Travel-Lobbygate) - No problem!
And now Harry Reid breaks Senate rules - no problem!
-- Harry was just shown in a press conference where he stated that if the senate requests and allows him to do so, he will 're-rile the appropriate paperwork'! In other words, he will pull a Pelosi and 'cook the books', refiling the paperwork to cover up the mis-deed instead of accept any punishment or step down as the democrats demand of GOP offenders!

And you comment about being embarrassed for shay is comical! He was right on the money, and you and the rest of the Dems are trying to deflect from that fact!
Click to expand...


easy makes some excellent points, don't you agree, aps?

Unless, of course, you think there is some type of "grandfather clause" when it comes to impropriety. As long as enough time passes, then any unethical scandals become null and void....is that it? If a few years go by, then we can erase it from our history? Is that what you're telling us?

I heard a phrase used the other day on this matter. It was selective moral outrage.
There's a word for that. It's called hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
reaganburch said:
Well, it certainly didn't take long.....
Click to expand...

reagan, do you genuinely think it's appropriate to say something like that? I guess for me, I find that when people throw past bad acts I have done in my face, and not something that just happened, that person isn't someone I respect. I think it was a low blow and it showed me that he has no class.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
easy makes some excellent points, don't you agree, aps?

Unless, of course, you think there is some type of "grandfather clause" when it comes to impropriety. As long as enough time passes, then any unethical scandals become null and void....is that it? If a few years go by, then we can erase it from our history? Is that what you're telling us?

I heard a phrase used the other day on this matter. It was selective moral outrage.
There's a word for that. It's called hypocritical.
Click to expand...

CurrentAffairs, it really depends on the situation. If someone within my party did something bad, I would hate to think that others would hold that against me. It wasn't me to committed the bad act. Also, if I had done something in my past that I would just as soon forget, I would be disgusted if someone was bringing it up. This has no relevance, and it was said in a mean-spirited way. I don't like that. If someone were to bring up George Bush's cocaine snorting or DUI to somehow lessen the charge that had been made against them, I would be just as disgusted. I didn't think it was funny when people were making fun of Cheney and his accidental shooting. Can you imagine how horrifying that was for him? And people were making light of it? It's not a funny issue at all.

I'm just glad that my parents raised me in the manner in which they did. This kind of behavior is truly beneath me.
 
aps said:
reagan, do you genuinely think it's appropriate to say something like that? I guess for me, I find that when people throw past bad acts I have done in my face, and not something that just happened, that person isn't someone I respect. I think it was a low blow and it showed me that he has no class.
Click to expand...

In todays political environment, I don't know if it's appropriate or not, but I DO know that it's business as usual... for both parties...

Democrats(not all, let me preface that) bring up the fact that Bush had an alcohol problem(which he admitted to) and that he did cocaine(conjecture). People in Washington always try to compare a deed with another deed to try to offset the seriousness of it...

And plus, to use a term you use... I think Ted Kennedy is an A$$wipe... regardless of the fact that he was responsible for the girls death, so I found it funny...

Is it right? Probably not... but in the mud slinging business, who is really the losers? We all are...
 
Last edited:
CurrentAffairs said:
So lets tally up the score:

Ted Kennedy - sexual tryst, killed her.
Gary Condit - sexual tryst, killed her
Mark Foley - sexual tryst, resigned.
Click to expand...


LAURA BUSH: KILLED YOUNG DRIVER
 
reaganburch said:
Laura Bush = unelected citizen... irrelevant...
Click to expand...


It's very relevant, some say that Laura Bush, 1st Lady, purposely killed that young man, her former boyfriend I believe.
 
KidRocks said:
It's very relevant, some say that Laura Bush, 1st Lady, purposely killed that young man, her former boyfriend I believe.
Click to expand...

Being from Arkansas, I can attest to the fact that "some say" that Bill Clinton had some people killed... does "some say" have relevance now?
 
reaganburch said:
Being from Arkansas, I can attest to the fact that "some say" that Bill Clinton had some people killed... does "some say" have relevance now?
Click to expand...


It's a fact that President Bush has had a lot of people killed too, we can start with Iraq, for instance!
 
KidRocks said:
It's a fact that President Bush has had a lot of people killed too, we can start with Iraq, for instance!
Click to expand...

Perhaps... but you were implying that Laura Bush murdered someone...

Murder, gotten from Dictionary.COM is defined as...

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

There was nothing unlawful about Iraq.. Unnecessary? That's open for debate... but unlawful? No...

So, again... not germane to the topic at hand...
 
reaganburch said:
Perhaps... but you were implying that Laura Bush murdered someone...

Murder, gotten from Dictionary.COM is defined as...

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

There was nothing unlawful about Iraq.. Unnecessary? That's open for debate... but unlawful? No...

So, again... not germane to the topic at hand...
Click to expand...


You can murder someone and get away with it, OJ Simpson for example. President Bush many times got away with drunk-driving in texas so it stands to reason that Laura Bush got away with manslaughter which is not much different than outright murder.
 
KidRocks said:
You can murder someone and get away with it, OJ Simpson for example. President Bush many times got away with drunk-driving in texas so it stands to reason that Laura Bush got away with manslaughter which is not much different than outright murder.
Click to expand...

Ok, now I've got a headache... I don't understand your reasoning here... I know you're a Bush hater, but I don't believe your stupid, either... so, how the hell did you get to this point?

OJ did murder someone and got away with it, but he was tried and acquitted...

I'm not sure Laura Bush was ever charged with anything, but all homicide isn't necessarily murder... all murder IS homicide; however. Regardless, she's a unelected public citizen with no constitutional powers; therefore, she's not germane to the topic of Kennedy driving off a bridge... perhaps in some six degress of Kevin Bacon way, but I don't see it...

As for Bush and I know I'm not going to convince you of this, but... I will try and wrap my argument up... Bush going to Iraq was not ILLEGAL(at least it hasn't been proven such); therefore, it couldn't constitute murder as murder is defined...
 
reaganburch said:
Ok, now I've got a headache... I don't understand your reasoning here... I know you're a Bush hater, but I don't believe your stupid, either... so, how the hell did you get to this point?

OJ did murder someone and got away with it, but he was tried and acquitted...

I'm not sure Laura Bush was ever charged with anything, but all homicide isn't necessarily murder... all murder IS homicide; however. Regardless, she's a unelected public citizen with no constitutional powers; therefore, she's not germane to the topic of Kennedy driving off a bridge... perhaps in some six degress of Kevin Bacon way, but I don't see it...

As for Bush and I know I'm not going to convince you of this, but... I will try and wrap my argument up... Bush going to Iraq was not ILLEGAL(at least it hasn't been proven such); therefore, it couldn't constitute murder as murder is defined...
Click to expand...


What the hell does Ted Kennedy have to do with the Foley case? If that can be tied together than so can Laura Bush = murderer, President Bush = murderer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom