Ricky's Righties
-
MArooned (stuck in Mass.)
Neal's Nuze
OpinionJournal BOTW
Baseball Crank
QandO
Yippee-Ki-Yay
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Deinonychus antirrhopus
Radio Equalizer
Say Uncle
Instapundit.com
Grouchy Old Cripple
Radio Blogger
Corner
Olbermann Watch
INDC Journal
Lileks
Power Line
IMAO
Alphecca
Stop the ACLU
Obsidian Wings
Poor and Stupid
JunkYardBlog
JustOneMinute
Ride fast & shoot straight
mASS BACKWARDS
Right Wing News
Florida Cracker
Ipse Dixit
The Other Side of Kim
Cold Fury
HughHewitt
Captain's Quarters
Michelle Malkin
Power Line
Midwest Conservative Journal
Note-It Posts
Florida Pundit
Common Sense and Wonder
Dizzy Girl
Dr. Weevil
Drink this
Chunky Chit Chat
Right Side of the Rainbow
Man Without Qualities
One Good Turn
Outside the Perimeter
Paul McCord
Little Green Footballs
The Fat Guy
Accidental Verbosity
Acidman
Andrea Harris
Backcountry Conservative
Blogs for Bush
Carraig Daire Weblog
Cornfield Commentary
Country Store
Daily Pundit
Smoke on the Water
Fair To Middlin'
Final Protective Fire
Harrumph! Yeah, right...
Kim du Toit
Lawren K. Mills
ELEPHANT RANTS
No Watermelons Allowed
One Hand Clapping
Sine Qua Non
The Rattler
Southern Appeal
The Dax Files
Roger L. Simon
Wizbang
But that's just my opinion
In-between
September 28th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
They don’t even know how to spell the word, let alone have any.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
First, let me say up front that it’s not like the left has a stranglehold on dirty politics. I’ve seen the GOP wallow in the mud quite a bit. Of course, since the left is out of power right now, they’re the one’s lying down with the dogs (or is it now skunks?), although I’m sure they’d see things differently. I can give you an example of a lefty blogger who thought Clinton was too nice to Chris Wallace, who, naturally, was the antagonist.
But to answer the question: No, they can go lower.
It’s happened before, it’ll happen again. Ask Clarence Thomas. Ask Jack Ryan.
Heck, they haven’t even researched what videos he watched in college, faked memos to claim that he committed AWOL, went to court to unseal divorce proceedings against both spouse’s wishes or claimed that he said “nigger” back in the 70s. Yet.
Just wait until there’s a memorial service to use as a campaign stop. You ain’t seen nothin’, yet.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:04 am
There is no bottom to the pit dug by politicians. All they do is take turns with the shovel.
How you cannot be sickened by both parties is beyond me.
September 29th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
They continue to go lower and lower and lower. I’m not a violent person, per se, but I think a lot of problems could be easily solved with a few good ass-whippins.
I mean, what kind of idiot do you have to be to not recognize that obvious photoshop? [ – the type who denied the Dan Rather memos – ed]
September 29th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Of course, you’re going to print a retraction, right.
Link
September 29th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Why should he print a retraction? Based on the evidence Oliver provided, while the emails were somewhat weird, there was nothing to indicate the guy was a pedophile.
If a black guy is accused of a crime, but hasn’t yet gone to trial, and someone says “obviously he’s guilty, he’s black”, and if you called the person on it for saying that, would you then go apologize if the guy was found guilty?
September 29th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
First of all, being attracted to a 16-year-old is not pedophilia. If it were, every straight man in the USA would have been a pedophile when Britney Spears “Oops” video came out.
That said, those emails were obviously flirty and unacceptable. Resigning—along with officially, and at long last, coming out of the closet—is the right move for Mr. Foley.
September 29th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
What Skip said (except for the Britney Spears part….I never noticed her attractiveness until her 18th birthday, I swear).
September 29th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Jay wrote:
“Of course, Willis is over there bragging about this as though he got one over on me.”
Uh, could that be because he did? Get one over on you that is?
I mean, Willis put up a post which suggested that, based on emails to a former page, the Rep might like young boys.
You called this a “new low” and said he had “no evidence” (discounting the emails as evidence I guess, though after I read them, I figured something strong was up. Talking about how in shape another page was, in addition to asking about birthdays and pictures? Weird.)
Anyway, now more evidence is coming out (IM conversations with other pages), and the Rep is resigning.
Egg on your face, not Willis’.
“They’re like those people who watch a ‘Whodunit?’ kind of movie, point out every character as the guilty party and then say, “See!! I knew it!!” when the guilty party is revealed.”
Except Oliver didn’t point out “every character”. He pointed out one—Rep Mark Foley.
And he was right.
September 29th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
I mean, Willis put up a post which suggested that, based on emails to a former page, the Rep might like young boys.
Actually, Willis, most in his comments section, and others pretty much concluded that Foley liked young boys. Strike one.
You called this a “new low” and said he had “no evidence” (discounting the emails as evidence I guess, though after I read them, I figured something strong was up. Talking about how in shape another page was, in addition to asking about birthdays and pictures? Weird.)
The emails were weird. They were not evidence of Foley wanting to get in the kids pants. Strike two.
Except Oliver didn’t point out “every character”. He pointed out one—Rep Mark Foley.
No, what he did was this:
Oliver: Foley is a pedophile!
Reason: You have no evidence of that. That is low.
Oliver: I never said Foley was a pedophile!
World: Evidence has surfaced that Foley sent sexually explicit IM messages to 16 year old boys.
Oliver: I told you he was a pedophile!
Thus, the Whodunit reference. Strike three. He’s out and so are you.
In addition, I won’t be lectured to by people that are ready to hang Foley based on a couple of emails but want to give terrorists the absolute benefit of the doubt.
September 29th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
“The emails were weird. They were not evidence of Foley wanting to get in the kids pants. Strike two.”
The person that originally leaked them disagrees with you. Someone from his office thought they were suspicious enough to warrant further investigation, and that goodness they did. They were certainly evidence, maybe not 100% proof, but evidence. And Foley’s initial reaction to there release was more than enough to make that claim.
This man was a sexual predator going after under-aged boys. If it was a Democrat, you would be calling for his execution.
September 29th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Stowbridge,
Chill man, I’ve seen this election year after election year. This is nothing but dirty politics. Same as with Senator Allen.
So when can we get to phase B, blaming the victims?
September 29th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Uh, as far as your so-called “strikes”—your strike zone is way off. Thank goodness you don’t work in the major leagues.
Your so-called “Strike One”
Neither in his initial post nor his comments, did Willis accuse Rep. Foley of being a pedophile or “underage” boys. I challenge you to show where he did.
He did accuse him of being interested in “young boys”. There is a difference.
After all, I am interested in young women like Scarlet Johansson and Lindsay Lohan (not that they would ever be interested in me). Evidence of me being interested in these “young girls” doesn’t mean that I am interested in girls younger than the age of consent. However, it doesn’t preclude that either.
In fact, lets look at exactly what he wrote:
“Republican Mark Foley: Interested In Young Boys?”
AND
[Responding to your comment that he was accusing Rep Foley of being a pedophile] “Oh, I’m sorry, it’s perfectly normal to write salacious emails to young male interns is it now – I’m sorry Jay but IOKIYAR rules do not apply here.”
AND
“Where am I accusing Rep. Foley of being a pedophile. The title of the post is “Republican Mark Foley: Interested In Young Boys?”
The only statement that might be interpreted as an accusation of pedophilia (rather than just an interest in young boys) is his response to you, since he doesn’t explicitly refute your idea that he accused Foley of pedophilia. Instead he tells you that there is something strange about the emails that at least suggest that Foley is interested in this young page, and that you should be able to pick up on that. However, keep in mind that YOU were the one that brought up pedophilia—not him.
Later Willis’ DOES explicitly say that he is not accusing Foley of pedophilia. This does not mean that he isn’t still accusing him of being interested in young boys (how young is still an open question).
I think it would be clear to any rational person that what Willis was doing in his initial post and comments is say that he found it strange for a U.S. Rep to send those types of emails to a young 16 year old page. And that this behavior might mean that Foley was interested in young boys (perhaps of legal age, perhaps not).
Conclusion—Willis did say that Rep. Foley was interested in “young boys.” He did not accuse him necessarily of being interested in underage boys or children. You assumed that is what he meant. Your fault, not his.
So called “Strike Two”:
“The emails were weird. They were not evidence of Foley wanting to get in the kids pants.”
Maybe—but you are changing Willis argument again. He thought they were evidence that Foley liked young boys—not “kids” [your word] necessarily.
And in reading the emails, I agree with Willis’ interpretation—they clearly suggest that Rep Foley was demonstrating that he was sexually interested in this young boy.
However, you seemed to disagree with Willis’ conclusion. In fact, you accused Willis of not getting “out” much, meaning that he was reading something into the email that was not there.
But considering what we now know, it sees that you are the person who needs to “get out” more, isn’t it? Willis saw that the emails WERE evidence of Foley’s interest in Young Boys, and you failed to see this.
Your so-called “Strike Three”:
Here you create a dialogue which purports to represent what happened, but in fact changes reality.
I will offer a version that does represent reality:
Willis: From these emails, it seems that Foley likes young boys.
Jay: How dare you accuse Foley of being a pedophile.
Willis: I do not accuse him of necessarily being a pedophile, but it seems from these emails he IS interested in young boys.
World: Evidence has surfaced that Foley sent sexually explicit IM messages to 16 year old boys.
Willis: Wow. It seems I was right in thinking that Foley was interested in young boys. And it now seems that Foley wasn’t just interested in young boys, he was also interested in VERY young boys —underage boys. Foley is a pedophile.
Jay: It turns out that Foley was interested in young boys. In fact, he was even interested in underage boys, making him a pedophile.
However, though this new evidence shows that Willis was right when he initially accussed Foley of being a pedophile [which is NOT what Willis initially accused Foley of, by the way] Willis was still wrong to accuse Foley of being a pedophile in the first place based on those emails.
And now I am going to use a completely inaccurate metaphor about people at movies to describe how Willis acted.
Now that we have shown that these three strikes are out of the strike zone, lets look at your next pitch.
“Ball Four:”
“In addition, I won’t be lectured to by people that are ready to hang Foley based on a couple of emails”
Willis (nor I) never “hanged him.” He suggested he liked young boys. And now we know he does—very young boys in fact.
“but want to give terrorists the absolute benefit of the doubt.”
This is a whole different issue. It seems you are trying to change the subject.
I wonder why? Maybe because you were WRONG?
September 29th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
By the way, studies have shown that youth is a sexually attractive thing to men. A pedophile is not someone who is interested in young people – it is a grwon-up who is interested in young people, and creates a sexual or quasi-sexual relationship with people who are too young to be emotionally mature enough to handle that sort of thing with a grwon up.
Even if Foley never touched any of those pages, his language in the IM’s and e-mails was inappropriate for that age group. I don’t know the legality of cyber-sex with underaged people- I hope it’s illegal. But, of course, no court of law could ever convict him since the evidence was obtained by the dirty election year politics method.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Monkey, your entirely soliloquy and defense of Oliver falls apart at this point:
Willis: Wow. It seems I was right in thinking that Foley was interested in young boys. And it now seems that Foley wasn’t just interested in young boys, he was also interested in VERY young boys —underage boys. Foley is a pedophile.
All information so far indicates the IM messages were sent to Congressional pages. The minimum age requirement to be a page in Congress is the age of 16. Therefore, your made up conclusion that Foley is interested in VERY young boys is incorrect (based on what we know so far).
16 is the age of consent in DC and in most states.
So which is it? Is Foley a pedophile or is he just gay?
Yer out dude. Back to the bush leagues.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
I think pretty much you ought to delete your post here and pretend it never happened.
September 30th, 2006 at 12:06 am
FWIW
Foley’s orientation was the primary reason he did not run for senate this year.
Age of consent is 16 in DC and Maryland; 18 in Virginia.
18 in Florida (because Foley is well over 24) in some of the emails the kid mentions being in Pensacola.
17 in Lousiana, wherethe kid was from.
September 30th, 2006 at 12:18 am
First, let me directly answer your questions.
Is Foley a pedophile or is he just gay?
Foley is a pedophile because the AIM IMs show that he broke the law by soliticing young boys for sex over the Internet.
Before knowing about the AIM IMs, all we knew from the emails was that it seemed that Foley liked young boys. Whether he acted on this desire enough to illegally solicit underage young boys for sex was an open question.
Next, lets address the problems with your argument.
I assume when you say that someone is guilty pedophilia we are using as our defination the law of the land. Correct?
In other words, someone who breaks U.S. local, state or federal laws by soliciting “underage children for sex” is a pedophile. If not, please let me know.
Clearly, with his emails to the intern the congressmen displayed an interest in young boys. Whether he soliticed them for sex, and thus was a pedophile, was still an open question. One can, after all, be interested in young boys, and not act on that desire, no?
However, based on the evidence from his AIM IMs with other pages he is pedophilia, at least according to this former FBI agent. It was only at this point that Willis did call him a pedophile.
From ABC news:
“Federal authorities say such messages could result in Foley’s prosecution, under some of the same laws he helped to enact.
“Adds up to soliciting underage children for sex,” said Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent and now an ABC News consultant. “And what it amounts to is serious both state and federal violations that could potentially get you a number of years.”
So, again, I will try to explain it to you.
Rep Foley’s emails to the page demonstrated evidence that he was interested or liked young boys. [As stated by Willis intially]. One can like young boys and not be a pedophile—in other words, not act on your impulses, or at least restrain them until the object of affection is above the age of constent for whatever state, etc. you are in.
Willis did not have evidence that Foley solicited sex from underage boys in an unlawful manner, and therefore did not accuse him of being a pedophile. He did accuse him of “liking young boys”—a reasonable accusation based on the emails, I might add.
The AIM IMs, however, provide evidence that Foley not only liked young boys, but also soliticed sex over the Internet from underage boys (breaking laws that HE HIMSELF HELPED PASS]. This moves him from the “man who likes young boys” category into the “pedophile” category since now he was now breaking the law. Of course, he still liked young boys—however, now he acted on that desire, and acted on it by soliciting boys who were under the legal age of consent for sex.
Perhaps I am mistaken though. Do you know more about pedophia laws than the FBI agent quoted by the ABC reporter? If so, why is the FBI agent wrong?
Do you think that Foley was NOT breaking the law with his AIM IMs? You can read them here. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/exclusive_the_s.html
September 30th, 2006 at 7:35 am
however, now he acted on that desire, and acted on it by soliciting boys who were under the legal age of consent for sex.
Again, you go through a long explanation only to arrive right back where you started. You don’t know whether or not such solicitations were made in a state where these boys were at the age of consent. We’re talking about boys anywhere between the age of 16-17.
Which brings us to another problem. You’re relying on legal definitions to as to whether or not Foley is a pedophile or just gay. The age of consent in Florida is 18. In that scenario, he’s a pedophile. In DC the age of consent is 16. That would simply make him gay. After all, Gerry Studds had sex with a 17 year old male page. Not only was he not charged with any crimes, he was re-elected for over a decade even after having been censured for what he did.
All of that leads us back to the beginning. Oliver makes a conclusion, claims not to have made a conclusion using the very same kind of techniques he whines incessantly about Glenn Reynolds using and then reiterating that conclusion in another post. Both times without enough evidence to make such a conclusion.
September 30th, 2006 at 11:40 am
“You don’t know whether or not such solicitations were made in a state where these boys were at the age of consent.”
Read the transcripts Jay. The kid was in Pensacola. AOC is 16 if the partner is nder 24, 18 otherwise. Foley’s in his 50s, so 16 and 17 is verboten.
September 30th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Jay:
When you asked me a question I answered it directly.
You avoid my questions though. Perhaps I wasn’t clear with them. So I will repeat them.
1) I assume when you say that someone is guilty pedophilia we are using as our defination the law of the land. Is this correct? In other words, someone who breaks U.S. local, state or federal laws by soliciting “underage children for sex” is a pedophile.
2) Are you saying that, if Rep Foley solicited 16 year old boys for sex, and yet broke no federal, state or local laws, he is NOT a pedophile?
2) One can, after all, be interested in young boys, and not act on that desire, no? If you don’t act on that desire, you are not a pedophile, though you still might “like young boys”. Correct?
3) Do you think the FBI officer quoted in the article is wrong when he states that what Foley did “Adds up to soliciting underage children for sex,” said Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent and now an ABC News consultant. “And what it amounts to is serious both state and federal violations that could potentially get you a number of years.”
4) Do you think that Foley was NOT breaking the law with his AIM IMs? After reading them, are you willing to state that he is NOT a pedophile?
And again, I think you incorrectly summarize what Oliver did. He wrote that he suspected that Foley liked young boys based on evidence (the emails). You stated that this evidence did not show that Foley illegally solicited underage boys for sex (pedophilia). Oliver stated that he did not necessarily accuse Foley of illegally soliciting underage boys for sex (pedophilia), BUT that the emails he read did made him think that Foley liked or desired young boys.
More evidence came to light. This evidence provides definative proof that Oliver orginal supposition was correct—Foley did like young boys. Willis orginal hypothosis is proved to be right.
However, the new evidence also went on to show more than that—that the suposition you accussed Foley of making—that Foley was a pedophile—(which Willis denied) was also true. Or at least that there was now strong evidence for making that accussation.
After all, reading the AIM IMs, Foley clearly solicited underage boys for “Internet” sex.
However, just because Oliver never said that Foley was a pedophile does NOT mean that he was not correct when he stated his suspicion that Foley “liked young boys.”
And, given Oliver’s political leanings, one can expect that when evidence does come to light that a Republican Rep is a pedophile, he will write about it.
This does not mean that he is saying that he accussed him of being a pedophile before.
What he got “over” on you was that when Willis said Foley liked young boys, you said that he was reading into the emails.
Given the new evidence that has come to light, Willis was not “reading into” the emails. Foley does like young boys—to the point where he will solicit sex from underage boys over the Internet.
Also, we have to point you this might be a question of semantics. If you think a pedophile is ONLY someone who breaks the law by soliciting minor for sex, and Willis thinks a pedophile is someone who solicities 16 year olds for sex (whether such actions are legal or not), then you might not think him a pedophile while Willis does.
So, again, I ask you, if Foley solicted a 16 or 17 year old boy for sex (as show in the AIM IMs) is he or is he not a pedophile?
September 30th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
By the way, Glenn Greenwald has reviewed the law and writes this:
“Under the so-called “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006” (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any “minor” under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense (see Adam Walsh Act, Sec. 111(14) (“MINOR.—The term ‘minor’ means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years”) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256 (1) (“’minor’ means any person under the age of eighteen years”).”
Of course, maybe you feel that breaking this law does neccessarily constitute pedophilia, which is what Greenwald seems to imply when he writes.
“Despite all the irritatingly righteous (and overheated) “pedophile” language being tossed around, in the overwhelming majority of states, and in Washington DC, the legal age of consent for sex is 16 years old. That means that actual, in-person sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page in D.C. would not be criminal at all (though it likely could have other legal implications).”
You can read Greewald’s post on the issue here. As usual for Greenwald, it is very well thought out and written.
After reading it, I agree with Greenwald and disagree with Willis when he says in his later post that what Foley did (that we know of, at least) was pedophilia.
While what Foley did might have been against the law, as far as we can tell it does not constitute pedophilia in the sense of an adult sexually abusing a child.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-house-leadership-and-mark-foley.html
So, I guess I am changing my mind. Reading Greenwald can do that
Of course, this does not change the fact that you were still wrong in stating that Willis was not “right”. Willis stated that the emails were evidence that Foley liked young boys. You disagree and thought that Willis was reading into the emails.
We now know that Willis was correct in his assessment of the emails—they did indicate that Foley likes young boys.
However, whether his illegal discussion or solicitation of sexual acts with minors constitutes “pedophilia” is another question.
Willis seems to think it is. Greenwald does not.
What do you think?
September 30th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
I’m of the mind that I’ll keep my nose out of this because, well, frankly you couldn’t pay me to care what Oliver Willis thinks since I don’t respect his opinion. That said, GLenn Greenwald may be a keen legal mind, but he’s a joke. A sock-puppet wielding, posting under fake names and then attempting to blame it on his boyfriend while his minions swallow whatever excuse he wields…joke. If anyone out there is under the impression that folks who don’t drink the kool-aid are in awe of the ‘word from Greenwald’, let me clear things up: you know how much credence you give the rhetoric from Ann Coulter? Greenwald commands a fraction of that relevance from those outside the kossack regime (and that includes his brother in arms, Andrew “please pay attention to me” Sullivan).
Any rebuttals can be taken up with Rick Ellsberg. Or Ellison. Or Ellers.
And don’t waste your time arguing with me on the matter – argue with Jay on the topic, just don’t assume that the joke known as EllisonEllsbergEllersGreenwaldBrazilianboyfriend has any sort of standing outside the city limits of atrietteville. Joke.
And with that shot across the bow, I return to the gallows…..
September 30th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
RW:
Who are you? Since you don’t seem to want to contribute anything to this dialogue except personally attack others who are offering some commentary on the Foley situation, we will need to do some research.
Lets look at what contributions RW has recently made to the political dialogue in this country.
You wrote a post saying how you angry you are that some people think that Kos is sexy rather than someone with a great body like you. (I think someone is a little jeolous!)
You wrote a post describing your man-crush on Steven Tyler.
You wrote a post where you basically say that Clinton didn’t do enough to protect us from terrorism, and then end it by saying that we should not blame anyone but the terrorists for terrorism.
You wrote one where you showed that—surprise, surprise—Obermann has a lot of Democrats as guests on his show.
You wrote one where you seemed to express agreement with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s statement that guns are sexy. (me, I like women. But if you would rather spend the night with a .357 magnum than Scarlet Johansan, really, more power to you.)
You wrote one where you posted a picture of yourself from your recent Yoga class.
Your posted about how an ENTIRE network sucks because a commentor from the network expressed the idea that Bryant Gumbell, shouldn’t be fired for remarks he made, while also stating that he would exercise his right as a consumer and not watch Monday Night Football because he thinks Rush Limbaugh is a racist.
And finally one where you seem to imply that you find the comic stylings of Josh Goldstein funny.
And you think Glenn Greenwald is the joke? Interesting.
Because I kinda think anyone with the nerve to put up a post like this one http://blog.rjwest.com/?p=2837, is pretty gosh darn funny.
Thanks for the comment RW! Researching your previous posts brought a smile to my face!
Peace,
Monkey Faced Liberal
October 1st, 2006 at 1:11 am
Gee, if you don’t like it, don’t read it. Jesus H. Tap-Dancing Christ, is that so hard for people to comprehend?
I mean, seriously, WTF?
October 1st, 2006 at 9:09 am
The owner. You know, the guy who can decide the fate of pretty much everything at this place.
Get it right: A sock-puppet wielding, posting under fake names and then attempting to blame it on his boyfriend while his minions swallow whatever excuse he wields…joke. I can’t help it if the sock puppet wielding joke has bottom-feeding lapdogs who love to swallow anything he types, no matter what pseudonym he uses.
Those are called “lats”, btw. Those round things above them are known as “delts”. The ridges in between are part of a process known as “separation” . Look it up if you don’t understand. And it doesn’t take much nerve when you got ‘em. Sure you wanna go there?
My advice is to carry on with your argument with Jay. Otherwise, you’ll lose.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:22 am
BTW, not taking this any further since it’s obscenely off topic, but for those unaware of Mr. Sock Puppet, here’s what his minions treat as kryptonite. Like I said: able lawyer. Joke. Sorry for taking your thread off-topic, Jay, just couldn’t resist shooting that fish in the proverbial barrel.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:23 am
Jay G:
You wrote:
“Gee, if you don’t like it, don’t read it. Jesus H. Tap-Dancing Christ, is that so hard for people to comprehend?”
When did I say I didn’t like it? In fact, I said I did like reading RW’s posts about his envy of Kos, his lust for guns, his man-crush on Steven Tyler, and his impressive streching ability. They “brought a smile to my face.”
That said, I doubt I will seek out RW’s posts in the future. I don’t think viewing pictures of him “getting physical” in aerobics class deepen my perspective on the political issues facing this country.
Though they might make me laugh!
Now, can you please respond to my questions and last post, rather than let Yoga-man chance the subject? Thanks!
Peace,
Monkey Faced Liberal
October 1st, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Shorter Toys in the Attic: WAAAAHHHHHH!!
October 1st, 2006 at 4:55 pm
MFL,
If you’re not intelligent enough to present a cogent form of debate, stay at the joint where you clicked over here. I have two pre-teens and if I want knee-jerk adolescent nonsense, I can get that at home.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Somewhat on topic: an example of some folks not realizing the difference between a stupid idea that should never be brought to fruition and…..well, I can’t think of anything worse, it’s stupid. Then again, maybe some elderly lesbian liberal women who edit Oprah’s magazine will find it “sexy”. Wouldn’t be the first time.
Where’s the photoshopping left when you need it?
October 1st, 2006 at 11:27 pm
RW:
What was not “cogent” about my debate?
You called another blogger a “joke”, rather than address his argument.
I pointed out that I found it interesting that someone who likes to blog about his envy of Kos, his man-crush on Steven Tyler, and photos of him in Yoga class that show off his awesome “delts” and “lats”, etc., calls another blogger a “joke” without addressing what is funny about what he wrote.
While I myself did not call you a “joke”, I did point out that I found your posts rather funny. That was my honest reaction upon reading your posts.
Seems pretty cogent to me.
Are there any particular things you don’t understand about what I wrote? If so, please point them out and I will try to explain them to you.
As far as what I wrote being “knee-jerk adolescent nonsense”, it is hard for me to take this critism seriously from someone who who fails to address an issue in a thread and instead just decides to call another blogger a “joke”?
I mean, after all, do you think that calling another blogger a “joke”, rather than addressing the ideas he writes about, is not “knee-jerk adolescent nonsense” but rather thoughful, mature wisdom?
By the way—still waiting for you to address my questions Jay G. Thanks!
Peace,
Monkey Faced Liberal
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:34 am
It’s rather sad to see people spinning their wheels over the definition of pedophilia and over whether or not it’s ‘right’ for Oliver Willis to have accused Foley of it.
What matters here is that Foley was doing something obviously and seriously wrong.
What matters here is that other people helped to cover this up – and for an unacceptably long time.
Everything else is fancy, willfully-distracting window dressing. Semantic arguments will not paper over a desire to ignore the far-reaching implications of this event.
Partisan politics is poison. We practice it to our assured humiliation.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:23 am
Hmmmm…what to choose? Should I go with the part that I was gay because I noted a rock icon that has switched to Christianity & singing “Amazing grace” in a church? Or should I go with the part that says I’m really jealous of someone just over 5 feet tall & 140 pounds? Or should I go with the part where I lust over guns (not girls…you know, gay)? Or the part where I’m “getting physical” in gym class (you know, gay again)?
Such decisions over such high-minded choices….
Or, I can go with my original hypothesis; that I’m dealing with yet one more youngster who saw a situation (this one, coming to the defense of Glenn Greenwald….interesting that so many gay angles came from your ‘cogent’ analysis, since you’re defending a gay guy – not that there’s anything wrong with that) and decided “gee, I’m not gonna let that pass! I’m going to lay the smack down on this guy!” and you then proceeded to search back through the archives for material to use in your smackdown (stand back!) where you laid out instance after instance of how to portray yourself as an adolescent in the most obvious manner imaginable. I mean, really, I’m gay because I like Aerosmith? How would a 12 year old reply any differently?
Of that, I have no doubt. I’m confident that gay jokes and nonsensical adolescence is the foundation for your debating cache.
You disagree that Glenn Greenwald’s sock puppetry makes him a joke. Your rebuttal is…..well, I’m gay, I want to sleep with guns, I’m jealous of Kos’ looks and that it’s somehow funny to post a link to a weight-resistance training log site. Deep thoughts. You know, there was a time in my life when I thought the free speech of others was so paramount that nothing should hinder their exercise of that right. But, of course, this site is my property and I’ve lost patience with kids who somehow think that their rank idiocy and feeble attempts at “laying the smack down” via Usenet-style rookie musings that any pre-teen could conjur up, so that right to free speech will remain in the public domain – not my domain.
Feel free to make your arguments. My argument is that The Sock Puppet is a joke on top of being a paid political hack (the comparison with Ann Coulter should’ve been the proverbial red flag and a dead giveaway) whose credibility for political discourse is on par with Michael Savage – his impressive legal education notwithstanding. My good friend smijer has similar convictions as it pertains with climate scientists who don’t work for Universities & who don’t agree with the conventional wisdom as it pertains to global warming, namely that they’re paid to write what they write….much like Greenwald. Nothing wrong with that & if I have a traffic ticket to analyze I’m sure he’d be a great resource to detail the appropriate litigation involved, but he’s a political hack, nonetheless.
You apparently feel differently, despite sans evidence to the contrary leaving others to assume that you join the rest of mankind in acknowledging that while the sock-puppetry was not that big a deal, it nonetheless is an embarrassing stain that clouds the cred of said source, resulting in your knee-jerk lashing out in childish fashion as a feeble attempt to bring down the hammer.
Well, duly noted. You had your say and that oppurtunity was used hinting that I’m gay.
Congratulations, I’m sure everyone’s proud of such deep insight and keen argumentative skills.
Now, either debate in a cogent fashion (and resist the urge to attempt to “one up” this comment by replying with a list of further examples of poorly thought attack) or understand that the chances of your lasting around here get slimmer. This site will not delve into the conversational sewer like the place that brought you here.
My advice to everyone is to think of this place where we can all sit around over a plate of wings & beer and chat/debate. Keep that in mind (and, yes, resist that urge I noted above) as I’m not in the mood to suffer adolescence….as I said, I have kids at home to deal with. Feel free to join the adults, but keep in mind that you’re co-mingling with adults. Or, as Jay G. so succinctly put it: “Gee, if you don’t like it, don’t read it”, to which I ‘ll only add “and if you don’t have anything intelligent to say, keep your fingers still”.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:55 am
This is not to be seen as a lifting of my embargo :).
MFL, stop being a dick. The people here are nice and, for the most part, you can have a good discussion. Trolling over here just to call names and be a smarmy prick is the kind of stuff reserved for high school. Grow up or go back to Final Fantasy. At this point you’ve done nothing but prove that you aren’t smart enough to be a condescending jerk. Take a breather and start again.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Cassidy,
What Foo Fighters song(s) did you think would be a good addition to the workout playlist? Yes, that has been intriguing me this whole time. Oh, and thanks.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
RW:
Again, no direct response to my questions. Dissappointing.
By the way, I WAS NOT trying to insinuate that you were gay with my references to your past posts.
Honestly, I meant no such thing.
I WAS insinuating that you are vapid and narcassitic, and have not recently offered any meaningful commentary on the political issues that are currently facing our country.
I was trying to point out that for a person like you to call Gleen Greenwald, of all people, a “joke”, rather than address his argument or ideas directly, was rather amusing.
And that it is ironic for this person to critque others for being “adolescent” when he was the one who started calling people names—see Glenn “Joke” Greenwald and Andrew “please pay attention to me” Sullivan.
Clearly, these points was too subtle for you to pick up on. Sorry!
Jay—still waiting for your response!
Peace,
Monkey Faced Liberal
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Monkeywrench
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Also, All My Life. I haven’t listened to the new one yet. And go ahead and add Filter to that earlier list.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Well, at least you got the vapid part right. I’m also narcissistic. However, putting forth the notion that a short, little, smart-mouthed guy with bug-eyes may not be what the average woman finds “sexy” really is no harbinger of what I may be. Looking at the covers of magazines in the checkout lines, I haven’t seen too many covers that represent that sort of ideal that just screams “buy this magazine and you can look at pictures of this sexy guy” at women. Maybe it’s regional.
BTW, how did I go from “jealous” to narcissistic so quickly? Am I so down on myself that I’m jealous of the lil’ fella or am I too high on myself to the point of narcissism?
Those are mutually exclusive terms, you know.
Ah, so I should just jaunt on over to anncoulter.org for a quick cut n’ paste or post something from Michael Savage’s show and no one would wonder why I was using questionable source material. Interesting. So, sock-puppetry on a scale that few have seen really has zero drawbacks amongst some circles, eh? Doubly-interesting.
In my realm, multiple instances of sock-puppetry relegates one’s personal credibility to that of “joke”. Opinions may vary, however.
All me to speak for everyone when I say that any attempts on your behalf to play the “well, I’m just too wise for you to understand” card is a complete waste of time.. Just…..let it go. I’m not begging for a pissing contest, so stop asking for one and for goodness sakes stop sticking your neck out & asking for it to get chopped off (at least get the grammar correct in your “too subtle” reference. Look it up. Hint: past/present tense) or attempting to goad Jay Caruso (Jay G, like myself, offered no arguments on the case. I’m guessing, like me, that he doesn’t care for the spin). He’s also an adult, so he probably has better things to do.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:31 pm
RW:
You wrote:
“Well, at least you got the vapid part right. I’m also narcissistic.”
Great! I am glad we can agree!
“Those are mutually exclusive terms, you know.”
You feel that being “jeolously” and “narcissism” are mutually exclusive?
Actually I disagree. If one has a great deal of love for oneself, and thinks oneself to be very beautiful (with great “lats” and “delts”), I imagine that this person would be quite jeolous to see someone without these features get attention which they believe they (or someone like them, thus validating their self-love) should get. No?
“Ah, so I should just jaunt on over to anncoulter.org for a quick cut n’ paste or post something from Michael Savage’s show and no one would wonder why I was using questionable source material.”
Personally, if you went over and cut and pasted something from Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, or whoever, I would like to think that I would address what these people actualy said, not ignore what they wrote just because these people are “jokes.”
“at least get the grammar correct in your “too subtle” reference.”
I should have used “were” rather than “was”. Thanks!
Oh, and I think you meant to say “allow me to speak for everyone” not “All me to speak for everyone.”
Ain’t grammar fun!
As far as goading Jay Caruso, I still don’t understand his contention that Willis “did not get one over him.”
Willis said that Foley liked young boys. Jay said he was reading into the emails and that they did not mean that Foley was “a pedophile”—which is not what Willis said.
New evidence surfaced that showed that Willis was correct in his assessment of the emails, and that Jay was wrong.
Jay tries to justify his being wrong by putting words “pedophilia” in Willis’ mouth and saying that Willis contradicted himself, which he clearly did not. He said that it looked like Foley liked young boys, and I think we can all agree now that Foley likes young boys.
Really, he should just admit he was wrong. There is no shame in admitting you have made a mistake.
Heck, I have been wrong a lot. I voted for George Bush in 2000 for goodness sake.
Peace,
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:13 pm
By definition, yes. A narcissist doesn’t want to be someone else. Update: Then again, I could see where a narcissist could want ‘everything’, no matter. Then again, I was putting forth an obvious case of self-effacing humor, so it wouldn’t apply.
Come on. That’s not love for one’s self” or thinking one’s delf to be very beautiful. I work out & have been for years, so that would be expected. Thanks, btw, for saying that my lats & delts were great.
YOU are the one attempting to project what you think would be the case. For some reason, you think that I should be jealous of the diminutive Mr. Moulitsas. (see, there’s an opening there for the ‘sexy’ and ‘gay’ card to be played, but I’ll demur….too easy)
Good rule to live by. Do you really think that the average male, who – let’s face it, isn’t out there hoping to end up being 5’3” and 145 lbs – should be jealous of Mr. Moulitsas? Why? Is the magazine right and, instead of being edited by an obvious moonbat kossack, Markos Moulitsas is really sexy? Or, were you wrong & you were just lashing out at something you read that you didn’t like, so you decided to attempt to portray a post on fitness as “funny” and taking “nerve”? Because, I’ll tell ya, it takes a lot of nerve to portray Markos as “sexy”, and one doesn’t have to be a narcissist to say so.
Or, would you rather just skip all of that & say “okay, I get it” and leave it at that, since that’s an open door that I’m offering that virtually no one should ignore?
Talk about your olive branch extensions…..
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Ironically enough, have you put forth that notion to Mr. Greenwald? After all, he’s a paid hack who does little other than attempt to besmirch anyone on the right who dares to question the authority of his benefactors (the left).
I held off on mentioning that premise, but it stuck out like a sore thumb to me from the get-go, but to stick up for Mr. Sock Puppet on the grounds that attacking the person’s credibility is trumped by the argument, instead, is simply…....delicious. If one removed all the instances where he’s attempting to smear/besmirch Glenn Reynolds (talk about being jealous of someone) via layers of spin, you’d be left with a template and a sitemeter icon and little else on the site.
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
RW:
“A narcissist doesn’t want to be someone else.”
I see narcissism as an overly strong love of ones self. Such a person might desire what others have—since he feels that he (being the great and wonderful person he is) is entitled to them. Like good movie roles (see Lindsay Lohan vs. Scarlet Johanson) Like attention. Etc.
I thought you were jeoulous of Kos when you seemed to express anger at the fact that someone who does not possess the qualities you think of as “sexy” (and which you possess) is recognized by others as sexy.
I think the average male does not really care what Oprah magazine says, which is why I was surprised that you did, and that it seemed to cause such a strong reaction on your part.
I mean, it is Oprah magazine. I didn’t even know it was still published until you brought this up.
Moreover, I also think the average man does not usually think about whether a magazine is right or not when it calls a man “sexy.” Women, yes. Men, no. It is just such a non-issue.
For instance, I don’t remember arguing with my male friends over the fact that Matthew McConaghey was People’s 2005 sexist man alive, but it should have really gone to Patrick Dempsey.
In fact, I didn’t even know who was People’s latest sexist man alive until I looked it up.
Was this a big topic over here at Toys in the Attic? Was what I took to be jeoulously related more to the fact that your aestic sensibilities were offended by the fact that someone who does not fit your concept of sexy was declared sexy.
By the way, we are really off-topic.
Jay—can you prehaps bring us back on by explaining how Oliver was wrong when we said that he thought Foley liked young boys?
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:17 pm
I dunno…all this talk about Matthew McConaghey & Patrick Dempsey and what constitutes sexy pretty much brings this whole thing back to where it began: gay.
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:29 pm
RW:
For someone who does not like spin you certainly seem to do a lot of it.
For instance, you state that Glenn Greenwald is a “hack” who “besmirchs” and “smears” others.
Yet, I don’t see Greenwald just calling people names and not addressing what they say or write. In my experience he usually looks at what someone has written or said and analyzes it. He does not judge things without provide some context for his judgement. He doesn’t just call people names without any evidence.
After all, isn’t there a difference between:
“Glenn Reynolds is a joke. There is no reason therefore to look or even consider what he says.”
And
“Glenn Reynolds wrote XXX. Let me show you what is wrong with what he wrote here, here and here. This further demonstrates that Glenn Renolds is a joke.”
But perhaps I am mistaken. Can you provide some examples of Glenn Greenwald smearing others?
Peace,
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:52 pm
RW:
You wrote “Matthew McConaghey & Patrick Dempsey and what constitutes sexy pretty much brings this whole thing back to where it began: gay.”
That is why I found it strange to see you writing about a male being considering sexy. While one might expect a gay man to care about this, one would not expect to see the average hetrosexual male care much about this.
But, as I said before, I didn’t (and don’t) think you wrote about it because you are gay.
So what would lead you to write about it? As I said before (and still maintain) I think you wrote about it because you are “narcissistic” and “vapid”.
Given that you yourself admit to being “narcissistic” and “vapid”, isn’t it possible that I am right on this?
What other reason would you have to care what Oprah magazine says about who they think are “sexy”?
Are you really that passionate about the concept of “sexy” that you feel the need to defend it from being besmirched when Oprah magazine associates it with a man like Kos?
Peace,
Monkey Faced Liberal
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Oh for fuck’s sake…ban this yahoo. I’d rather argue with Jay C than keep hearing this tripe.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Glad to see I’m not alone. When I type something that is not only non-partisan but also twinged with humor (this whole story is about Mark Foley attempting a gay relationship with pages) and I continue to get usenet style adolescent attempts at “one-upsmanship” (who is coming to a gun fight wielding a pair of nail clips, at that) from the peanut gallery, methinks it’s about time to rid myself of the bandwidth hassle.
See ya, MFL. Can’t say I didn’t try.
Okay, he came here via Oliver Willis’ cesspool. Who had the over/under on one of those geniuses making it less than a week?
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
I have to say that I would also have a word or two with my 16 year old son. I would remind him that if he needed lessons on jacking off that his pop was at one time the grand champion.
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:13 pm
...and that, with the advent of the internet there are better things to use as imagery while ‘doing the deed’ than reading IMs from middle-aged men?