Monday, February 26, 2007

Logic for thee, but not for me.

All right, kids, pay attention 'cuz here's how it works.

When a Republican congressman is revealed as a long-time sexual predator of teenage pages whose stalking of said pages was well-known to his GOP colleagues, it's important to treat this as an isolated incident and to not smear anyone by association.

On the other hand, when an ex-state president of the "liberal" ACLU is charged with possessing child pornography, well ... oh, Christ, do I have to draw you a picture?

OH, JESUS ... is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those on the Right seem utterly incapable of understanding even the simplest point?

And I'm amused by M@'s observation that Anonymous's comments are being scrutinized carefully by none other than Weasel Boy himself, given that WB is himself a Bible-thumping father of two young children who still appears to have the time to defend a 50-year-old sexual predator since, after all, his targets were of "legal" age so everything's all right then, I guess.

Most of the time, I'm disgusted by the Right, and the only time I'm not is when I decide to be appalled instead. I just need the occasional variety.


Anonymous said...

Aw, don't like being on the receiving end of it instead of dishing it out, do you, CC? Why don't you go cry to your mommy, you big baby?

Anonymous said...

Oh, yeah, and don't let inconvenient things like facts get in the way of your smearing conservatives, right? I mean, these "teenage pages" Mark Foley was accused of "stalking" were of legal age: older than 18.

So let's see... According to you, "stalking" legal adults is far, far worse than purchasing movies of children being raped while bound with rope. Glad to know where your outrage lies, CC.

CC said...

anonymous writes:

"According to you, "stalking" legal adults is far, far worse than purchasing movies of children being raped while bound with rope."

I'm not going to ask how "anonymous" seems so comfortably familiar with child porn because, frankly, I just don't want to know.

P.S. If you want to continue this discussion, anonymous, get a handle. Otherwise, all further comments will be deleted.

My blog, my rules.

Anonymous said...

CC moos:

"I'm not going to ask how "anonymous" seems so comfortably familiar with child porn because, frankly, I just don't want to know."

It's called reading the news reports of the legal accusations against this man. Of course, the media is burying this story as fast as they can, so it doesn't surprise me that you haven't seen the accusations. Or that might be because of your own ineptitude...

M@ said...

I noticed Anonymous's comments are being watched closely by Cock and Balls, er, Shock and Blog blogger Jason. What a coincidence.

I wonder if Anonymous or exlib (not exfib?) have perused this list. Or this one.

Anonymous said...

Lets see m@, the links you gave were all people in positions of power.
They abused this trust they were given to coerce the helpless and also to cover their tracks.
I think that's the only common thread I can see running through them;)

Was CC defending this Charles Rust-Tierney or saying what he did was OK?
If he's found guilty he should have the full force of the law against him.

But oh noes, it's the ACLU affiliation.
Is this supposed to, in some warped way, balance out the multitude of 'peccadilloes' from the other side?

One little difference though.

He wasn't in a position of power, actually forcing the unwilling to do his bidding, but I think that particular
detail is lost on some.

Anonymous said...

something was lost on someone, that's for fukkin sher.

M@ said...

Mes Amis -- terms used purely for reference, not to be taken as literal terms of affection -- you have demonstrated perfectly what CC was posting about. You equivocate where the GOP is concerned, but have a special circle of hell staked out for your man in the ACLU.

The double standard, she is obvious. How's that for Francais?

Anonymous said...

Yes, your double standard is obvious. When it's someone on the left who has relations with someone who is of legal age, we on the right can't touch him or her with a 10-foot pole. Ah, but when it's someone on the right, well, you clowns can't tar and feather him or her fast enough.

Sorry, CC, but I will continue to defend Foley's right to fraternize with adults (though I won't defend his abuse of his position) and will continue to call you on comparing his situation with someone on the left accused of purchasing child porn.

Scotian said...


It is not abut left or right, it is about abuse of power and position, and elected officials holding high federal offices carry with them far more power (and with it increased responsibilities both moral and legal) and therefore potential of abuse than does the President of a private organization, especially one that is solely dedicated to the purpose of defending the American Bill of Rights (you know, that pesky thing they call their Constitution?). *THAT* is where the double standard you and the other wingnuts is centered in, and the very fact that you focused on it first as a "left/right" issues betrays your own seeing this in a partisan light first instead of a reality/fact based one underscoring that the reason for the double standard *IS* politically rooted in you despite any claims to the contrary. It also says nothing about how much of a partisan lens if any CC is using since for all you know (and would if you actually read him without preconceptions you would already realize this, this is of course granting you the benefit of the doubt where your honesty is concerned on this point) you would understand that the difference is about abuse of trust/power/responsibility in public officials versus private individuals (public/private being defines as within/connected to government and those not so connected) and not a matter of any political partisanship. That said, there is nothing wrong with enjoying the discomfort of those within the partisan community's discomfort at the clear double standard by which they employ their so called morality/values, much as you yourself have demonstrated in this thread. However that is as a result of the realities involved and not from any attempt to shape those realities into something that works within any partisan/ideological framework whatever the flavour.

You should try it some time, you might like it...