HRC (gay rights group) Fires Staffer Who Orchestrated Foley Scandal

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Art Vandelay
Hey ProfJohn, got news for you: we don't care who hid the scandal, who shed light on to it, etc. All I care is who tried to molest those pages: Foley, a Republican.

/End thread.

Then why are you here? Why bother reading the thread when I posted right at the top to go away if you don't care. sheeeeesh.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Art Vandelay
Hey ProfJohn, got news for you: we don't care who hid the scandal, who shed light on to it, etc. All I care is who tried to molest those pages: Foley, a Republican.

/End thread.

Then why are you here? Why bother reading the thread when I posted right at the top to go away if you don't care. sheeeeesh.

Are you old enough to vote?

 

[ProfJohn]

There is a good Salon.com piece on the Foley scandal, found it via Drudge.
For the recordSalon covers issues from a liberal political viewpoint, although the site has also featured regular columns from conservatives. LINK

The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media to push this story in the month before the midterm election seems to me to have been a big fat gift to Ann Coulter and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was "Foley, Foley, Foley!" -- and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.

sounds like a few of us here
and more

The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media to push this story in the month before the midterm election seems to me to have been a big fat gift to Ann Coulter and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was "Foley, Foley, Foley!" -- and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.

After three or four days of it, as soon as I heard Foley's name, I turned the sound off or switched channels. It was gargantuan overkill, and I felt the Democrats were shooting themselves in the foot. I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil. Whatever short-term political gain there is, it can only have a negative impact on gay men. When a moralistic, buttoned-up Republican like Foley is revealed to have a secret, seamy gay life, it simply casts all gay men under a shadow and makes people distrust them. Why don't the Democratic strategists see this? These tactics are extremely foolish. Gay men through history have always been more vulnerable to public hysteria than are lesbians, who -- unless they're out there parading around in all-leather bull-*** drag -- simply fit more easily into the cultural landscape than do gay men, who generally lead a more adventurous, pickup-oriented sex life.

A few of the gay members of the board pointed out the part bolded.
The story also talks about his this scandal has brought back the idea of gays chasing after young boys, not a positive image the gay community wants out there.

Read it, very interesting to here the point of view of liberal feminist Camille Pagila. via-wikipedia "She has been called the "feminist that other feminists love to hate", one of the world's top 100 intellectuals by the UK's Prospect Magazine, and by her own description "a feminist bisexual egomaniac" .

 

[Craig234]

Salon is not simply a 'liberal web site'. Yes, it's a liberal web site - and because of that, it covers some right-wingers too, so people can hear all sides, *unlike* any right-sing site I know. In fact, one of its major features is the Daou report, which is evenly split between liberal and right-wing web site articles.

Salon is also a very worthy site to support for independant information, to oppose the corporate takeover of our publications.

In the San Francisco Bay Area now, all daily papers except one are owned by one (republican) company. So much for media diversity.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Salon is not simply a 'liberal web site'. Yes, it's a liberal web site - and because of that, it covers some right-wingers too, so people can hear all sides, *unlike* any right-sing site I know. In fact, one of its major features is the Daou report, which is evenly split between liberal and right-wing web site articles.

Salon is also a very worthy site to support for independant information, to oppose the corporate takeover of our publications.

In the San Francisco Bay Area now, all daily papers except one are owned by one (republican) company. So much for media diversity.

wikipedia-Salon covers all of these issues from a liberal political viewpoint.
I think my statement was fair.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Salon is not simply a 'liberal web site'. Yes, it's a liberal web site - and because of that, it covers some right-wingers too, so people can hear all sides, *unlike* any right-sing site I know. In fact, one of its major features is the Daou report, which is evenly split between liberal and right-wing web site articles.

Salon is also a very worthy site to support for independant information, to oppose the corporate takeover of our publications.

In the San Francisco Bay Area now, all daily papers except one are owned by one (republican) company. So much for media diversity.

wikipedia-Salon covers all of these issues from a liberal political viewpoint.
I think my statement was fair.

I think your statement was based on a case of invalid inductive reasoning. Your logic seems to go, the majority of Salon commentary is liberal, therefore THIS piece of Salon commentary must be liberal and is more credible as a result. It's really two conclusions, neither of which are supported by your argument. In either case, the author (like most other commentators out there) refers to "clear collusion" between the Democrats and the media to push this story before the midterm elections without providing proof that either group was pushing anything much less proving they were colluding in their efforts. The fact that Salon has a lot of liberal commentary doesn't change this, and the fact that the writer is parroting the talking points of the Republicans on this issue without providing any new information or augment at all does not exactly scream "liberal" to me.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Art Vandelay
Hey ProfJohn, got news for you: we don't care who hid the scandal, who shed light on to it, etc. All I care is who tried to molest those pages: Foley, a Republican.

/End thread.

Then why are you here? Why bother reading the thread when I posted right at the top to go away if you don't care. sheeeeesh.

I'd like to comment when when people shart lies out of their asses.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Hmm, so MSM is a lapdog for the Democrats b/c they played up the Foley scandal. Far enough.

MSM is a lapdog for the Republicans b/c they played up a friggin' facade leading up to the war in Iraq.

The former will cost our country nothing. The latter will cost our country for decades (and that's without counting the 2800 US troops dead and $300B). I think I'm inclined to say the gays, Democrats, and gay Democrats . . . don't concern me much. If they are that much of a concern to you . . . seems your priorities are a little out of kilter.